New AT&T Acquires BellSouth

spune writes "Only months after SBC's acquisition of AT&T last November, the newly rechristened telecom has announced that it plans to buy fellow Baby Bell BellSouth Inc, of Atlanta, Georgia for $67 billion. This action by AT&T will consolidate more than half of the original Bell System into a single entity, leaving only Verizon and Qwest as remaining Bell family competitors. Analysts predict this deal will be approved by the FCC with only minor restrictions on the new company, which will serve residences and businesses from California to Florida."

Comments

They're trying to get it done quick.

[AltGrendel]

Before the next Presidential Election.

Re:They're trying to get it done quick.

[lordkuri]

What really has me kinda worried, "AT&T" will now have a *very* substantial portion of the DSL market under their thumb. A lot of smaller (and some larger) cable modem providers are getting their upstream lines from AT&T Broadband.

Now sure, they're under contract, but what happens when those contracts run out? Will we see another @Home debacle while the cable co's scramble to replace their uplinks, and ultimately end up paying a lot more for comparable connections and as a result, end up being forced to charge a helluva lot more to provide the same services?

Re:They're trying to get it done quick.

[typical]

The inverse of that worked pretty well for the antitrust Microsoft trial.

Re:They're trying to get it done quick.

[SacredNaCl]

Just like before the breakup...minus regulation.

It does bother me quite a bit that they will have near total control of the DSL market.

Re:They're trying to get it done quick.

[Majik Sheff]

Only on leftdot could this schlock be modded insightful. You people sicken me.

Re:They're trying to get it done quick.

[Anonymous Coward]

You people sicken me.

Oh no! What have we done!?

I suppose it's time to reconsider our lives' direction...

Re:They're trying to get it done quick.

[krem81]

Correct me if I'm wrong, but AT&T Broadband has been owned by Comcast for quite some time now.

Re:They're trying to get it done quick.

[Your Anus]

I find your lack of faith... disturbing.

Re:They're trying to get it done quick.

[Doc Ruby]

The other biggest monopoly verdict, Microsoft, was issued right before the Bush administration took over. Then, right after they took over, nothing substantial was done to Microsoft to "remedy" their monopolistic abuse. Their market position, and the anticompetitive techniques with they abuse it, hasn't changed.

If Republicans keep the White House even after AT&T returns to a scale similar to its mid-1980s monopoly, there is no chance that either AT&T or Microsoft will see either monopoly status "revisited". In fact, they will redefine American monopoly law together. Legitimizing it, reversing a century of government representing the people defending ourselves from monopoly market predators.

Probably even more important than the White House, the Republican Congress is responsible for oversight of telecom and corporate takeovers. Which means AT&T has to get back on monopoly track before Democrats possibly retake the House, Senate or both this November.

Re:They're trying to get it done quick.

[shanman]

Isn't the next presidential election 2 1/2 yrs away? What kind of a mod would let such a garbage comment through?

I don't see how the feds in the Antitrust wing of the government could let this one through. We spent so much money years back to break AT&T into bits because of their anticompetitive behaviours only to be approaching it yet again 70 yrs later.... UGH!

Re:They're trying to get it done quick.

[Baricom]

Fortunately, I'm a cable subscriber, so I'm not too worried about any direct effects...yet. However, BellSouth's position on net neutrality isn't much better than AT&T's. They start by proclaiming themselves strong supporters of net neutrality, then go on to define exceptions to that support:

However, BellSouth opposes those proponents of net neutrality who seek to render DSL service as nothing more than a "dumb pipe." Under BellSouth's view of net neutrality, the essential consumer protection is clear disclosure in the service plan agreement...Broadband networks providers should be able to manage bandwidth...[and] should be able to curb network usage (such as peer-to-peer file sharing) that consumes a disproportionate amount of bandwidth and may adversely impact other network users....Broadband network providers should be able to offer different plans that feature enhanced levels of service or that promote their own brand names and products or the services of selected vendors. For example, BellSouth should be able to enter into arrangements with content providers by which the content provider pays for special treatment, such as preferential listing or faster downloads from that provider's website or receiving a higher quality of service. (emphasis and length-editing mine)

Re:They're trying to get it done quick.

[Anonymous Coward]

So now we can add Microsoft and AT&T on the list of things Bush is responsible for? We'll stick it next to Katrina, Global Warming, and the last superbowl upset. Come on people, stop buying what the liberal spin doctors are feeding you.

Re:They're trying to get it done quick.

[bladernr]

Just like before the breakup...minus regulation.

Not even close. The biggest thing is competition in the local phone market. Now the copper-loop provider competes in more and more markets with the cable provider, and is starting to compete with the power provider. Soon new providers may be offering Wireless Local Loop. AT&T also is far from having a monopoly on long-fiber: gas companies, power companies - even Google - have that stuff. It is this type of inter-modal competition that means it makes sense to merge. You have to bulk-up to compete. Not merging would be suicide.

At the end of the day, it is very likely the consumer will buy all of their communications products (voice, video, data, and mobile) from a single provider, and competition will be in the bundle. If providers don't offer all four, buying from them will make about as much sense is a buying from a car maker that sold the entire car minus the wheels and seats.

It is in fact de-regulation and intense competition that make this move necessary.

Re:They're trying to get it done quick.

[Doc Ruby]

Bush is the president - responsible for running the country. The cruel irony is that Bush can be described only as irresponsible.

Bush was warned about Katrina's risk of flooding New Orleans, went on vacation instead, and resurfaced long enough to lie about no one anticipating the levees would fail.

He was warned about Global Warming, and instead has his administration gagging NASA scientists while presiding over the biggest increases in Greenhouse emissions ever. Now the ice is melting even faster than the scientists predicted.

Bush took office with Microsoft ruled a monopoly, and his Justice Department let them continue unabated. The years since have seen continuing abuses, but only foreign courts are doing anything about it, because Bush won't do anything to protect the market. A market that has remained unsafe for new competitors during his stewardship.

Bush was warned that Iraq would collapse into civil war, and now acts like its just a nasty surprise - while he isn't denying it's happening. He got a daily intelligence brief titled "Bin Laden Determined to Strike in US", after repeated warnings from Clinton's outgoing team and Clarke, the counterterrorism administrator who stayed on. Then he acted surprised when his deprioritization collected the 9/11/2001 planebombings. He was warned before N. Korea got the bomb, before Iran got the bomb, that cutting taxes on the rich would keep the regular economy moribund, that screwing with the Mideast would keep oil prices sky-high.

So maybe you know something about Bush and the Superbowl that we haven't heard yet. Anonymous Cheney, is that you? Shouldn't you be at target practice, or something?

Re:They're trying to get it done quick.

[Austerity Empowers]

Funny, the original death star (see the AT&T logo) was destroyed nearly 22 years ago. Now, a new one is being built, right in front of our faces.

Re:They're trying to get it done quick.

[macdaddy357]

What the hell did they break up Ma Bell for if they are just going to let it corporate merge itself back together?

Re:They're trying to get it done quick.

[dubl-u]

It is in fact de-regulation and intense competition that make this move necessary.

I find this pretty implausible. If they were actually facing real competition, wouldn't they suck slightly less?

Re:They're trying to get it done quick.

[Baddas]

It's like price fixing. There's a covert agreement that "customer service doesn't matter" and so they all do an equal job of it.

Ever seen the dilbert strip where he defines telephone companies as "confusopolies" it always makes me think of mobile phone companies.

Re:They're trying to get it done quick.

[Anonymous Coward]

You are not a SBC customer, are you. Don't have cable, but everyone I know that has cable service whines about it. Power company delivering com service, what, sometime this century?

SBC sucide? If only...

Re:They're trying to get it done quick.

[dodobh]

This of it like this:

You will have one local loop. From one company. Once your neighbourhood has the loop, there will be no reason for anyone else to lay that loop.

Instead of that, split the company at the service level. Let a single monopoly provide the loop. They can only lease it out to service providers, who may not lay wires/fibre/build towers, etc. The service provider pays for $bandwidth and $SLA. You can choose between service providers.

The service provider may choose high bandwidth, low uptime guarantees or low bandwidth and high uptime guarantees or high bandwidth, high uptime or .... You buy from whichever provider you like.

Re:They're trying to get it done quick.

[Maximum Prophet]

faster downloads from that provider's website or receiving a higher quality of service

I'm all for faster downloads, as long as they don't slow anyone else down. i.e. I currently pay for 768Kbps from my DSL provider. The wires are capable of much more. If yahoo were to pay my provider to make yahoo.com to me come at 3Mbps at no cost to me, that's fine. Just don't slow down the other packets.

Of course, if they were to do this, the government would have to create the packet speed police, to make sure they are providing the service people pay for.

Re:They're trying to get it done quick.

[SillyNickName4me]

You know.. I can agree with them on offering different service levels for different prices. I can also see how they can offer a cheaper subscription type that favors their own services (see it as an advertisement sponsored subscription) for as long as they are clear about the consequences. I don't see this as breaking network neutrality.

When they go on about charging other information/service providers for premium services (faster downloads from their servers, working voip etc), they go way beyond this idea of network neutrality, rather they go the way of favoring big and rich content providers over others.

Re:They're trying to get it done quick.

[Bogtha]

Because the USA of yesterday that broke up Ma Bell was a democracy, and the USA of today that is letting it remerge like a T-1000 is a plutocracy.

Re:They're trying to get it done quick.

[Anonymous Coward]

Dont go on and blame Bush for Global Warming by saying he does not support the Kyoto Treaty. Everyone would LOVE to blame Bush, but then they selectively forget that the Senate voted 95-0 on July 25, 1997 against any binding emission contracts. The Kyoto Treaty was DOA...

As far as Katrina, everyone would love to blame him for this instead of blaming an useless govenor in a addition to a corrupt local government who did nothing for over 2 decades...

Oh... And Finally Iraq. Is Iraq screwed up? Absolutely. Is it better than when Saddam ruled, absolutely.... The real issue is not with how the war was managed, but rather with the Sunnis not accepting their new 'lower ruling' status. It is kind of hard to talk about a civil war, though, when you are less than 20% of the population. If there is a civil war, then it will be a blood bath for the sunnis, and the issue will quickly resolve itself.

Re:They're trying to get it done quick.

[CoonAss56]

Before you start running your yap about Katrina, the govenor, and corrupt local goverment, maybe you should do a little fact checking. The Army Corps of Engineers were in control of the levees, not the "corrupt local govt", the funding for those levees had to come from the Federal govt. and were cut back every year for the last 8 years. I can't believe that with Google and every other internet resource out here we still have ill-informed louts posting about shit they know nothing about.
From a Pissed -Off Proud New Orleanian

Re:They're trying to get it done quick.

[jdbear]

Bogtha said, "the USA of yesterday that broke up Ma Bell was a democracy..."

The USA is not now, and never has been a Democracy. I has been from it's inception a Republic. A Democracy is a system of government where the citizens vote directly on the laws that govern them.

When did you vote to break up the old Ma Bell?

Re:They're trying to get it done quick.

[Doc Ruby]

These people aren't so much ill-informed as insane. They hate everyone who doesn't spin their fantasy. That their little faction that grabbed power by breaking every rule isn't god's chosen to win every battle. So they insist that they're winning every battle. They hate New Orleans more than ever now, because NOLA is so huge a catastrophe that it's nearly impossible to deny. That doesn't stop them from trying.

Note that the wacko is also insisting on the "we're not as bad as Saddam" defense, posted anonymously. They're completely predictable.

Re:They're trying to get it done quick.

[Doc Ruby]

As I said, this isn't yet another hypothetical debate about blame. It's a practical debate about whether stopping human emissions will slow, stop or reverse the warming that threatens our civilization. Which debate very clearly is resolved in favor of reducing the emissions. We can't control the natural emissions, but we can stop driving ridiculous polluters like your SUV.

So you're not just abusing us with your SUV. You're abusing us by insisting on giving up your chance to avoid the blame, too - while insisting on arguing about blame. You just want to get away with murder.

Re:They're trying to get it done quick.

[Bogtha]

A Democracy is a system of government where the citizens vote directly on the laws that govern them.

That may have been true once, but language changes over time. In common use, the word "democracy" includes democratic republics such as the USA. Don't take my word for it, of course:

Democracy:

Government by the people, exercised either directly or through elected representatives. [Emphasis mine.]

PS: While we're being pedantic, apostrophes are not used for personal pronouns. "...has been from it's inception..." should be "...has been from its inception...".

Re:They're trying to get it done quick.

[jdbear]

Were you expecting the Army Corps of Engineers to suddenly rush out and fix the Sea Wall that had been in place for several administrations in the two weeks that we had before Katrina hit? Why do you not blame the Clinton Administration for not fixing the thing while Bill was in office? He had eight years to fix it, and did nothing.

Or, do you think that George W. fired the entire Corps of Engineers when he entered office? And, I suppose he completely replaced the Justice Department as well. No Democrats left in Government now, hmmmm? Just George W. Bush's flunkies.

Grow up. The same people are in govenrment jobs through several opposing administrations. They do their job the same no matter who's at the top spot. Or, do you really think that the President of the United States, democrat or republican, makes every little decision that gets made by the Federal Government?

My point is that blaming the President for things that happen DURING his adminsistration regardless of whether he had anything to do with a decision regarding the issue is like blaming the Chinese when something happens during the Year of the Monkey.

Re:They're trying to get it done quick.

[jdbear]

Doc, I think you're right about reducing emmisions. They are clearly harmful, and it is a step we can take right now without huge changes in infrastructure. In fact, if you look over the last 25 years, I think you will find that we have in fact reduced emmisions a great deal. True there is work still to be done.

I don't think it is the role of Government to enforce these things, I believe it is our duty as public citizens to make this happen. I have made choices in my life that have a great effect on my personal contribution to the problem. I telecommute two or three days a week, and ride the bus on those days where I do work. It makes my commute take about three hours a day, but it's something that I feel I must do.

We the people need to wake up and use our purchasing power to encourage companies to produce products that help the environment, and eliminate those products that harm the environment. The government is not the answer. The true power lies with the people. We can make it happen if we want, regardless of what Governement does.

The problem is that most of America is clueless, and billions of others (Chinese, Indian, etc) couldn't care less. Let's stop blaming the Administration that we don't like, and start making a REAL difference by convincing the PEOPLE who DO MATTER that they need to get on the team.

Re:They're trying to get it done quick.

[Doc Ruby]

The true power lies with the people. The American people who routinely prioritize the environment above corporate welfare. Who are represented by the government, our way of organizing ourselves to do things as large scale as conserve the environment. Especially when that means protecting us from rapacious industry.

So we need both the grassroots self-help that you and I practice in conservation, and a government that represents us in focusing those efforts. We don't need to stop either effort - we need to do more of both. They amplify each other directly, and each motivates other people who do each beneficial activity.

So the key is activism. Wherever we can get results. If we keep the grassroots while allowing the government to promote pollution, our decentralized efforts will be for naught, and we'll just suffer our way to destruction instead of enjoying the handbasket to hell like the evil and the ignorant who infest our population.

Re:They're trying to get it done quick.

[Anonymous Coward]

Government by the people, exercised either directly or through elected representatives.

Now if I claim that the so-called representatives used to represent people but don't do so anymore, we get to the original argument..

Re:They're trying to get it done quick.

[buzzcutbuddha]

Fine, AT&T will own a large corner of the DSL market, all the while Verizon is working on rolling out FIOS, which will make DSL and cable look downright pathetic. The posters who have said that this is a different world now with many different alternatives to what Ma Bell used to offer are true. Telecommunications is a much bigger market, with more open and robust offerings.

Re:They're trying to get it done quick.

[CoonAss56]

Just what fucking seawall are you talking about? The MRGO, the 17th St canal?, the Industrial canal, the entire levee in St Bernard? You just proved once again Mr Bear that you are ill-informed and don't even know what you are yapping about but evidently just like to hear themselves yap. To further illustrate my point I said nothing about any administration of one type or other. To help you with your lack of info please check out the series of articles from an award-winning reporter from the Times-Picayune at nola.com. They were written several years before Katrina hit. After reading and digesting them you'll feel better about yourself for being more informed and more up-to-date with your knowledge and THEN you can post some informative quips.

Re:They're trying to get it done quick.

[iamwahoo2]

I would love to see Yahoo, Google, or MSN say "two can play that game", and start blocking BellSouth's users until they fork up some doe. Trying to charge content providers additional cost for access to their networks is the second dumbest idea propesed by telecom companies. The dumbest is AT&T buying BellSouth to acquire their outdated copper wires.

Re:They're trying to get it done quick.

[Majik Sheff]

Perhaps you should consider not posting anonymously. You'd probably get modded insightful for your sarcasm.

Re:They're trying to get it done quick.

[Anonymous Coward]

how the parent post got modded +4, Insightful is a mystery to me. this is FLAMEBAIT and quite off-topic.

Re:They're trying to get it done quick.

[ickypick]

at&t (remember its all lower case now, since the aquisition)=P, is not the only Internet provider. There are plenty of Tier1 providers that would be happy to take that business from at&t. Since the cable providers have their own fiber and cable infrastructure, all they need to do is get to a couple of providers at the MAE. So, I would not be too worried about residential services.

What I would be worried about, and I know I am, is the monopoly (once again) on business grade telecom services, like DSx and OCx type services. I know in Los Angeles I have seen a significant increase in local loop charges over the last 6-8 months. For instance, a DS3 I priced out 8 months ago at $1950/mo. is no coming in at around $5000/mo.; That's more than double!

Re:They're trying to get it done quick.

[junctionvin]

You listen to me and listen to me right now!!! I did not have relations!!!

Re:They're trying to get it done quick.

[jdbear]

You are right. After looking at your post again, you did not say anything about any particular administration. I'm sorry to have assumed so. I've just had so many conversations with people who blame the current federal administration (or more correctly, President George W. Bush, himself) that I reacted to that instead of your actual post. Again, I apologise for jumping to conclusions.

Back you your comment about the Corps of Engineers. I'm curious about your views. You are obviously very angry about something. I've heard for years that New Orleans might not survive a Cat 3 Hurricane. I've lived through a couple of lesser hurricanes when I lived in Lake Charles, so I understand the power those storms have.

What, in your opinion, could have/should have been done differently that could have averted this disaster?

By the way, the reason I brought up the sea wall is because some people (obviously not you) don't know that there was more than just a levee break involved in the flooding. There were multiple points where the water came in, and the first was a thin steel wall that was never intended to keep out that much water.

Still, I'd like to know what you think should have been done, and by whom.

------
I'm not trying to pick a fight. I really want to know what you think.

Re:They're trying to get it done quick.

[DonChron]

The biggest thing is competition in the local phone market. Now the copper-loop provider competes in more and more markets with the cable provider, and is starting to compete with the power provider.

How many markets have local telephone service offerings from power providers? I'm guessing I can count them on one hand, and they don't include any major cities.

Soon new providers may be offering Wireless Local Loop.

They could. Who are those providers? Have any announced a service offering, even in the future tense? Like copper local loops, wireless local loop would be a very expensive business to build from scratch and customer acquisition would, likewise, be expensive. My local phone service, bundled, from a cable company, costs around $35/month. That's not a lot of money, per customer, and a lot of access points to maintain. Wouldn't the ILEC's be in a good position to compete with them? They already have the network and the telephone poles.

AT&T also is far from having a monopoly on long-fiber: gas companies, power companies - even Google - have that stuff.

True, but AT&T probably owns more routers than any other company in the world. They have thousands of SONET rings in the US, they have extraordinary networking bandwidth and routing capacity. And network POP's - hundreds in the US. If you want to compete in local phone service, you need to have a network point of presence that's close to the customers. I'm pretty sure that's not true of Google, or other long-fiber users.

It is this type of inter-modal competition that means it makes sense to merge. You have to bulk-up to compete. Not merging would be suicide.

Why? GM and Ford have been buying up domestic and foreign competitors for years, but it turns out not to be a real winning strategy. Size isn't the same thing as innovation, and you need innovation to get new customers. If you're really big, like the biggest telecom company in the world, you need innovation just to keep from losing customers. BellSouth doesn't offer any products or services that AT&T can't offer already. Of course, they have a lot of local phone service customers - but weren't you saying that local phone service is super-competitive?

At the end of the day, it is very likely the consumer will buy all of their communications products (voice, video, data, and mobile) from a single provider, and competition will be in the bundle.

When you say "At the end of the day", you mean, "some time in the future." Since AT&T sold its mobile phone business to Cingular, and their broadband business to Comcast, there are no companies that offer all four things in the US. I guess AT&T doesn't think the consumer buying all their communications products from them will be a profitable business.

If providers don't offer all four, buying from them will make about as much sense is a buying from a car maker that sold the entire car minus the wheels and seats.

Except, right now, in your analogy, everyone's buying their car and wheels and seats from different providers. Lots of people don't buy seats at all.

It is in fact de-regulation and intense competition that make this move necessary.

Deregulation allows this to happen, but it's not inevitable. Intense competition, in the local loop service business, is pretty hard to find outside major metropolitan areas.

Re:They're trying to get it done quick.

[ArtStone]

"Since AT&T sold its mobile phone business to Cingular,"...

And Cingular was a joint venture of SBC (now part of AT&T) and BellSouth (soon to be part of AT&T).

I would think the accounting aspects of this group of transactions creates billions of dollars of opportunity to generate Wall Street profits or IRS tax losses (or both at the same time!).

You cannot have too many CPAs. [disclosure: I was an accounting major]

..."and their broadband business to Comcast"...

Want to bet that AT&T tries to acquire cable companies after they've destroyed the remaining competition in phone service? SBC has been very aggressive for several years selling DirecTV to its phone customers. This is economic warfare at its finest.

Headline should read...

[Spazntwich]

"AT&T puts into motion plans to acquire Bellsouth."

Hurray for fucking retard editors who can't be bothered to check headlines for accuracy.

Re:Headline should read...

[Voltageaav]

I'm sorry, but I fail to see what exactly you're talking about? Is there really that much of a diffrence?

Re:Headline should read...

[Spazntwich]

Well, in English, we have certain things called "tenses."

Tense is generally used to indicate a timeframe relative to the present when something happened, is happening, or will happen.

Notice how in the article, they state that AT&T is planning on acquiring Bellsouth. If you read further, you'll notice other sources say the FCC approval process could easily take around a year.

Because, if this is going to happen, it will be happening in about a year, saying "AT&T acquires Bellsouth" creates a tense error, and if you want to really get technical, yes, it is a fairly big deal especially if you consider how significant the error is.

Re:Headline should read...

[Hex4def6]

Well, "New AT&T Aquires Bellsouth" implies that it has happened. It hasn't (yet).

Re:Headline should read...

[Spazntwich]

Not as badly as you need to work on your reading comprehension.

Re:Headline should read...

[JanneM]

Well, "New AT&T Aquires Bellsouth" implies that it has happened. It hasn't (yet).

No. "Acquired" or "has Acquired" would imply it already happened. "Will Aqcuire" and so on says it may (will) happen at some point in the future. "Acquires" or "is Aqcuiring" for a non-instantaneous event both impliy a process that has begun, but is not finalized. For an instantaneous event, it would imply that it happened at this very moment, while for non-specific events it would be a description of a habitual recurrence.

The headline is correct.

Re:Headline should read...

[globaljustin]

this thread is kinda off-topic, but you're right. They are SEEKING to acquire. I think the /. editors started the tagging beta for just this kind of error. If you have access to the tagging beta USE IT!

on-topic, if what people are saying here on slashdot is true, this gives AT&T a sizable chunck of the DSL infrastructure. Could this have an effect on the quest by corps. to charge per MB in the commercial market?

hope not

Re:Headline should read...

[Spazntwich]

Every definition I can find of acquire says "to come into possession, ownership, or control of," or something similar.

Does AT&T own Bellsouth yet? Sho' don't. The headline is not correct.

Re:Headline should read...

[Anonymous Coward]

Um, welcome to Slashdot.

Re:Headline should read...

[fm6]

And in America, we have a thing called corporate power, which means that the distinction between "plans to acquire" and "acquires" is pretty academic.

Re:Headline should read...

[Odin's Raven]

Well, in English, we have certain things called "tenses."

They're what our Boy Scoutses sleepses in.

Re:Headline should read...

[Krach42]

The issue here isn't tense, it's mood.

English present tense is often used as a "non-past" tense. This is pretty typical thing for Germanic languages. "Ich gehe morgens in die Stadt." (I'm going into the city tomorrow.) If you know German, you'll see that both of these sentences are not in the future tense, they just have a prepositional phrase indicating the future, and the present tense.

The issue here is that AT&T is *intending* to aquire Bellsouth, or are hoping to aquire Bellsouth. This matter is completely irrelevent as to tense (they wanted to in the past, before this information became public, it's true now, and it will be true in the future).

I will concede though, that the headline is confusing. But the issue is deeper than just "tense". Even if it were to say "AT&T will aquire Bellsouth", this wouldn't indicate in any way that the deal might not go through. This deal is by no means guarenteed to go through, and indicating it in the indicative future tense would no less solve the problem of a confusing headline.

Re:Headline should read...

[StikyPad]

They's.

So what was the point

[DaveInAustin]

Of the original breakup anyway? The baby bells are buying each other and Ma bell.

Re:So what was the point

[incast]

Things have changed quite a bit in the 26 years since the breakup. Back then, you either paid Bell's rate or didn't have a phone. Now there are much better substitutes (cellular, VOIP, etc.) and the potential for international competition which should serve to keep a cap on the amount of market power that monopolistic firms can exercise here.

Re:So what was the point

[MillionthMonkey]

The original breakup took place in a different political climate, when wrong ideas were popular. Now that right ideas are popular, we must systematically unravel anything that was accomplished back then.

Re:So what was the point

[Anonymous Coward]

I hope that was said with the required dollop of irony. After all, that wheel will keep on turning...

Re:So what was the point

[Anonymous Coward]

There is one difference; when the Bells were just MA Bell; they charged fairly. As it stands now; SBC is a freakin money grubbing tyrant. I am personally opposed to this merger as well as the one(s) for AT&T / Pac Bell (Pacific Telesis), Ameritech.

PS: The quote missed NYNX; they haven't been assimilated. This PS statement might be incorrect; been out of the Telco ball game for a bit.

PSS: This is not a good thing.

Re:So what was the point

[beacher]

So that what passed as comedy in the early 80's with Lily Tomlin, now holds pretty true. I can't find the SNL "We're AT&T. We don't care. We don't have to.", but I did find her Call to Mr Veedle video.. .. Funny and sad at the same time.

Re:So what was the point

[twosmokes]

Neither cellular nor VOIP can be used to replace a land line.

Even if they could, it still doesn't help when the only provider for land lines, cellular service, and high speed access are all the same company.

Re:So what was the point

[DrMrLordX]

Nynex is now a part of Verizon.

Re:So what was the point

[Firehed]

Until those merge up to form the InterMegaBell corp. Cell options really suck, because you get both service and featureset issues - Verizon is the only place with decent (but still not great) signal where I live, but Cingular has unlimited texting while... you get the idea - you can't get everything from one place. At least with convential phones, the only rates were local and long distance. They're starting to get a bit anti-competitive regarding VoIP over DSL lines, because they'd obviously not prefer to host their competitor's service when they can be profiting instead (though consumers have been pretty good about keeping them in check). While it's definately A-C behavior if they block/throttle/intentionally lower QoS of/etc VoIP services, Vo isn't going to get you very far.

And on Slashdot:2040, we'll be talking back about the second breakup of 2010. And another thirty years out, the cycle repeats, and this happens indefinately until we either destroy the planet, learn telekenisis or go for full-out [bad -ism].

Re:So what was the point

[incast]

This is an issue of market definition, and I assure you that in the anti-trust investigations that the DOJ will be doing, such similar products are definitely considered for inclusion in the same anti-trust market. A quick link from the Canadian anti-trust people (I couldn't find a good quick US equivalent, but the guidelines are VERY similar): http://www.competitionbureau.gc.ca/internet/index. cfm?itemID=1714&lg=e. Look for the part about the hypothetical monopolist test.

The key point here is that such concentration in one mode of the transportation network is not sufficient for such a merger to have anti-competitive effects. As long as there are at least two firms offering service in similar modes into one network (e.g. VOIP, cellular, and landlines all being "phones"), any exercises of market power would be squashed by competition. I mean, you might not like the sound quality of VOIP or your local cellular coverage right now, but you would enjoy it a lot more if landline access fees went up dramatically, just as you would if the prices for VOIP or cellular fell dramatically.

Re:So what was the point

[Moofie]

Demonstrably not true. I know dozens of people who use no land line. Yes, they're all geeky early adopters, but clearly VOIP and cellular can and do replace land lines for some users.

Re:So what was the point

[Austerity Empowers]

Nothing has fundamentally changed except perhaps long distance service, there is some actual competition there, sometimes.

Cell's compete against each other. To some degree cell voice service is good competition against wireline voice service. But data? No way. Cell service will always cost more for less bandwidth, it's just signal to noise ratios.

If they could separate the bandwidth provider from the service provider for both phone & cable, that would go a long way to finding real competition. Voice, video...it's all data. The technology exists to ensure that what real time issues arise can be dealt with. All we need is someone to pry the cold dead fingers of monopoly exec's from the access networks.

Re:So what was the point

[IdolizingStewie]

Clearly you don't spend much time with college students. When you're in a dorm for nine months, home for three months, in a different dorm the next nine months, in an apartment somewhere working the following summer, and so on, the only way to keep in touch is a cell phone (or VOIP for friends abroad). I have a land line in my room. I've answered it twice from people looking for my roommates, never called from it, and I don't have a clue what the number is.

Re:So what was the point

[SillySnake]

I could easily see the government not considering it a monopoly just based on cell phone providers.. Much in the same way that even though I can only get cable television from Cox, they aren't a monopoly because Dish Network and Direct TV provide the same service (i.e. more tv channels) in the same way that Sprint and Cingular and more provide the same service as SBC/ATT does..

Re:So what was the point

[Spamicles]

AT&T stopped providing residential phone service a few years ago. They had become a wireless company. Cingular purchased AT&T a few years ago. Cingular realized the potential value of the AT&T brand name, and released the new AT&T onto the world. This new AT&T bares little resemblance to what AT&T had been before the purchase (and even after the splitting of the Bells into the Baby Bells). If you think about it, it isn't really history just repeating itself. There is a lot of wireles competition, so it is highly unlikely that things will return to the way they were before the Bell breakup. SBC owns 60% of Cingular, which bought AT&T Wireless. Even though it seems like Ma Bell is making a return from beyond the grave, this simply is not the case. The current level of competition in wireless and internet services will prevent any worries from coming to fruition. Don't mistake this as the backing up of monopolies or unfair marketing. This is just rationalization of what is occurring.

Re:So what was the point

[noidentity]

It's like the T-1000, the little pieces melt and reform into a single entitiy again.

Re:So what was the point

[Anonymous Coward]

AT&T didn't become a wireless company - it spun off its wireless division, pulled out of local resi sector, and were left only with long distance business catering mostly to corporate customers. They pulled out of local sector because Baby Bells pulled fast political trick on it - baby bells were supposed to allow competition in local service in return for them coming into long distance. They've got into long distance, but they made it next to impossible for others to come into their local turf.

We need to ban corporate political lobbying.

Re:So what was the point

[Deathlizard]

The biggest problem I'm seeing isn't the merging, but this network QOS issue.

Frankly, the AT&T Copper business could become one again, and I wouldn't care since the phone market is so fragmented these days, but I would start going nuts if AT&T started charging Sprint to allow more of it's cell phones to access AT&T's network, or started charging Time Warner to access their internet pipes at a better rate.

This Internet QOS issue is dangerous. It's one of the big reasons Bell System got cut up in the first place, because Bell Systems were entirely proprietary and wouldn't let any third party in. Hell, you even had to get your phone from them or else they would cut you off. Now these groups are sneaking it back in with QOS. Congress needs the cut this snake head off right now, or there's going to be big problems down the line.

A long time ago in a galaxy far far away

[BadAnalogyGuy]

War!

The Republic, with the help of its Jedi soothsayers, foresaw trouble ahead, leaving Ma Bell in one piece and to her own devices. Ma Bell fought back with all her might, but was torn to pieces by the deadly lightsabers of the Republic.

Several decades later, inefficiencies in having separate phone systems have led to the collaboration of those separated parts. Their merger begins anew their gradual domination of the Republic's phone systems. This time, the Republic isn't so concerned.

Re:A long time ago in a galaxy far far away

[jZnat]

Why does this eerily sound like an actual Star Wars plot? I know it's supposed to be in that format, but it almost sounds like an actual Star Wars plot with a few words changed...

Re:A long time ago in a galaxy far far away

[BadAnalogyGuy]

Why does this eerily sound like an actual Star Wars plot?

Because George Lucas has made a mockery of your cherished childhood memories.

Re:A long time ago in a galaxy far far away

[Ph33r th3 g(O)at]

Probably because of the AT&T logo's resemblance to the Death Star

Re:A long time ago in a galaxy far far away

[unitron]

"Why does this eerily sound like an actual Star Wars plot?"

Where do you think the plot came from originally? Don't you remember that AT&T had their own Death Star?

Re:A long time ago in a galaxy far far away

[jZnat]

Oh, right; I was thinking back to the literal bell logos.

Re:A long time ago in a galaxy far far away

[BobGregg]

>>Probably because of the AT&T logo's resemblance to the Death Star

When I worked at Bell Atlantic (Verizon) several years ago, my favorite joke was that AT&T might have had the Death Star, but by God, our spokesman was Darth Vader!

She's back

[darkjedi521]

Give it a year or two, and Ma Bell will be back, only without the cool bits this time (Bell Labs).

Re:She's back

[the eric conspiracy]

The New AT&T could probably buy Lucent for a medium sized bag of P-type ringers.

Re:She's back

[sg3000]

> The New AT&T could probably buy Lucent for a medium sized bag of P-type ringers.

And by lining his grave with magnets, they can use the power of a furiously-spinning Judge Greene to charge their backup batteries.

I hesitate to think what's going to happen to the big telecom infrastructure vendors. When their customers merge, can it be far behind for Alcatel, Cisco, Ericsson, Lucent, Marconi, Motorola, Nokia, Nortel, or Siemens?

Re:She's back

[lovswr]

Heaven help is if Alcasmell & *hitco get toghether. That could only mean that Norsmell is not far behind

Oh, no!

[SEWilco]

Say it ain't so, Ma!

Well, all I have to say is:

[Chas]

I for one welcome our "Old Is New Again" phone overlords.

When do I sign up for actually renting my telephone again?

*sigh*

Re:Well, all I have to say is:

[Aqua OS X]

Renting your phone? ... well, you could always get a new cell phone. That's pretty much a rent-to-own ordeal.

Re:Well, all I have to say is:

[Chas]

Ah. A young one.

It used to be that nobody actually owned their telephone hardware.

You used to pay a monthly equipment rental fee (like Cable) for your phone.

Re:Well, all I have to say is:

[EzInKy]

Ah. A young one.

It used to be that nobody actually owned their telephone hardware.

You used to pay a monthly equipment rental fee (like Cable) for your pho


Actually I find it both funny and sad that so many people understand why AT&T was, and Microsoft should be, broken up. Monopolies are the antithesis of capitalism.

Re:Well, all I have to say is:

[flutkatastrophe]

I recently read that over 1 million people in the US still rent their phone for $60 a year. And you can just buy one for $10.

Wait a minute

[truckaxle]

Didn't the Government spend a decade and millions of dollars breaking ma bell into piece and now we are only watching those piece reassemble. Unfortunately for most people internet access only comes thru the phone company and a system lacking competition in this vital area is not healthy

Re:Wait a minute

[Bob_Robertson]

Chalk it up to standard government efficiency.

Re:Wait a minute

[evilviper]

and a system lacking competition in this vital area is not healthy

When did we EVER have competition? Except in the biggest markets, people have never had any choice for their local telco.

The only difference between now, and when it was a monopoly, is that they go by a different name in different areas. They're still just matching each other's prices, terms, etc.

The whole idea of a telco is antiquated. Now, at least we're seeing competition to the telcos via cable and wireless providers.

It probably was just a waste to break AT&T up. What good things can you list, that have come out of it?

Re:Wait a minute

[Bios_Hakr]

Today, if you walked into a RBOC and asked to buy/lease local loops or rackspace, they'd have to let you. 30 years ago, they'd have laughed in your face.

In fact, when you buy a SpeakEasy line, that's what happens. You buy the line from SE. SE buys a slot on the local DSLAM and pays to have it connected to your loop. Because SE is buying 1000 lines at a time, they can get them cheaper than if you bought it directly from your RBOC.

Re:Wait a minute

[lordkuri]

Today, if you walked into a RBOC and asked to buy/lease local loops or rackspace, they'd have to let you.

Not since 2002, that was overturned. source

Re:Wait a minute

[wshwe]

The Feds should stop this acquisition. The original AT&T was too big and the new AT&T will also be too big. The Feds were correct to break up the old AT&T. No one company should monopolize the nation's phone lines. What's next, a national power company? How about a national water company?

Re:Wait a minute

[slashname3]

The borg are slowly reassembling the whole from the many parts that were scattered across the landscape. They are almost at critical mass. The next move is to force all the VOIP providers to pay when their packets cross the new AT&T networks.

Re:Wait a minute

[Maclir]

Well, the highway system is nationalized. Why not other infrastructure - where the aim is to actually provide service to comsumers, not profits to investors?

Re:Wait a minute

[HappyEngineer]

Don't you remember when you'd get multiple calls per week from long distance providers trying to get you to switch? Ma Bell charged, what, a dollar a minute or something along those lines? I don't know how important it is for it to stay broken up now (keeping in mind that cable can provide internet access), but it pretty obviously brought down long distance prices back when that actually mattered a lot (no widely available email in those days).

I'd personally rather they stay broken up, but I'm not an economist.

Re:Wait a minute

[Sensible Clod]

And when has the focus of ANY of the Bell sections been providing service to customers as opposed to making money for investors?

Re:Wait a minute

[NutscrapeSucks]

Well, you see, Ma Bell's advertising, I mean propaganda, said .. um .. errr ..

Hey Look -- Video Phones!

Re:Wait a minute

[BenFranske]

AFAIK if you're a real CLEC they still need to share the pair. It also doesn't really matter because the ILECs have discovered it's more profitable to share the pair and then not have to deal with any customer service than it is to do it all in-house. My understanding is they make more actual profit (after you subtract customer service costs) on the shared lines. The reason they don't drop service and strictly become a wholesaler is none of the CLECs (even together) are big enough to handle the volume.

Re:Wait a minute

[zerocool^]

It's like Terminator 2 - shattered into 1000's of pieces, but given time, they all sludge back together to form their origional self.

~W

Re:Wait a minute

[rob_squared]

Duh, the goverment is good at getting things to break apart and come together again:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Terminator_2

Re:Wait a minute

[evilviper]

Ma Bell charged, what, a dollar a minute or something along those lines? I don't know how important it is for it to stay broken up now (keeping in mind that cable can provide internet access), but it pretty obviously brought down long distance prices back when that actually mattered a lot (no widely available email in those days).

No, the continual advance of technology brought down long-distance prices... In fact, it was the microwave communications systems, which AT&T invented, which made it possible for 3rd parties to provide long-distance service in the first place. Without that, companies like MCI would have needed to actually lay copper lines for each phone call across the entire country...

However, that's somewhat besides the point, because I was refering to local telco service... Long distance service can still be made competitive.

Re:Wait a minute

[Anonymous Coward]

No, the continual advance of technology brought down long-distance prices... In fact, it was the microwave communications systems, which AT&T invented, which made it possible for 3rd parties to provide long-distance service in the first place. Without that, companies like MCI would have needed to actually lay copper lines for each phone call across the entire country...

On the other hand, without the gov't breaking up AT&T, no one including MCI would have even thought of going into the long distance business. Remember, even with new tech, price didn't come down until MCI and Sprint started to compete with AT&T.

Re:Wait a minute

[wshwe]

The national interstate highway system is owned by the government, not a private for-profit company. I might be ok with AT&T just buying out Bellsouth's interest in Cingular.

Bell System

[inventor61]

I hope that they bring the Bell logo back. BellSouth is the only RBOC to still use it (and the original company colors).

Re:Bell System

[RubberDogBone]

The logo and colors on the trucks don't mean a lot. Somebody in marketing makes those choices and writes the corporate style books. They'll be first against the wall anyway when the merger happens.

I'm more concerned about quality of service, value for the dollar I spend (which with DSL and phone service is about $100 a month), and whether they can fix my DSL when it goes out.

I couldn't care less about whether they still use the old Bell logo or the yellow and blue paint. Vans can be repainted; many of the Bellsouth service vans now sport a "FastAccess DSL" paint scheme. Logos can be replaced. Don't get attached to anything that can be painted over in two seconds.

One good thing about the merger: no more annoying "Pat the DSL guy" advertisements from Bellsouth.

While I know...

[thealsir]

that there are plenty of folks here who fear industry consolidation like an elephant fears mice, this is actually a good move. A nationalized phone company will reunite the parts that were broken apart pointlessley, much to national duress, in the 80s. The way to manage a phone company is to have a government-regulated monopoly, not a bunch of oligopolies competing with each other artifically and making it hard as hell to call from one region to another.

Re:While I know...

[Profane MuthaFucka]

OK, if by "national duress" you mean a bunch of people who had trouble with high school complaining that they can't understand their phone bill, then you're right. That's national duress. Call out the army, the phone bills are complicated.

And, I don't know what you're talking about with the calling from one region to another thing. Is dialing 10 digits to call California from New York too much to ask? How is that harder than dialing 10 digits on a rotary phone in the 1970's?

I just dont understand why you're insightful.

Re:While I know...

[pipingguy]

Like Canada?

Re:While I know...

[Charcharodon]

The national duress in the 80's was the local long distance tolls (there were very suspicious areas drawn up to cut through the middle of towns), 50+ cents a minute for long distance, dollars per minute for overseas, and the all around "Go Fuck Yourself if you don't like it" attitude of the phone company. Dialing was the easy part, they didn't play all the area code and dialing method games like they do today.

The only excuse these days to even have land lines is for 911 service, which is pointless when a small addition of code could be added for cell and VOIP service to provide location information to emergency response.

We will be seeing shortly the Bells behaving just as they did before, as a hostile monopoly. The nice thing this time around technology does give us an out in the form of other services if they choose to be belligerent.

Re:While I know...

[chub_mackerel]

that there are plenty of folks here who fear industry consolidation like an elephant fears mice, this is actually a good move. A nationalized phone company will reunite the parts that were broken apart pointlessley, much to national duress, in the 80s. The way to manage a phone company is to have a government-regulated monopoly, not a bunch of oligopolies competing with each other artifically and making it hard as hell to call from one region to another.

Yeah, I've always had such a hard time calling across country. Those three extra digits (and that ONE) are such a bitch to handle. Now it'll be one big company, hurray! If I'm lucky that company can provide my Internet connection and all my music and movies too. I'll just use the "standard" OS and media software, and I won't have to worry about any incompatibilities anymore. How nice.

Sarcasm aside, your post assumes the government is somehow considering whether it should adopt a regulated monopoly model for more effective regulation. That's not the development here. The companies are getting together on their own, which they wouldn't be able to do without the regulatory agency stepping aside (giving them a pass). This is a story about less regulation, not more.

Predictably, this will probably result in crappier service, higher costs, and fewer choices. The politicians (both parties, but in my view more heinous on the Republican side, particularly this administration) play ball, the companies gain, and the public loses.

Given my lack of faith (do you find it disturbing?), I'd prefer a bunch of small companies to one huge one. Companies small enough that they'd HAVE to play nice with each other in order to survive.

Re:While I know...

[Anonymous Coward]

These days companies regulate governments rather than the other way around.

Re:While I know...

[Cadallin]

Except that we HAD a well regulated monopoly before (Pre-Breakup), and now we're getting an effectively completely UNREGULATED monopoly now. And we all know what unregulated monopolies.

I'm glad Google owns all that dark fibre. At least there is a chance (if slim) the 'States might see a little competition to counteract a new Zombie-MaBell with no government oversight, and no requirement to cooperate with anyone.

I say GOOD

[Khyber]

I'm a Bellsouth customer. Maybe now I'll get some faster DSL at a better price. If not, oh well, there are other providers of net access.

Re:I say GOOD

[Anonymous Coward]

Sorry man, don't mean to flame you but...WHAT?!?

Monopolies are 99.999%* bad for consumers. When there's a monopoly prices go way up and quality of services, innovation, etc, go down. I mean why bother doing research when you own the entire market anyway right? Why lower prices when the only choices are use us or don't use the telephone. So to answer your question:

1) Your DSL speeds will probably stay the same speed or get slower due to over subscription.
2) You'll definitely end up paying more for it.
3) What happens when there are no other ISPs? Doh.

*99.999% because I'm sure body will flame me for something or the other.

Re:I say GOOD

[LurkerXXX]

You expect Ma Bell to give you better rates???

You must be a young'en. Let me tell you about how it was back in the day. Ma Bell used to charge a monthly rental fee for each and every phone in your house. Not each line into your house, each phone hooked up that that one line. Want another phone in another room for convenience? You have to pay for it. Each and every month. You weren't allowed to buy your own phone, you were forced to rent theirs.

Ma Bell coming back is NOT a good thing for consumers.

Re:I say GOOD

[squiggleslash]

I'm a BellSouth customer too. I've never had bad service from them. They charge fairly reasonable prices so far as I can see. Their staff are friendly and helpful. They got our phones up and running quickly after the last three hurricanes to hit here. Maybe my standards are low having lived in Britain with the attrocious, "We don't actually want you to use our service", British Telecom, but BellSouth has been excellent in my experience.

I've not heard a good thing about SBC however, and their CEO is a total loon. While BellSouth has talked about possibly adding services so that companies can speed up their connections to BellSouth's customers, SBC's CEO has talked about forcing companies to pay for access. In general, he seems as much as of a nut as the CEO of Verizon.

This is about as bad as we can get.

Re:I say GOOD

[JimB]

According to the American Institute for Economic Research [ http://www.aier.org/cgi-aier/colcalculator.cgi ],
40 dollars in 1984 is worth $ 76.34 today. In 1984 I was paying $ 40.00 per month for telephone service. I had a "Call-Pak Unlimited" which meant that I had UNLIMITED calling for the Chicagoland area. What used to be the 847, 708, 312, 773, and part of the 815 area codes. PLUS this service came with 20 minutes of "Continental United States Long Distance".

Match THAT today in a "land-Line" service package. Then throw in the FANTASTIC service they USED to have and tell me how much better off we are !!
[Yes, I can, and *DO* beat that price with my Cingular Phone. Which is why I do NOT have a Land-Line.]

Re:I say GOOD

[ObsessiveMathsFreak]

Ma Bell used to charge a monthly rental fee for each and every phone in your house.

I am an non USian and this is so unbelieveable that I'm afraid I have no option but to ask for some kind of citation to back up, what seems to me like, an absolutely ludacrious statement.

Re:I say GOOD

[LurkerXXX]

Sorry, I don't have any phone bills or rental agreements from back in the day. That was a while ago. Just ask any USAin who was old enough to have a phone bill back then, and they will tell you the same thing.

Re:I say GOOD

[LurkerXXX]

Oh, and by the way? Why do you think they broke Ma Bell up in the first place? It wasn't because she was a monopoly. It was because she was abusing the hell out of her monopoly status.

Re:I say GOOD

[Anonymous Coward]

So, in other words, "I have no evidence, I'm just talking out of my ass". Which is a great way to get moderated up, unfortunately.

Re:I say GOOD

[LurkerXXX]

I'm sure all you anonymous trolls have their phone bills from 26 years ago sitting around real handy. Right.

Re:I say GOOD

[Valdrax]

It's not a "ludacrious"[sic] statement. A simple Google search gives you leads to find the Bell System Memorial site which has a page on the very subject. There you can read fliers advertising the changes to allow you to buy your phone and see the old rates of between $1.00-3.25 per phone.

Next time, take the word of someone who is old enough to have actually been there. I'm also barely old enough to remember rented phones and the Bell System Property tag on them. My grandmother kept hers for years.

Re:I say GOOD

[LurkerXXX]

Since probably almost no one is going to have kept phone bills for over two decades, you can google around for reminents of it.

Here's one humorous one...

http://www.jsonline.com/story/index.aspx?id=388195

others:

http://www.tinmanic.com/archives/2005/01/26/ma-bel l/
http://www.ericofon.com/history.htm

Re:I say GOOD

[CoonAss56]

You mean kinda just like the cable companies do now? Rent their equipment and pay a monthly fee for every box in every room. Cool!

Re:I say GOOD

[zlogic]

I'm living in Europe and one of my friends flew to America and bought lots of stuff customers returned to Macy's stores and some others. He bought this stuff cheap (in fact, paying for the equipment something like $30/kg) and wanted to sell it in Europe. That was sometime in 1980-1990s.
Anyway, there were a lot of AT&T-branded phones as well as Panasonic, GE, Sony phones. I thought that AT&T phones were branded just because they were offered with the telephone line - something like buying an mp3 player and batteries in one store for convenience. So my question is: what were those phones exactly? Were you allowed to connect a non-AT&T phone (at least they were sold and bought in the US) or were you charged a rent on the number of phones you bought directly from AT&T?

Re:I say GOOD

[LurkerXXX]

I'm guessing the time frame was really 1984+. Until the government stepped in, you had to rent Ma Bell's phone. After that, you could either continue renting their phone, buy the phone from them, or buy another brand of phone to hook up to your line. There was a HUGE number of phone models that suddenly sprung up after the split-up. I remember receiving lots of catalogs with different phone styles/features from different companies when the switch was made. I'm sure everyone was trying to udercut everyone else then to grab consumer loyalty and market share, so I'm not surpised he could get stuff cheaper there than in Europe at the time.

Re:I say GOOD

[trix7117]

Well, for $39.94 (not including taxes of course, but i doubt that there are $36.40 worth of taxes) you can get unlimited nationwide long distance and unlimited local calls. I'm not sure what your point is, but a 10 second visit to SBC shows that you paid almost twice as much for a smaller calling area.

https://swot.sbc.com/swot/telcoProductDetail.do?pr oductOfferId=26

I hate the Baby Bells as much as the next guy (and in fact do not purchase any services from them), but you can't possibly argue that phone service isn't cheaper now (adjusted for inflation) than what you were paying before the breakup.

Time to...

[Anonymous Coward]

Execute order 66 on the "new" AT&T.

Inevitable.

[Bob_Robertson]

The old AT&T government granted monopoly was never really ended. The so-called Baby Bells maintained government granted monopoly status over their respective regions, a monopoly status that is still in place.

One of the most corrupt forms of merchantilism, these monopolies insulate the phone companies from competition and create the environment for them to simply buy each other all over again.

The only thing Judge Green would have needed to do all those years ago was repeal (and prevent the states from reestablishing) monopoly protection of AT&T. Let competition come in where ever the established service provider was not providing decent service, or was charging too much, or anything and everything else that different providers use to compete for your, and my, business.

But no, the regulators wouldn't release even slightly their death-grip on the phone systems, not really, so local monopoly grants continued. Now they're buying each other and the "anti-monopoly" types have the gall to act surprised.

There is no such thing as a "natural" monopoly. Even Microsoft must continually innovate (or at least make people think that they innovate) in order to keep their customers. Only government is able to grant monopoly status, as was done with railroads, electric utilities, telephones. If some company is dominant in a field without those legal grants, they can only do so because they serve the customers better than their competition.

I don't mean "provide better service", because even as Windows came to dominate I was already using Linux and understood that Windows was not providing "better service". I mean serving their customers better, by better serving their subjective wants whether an outsider would consider them objectively "better" served or not.

Bob-

Re:Inevitable.

[thealsir]

I think it's really a matter of what people want. Do they want almost 100% guaranteed, unbroken access? Then a government-granted monopoly is necessary. Do they want more competition? Well, strip monopoly rights and watch phone service sometimes get interrupted due to one company losing money or another company taking over here, there, and everywhere. It's really a question of what people want. If people really want the latter scenario, they must be willing to accept that there will be upheaval. Examined closely, neither scenario is more right or wrong than the other unless the government is corrupt.

Re:Inevitable.

[ScaryMonkey]

The only thing I would disagree with in your comment is that only the government can grant monopoly status; An already established monopoly (established, perhaps, by being the first implementer of a new technology) doesn't need government support to maintain its position, especially in areas where entry costs are high. In these cases the monopoly can often drive new competitors out of business by operating at a loss long enough to ruin the competitor's finances. In reality, of course, the collusion of government is often bought to support the monopoly since that's a cheaper way to go about it. But sometimes it's just the opposite, and government intervention is required to overturn a monopoly that has established itself by choking its competition in the free market.

Re:Inevitable.

[Bob_Robertson]

If people consider that providing "uninterrupted service" is what is important, then they will buy from established sellers even if they cost a bit more.

That does not require a monopoly grant.

Re:Inevitable.

[Bob_Robertson]

I know it's easy to get tricked into the "high entry cost" myth, so please bear with me.

Innovation happens because some shmoe "entrepreneur" smells a profit. If "entry costs" are high, it will require something extra to enter that market. Usually, this is done through innovation rather than trying to beat the established player at their own game.

Wired vs. wireless is a good example of this. Yet still, local governments have extended their monopoly grants to cell phone providers to prevent that very innovation. So is cable TV, which can provide telephone service as easily as it can provide IP, but is almost everywhere itself granted local monopoly status.

I can assure you that the "high cost of entry" myth has been well thrashed since before the time of Adam Smith. After all, without the East India Company, who would risk sending a ship to the other side of the world for something like tea?

Re:Inevitable.

[Anonymous Coward]

You are right about the high entry cost. The biggest reason why the entry cost is so high is from the government robbing the citizens at gunpoint and giving it to others. Just take a look at income, social security, and property taxes. All of those taxes add up to over half of the businesses expenses alone Those taxes are just to pay for the unconstitutional socialist programs to begin with, so we should eliminate the taxes and any program that's unconstitutional.

Another few things to eliminate would be the national parks, sell them to the highest bidders and apply it to the national debt. That will allow the sales tax to be subtatially lower, allowing people to have more use of their money to spend. Eliminate NASA, NWS, and any other unconstitutional government entity as well. Once all of that is done, the cost of entry for anything won't be nearly as high.
_________________________________________________
A vote against a Libertarian candidate is
a vote to abolish the Constitution itself.

Re:Inevitable.

[arkanes]

It's not a myth and you're an idiot for thinking it is. Nobody ever said that a high cost of entry was a *total* barrier to competition. It's just a signfigiant one, that has a very real and very powerful chilling effect on competition. Hand waving and deciding that no matter how inefficent a market might be, it'll always get better because "someone will innovate something" is ridiculous.

Re:Inevitable.

[Anonymous Coward]

The cable television industry almost bankrupted itself trying to string a wire into every american home. That's the sort of thing regular people mean when they refer to a "high cost of entry".

And then to compound the issue, there's wireless television technology on the horizon which will provide the same level of service as cable at a significantly "lower cost of entry".

Thus (for now) the cable company enjoys a monopoly that most normal people would consider largely "natural".

Re:Inevitable.

[spun]

There is no such thing as a "natural" monopoly.
Roads are a natural monopoly. How can you have more than one road in the same place? Sewers. Are you honestly telling me multiple companies are all going to lay sewage pipes so that you can choose which one to hook your toilets up to? These examples are indisputable proof of the existence of natural monopolies, but arguably many other things, even those you mention, are also natural monopolies.

The free market is okay for some things, but it simply isn't the most efficient way of getting some things done. Do you think it would be more efficient for dozens of companies to all run electrical and telephone wires to your home so you can choose which one to buy? Would free market fire companies really protect the community efficiently? If you don't buy fire protection, your home burns, endangering others homes as well. Anything more efficiently run as a monopoly is a natural monopoly.

I can tell from your sig that you are a Libertarian, and Libertarian dogma says that anything and everything can be most efficiently decided by the free market. Back here in the real world, real people have noticed that it simply doesn't work that way and moved on to other ideas.

Have you noticed that there are no Libertarian nations or states anywhere in the world? Every other political philosophy has managed something. Even if it turns into a trainwreck, at least they put their principles into practice. Since Libertarians never actually put what they preach into practice, they can always claim that they have the perfect ideology. If only everyone else would just listen to them and do things their way...

Re:Inevitable.

[squiggleslash]

You need to charter one ship across the Atlantic to compete with the East India Company. It's a one-off, and you'll make a profit.

You need to lay an entire network to compete with an established phone company. The phone company you're competing with already has laid, and paid for, that company. So while you take twenty years to build your network and 40 to recoup your investment, you'll be somehow raising that money from customers who have the choice between your network, and the cheaper incumbent.

How the FUCK do you compete with that? Are you on the same planet? There's absolutely nothing whatsoever you can do. If you promise "better service", the incumbent has plenty of time to improve their services. If you promise enhanced features, the incumbent can roll that out to all their customers before you've laid the lines in a single street.

This isn't a myth. It's real. It's why nobody's building fully competitive networks, even in countries where it's encouraged. In Britain, the only competition was from cable TV companies, who were only able to get their networks built because BT was banned from selling television services. And I've never heard of someone asking to build a competing network and being told "no" by any American government. Why? Because nobody wants to.

The only "competition" we'll see in the short term is from the cable companies. In the long term, we don't even know for sure that the cable companies and the telephone companies will not merge anyway. And we already know that a duopoly isn't enough to ensure buyer-focussed products.

We need regulation. And we cannot wait for libertarian utopias to be proven idiotic, especially since I've never come across a libertarian who hasn't find something government related to blame any failure of deregulation upon. The wires should work for us.

Re:Inevitable.

[siwelwerd]

But sometimes it's just the opposite, and government intervention is required to overturn a monopoly that has established itself by choking its competition in the free market. I beg to differ. If the customers valued competition more than temporarily lower prices they would support any new startup competition in that area. If customers do not decide that, it is because they feel the monopoly is serving them better than competition could, as the grandparent put it.

Re:Inevitable.

[TubeSteak]

Even in a business with relatively low costs of entry, an entrenched competitor can undercut your price for as long as they can afford to.

Especially if it's a national business. Then they can raise prices in one region to subsidise their campaign to destroy your business.

Re:Inevitable.

[Anonymous Coward]

If you promise "better service", the incumbent has plenty of time to improve their services.

Clearly that would be a real tragedy for the consumers.

Re:Inevitable.

[Roarkk]

>So while you take twenty years to build your network and 40 to recoup your
>investment, you'll be somehow raising that money from customers who have the
>choice between your network, and the cheaper incumbent.
>
>How the FUCK do you compete with that?

Actually, competing with that isn't that difficult right now. What most folks who live in large urban areas don't realize is that in many smaller cities and towns, the phone, cable, and electrical lines are owned by a small private company or the local government. This ownership provides a strong basis (local support and adoption) for innovation.

For example, I'm aware of several townships in Ohio right now that are receiving Fiber to the Home and have been for several months or years. Businesses come in, do an RFP, and submit a bid. The relatively low cost of implementation generally only requires a 15%-25% subsriber rate to give a reasonable ROI, and the consumers get a single wire coming in to their homes that provides not only digital telephony and HDTV, but realistic videoconferencing and 100Mbps Internet access.

Lots of people want to build competitive networks. And they're doing so at this moment. While I accept (while strongly disagreeing with) your philosophy that government regulation is the answer to this and other issues, I take objection to your ignorance or deliberate FUD in saying that the current system includes neither competition nor innovation.

Re:Inevitable.

[larry bagina]

Have you noticed that there are no Libertarian nations or states anywhere in the world?

The Pre-Civil War Era US was more or less libertarian. The 16th and 17th amendments, along with FDR and his sock puppet supreme court, pretty much killed any remnants of liberty.

Re:Inevitable.

[Mr. Arbusto]

We don't really need to regulate.

Make it a public utility. As much as I don't like the government running things I do like the idea of having things that are deemed necessary utilities be owned by the government. I think power and phone are easy to add to the list. I don't mean the government should become the phone and power company. I mean the government should own the means of transmission and anyone who wants to compete for providing services over those lines can.

Ah 2 AM ideas, gotta love em.

Re:Inevitable.

[thejoelpatrol]

Why do you say there is no such thing as a natural monopoly? Obviously government is required to grant monoopolies legally. What else they are required for is to ensure the production of goods in markets that can't survive under competition. A natural monopoly shoudl exist in an industry where there are declining average total costs. In the case of phones, imagine we don't have any phone lines. For everyone's phone to be able to connect to everyone else's (at least before we had the internet), any company providing phone service will have to run lines to every house. It is unlikely that the most efficient outcome will involve multiple sets of wires going to every house in the country. So the government grants a monopoly to one company who can lay out the fixed investment once and make the money back by adding new customers at very low additional cost. I see where someone might argue that Microsoft is something of a natural monopoly, but I don't think you can use that not being strictly true as an example proving that there are no natural monopolies. Why? Microsoft DOES have competition that can survive in the market!

Now obviously monopolies have led to abuses. Natural monopolies need to be regulated. In areas of the country where we use natural gas, the gas company is regulated so as not to extort our need for heat and cooking. What could we do for the phone system? Well, cable is becoming a good alternative. Here's a possible example of competition being able to survive in the telecommunications industry. But the phone industry and telecommuncation industry are not the same thing. Until the 90s, more or less, the phone lines were just used for phones and faxes. Now we have the same company owning the lines and providing telecommunications services over them that can be provided other ways. We can't very well introduce competition into the physical lines, but we can still keep competition in the services on the lines alive. As long as AT&T doesn't prevent us from getting reasonably-priced DSL from other carriers over the phone lines (I'm unclear how they are able to offer theirs so cheap without running afoul of anti-trust laws already...) or using VOIP over whatever internet service we have, we should be OK. Ideally AT&T would not offer these services at all so as avoid any possibility of abuse of monopoly power over the lines, but yeah right.

On another note, the same company should not be allowed to own both the phone lines and the cable fiber. That's just asking for complete abuse of monopoly power.

Re:Inevitable.

[code65536]

[offtopic]
> I've never come across a libertarian who hasn't
> find something government related to blame any
> failure of deregulation upon.
>

You need to meet more libertarians then. :P Not every lib belongs to the LP.
[/offtopic]

Re:Inevitable.

[Vollernurd]

Just like the Railways here in the UK. No real competition between the rail companies, plus it costs the government more now in subsidy than it ever cost when it was a governmenr-owned railways board.

Re:Inevitable.

[rabel]

Difficult, but not impossible. In the Austin, Texas area, we have Grande Communications which is doing exactly that. They own all their fiber and offer services for much cheaper than the local baby bell and have integrated video, phone, internet.

Linkage: Grande Communications

Re:Inevitable.

[TimH]

"We need regulation. And we cannot wait for libertarian utopias to be proven idiotic, especially since I've never come across a libertarian who hasn't find something government related to blame any failure of deregulation upon."

Hmmm. and statist utopias are better because.....?

Re:Inevitable.

[stinerman]

There is no such thing as a "natural" monopoly.

Yes, there is.

I'm on the cable advisory board in my city. TW currently runs its cable over the city's lines. There is nothing stopping anyone else from doing so, but because any company willing to do so likely wouldn't make any money on the deal, no one does.

Every so often we have to review the charter agreement with TW and make sure they're holding up their end of the deal. Our options are thus (we reccomend to council and council makes the final decision):

1) Renew the charter, trying to get the best deal we can
2) Not renew the charter and get a new company to do our cable service

TW banks on the fact that we're going to do #1, so they have quite a bit of bargaining power. The reason being that they own the cable lines. They know that Comcast et al. doesn't want to spend the money to run new lines (or buy TWs old lines). Added to the fact that council would likely be voted out if they ever picked option 2 w/o having someone ready to take over (no cable service), there is a de facto monopoly over TV service in many cities. You could cite satellite dishes as a possible competitor, but the start-up costs are prohibitively high for many.

You may believe there is no such thing as a natural monopoly, but that doesn't make it so.

Re:Inevitable.

[stinerman]

I live in Ohio (Fairborn), and haven't heard of any places with last-mile fiber. Could you elaborate?

Re:Inevitable.

[lovswr]

Hey I grew up in Trotwood. You are the second slashdotter that I know of from the Miami Valley :)

Re:Inevitable.

[stinerman]

Hey I grew up in Trotwood.

I'm sorry ;-)

I'm not "from" here (but there), but I am likely to stay in the area after I'm finished with school at WSU.

Re:Inevitable.

[kidcharles]

I completely disagree with you on the point that there is no such thing as a "natural" monopoly. It is a feature of capitalism that monopolies form without government interference. Now the opposite can also be true, the government can act in such a way as to preserve monopolies as well, but without intervention they most certainly do form on their own (see late-19th / early-20th century US economic history).

Re:Inevitable.

[Guppy06]

"The only thing Judge Green would have needed to do all those years ago was repeal (and prevent the states from reestablishing) monopoly protection of AT&T."

Yeeaaaahhh... Have you read your constitution lately? Do you fully grasp the meaning of the word "federal?"

I'd like to see a state (any state) revoke a Bell's priveleges as much as the next Slashdotter, but just because we'd like it doesn't mean a federal judge automatically has the power to mandate it.

Re:Inevitable.

[Bob_Robertson]

Exactly. Without government monopoly grants, even an established enterprise must constantly be on guard against innovators who promise better service, even if it means a customer would have to pay a premium price.

If price were the only consideration of buyers, there would be only one kind of anything sold. But some people buy IP service to their home for $9.99/month, others $59.99/month, others $299.99/month. Obviously, there is some other consideration that simply price. There is no engineering reason why telephone service cannot be provided in just as great a variety except that the barrier to entry is political, not practical.

Which is why the established players love government monopoly grants, licencing, protectionist tarriffs, and all the other games merchantilists play to not have to actually provide a good service that people want.

Re:Inevitable.

[Luyseyal]

As I understand it, Grande has greatly reduced the scale of their roll-out recently after the bankers called them up and said, "uh hey uh are we gonna get our money back ever?" Apparently, this is why their CEO left awhile back. I can't find a good article about any of that, unfortunately, so it's just hearsay as far as you're concerned. :) I have been checking my area (Far West) for connectivity for several years now and they still haven't rolled it out there (even though I've seen their trucks driving around and their Austin support location is north of Parmer on Mopac...).

-l

Re:Inevitable.

[Luyseyal]

False dilemma. The best solution is neither fully statist nor fully libertarian.

Now that I've solved the world's most pressing problem, on to more code!! :)

-l

Re:Inevitable.

[Bob_Robertson]

Hmmm. and statist utopias are better because.....?

Hahahaha! Well said!

It is the statists who promise Utopia with their planning, their bureaucratic management, their "we can do it right this time, with the right people in charge" claims. Utopia was the creation of Plato, who argued that the best humans could attain would be done through incorruptible and all-powerful philosopher Kings.

People who advocate liberty do not promise Utopia, never have. They just point out that people thrive when allowed to interact voluntarily rather than at gun point. I think what statists fear is that they might have to live with their bad choices, instead of having BigMommyGovernment to coddle them.

Re:Inevitable.

[lovswr]

It was a lot different in the early 80's.

Re:Inevitable.

[Bob_Robertson]

Are you honestly telling me multiple companies are all going to lay sewage pipes so that you can choose which one to hook your toilets up to?

No, because I don't know how to do that. I am also not going to tell you that they won't, which is a judgement that you are making out of hand.

What I will tell you is that there are alternatives to sewage lines. Chemical toilets, composting toilets and the like have been around for a very long time.

The provision of such services through taxation creates a situation of monopoly because there is always a legal restriction placed upon the service at the same time. For example, a San Jose, California, professor at SJSU was doing a course on recycling. The entirety of the "garbage" his household generated was about one pint per trash pickup cycle. He was taking that in to the school to demonstrate to his class what was possible, and thus thought he didn't need to pay for the garbage can provided by the city.

No Such Luck! The city prosecuted him for failure to pay for the trash service he wasn't using.

Do I get to not pay school taxes if I do not send a kid to government school? Do I get to not pay sewage taxes if I use a composting toilet? Do I get to not pay for trash pickup if I generate no trash?

Government granted monopolies create inefficiency not only in the usual "waste, fraud and abuse" that government efforts are always rife with, they also prevent innovation by removing money that might have been spent on replacing that government service with something valued higher by the consumer.

Roads? By Cromm, not that old standby. Have you read none of the arguments already published on that matter? Here, have a couple:

http://www.mises.org/journals/jls/3_2/3_2_7.pdf

http://www.mises.org/journals/jls/7_1/7_1_1.pdf

http://www.mises.org/freemarket_detail.asp?control =202

http://www.mises.org/story/1704

http://www.lewrockwell.com/edmonds/edmonds164.html

http://www.lewrockwell.com/gregory/gregory27.html

You can do better than that, can't you? How about prisons? "Justice"? Those, at least, require real thought to refute.

Bob-

Re:Inevitable.

[Bob_Robertson]

You might find _How Capitalism Saved America_ by Thomas DiLorenzo to be of interest. It's clear that you are thinking much more about things than some of the other nay-sayers here, I would be interested in your reaction to his discussions.

Bob-

Re:Inevitable.

[Bob_Robertson]

Hey, I'm as corruptable as the next guy. To paraphrase Gandalf, "I would assume power with the goal of doing good. But it cannot be used for such."

You're absolutely correct, of course, the Fed.Gov has no power to force the states to do anything. However, since 1794 with the Federal tax on whisky, and that little bru-ha-ha around 1861, not having the power grated to them has had little to no actual effect on their actions.

Bob-

Re:Inevitable.

[spun]

You are missing my point. Natural monopolies exist. No matter if government runs them or a private company runs them, there can be only one road to your house. There can be only one sewage line. These are monopolies. I fully understand the concept of contestable markets, and realize that competition can place downward price forces even on monopoly entities. If the monopoly that runs sewers is too expensive, people will start using chemical toilets. If the toll roads are too expensive, people will fly helicopters or telecommute. This does not negate the fact that these things are monopolies. Don't be so quick to think you have refuted an argument you refuse to even understand due to ideological blinders.

Re:Inevitable.

[Bob_Robertson]

If you are going to restrain your definition of "monopoly" to the physical restraint of the volume of space available to build in, then of course I cannot argue with that. It's a physical constraint.

But a physical constraint is not a monopoly, because even with a physical constraint I can choose not to use it. I can choose to use a helicopter instead of the road, a septic tank and bottled water instead of sewage/water. Oh sure, it would be a herculean effort, but it would be legal for me to do so.

And if I did somehow invent something that mooted that physical restraint, such as cell phones are mooting the "last mile" copper cable monopoly, I would be allowed to deploy it. Where monopolies are enforced, I am not so allowed.

I hope you can see my point as well. To paraphrase George C. Scott, "If oceans and mountains can be overcome, any mere physical constraint to my making a buck can be overcome." :^)

Bob-

Re:Inevitable.

[spun]

From previous discussions with Libertarians, I knew this would happen. You people (especially the ones that read mises) just redefine words to suit you. "Monopoly" and "Natural monopoly" have defined meanings in standard economic theory and discourse. Libertarians who reject standard economic theory have redefined the terminology of econommics to suit their theories. So monopolies are always coercive entities empowered by governments. Never mind the standard definitions. By your definitions, you are completely right. By the definition 99% of the world uses for the words, you are wrong. Can you understand that this makes discussing things with you difficult?

If you started reading more about economics from sources other than mises, you might come to realize that the standard definitions make sense and have utility. For instance, what is the term you use for a situation where, due to economies of scale, the first or largest player in a market has such an overwhelming cost advantage that it makes it more efficient for them to be the sole supplier of that market? Does mises even have a term for such a situation? Because the rest of us do, it's called a natural monopoloy and it isn't always a bad thing. It is a situation where the efficiency of the free market can break down, so special handling of the situation is necessary. Of course, if your whole theory is predicated on the idea that the efficiency of the market can never break down, then the very definition of this word is anathema to you.

Unless you can admit that in some situations, for instance where there is an imbalance of information, where there are many externalities, or where there is a natural monopoly, the efficiency of the free market breaks down. Standard economic theory has to address these issues as it is put into practice and people recognize that they exist. Libertarian economics, unfettered by any practical experience with the real world, doesn't even have to admit that such situations exists, and thus, for seakers of truth and understanding in the universe, it becomes a joke.

Let them consolidate

[MikeRT]

Then they'll be regulated as a monopoly because no one will be able to argue with a straight face that there is a free market for telecoms. With monopoly status, they won't be able to argue that they are being forced to cut their prices down to unsustainable levels. Cheap broadband is nice and all, but if it's too cheap they aren't making enough money to support their infrastructure which is why access sucks in most of the country. As I've been saying, I'd rather they charge me $100/month for real 3mpbs up AND down than charge me $15-$40 a month for 3mpbs with an invisible cap on its monthly use. It makes more sense for them too. If they provide the bandwidth each month, Apple and others can provide the content which makes their service worth paying a premium for.

Re:Let them consolidate

[afidel]

3Mbps up and down doesn't cost $100/month, not reliably anyways. Why do you think a T-1 with half that bandwidth costs $500+/month? My company is in a number of areas with competing providers and even then you don't get bandwidth and connectivity that cheap unless you are buying a BIG pipe, but that doesn't allow for customer service to lots of customer and the cost of covering all that area of line.

Re:Let them consolidate

[loraksus]

I've seen full T-1s for $220 a month (not that fractional crap) available to small businesses. If you're out in the sticks, a T1 might cost that much, but it was pretty cheap the last time I looked.

Re:Let them consolidate

[dubl-u]

Then they'll be regulated as a monopoly because no one will be able to argue with a straight face that there is a free market for telecoms. With monopoly status, they won't be able to argue that they are being forced to cut their prices down to unsustainable levels.

It unfortunately won't play out that way. They will consolidate down to two players, who will then offer approximately the same deal. Politicians can then claim that the market is competitive, and the two players can do almost as well as monopolies. Not that anybody involved would know capitalism if it bit them on the ass; what they call "capitalism" is externally an oligarchy and internally basically feudalism.

It's sad, really. It reminds me of the kids who just play games with all the cheats enabled. The real fun (and the real benefit) isn't winning; it's the challenge.

Re:Let them consolidate

[stinerman]

Your best bet is to go with Speakeasy if that is what you're looking for. They are pricey, but they don't block any ports, only work with static IPs, and you'll get the speed you're paying for. I enjoy their One-link package @ 1500/384 with their VOIP offering for just under $90/mo after all taxes/fees. I'd stay with them if I could afford it. My plan is to go with Earthlink cable and use Skype or the Gizmo Project for voice.

From the site, the fastest synchronous connection you can get is T1 speed for $300/mo. Unfortunately, we aren't S. Korea or Japan with broadband value just yet.

Problem with that logic...

[tekiegreg]

Cellular: The big providers (including AT&T via Cingular now) have a big chunk of that market, you're down to few competitors now (Cingular, Verizon, T-Mobile, Sprint and that's about it if you live in California). VOIP: AT&T Started a service as well to enter there called AT&T CallVantage, it may be a more level playing field at the moment (Vonage, Skype, amongst many others), but it probably won't stay that way. Remember, for the most part VOIP is still going through AT&T owned hardware as well...

Re:Problem with that logic...

[incast]

The prevailing thought in the anti-trust/economics literature is that consolidation is generally regarded as a good thing in cellular..

Basically, there are massive density economies in delivering cellular service (e.g. it's better to use a higher percentage of the capacity of one expensive tower vs. having four separate expensive towers running at lower utilization rates), and as such, there are efficiency gains that can come out of such mergers. We're more likely to see continuing consolidation in national cellular markets with a much bigger space for international competition. The companies want to move forward with consolidation, and the anti-trust authorities aren't really standing in their way.

In the US, the anti-trust people really only care about post-merger consumer prices (rather than the increased profitability of the merged entity). The degree of substitutable goods and the nature of price competition in cellular markets seems to keep downward pressure on rates. This is why they are letting all this go through.

As for VOIP (and the greater economy), you only need two firms to get good competitive results from these types of goods. Landline phones and VOIP are essentially homogenous products, and as such, it's perfectly logical to assume that people will go with the firm that offers them the best price/quality ratio. Outside of collusion, odds are good that you will see competition putting downward pressure on prices in landline telephony even if both landlines and VOIP are delivered by monopolies.

Re:Problem with that logic...

[Sterling Christensen]

Except VOIP depends on internet service, which is provided by the phone company competing with that VOIP...

Re:Problem with that logic...

[Majik Sheff]

This is true and is an excellent illustration in how vertical integration is the real enemy of free markets. For the cellular market this means that one company should own the towers and lease antenna space; other companies place antennae on the towers and lease connectivity to carriers, and then cell companies lease bandwidth from the carriers.
When a company begins to own more than one component of the system, free markets go bye-bye.
Something similar is occurring right now in the midwest with livestock operations. Food packing companies are attempting to buy out local farming operations, thereby cutting brokers out and removing much of the commodity nature of the industry. One step closer to monopolistic reign.

Re:Problem with that logic...

[ciroknight]

While you make an elegant argument, you forget that AT&T will control a significant portion of the DSL market, which would allow AT&T to set forth the same anti-trust/anti-competitive behavior (by filtering VoIP data).

Not to mention AT&T would then have control of the bigger half of cellular customers in America (Cingular/AT&T Wireless). The last step would be their re-acquisition of Verizon (which would be epic at this point, as Verizon just acquired MCI, which was one of the companies AT&T flagged as a "competitor" in their earlier anti-trust proceedings).

So as a consumer, I can see this leading down a very dark road for consumers.

Re:Problem with that logic...

[incast]

But vertical disintegration leads to double marginalization if there is market power on different layers... e.g. the tower owners get a markup on their leases to the cellular companies and then the cellular companies further mark up their costs. If the cellular companies own the towers, there is the potential (emphasis on potential:) for markups in the total delivery for cellular service to be lower. There are definitely areas where vertical restraints/competition across different layers of production are a good idea, but, if we're trying to get the best efficiencies from the merger, the vertical integration isn't terribly bad here.. we don't necessarily want two (or more) providers of towers since that's what we're trying to eliminate in the first place.

Your agriculture example is spot on, but it's because the farmers have no market power. And you are definitely right to fear consolidation in agriculture.. there is nothing scarier than having the delivery of a necessity in the hands of an unregulated firm with market power! (Of course, that's how the states runs their health care, so.. :)

Re:Problem with that logic...

[rdoger6424]

The comment is insightful. the sig makes it funny.

Re:Problem with that logic...

[incast]

I'm unfamiliar with internet access markets in the states.. my ignorance, and you make a good point. In Canada, we have essentially two dominant broadband providers. One provides via cable and one uses DSL. Again, this is a multi-mode transportation economy and you see the effects in the pricing of the services -- the firms have nearly identical price/quality ratios. There is a competitive fringe that supplies (broadband) service for a bit cheaper, but you tend to get reliability issues with them (i.e. the price/quality ratio is probably pretty similar).

I would think that cellular services would tend to equalize across carriers regardless of how many carriers there are (as long as there's at least two). Again, this is a homogenous product*, and given similar service levels, I can't see rational consumers flocking to the carrier with higher rates. This gives each carrier the incentive to cut their rates by a small bit to gain more customers, assuming it's profitable on the margin (and if it isn't, then they're already pricing at cost!).

I haven't read nearly enough on the telcos wanting to filter VOIP data. I'd agree with you that it's probably a bad idea/anti-competitive/waiting for a wrist slapping :)

* I realize that it's not quite homogenous in terms of the hardware that the carriers offer.. e.g. at least for BlackBerry, you see new GSM BlackBerries before you see new CDMA ones.. while this may provide incentives for people to switch from one to another, I can't see why you would switch carriers just because you have to wait 6 months for your preferred incremental product improvement to come along.

Re:Problem with that logic...

[moosesocks]

But this all goes away if phone companies are allowed to "share towers"

Correct me if I'm wrong, but don't Cingular and Verizon already lease tower space from each other to cut down on costs?

In this case, density economics don't play anywhere nearly as big of a factor.

Re:Problem with that logic...

[incast]

Cingular and VZW may have their hardware on the same physical tower, but they operate incompatible networks -- VZW is CDMA, Cingular/AWS is GSM -- so you still need to duplicate the costs in the hardware.. same thing as how you can't take a VZW phone and sign up for Cingular service.

T-Mobile and Cingular may share towers and hardware as they both operate on GSM. That would be a better strategy, but they may still have their own separate hardware.. one would expect some coordination problems there. Further, a lack of consolidation in cellular services lowers the buying power of these firms when they're buying the actual network hardware from the upstream firms.

And beyond that, they are still running their own separate services with their own separate overheads, their own separate sales and marketing, their own separate layers of middle management, etc. There's still plenty of scope for efficiencies.

Re:Problem with that logic...

[afidel]

Uhh, AT&T will not controll cellular at ALL. To raise cash as the long distance market was disintegrating AT&T spun off AT&T Wireless into a seperate company. That seperate company was aquired by Cingular and now operates under that name.

Re:Problem with that logic...

[timeOday]

The degree of substitutable goods and the nature of price competition in cellular markets seems to keep downward pressure on rates.

I think not. I had a cellphone almost 10 years ago, but cancelled because I didn't feel I was getting my money's worth. I've been waiting since then for prices to come down, and they have not.

Cellphone companies are just like phone companies and cable companies: price reductions (for any reason) are simply alien to them.

Re:Problem with that logic...

[incast]

A technical note.. in the "potential for market power from vertical integration" part above, it's actually more than just potential. A vertically-integrated firm in a homogenous market where other providers are also vertically integrated has an _incentive_ to not exercise market power (e.g. markups lower and approaching 0 as the homogenous goods become identical). By keeping markups lower, they can price lower and thus profitably take more customers from their competitors. Again, this lower price has to be profitable by definition or else the markup was 0 before the price decrease.

economics is fun.

Re:Problem with that logic...

[afidel]

The larger carrier can get away with slightly higher rates by touting two important services, larger nationwide coverage area and bigger mobile-to-mobile pool. Because America is so large it is VERY expensive to roll out a nationwide network. Because carriers offer free calls within their networks (because the marginal cost is very near zero) having more customers is an advantage. I don't see any new wireless carriers becoming national concerns unless they ride on existing infrastructure (so call virtual carriers who lease capacity from the big boys) so continued consolidation isn't necessarily a good thing, as natural barriers to enty become large the competitive pricing pressure lessens.

Re:Problem with that logic...

[incast]

we're now crossing over into the subjective question of value :)

If there was no downward pressure on rates, then we would have seen price increases in cellular services after the cingular/aws merger a few years ago and, more recently, the nextel/sprint merger. Downward pressure does not necessarily imply a drastic reduction in rates.. in the loosest sense, it means a weak cap on prices.

As well, nested in that assertion is an assumption that landlines and VOIP are perfect substitutes for cellular. They are not. As hetergeneity increases, the downward pressure weakens. But that does not mean that downward pressure does not exist. As I've said in another post, a given consumer would find cellular a much less attractive option if rates doubled overnight. They have not.

Price reductions in and of themselves are generally pretty rare outside of IT. People all over the place seem to think that they should get salary raises and capital owners seem to think that they should get good rates of return... this is the nature of business. Wasn't it Einstein that said that compound interest is the most powerful force in the universe?

Re:Problem with that logic...

[incast]

Yeah but let the US firms fight the big boys -- Vodaphone, O2, the Asian carriers, etc. -- and watch the sparks fly! These guys definitely have the capital required to enter and the reputation required to back up their entry.

You're absolutely right in terms weakened competitive pressures in the face of the bigger mobile-to-mobile pool if they offer free in-network calls, etc. Especially re: free in-network calling -- it's amazing what can be achieved when you remove the carriers' ability to charge each other essentially neutral access fees. Maybe someday we'll get there!

A lot of what I've said in this thread relies on homogenous Bertrand pricing.. the effects still exist in a differentiated Bertrand model, but this is why I keep saying price/quality ratio. It's banking services and ABMs.. you're willing to travel an extra mile if you can get significantly lower transaction fees.

As far as cellular coverage goes, I can't belive some of the horror stories I continue to hear about bad/no service in relatively populated areas.

Re:Problem with that logic...

[Jah-Wren Ryel]

you forget that AT&T will control a significant portion of the DSL market, which would allow AT&T to set forth the same anti-trust/anti-competitive behavior (by filtering VoIP data).

Perhaps now the nature of recent attempts to create a tiered internet is revealed as a stalking horse.

Since these guys are going to have to make some sort of "compromises" in order to pass regulatory scrutiny, what better compromise than to sacrifice something they don't have anyway? Make a bunch of noise about multi-tiering and then tell the FCC that they will support a law that explicitly makes tier-type pricing illegal. Then ReBell (short for Resurrection of Ma Bell) gets to proceed with the merger(s), and the cable companies are now prevented from pursuing tiered internet pricing as part of said hypothetical law,

Re:Problem with that logic...

[ROBOKATZ]

Ah good point. Bellsouth owns Cingular, not AT&T.

Re:Problem with that logic...

[W. A. Dragunov]

While that maybe true. SBC now AT&T Inc. have 60% control of Cingular, which bought AT&T Wireless. Bellsouth owns the other 40%.

Re:Problem with that logic...

[timeOday]

Price reductions in and of themselves are generally pretty rare outside of IT.

Good points but I do think that issue bears comment. The government breakup of AT&T (which according to this story is being reversed) seems to me to have caused massive price cuts in long distance. I don't want to go back to the bad old days of "the" phone company. For one thing I don't want a small number of companies to get too much control over the backbone of the Internet and start scewing it up with their content discrimination crap. It could very well happen.

Re:Problem with that logic...

[NormalVisual]

To raise cash as the long distance market was disintegrating AT&T spun off AT&T Wireless into a seperate company. That seperate company was aquired by Cingular and now operates under that name.

AT&T Wireless was bought by Cingular, which in turn is owned by BellSouth. Thus, AT&T will in fact have a significant cellular presence in the U.S. if the BellSouth merger goes through.

Re:Problem with that logic...

[incast]

I agree with you fully. The merger should not be allowed if it will have anti-competitive consequences, and the track record of the DOJ should make this so, as they tend to err on the side of consumer protection in mergers cases.. it's actually one of the main standards that they use to judge any potential anti-competitive effects.

Deregulation of long distance services has led to price decreases in several countries. In Canada, we don't have deregulated local service yet, but we do have deregulated long distance, and there was a similar effect at its inception. These structural breaks are important movers of prices, and what I mean in the quote is that, outside of such structural breaks, price reductions are generally pretty rare.

But the good thing is that large price increases are also just as rare. I doubt that "the" phone company will re-emerge in terms of its ability to exercise market power.. the DOJ wouldn't stand for that for very long.. it kind of makes a mockery of their processes. It would be in the firms' best interests to keep rates around the same levels less they face some sort of disciplinary response. TFA mentions some regulations as a condition of the merger.. I'm sure that there are provisions in there saying that they shouldn't abuse their market power and that they should sell their networks to competing local carrers (CLECs in the lingo) at a specified markup so as to prevent any lessening of fringe competition.

Re:Problem with that logic...

[Elminst]

Funny... my internet comes from my cable company.
And that same cable company could give me Digital phone (which works without having broadband) if I wanted it.
The phone company (Verizon here) has no services in my house and gets no money from me.

Re:Problem with that logic...

[wanorris]

AT&T will control a significant portion of the DSL market, which would allow AT&T to set forth the same anti-trust/anti-competitive behavior (by filtering VoIP data).

But AT&T and BellSouth don't "compete" in the DSL market in any useful sense. They serve different markets. Yes, this will create a larger provider, with a greater chance of influencing the market as a whole. But AT&T was already the largest local phone provider, so I don't think that changes things much.

Other than regulatory intervention, the competition from cable modem service is the best chance of preventing AT&T from making a move like this. And in the future, broadband wireless cellular networks and WiMax networks may provide legitimate competition to cable modem and DSL services. But I don't think that approviing or denying this merger will affect the outcome of that fight.

Not to mention AT&T would then have control of the bigger half of cellular customers in America (Cingular/AT&T Wireless). The last step would be their re-acquisition of Verizon (which would be epic at this point, as Verizon just acquired MCI, which was one of the companies AT&T flagged as a "competitor" in their earlier anti-trust proceedings).

There are three major wireless networks at this point -- Cingular, Verizon, and Sprint/Nextel. No merger between Cingular and Verizon would ever be approved, even by the Bush administration. Even the acquisition of Sprint seems pretty unlikely.

Actually, a more interesting potential merger would be Comcast-Sprint, which would allow Comcast to offer the same seamless wireless-tv-internet service that AT&T and Verizon are moving toward. But again, while that would lead to further industry consolidation, it wouldn't eliminate any competition.

Re:Problem with that logic...

[Belgand]

Speaking as a consumer I also fail to see anything wrong with mergers among cellular providers. A present we might have multiple providers, but they all screw their customers more or less equally. No consideration is given to retaining customers or trying to make them happy in favor of constantly trying to entice new customers to switch over or sign up with your service. Almost everyone I know has been through 2-3 carriers in the past 4 years and nobody has ever said they were happy with their provider.

What's the benefit of 5 or 6 identical companies that will all screw you over equally? Much like the oil industry even if there are 20 gas stations in town there's unlikely to be any real competition between them.

Re:Problem with that logic...

[dubl-u]

Basically, there are massive density economies in delivering cellular service (e.g. it's better to use a higher percentage of the capacity of one expensive tower vs. having four separate expensive towers running at lower utilization rates), and as such, there are efficiency gains that can come out of such mergers.

If those are really big economies of scale for infrastructure, then let the phone companies merge their tower operations into a new company or two and buy service from that. I don't see any reason to keep restricting consumer choice. Everybody I know either hates their cell carrier or has been with them a short enough time that they just don't hate them yet.

Re:Problem with that logic...

[Widowwolf]

Try again. This is how it went..AT&T wireless was 100% controlled by ATT, Cingular was 60% controlled by SBC and 40 % controlled by bell south. Cingular wireless bought out ATT wireless completely, and the company, still called Cingular wireless, still is owned 60% by SBC and 40% by Bellsouth. Then comes a long a merger between SBC and ATT, which brought the company now to be named AT&T (all lowercase letters). Now at&t wants to buy out Bellsouth, land and the 40% that they own of Cingular Wireless. Which makes at&t(formerly SBC (changed its named due to at&t brand having more name recognition)in 100% control of Cingular Wireless(which is probably going to be named changed to at&t wireless(the only reason that it is still called Cingular is because Bellsouth fought to not have to put all the money into what is called "rebranding" the name in the first place), all of the old AT&T, all of Bellsouth, and all of their original areas that the old SBC covered). You want to know why I know this. I work for what is now at&t, and my wife works for the current Cingular call center)

Re:Problem with that logic...

[Anonymous Coward]

The prevailing thought in the anti-trust/economics literature is that consolidation is generally regarded as a good thing in cellular..

Basically, there are massive density economies in delivering cellular service (e.g. it's better to use a higher percentage of the capacity of one expensive tower vs. having four separate expensive towers running at lower utilization rates), and as such, there are efficiency gains that can come out of such mergers. We're more likely to see continuing consolidation in national cellular markets with a much bigger space for international competition. The companies want to move forward with consolidation, and the anti-trust authorities aren't really standing in their way.

That idea only applies in utopian socialist system where everyone does "what they are supposed to" - i.e., consumers don't hog bandwidth, suppliers don't fleece the customers, etc. If we have excess cell tower coverage, we wouldn't be worrying about poor cell reception, yet we still do. And we have the coverage as good as it is only because of the many smaller vendors that used to exist before the consolidation.

In the US, the anti-trust people really only care about post-merger consumer prices (rather than the increased profitability of the merged entity). The degree of substitutable goods and the nature of price competition in cellular markets seems to keep downward pressure on rates. This is why they are letting all this go through.

What exactly are subs for cell phone service? The two majors are Verizon and Cingular, and I only see price stabilization, not downward pressure. Cell phone service puts that pressure on landline service, but the two landline majors also own the two cell majors, so they don't price cell service low enough to put a real crimp on their landline service, and that's another reason for them to keep cell service price high.

Re:Problem with that logic...

[Anonymous Coward]

Come up with an app that can use port 80, 23, etc. for VOIP traffic. Let's see them block that one.

Simple, elegant, done.

Re:Problem with that logic...

[the unbeliever]

The prices may be the same, but what you get for the price certainly isn't. If I remember, I was paying $50/mo for 100 minutes in 1998, with no free long distance or night/weekend minutes, and no benefits like text messaging, etc.

Now, for $70, that gets me two lines, 700 shared anytime minutes, and unlimited night/weekend minutes, and unlimited in-network calls/text messages (VZW, which is the provider all of my friends and family use, so that's convenient)

Prices don't have to drop for the "bang for the buck" ratio to go up.

Re:Problem with that logic...

[Anonymous Coward]

Nope.

Cingular is actually a joint venture between Bell South & SBC (now named AT&T). The other posters are wrong when they say Cingular is wholly owned by Bell South.

The original AT&T sold AT&T Wireless to Cingular. Later, SBC bought AT&T and renamed the company AT&T. So with this merger, Cingular and AT&T Wireless will be unaffected since AT&T (SBC) and Bell South already own these.

Re:Problem with that logic...

[Majik Sheff]

I'll give you credit for being an optimist. If everyone in the market is vertically integrated then yes, it places everyone on equal economic footing and does lower prices in the short term. It also, unfortunately, makes the market more volatile.
I think of two sets of weights on a balanced arm. As vertical integration becomes more commonplace, the weights become larger and closer to the fulcrum. Balance is maintained at first, but the system becomes more and more unstable until finally one side has just enough mass and leverage to tip the scale.
Vertical de-integration (disintegration?) may provide more opportunities for markup, and therefore a slightly higher price to consumers, but it also provides long-term stability that no other system can even touch.
I would much rather know that I have a $50 bill coming every month than a $45 bill that could change to $70 at the drop of a hat.

You're right economics is fun ;)

Re:Problem with that logic...

[WhiteWolf666]

Don't forget T-mobile!

The highest (some say tied for highest) rated in Customer Service, as well as the fastest growing provider, as well as the most profitable segment of the worldwide giant of the same name.

Don't count out T-mobile. Expect their 3G deployment to blow your mind; their testing that Flarion 3G(4G) technology in Austria right now; their getting 100+ mbps on their testbed.

Re:Problem with that logic...

[CPUGuy]

Don't forget Lucent Technologies (which was once Bell Labs, the most important research facility of all time).

Re:Problem with that logic...

[Anonymous Coward]

What a lovely display of viral marketing...

Re:Problem with that logic...

[wanorris]

You're right. They're less than half the size of the big(ger) 3, but they're a legitimate national network.

I can't get any coverage from them out here, and I didn't realize they were that big.

Re:Problem with that logic...

[jonwil]

Try selling the "consolidation is a good thing" mantra to all those people stuck on Verizon Wireless (with crappy phones that they hate) because no-one else gives them usable service in the places they need usable service.

This can't be good for the consumer.

[Mutiny32]

I don't see in what way this can be good for the consumer. Less competition = less push for innovation, higher prices, and every reason Bell was broken up in the first place. I see some pretty strong resistance from regulators on this one, although the article says it will be approved with little restriction.

Re:This can't be good for the consumer.

[thealsir]

The fact that the baby bells were called "regional bell operating companies" says a lot about how much they actually competed against each other.

Re:This can't be good for the consumer.

[NorbrookC]

Less competition = less push for innovation, higher prices, and every reason Bell was broken up in the first place.

No, it was broken up because of an antitrust suit brought by MCI. The sad part was that AT&T was one of the most innovative companies in the world. Witness the transistor - a Bell Labs product. If anything, the monopoly hurt them because they were not (because of regulations) allowed to take advantage of their innovations outside of the telephone market.

What they did have was something that's been dropped - service. You needed a phone installed, it was done, and done quickly. Have a problem? Fixed. Need to talk to someone about an issue? There was someone on the end of the line. Compare that today's "advantages". Need a phone installed? Wait a week or two. Got a problem with your line? Maybe they'll get around to fixing it in the next month. Have a problem with your bill, or need to talk to someone about an issue with your phone service? Welcome to the support hell of pushing buttons, listening to recorded messages, pushing more buttons, and maybe at the end of it you'll get to talk to someone who may speak English. (sarcasm) Oh yeah, we're so much better off!(/sarcasm)

Re:This can't be good for the consumer.

[ScrewMaster]

On of the big complaints the judge made about AT&T was that the market was restricted in terms of equipment end users could attach to their lines, and thus customers were limited in the capabilities of the equipment they could use. You HAD to rent an AT&T phone ... nobody not authorized by AT&T could sell you one. And AT&T would not sell them, they only leased them. Of course, that power was given to them by the government so it always seemed hypocritical for the Feds to complain about it. I agree with you though: when you get right down to it, monopoly and all, AT&T did provide solid phone service. They really did. I think it would have made a hell of a lot more sense to simply remove their monopoly on subscriber equipment, let the free market provide us with all the advanced phones and other accessories that we want, and let AT&T continue to run the network. That would have been a much more reasonable first step, I think, as opposed to the eventual breakup and the anticompetitive mess we're finding ourselves in now.

Re:This can't be good for the consumer.

[Foerstner]

What they did have was something that's been dropped - service. You needed a phone installed, it was done, and done quickly. Have a problem? Fixed. Need to talk to someone about an issue? There was someone on the end of the line. Compare that today's "advantages". Need a phone installed? Wait a week or two. Got a problem with your line? Maybe they'll get around to fixing it in the next month. Have a problem with your bill, or need to talk to someone about an issue with your phone service? Welcome to the support hell of pushing buttons, listening to recorded messages, pushing more buttons, and maybe at the end of it you'll get to talk to someone who may speak English.

In my experience, the local Bell/Baby Bell company hasn't changed much. Before the breakup, it wasn't particularly prompt when it came to service or installation calls. Oh, they'd show up, and they'd fix your issues, but on their own schedule. Not much has changed now.

Same thing with service. I can get customer service about as easily as I could then, 24/7/365. They speak clear American English, and have been among the more polite and patient drones I've talked to.

Re:This can't be good for the consumer.

[JimB]

The trick is that AT&T was broken up BECAUSE of the TYPE of regulation they were under. When AT&T created a "phone system" (Panel, Crossbar, ESS), they designed it for at LEAST 20 years. 20 years ago we were amazed by the "New 386". This was mostly the result of the regulated ROI. Yes they made things to LAST, but they HAD to. They NEED to have a good incentive for FASTER turnover, MORE innovation. MCI and Sprint came along and sold only to the lucrative long distance market, AT&T's bread & buttter. The Long distance market used to help PAY FOR local service. It was set up that way. When the lawsuits started piling up against AT&T, Charlie Brown decided "forget it". He took the chance that the "Bell Children" would be profitable because they would be mostly deregulated. He was right.

This does not mean that "the New AT&T" will do us any good. Without SOME sort of regulation, we're done for. ALSO, you all forget that Verizon *IS* the other "BIG" comprtitior --> GTE. And YES, they are "fated" to merge. Eliminating ALL "big" phone companies, and getting back to one. But we NEED them to be REGULATED. SERVICE was ALL the old AT&T cared about. It was 1,2, & 3 of the top five things they worked toward. We also have to let them make money off their inventions. The old rules did not allow that.

The key to all of this is creating regulation that REWARDS innovation. Bell labs did the transistor, the first work on disk drives, the LASER (independently, but later than Gordon Gould), TELSTAR, and on and on. Without the proper fiscal incentives, innovation will "not be worth it", from THEIR point of view.
Without innovation, we ALL lose, BIG-TIME.

I think this can be a good thing, if we do it right. I also think it is inevitable. The ONE thing we have to LOSE if the 1980's mentality. Greed is NOT good. If we have a single Bell system, and pay the CEO $100 MILLION a year, we are done for. [By modern scales the CEO of the largest company in the world is worth $100 Mil. We cannot have that kind of thinking.]

Re:This can't be good for the consumer.

[Art Tatum]

You spend a lot of time reading Zippy the Pinhead, don't you? :-)

Cingular - we barely knew ya

[geemon]

Interesting that this deal consolidates the two owners of Cingular into a single entity. According to the report, all wired and wireless services will be brought to market under the AT&T brand name.

All that time and enery to build the Cingular brand and now poof - in a year when the deal is closed, they will rebrand again back to the AT&T name. Seems like it was only a little over a year or so ago when my local AT&T Wireless store was relabeled with the Cingular name.

Re:Cingular - we barely knew ya

[QAChaos]

so my girl friend got an at&t wireless cell phone, they got bought out so her phone changed to cingular and now I guess in a year it will change back - she had problems with her contract when they changed from at&t to cingular I wonder what will happen now -QAK

Re:Cingular - we barely knew ya

[Anonymous Coward]

I would actually guess it'll be simpler (or effortless) this time. The transition for AT&T Wireless customers to Cingular was complicated because they were two separate companies before the merger, with different rate plans and contracts, customer systems, etc. This transition doesn't involve any change in ownership or business systems, just a renaming and lots of money spend on rebranding.

Misleading headline?

[Anonymous Coward]

AT&T not only has NOT aquired Bell South, but they haven't even had a deal approved yet...

Ha!

[Anonymous Coward]

Let the good times roll.

The return of Ma Bell..

[j0nb0y]

is coming.

Wait ten years and Verizon will merge with AT&T to form the new Bell Telephone Company.

Re:The return of Ma Bell..

[supremebob]

Ten? I gave it three years, tops. Don't forget Quest and Lucent, though... You'll need ALL of the pieces to rebuild good 'ol "Ma Bell" back to it's original glory.

The best part? Now that cable companies offer phone service, they shouldn't run into any major anti-trust problems this time around.

Whining about it won't accomplish anything...

[DaedalusLogic]

Where is the line to start the fight?

Fax or Call your Congressional Representatives.

http://www.gpoaccess.gov/cdirectory/index.html

Drop these guys a line.

http://ftc.gov/

If you are intelligent and well spoken... call your local news and make a case for this being a bad idea.

Or, if you want to be an ineffective lump, go ahead and sit back and shut up... If you're going to complain, for god's sake aim your mouth in the right direction.

I challenge every voting Slashdot reader to actually do something about this one and send a fax in tomorrow. E-mail can be filtered and ignored, but choking the phone lines that serve them will serve as an ironic way of showing how unhappy we are with the prospect of this merger.

I am a customer of these organizations and I want this stopped in it's tracks.

Re:Whining about it won't accomplish anything...

[Eightyford]

maybe you can start your campaign to change the world by learning the difference between "its" and "it's"

Why do people that correct grammar use poor spelling and grammar themselves?

Re:Whining about it won't accomplish anything...

[GrumblyStuff]

/. DC?

I like your thinking.

Re:Whining about it won't accomplish anything...

[Anonymous Coward]

s/that/who/

Re:Whining about it won't accomplish anything...

[Anonymous Coward]

s/that/who/g

Fixed in the whole thread.

Re:Whining about it won't accomplish anything...

[vertinox]

Or, if you want to be an ineffective lump, go ahead and sit back and shut up... If you're going to complain, for god's sake aim your mouth in the right direction.

Actually, I was hoping if I complain loud and long enough on slashdot that someone else would do it for me.

Not quite

[xigxag]

This action by AT&T will consolidate more than half of the original Bell System into a single entity, leaving only Verizon and Qwest as remaining Bell family competitors.

Although they don't compete for residential service, Lucent Technologies, formerly known as Bell Laboratories, is also one of the children of the original AT&T.

Re:Not quite

[spune]

There are a number of small fragments from Ma Bell, such as Cincinatti Bell, which also has survived the breakup independently. However, they're scarcely major players in the telecom field, which is why I neglected them; Lucent's going down the tubes especially.

Re:Not quite

[rkhalloran]

Lucent was spun out as the hardware end of the old Bell System; yes they inherited The Labs, but why in Ghu's name they didn't take back the traditional name of WESTERN ELECTRIC still astounds me. And the Sphincter of Innovation (it dilates every so often and something plops out) as a logo - WTF?

Re:Not quite

[endofbroadcast]

You failed to mention Telcordia (Bellcore). That's another bastard child of the divestiture. SAIC dumped the company in 2004 and it's been picked up by WP and PEP (both investors in various tech and telecom companies). Granted, it hasn't been much of a cash cow, but neither has Lucent.

Re:Not quite

[Anonymous Coward]

Lucent was spun off toward Avaya which controls a good percentage of corporate PBX systems.

Re:Not quite

[Burz]

That one raised my eyebrows as well. However, more than this new ability to censor information is that they may be legally required to do so.

will I get three bills for service I don't have

[anagama]

Four years ago I made the mistake of signing up w/ AT&T. I cancled and paid off my bill (something like $14). Now, every four months I start getting bills, then the calls. I ignore them till they catch me. Then I ask for immediate acceleration. If I don't get it I curse a little (I've been doing this 3x/yr for 4 years now -- I'm not normally an asshole). Eventually someone says they see the problem and correct it. Every time I'm told this. And inevitably, the bills come back. Last time, when the person was through "fixing" it (I've since started getting bills again), she asked if I was interested in signing up for service. I laughed.

Re:will I get three bills for service I don't have

[Anonymous Coward]

If you don't have service, then how do they call you?

Re:will I get three bills for service I don't have

[Anonymous Coward]

This same thing happened to me after I switched LD carriers in '02. Nothing, then in a couple of months a LD bill (with no calls, but all the fees and taxes there) and a "reconnection fee." After a series of calls and assurances that it was taken care of, I forgot about it...

Until three weeks later when a collection agency began harassing me for my unpaid AT&T bill. It ended up costing AT&T and/or the collection agency a little over $2000 in reimbursed lawyer costs. I was lucky - I actually saved a mailed statement from AT&T where they showed the charges being removed. This initially didn't deter the collection agency - which is why a lawyer friend of mine got involved. He made a good chunk of change from them for just a few hours work on his part. He ended up filing suit against the agency to recover his costs and settled out of court.

All this for $19.44.

Re:will I get three bills for service I don't have

[iCEBaLM]

Then I ask for immediate acceleration.

You ask to be launched immediately at great speed?

Re:will I get three bills for service I don't have

[anagama]

Both AT&T and Qwest offer local service in my area. Qwest is the lesser evil.

Forum regarding telecom reconsolidation!

[MissionAccomplished]

I'm offering a forum for the opposition of AT&T's purchase of BellSouth. If anyone is interested, contact me. This buyout nonsense has GOT to go.

If AT&T, Bellsouth, Verizon, Qwest and Lucent

[thealsir]

all merge, then the minimum value of the whole company would be $265 billion. I would guess a minimum of $300 billion, making the new ma bell the third or fourth largest company in the world.

Cincinnati Bell

[AubieTurtle]

This action by AT&T will consolidate more than half of the original Bell System into a single entity, leaving only Verizon and Qwest as remaining Bell family competitors.

Cincinnati Bell will be quite surprised to learn that it no longer exists.

Re:Cincinnati Bell

[spune]

Lucent, too :)

Forgive me for ignoring the little people.

Re:Cincinnati Bell

[Anonymous Coward]

This action by AT&T will consolidate more than half of the original Bell System into a single entity, leaving only Verizon and Qwest as remaining Bell family competitors.

Cincinnati Bell will be quite surprised to learn that it no longer exists.

Possibly the summary was referring only to companies that were part of the original AT&T and were spun off
as RBOCs way back when. Cincinnati Bell, despite it's name, was not actually part of AT&T; it was an independent company who licensed the right to provide service for the Cincinnati area.

Re:Cincinnati Bell

[Anonymous Coward]

Cincinnati Bell will be quite surprised to learn that it no longer exists.

We can only hope. Cincinnati Bell is fucking terrible.

Re:Cincinnati Bell

[metlin]

However, it was a Ma-Bell subsidiary, and the reason they were not spun off was because AT&T owned just a minority interest at the time of the breakup.

Judge Green

[mknewman]

Judge Green must be rolling in his grave.

Re:Judge Green

[rob_squared]

Only if he's dead, otherwise he has more pressing concerns than a court ruling.

Breathing comes to mind.

Re:Judge Green

[Anonymous Coward]

My understanding is that AT&T voluntarily broke itself up when it realized that its business model was no longer sustainable. AT&T could not offer the same rates as MCI while at the same time subsidizing low income households and rural areas with local service. AT&T reached a settlement with the government to break itself up. The government never broke AT&T up.

You will be flamed

[Anonymous Coward]

The reason you will be flamed is because you don't present any facts. Every answer you provided is pure conjecture and the reasons you provided for the answers are widely discredited myths.

Monopolies have only one concrete affect on the market, which is to reduce the availability of choices to the consumer.

1) "When there's a monopoly prices go way up"

False. Prices do not go way up. Governmental oversight of monopolies makes sure that price gouging is not done by monopolies.

2) "When there's a monopoly quality of services go down."

False. There is no evidence of this. A monopoly is still a business and seeks to grow and maximize profits. This means that adding additional services in order to encourage customers to switch to higher-margin products/plans is a paramount goal of monopolies.

3) "When there's a monopoly innovation go down."

False. Without downward price pressure from competition, monopolies have higher capacity for profits which can be used towards pure research (surely you've heard of Bell Labs?).

I work for a monopoly, so I'm really getting a kick out of your comment.

Re:You will be flamed

[Anonymous Coward]

bwahahahahaha...That's genius. I wonder how many people are going to fall for that obvious troll.


I work for a monopoly, so I'm really getting a kick out of your comment.

Oh Crap. Um... PR department, right?

Re:You will be flamed

[kclittle]

... Signed,

Bill Gates

Re:You will be flamed

[IdolizingStewie]

Yup I've heard of Bell Labs. My dad used to work there. I've heard stories of inventing things like redial and putting them on the shelf until someone else invents it and tries to steal customers. Then they will put it in place and say "See, there's no reason to switch."

Re:You will be flamed

[Anonymous Coward]

1) "When there's a monopoly prices go way up"

False. Prices do not go way up. Governmental oversight of monopolies makes sure that price gouging is not done by monopolies.

Consumer's "gouging" is monopoly's "fair price." Is providing the '60s-level service and charging the '90s price gouging?

2) "When there's a monopoly quality of services go down."

False. There is no evidence of this. A monopoly is still a business and seeks to grow and maximize profits. This means that adding additional services in order to encourage customers to switch to higher-margin products/plans is a paramount goal of monopolies.

There is no evidence that "adding additional services in order to encourage customers to switch to higher-margin products/plans is a paramount goal of monopolies." They can simply cut costs in service quality to boast profit. And why not? It's easier than developing new services.

3) "When there's a monopoly innovation go down."

False. Without downward price pressure from competition, monopolies have higher capacity for profits which can be used towards pure research (surely you've heard of Bell Labs?).

There is no evidence that monopoly profit fuels pure research. Why would the monopoly dump their monopoly profit into pure research of uncertain benefit when they can simply send them out as shareholder dividends? Funding pure research, that's what the gov'ts are for, you know, public goods.

I work for a monopoly, so I'm really getting a kick out of your comment.

Yours was one self-serving comment.

Terminator

[Anonymous Coward]

... only watching those piece reassemble.

You see... the Bells are the corporate form of T-1000...

Hasta la vista, Baby

[Anonymous Coward]

Why am I reminded of the scene from Terminator 2 where the T-1000 is blown to bits and the liquid metal droplets flow toward each other to self-arrange back into the T-1000 ?

T-1000

Re:Hasta la vista, Baby

[Anonymous Coward]

AT&T-1000

Re:Hasta la vista, Baby

[borgheron]

With the exception that it's taken 25 years for this particular terminator to form itself back together, you're right on the money. ;)

Predictably enough...

[RoffleTheWaffle]

I think we all know what's going to happen next. Either the remaining Baby Bells will merge with the new Big Bell, or they'll establish mutually beneficial ties with one another behind closed doors to make it look like Bell isn't back when it really is.

In other news, the zombie of Harold Greene has been reported roaming about the countryside vandalizing telephone booths, muttering something about 'Humpty Dumpty' and a monolith somewhere...

Oh

[PacketScan]

Shit.

AT&T is back, and it's hungry

[Anonymous Coward]

Oh man. AT&T is coming back and there's nothing we can do about it! Hide your DSL modems! Ma Bell's back! IEEEEEE!!!

How to explain this to the un-educated geek:

[Ragnarrokk]

To my british friends I have only found one way to describe the Bell situation in the US, without droning on for hours. They slowly build, gathering, gaining knowledge and power, before exploiting it, only to be smashed into small segments, before reassembling into smaller forms, but eventually merging back into the original, or even more advanced core unit,

"Think of them as Replicators "

Re:How to explain this to the un-educated geek:

[ScrewMaster]

Yeah ... but the replicators eventually gained self-awareness and a sense of morality. Frankly, I don't see that happening in this case.

Re:How to explain this to the un-educated geek:

[Ragnarrokk]

Not really...

//COMPLETELY OFF TOPIC RANT AND ARGUMENT

Fifth was the only one to gain a sense of morality, but he was considered weak and inferior, a quality that eventually killed him through Replicarter. Remember even Fifth happily tortured Carter for hurting his feelings, and something as emotionally immature and unpredictable as that is almost as dangerous as something which is cold and logical, and wanting your demise.

The Replicators continued to happily replicate and destroy until they were all stopped by an Ancient weapon along with simultaneous activation of every Stargate in the galaxy, so you know, the moral of the story is, to destroy this evil, we need to activate every phone line and DDoS AT&T.

Cingular Wireless to be rebranded too

[rufey]

Cingular, which absorbed AT&T Wireless in October 2004 when it was purchased by SBC and BellSouth (and now owned by new AT&T and BellSouth), will also have its name dropped in favor of the AT&T name.

From MSNBC: After spending millions of dollars to rebrand AT&T Wireless Services Inc. stores as Cingular stores and hundreds of millions of dollars more on marketing the new Cingular after its $41 billion acquisition of AT&T Wireless in October 2004, Cingular will now become AT&T if the merger with BellSouth is completed.

So for all of those who at one time had AT&T Wireless as your cell provider and stuck with them through the Cingular Wireless purchase and are still with them, you'll now be moved back to the (new) AT&T brand. I would have been one of them had my compnay not switched to T-Mobile 3 weeks ago.

Re:Cingular Wireless to be rebranded too

[puto]

Actually,

I work for Cingular, and not in a store. But in a place where I am pretty privy to scoop. And have heard nothing as of yet. The article merely is speculation on what could happen.

Your post states "Cingular, which absorbed AT&T Wireless in October 2004 when it was purchased by SBC and Bell South and now owned by ATT and Bell South" Cingular has always been owned by SBC and Bell South.

The only thing I could see happen is that Cingular could possibly be called "an ATT company" in tiny letters.

And actually now, if you are still on the ATT side of the company, you do not have to change equipment, you have been moved over.

Just my 2 cents. Although, it would be a bonus, as I am moving to the Bell Side, maybe some seniorty would transfer over.

Puto

Re:Cingular Wireless to be rebranded too

[adamanthaea]

I wonder if I can go back to using my old phone with the AT&T chip in it.

This deal might just bring down SBC!

[Anonymous Coward]

As the owner of the oldest ISP in South Carolina, I can honestly say that BellSouth's is full of crap about their estimated value of their lines and billing. We have 63 locations in Georgia, NC, and SC now, and in almost all of the locations, BellSouth struggled to even connect a simple T1. Very often, they had trouble even delivering a few POTS lines. Yes, we still offer 33.6 dialup in many areas since BellSouth is too incompetent to configure some of their switches to handle PRI. The only employees they have left have no experience and most are simply incompetent. My grandfather, father, and two of my brothers worked as repairmen for them. They've all retired or retired early. The only people still on the payroll have no idea what they're doing. They can't even troubleshoot simple POTS lines. Most of their local copper lines are complete crap. BellSouth really started cutting corners on the quality of their wires in the mid 80's. When looking for new locations to open a POP, I go to buildings built before 1980 since they have much better wiring to the building than the newer BellSouth garbage.

My mother worked in their payphone operation division. They were so incompetent, that that division went under in 2003. BellSouth couldn't even keep their own damn payphones working. According to my mother, at one time in her area over 40% of the BellSouth payphones were inoperable due to BellSouth problems. Payphones were first made in 1891, and BellSouth couldn't even keep that 100+ year-old technology working. Because of that my mother now works as a cashier in a grocery store.

About the billing. They bill us about 20 times (not a typo) what they actually should. I have an employee that spends almost full-time dealing with their billing screw-ups. WorldCom used to inflate billing like that...right before their billing claims were exposed a complete fraud. BellSouth certainly seems to be headed the same way.

You can summarize BellSouth by the outdated or inferior equipment, a very incompetent workforce due to layoffs and early retirement, substandard wiring, and inflated billing. I don't see this going well at all for SBC.

Re:This deal might just bring down SBC!

[ScrewMaster]

As the owner of the oldest ISP in South Carolina ...

Ah ... what ISP would that be?

Re:This deal might just bring down SBC!

[SmurfButcher Bob]

Well said.

The part that you left out, additionally, is that this lack of talent is exactly what the public wanted.

We want 6 cents per minute? 5? 3? 2? People aren't free - and you know full well how much a *competent* lineman or switchman costs. Given the promise of an automated "smart" system that is run by monkeys, or a legacy labor-intensive, skill-based system that requires "experience" (e.g. TIME)... Cheap, Fast, Correct: Guess which two we (the customers) picked.

In short, we're getting exactly what we were willing to pay for (external forces aside, such as MCI cooking their books, thereby causing market reactions to a fictional situation, etc).

Yes? No? Maybe?

Re:This deal might just bring down SBC!

[JimB]

Bell South does have quite a bit of plant and infrastructure in South america. *Maybe* that is worth something (sa a revenue base?).

Your "lay-off" tale is not new. I know a guy at Lucent who was early retired. the only difference fro your story is that Lucent realized that all their best people "took the retirement option". He (and TEN other local guys) NOW work as consultants for Lucent. Making 150% of their former salaries, and still in posession of ALL their retirement benefits. I wish your mother well. She got "worked-over" good.

Re:This deal might just bring down SBC!

[kpharmer]

> Yes? No? Maybe?

Partially

The other part is simple incompetence. I worked at US West for an eight month contract in the late 90s, and found that in my 24 years of IT experience it was *by far* the worst run company I had ever seen. They had 6,000 engineers that just reviewed 3 foot tall stacks of reports every month to find problems in the COs. And management had absolutely zero concern for what was good for either their staff or the customer. Zero. Don't even bring up the customer word at meetings with them or they will look at you like you're an idiot.

I think the best thing that could have happened to us was to have *more* regulation and break these companies up completely. Then rebuild. MCI & Sprint were well-run companies before WorldCom was allowed to buy out MCI.

Re:This deal might just bring down SBC!

[hywel_ap_ieuan]

My mother worked in their payphone operation division. They were so incompetent, that that division went under in 2003. BellSouth couldn't even keep their own damn payphones working. According to my mother, at one time in her area over 40% of the BellSouth payphones were inoperable due to BellSouth problems. Payphones were first made in 1891, and BellSouth couldn't even keep that 100+ year-old technology working. Because of that my mother now works as a cashier in a grocery store.

Not to excuse the various errors and incompetence on BellSouth's part, but even if they had run the payphone division perfectly, your mother would still be out of work by now. Ubiquitous cell phone service has killed the payphone business. Sure, you can still find some payphones, but the amount of revenue they generate is a small fraction of what they got ten years ago.

Payphone operators got caught between a rock (rapidly declining revenues) and a hard place (high maintenance costs). Payphones out in public areas are subject to vandalism, which is ironically worst in the neighborhoods where a public payphone is most needed. Repairs that require a dispatch are the most expensive, since the repairman has to be compensated for travel time.

Getting caught with a declining business is a nasty situation. The best you can do is try to stem the bleeding, or try to cut costs as fast as the revenue drops off. There is really no good way to do it. The worst thing is that while the trends look absolutely inevitable in retrospect, it's hard for everyone involved to understand and admit what's going on at the time. So the business keeps limping along for a while, with endless rounds of layoffs, horrible morale, and generally everything getting worse until someone finally shuts the whole operation down. Or maybe the Big Bosses decide to bail out early, and they sell off while the revenue stream is still sort of viable. This is also miserable for the workers, as the new management has the same situation but no commitment to (or from) the troops.

Bottom line: Being in a dying business sucks. I know. I worked for AT&T for almost 20 years. Saw it drop from over 200,000 people to less than 50,000. The lucky ones took early retirement, or had decent skills and/or severance packages. There were still plenty of people in the 'last-hired, first-fired' category.

Re:This deal might just bring down SBC!

[Anonymous Coward]

Wait, you own the company yet you allow your mother to work as a cashier? Who is the real jerk in this story?

Re:This deal might just bring down SBC!

[junctionvin]

As an owner of an ISP in SBC (ATT) country, you have know idea how much worse SBC is. BellSouth will be taken down to new lows.

Re:This deal might just bring down SBC!

[StikyPad]

3.

Cheap and Correct?

Yes. Wait, I don't even know what you're asking! Nevermind, it doesn't matter. I'll stick with "yes."

Re:This deal might just bring down SBC!

[The Cisco Kid]

You are confusing the long distance market (where you actually can get cheap, fast, and correct), with the local wireline market (where you get expensive, slow, and only correct the second or third time). Guess which market has a thriving competitive market, and which one is a monopoly?

Required Viewing: The President's Analyst

[davebarnes]

Rent The President's Analyst ( http://us.imdb.com/title/tt0062153/ ) and tell me that you do not worry.

,dave

Allow me to be the first to say...

[LiquidAvatar]

... I, for one, welcome our newly reunited Ma Bell overlords.

Re:Allow me to be the first to say...

[davebarnes]

Do you remember the bumper sticker with the Bell logo that said: "We don't care, we don't have to." ?

Not quite

[butlerm]

Not quite - the decision that you are referring to said that RBOCs did not have to share the *same* copper pair with DSL providers. CLECs can still get their own lines.

The really scary part is the recent FCC decision to classify DSL as an "information service" that does not have to support independent ISPs at all, a decision that gives the Bell operating companies free a complete exemption from common carrier rules that were written to prevent Ma Bell from engaging in precisely the type of behavior that the FCC decided to give them free reign to engage in. Things like blocking or degrading anything they feel like for example. The FCCs current discussion about Internet discrimination is mostly a bunch of hot air, because they exempted the RBOCs from the very laws designed to prevent stuff like that.

This is lame

[webtwodoto]

I used to be AT&T wireless customer, then I became Cingular customer due to their merger, and now am I going to become AT&T wireless customer again?

More things to argue without answer...

[cakestick]

The left will call this the further conglomeration of power to the side of corporations.
The right will call this the ineffectiveness of free market regulation.

I will simply call it a concrete explanation as to why we're all fucked.

Huh?

[Anonymous Coward]

"when the Bells were just MA Bell; they charged fairly"

Were you really paying phone bills back then? I mean really, yes or no? I was, and I know I'm not the only one here to be able to make that claim.

Let me clarify something:

  *Every* *single* *stinking* *thing* about the phone system was a ripoff back then.

scary

[digitallysick]

Once it comes Ma'bell again, then they will get the FCC to crack down on VOIP, so POTS phone service can be the monolopy once again. You will have no choice of carriers. What if i cant get cable or dsl, but dont want the LOCAL company as my phone company?? out of luck?

2600 had a nice cover about this

[mr_burns]

http://www.2600.com/covers/fa042.gif

Crazy that is was a year and a half ago. But still pretty topical. And I'm pretty sure those of us old enough to remember the days of many RBOC's can identify with the statement.

Re:2600 had a nice cover about this

[Anonymous Coward]

topical - as in a cream?

Great Wikipedia chart of Bell System companies

[massysett]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Rbocs.gif

If Verizon buys Qwest, we're down to two phone companies!

Terminator 2

[massysett]

Someone said these phone companies are just like the villian in Terminator 2: Judgment Day. You blast him up to bits but, no matter what you do, he just keeps on coming back together!

Re:Terminator 2

[chawly]

Yep, but never gets his act together.

Obligatory Highlander Quote

[gbobeck]

"There can be only one!" (Connor MacLeod, amongst others)

Online petitions

[mnemonic_]

Hey, what about online petitions? Those work great.

Breakup was along the wrong lines.

[IGnatius T Foobar]

The 1981 breakup gave the Baby Bells "local dialtone" and big AT&T (and others) "long distance." Now that the technology has all changed, this line of demarcation is obsolete.

It's time for another breakup, and this time it should go as follows: the RBOC's (soon to be the One Big BOC) maintain the physical cable plant, and they maintain the central offices basically as colocation facilities. Then, you have carriers (none of which are allowed to be RBOC's [or the imminent One Big BOC]) as colocation customers in those central offices. They lease customer loops from the BOC/LEC/whatever and then they provide "telecom services" over those loops. We don't care what the services are -- dial tone, DSL, whatever. No distinction between voice and data, between local and long distance, whatever, because as we know, it's all the same crap now.

THAT is the perfect way to keep the government-granted monopoly working efficiently for consumers. The monopoly must extend only as far as it needs to, and no further.

Re:Breakup was along the wrong lines.

[sydbarrett74]

Mod parent up! What you just described is *exactly* what the UK government forced upon BT, and the UK enjoys some of the lowest rates and highest penetration for broadband in the world. We should use the BT divestiture as a model for this country...

Re:Breakup was along the wrong lines.

[afidel]

The only problem I see with that is the very real problem of lack of space in CO's. Co's aren't designed to be colo facilities, and doing so would be a long and costly process if possible, and in many parts of the country like Manhatten it simply isn't.

Re:Breakup was along the wrong lines.

[AK Marc]

That's what Texas did with their electricity. And it is better there than pretty much anywhere else in the country (no California brownouts, no North East blackouts). TXU generates electricity and they are required to sell it to everyone, but they can sell to themselved too.

Re:Breakup was along the wrong lines.

[Anonymous Coward]

I agree with that type of setup. If the Gov. wasn't corrupt I would say taxpayers should own the hardware but sadly that wouldn't work. I can dream can't I?

Re:Breakup was along the wrong lines.

[Jordanis]

I'm not so sure. I have friends in England, and what I tend to hear is pretty universal revilement of BT as unreliable with terrible customer service and bad speed.

Re:Breakup was along the wrong lines.

[dago]

Well, that's not really true. You can look at this graph. From the countries that I know, 4th & 5th don't have unbundled their local loop, and I wouldn't call UK penetration rate "some of the highest in the world" either.

Re:Breakup was along the wrong lines.

[Anonymous Coward]

Have you looked at your electric bill lately ? If this is such a well executed idea, why are prices rising faster than the inflation or the price of natural gas ?

Re:Breakup was along the wrong lines.

[nmos]

The only problem I see with that is the very real problem of lack of space in CO's.

That sounds like something the market could probably deal with. If demand for space were high enough the folks running the plant would either expand the CO or forward calls over fiber to a new one. Also there would be demand for even smaller switches etc. This all assumes that the folks running the plant arn't also their own customer in which case they would just use the lack of space as a reason not to sell space to anyone else.

Re:Breakup was along the wrong lines.

[bill_mcgonigle]

the RBOC's (soon to be the One Big BOC) maintain the physical cable plant, and they maintain the central offices basically as colocation facilities

What incentive would they have to ever invest in the cable plant then?

For instance, where I live (6 miles outside of a small city) we have old copper lines and Verizon has committed to never getting us broadband (at least inside the next decade). We're definitely not on the FiOS roadmap so until the copper actually rots out, say 60 years from now, they have little incentive to do anything.

So it's clearly not working now, but any change should improve that situation. Municipal ownership of the cable plant is the only thing I see that would actually do that since the citizenry would be able to influence its own outcomes.

Re:Breakup was along the wrong lines.

[FluffyWithTeeth]

Yes, that's the point. BT suck, but you don't have to use them. Want DSL? We've got DOZENS of available companies, who offer easily competitive and comparable (If not superior in most cases) to BT's. Want phone? Got craploads of companies for that too, all you have to pay BT for is your single line rental; which is carefully watched.

Now, personally, I still use BT. But that's because they're charging me for the wrong package, so I'm getting a really cheap 2Mbit connection ;)

We already have effectively full broadband coverage at 512 speeds, 2Mbit in most places now. By the end of this year the country will be stuffed with 8Mbit connections, and ADSL2+ and that other one that BT seem to be opting for will be rolling out to real places (As opposed to just some of the capital, and a few of the largest cities), meaning 12 or 24 megabit connections. And there ain't a thing BT can do to stop it, even with their share of the ISP market rapidly shrinking. They probably won't be a real player in the market by this time next year.

Re:Breakup was along the wrong lines.

[jonwil]

If this happened in Australia, it would be a Good Thing.

Basicly, take the infrastructure away from Telecrap (now Tel$tra) and allow anyone to access the network.
Government regulation would ensure that everyone was on a level playing field and subsidies (like we already have) would ensure that the owner of the local loop is forced to service everyone.

Re:Breakup was along the wrong lines.

[chawly]

I hope that the owner of the local loop is female. And look, I'm trying out my new sig. "I had a really funny sig. once, but it fell off when I hit a bump in the road". Yeah, that'll do.

Re:Breakup was along the wrong lines.

[cjb110]

cept BT call 8Mbps 'fast' :) utterly forgetting the far superior networks in say Sweden or Japan.

What is this, that 80's show?

[symbolset]

Back despite popular demand, the company who's motto is "We don't have to care. We're the Phone Company.": AT&T!

For those whose memory is blissfully temporary, the company was broken up in the early 80's after a series of financial suits from it's customers, including -- wait for it -- Jimmy Carter (future president), and more than a decade of antitrust actions by a series of federal administrations.

Deathstar: Worldcom II -- The Sequel. Coming soon to a twisted pair of wires near you!

Reprising the infamously successful strategy Worldcom, a southern Louisiana water district cooperative began a series of leveraged diversification investments which ultimately find its creative accountants and management in control of what is soon to be the nation's fourth largest corporation in EBITDA (Earnings Before IRS Transcolonic Detailed Audit), for a period of no more than four months. Following the audit corporate executives will be making guest appearances on a series of evening news programs, followed by a prolonged involuntary semi-retirement as guests of the government.

But that's not all! You can play the home game! Quick -- get online and buy stock in this hot rocket and you too can enjoy the roller coaster ride, only getting on near the top! What an opportunity to lose what little retirement you've saved up since the last time you saw an opportunity like this! This is an opportunity already enjoyed by many millions whose retirement funds are managed by incompetent buffoons and there's no reason why you with your IRA can't join in the fun!

Look for a series of marketing tie-ins including Caviar stuffed Brie balls (Menu meal #17) at your local fast food restaraunt -- it comes with a free disposable cell phone! Also, Co-branded designer shower curtains at BigBox brand home improvement warelet for the lo-lo bargain price of $80,000 the matched set!

(disclaimer) -- This is not an offer to buy or sell securities. Before you take investment advice from random slashdot posters you should see your therapist, your tax adviser, your lawyer, your regular broker and the guy you usually get your advice from -- cousin Ted the barber. All of the facts in this posting are made up. Any similarity to actual persons, places or things is a figment of your imagination. Buy a clue. Get a grip. Keep it simple. No anchovies unless specifically requested. Forward looking statements are dependent upon contingencies certain to not occur.

Member-owned cooperative

[core plexus]

My phone, internet, mobile, and DTV are all supplied by a member-owned cooperative (Matanuska Telephone). I used to have service through corporate suppliers, but switched years ago, and am glad I did.

The service costs less, and after the infrastructure and upgrades are paid for, I get a check back every year. Plus, we get to vote on stuff, and we own the company.

Only way to go, IMO.

Re:Member-owned cooperative

[AK Marc]

The service costs less, and after the infrastructure and upgrades are paid for, I get a check back every year. Plus, we get to vote on stuff, and we own the company.
Only way to go, IMO.

Nah, ATU was a good company to deal with. You know, back when it was owned by the government. It wasn't until it was sold (as are all profitable government ventures, leaving us only with unprofitable ones). Hmmm, now that I think about it, it seems to be a self-fulfilling prophecy. The government is inefficient because everything it does efficiently is privatized. That necessarily means that the government can only be inefficient.

But back to the topic at hand, just like no one wanted to provide phone service to Willow and other middle-of-nowhere places (including Eagle River, back in the day), they formed a coop. But it isn't any different than the government run ATU. Being a resident, I "owned" part of it, and I did get to vote for the people ultimately in charge of it. And, as a taxpayer, when it made money I would essentially get rebates in the form of lower taxes. So it isn't sufficiently different from a coop. And both are much better for the consumer than private-owned corporations.

Ma Bell is back?? Hello?

[borgheron]

Wasn't this broken up before? Isn't the point of antitrust laws to make sure that trusts don't form in the first place?

Also, shouldn't the SEC have some say in this?

GJC

I see the future....

[borgheron]

First there will be a merger between Verizon and Qwest forming Veriqwest or, my personal favorite, Qweerizon, whichever you prefer. The reason given for this merger will be to allow them to more adeptly compete with the new AT&T. Once the new entity starts to loose ground, the new AT&T will gobble it up and then it's "HELLO, MA BELL!"

GJC

A bad relapse...

[mxeDiT10n]

The old-sayings:

• "The bigger they are, the harder they fall."

• "If we forget the past, we are doomed to repeat it"

...seem plausible in this situation. Obviously everyone is ranting about Ma Bell, Baby Bells, and the re-encarnation of the evil AT&T monopoly. But what about M$ & the new roads their anti-trust case have paved? I'm not very active, politically speaking; however, I'm sure that the Gov't can't afford to allow another Enron-type catastrophe, causing severe consequences to the customer... Or could they?

Comment removed

[account_deleted]

Comment removed based on user account deletion

Well

[einhverfr]

It is hardly "half" of the old Bell system. Remember that in its heyday, the Bell System included Western Electric Corporation (WEC, own and run mostly by AT&T), Nippon Electric Corporation (NEC, which WEC owned a majority share in), Bell Labs, and a number of other organizations.

Yes it is disturbing. Yes, it is threatening. But no it is not even close to half of what the Bell Network used to be.

Re:Well

[nelsonal]

Yeah, but the value of the whole thing was almost solely due to the complete ownership of the national local phone loops. The companies you mention were all either ways to extract more value from the loops (lease them equipment to access the loops) or something to do with the money that looks better in the papers than swimming in it Scrooge McDuck style.
That said, the environment is considerably different now, and just as AMTRAK has a monopoly on passenger rail but hemmorages money, I'm not sure that a phone monopoly is worth all that much today.

Re:Well

[OwnedByTwoCats]

Western Electric and Bell Labs are now Lucent. NEC and ITT are now independent (and largely out of the US phone market). AT&T has abandoned consumer long distance.

Remember, AT&T was broken up because they were trying to keep Long Distance rates artificially high, to subsidize the local operating companies. Long Distance was viewed as a service that should be provided by competing companies. That fear is now long dead.

SBC bought Ameritech and Pacific Telesys. Bell Atlantic bought NYNEX, and then merged with GTE to form Verizon. QWEST bought U S WEST, and BellSouth has remained independent up until this development.

I do not find this aquisition particularly disturbing or threatening. Consumers have several viable sources for telephone services: cell phones, the incumbent Local Exchange Carrier, or ip phones over cable.

Choice is good. Customer choice with anti-trust regulators preserving competition and preventing cartels is even better.

Re:Well

[Anonymous Coward]

The point is that nobody cares much about phones anymore. There is absolutely no competition on the broadband market - it is what people care about. This merger continues the trend of removing choice.

Re:Well

[killtherat]

That said, the environment is considerably different now, and just as AMTRAK has a monopoly on passenger rail but hemmorages money

Just a thought, but maybe it would be in AMTRAKS interest to actually fund some competition. Competition forces inovation, and if you have no compitition, all you are doing is just trying to survive. Maybe some company that could make it cool to ride the train again (free wifi, on train McDonalds, web tracking with GPS locations of trains, entertainment room with Plasma TV), kind of like a Jet Blue for trains.

Re:Well

[ecloud]

Those are good ideas.

Are the rails public property like highways or would competition like that actually be possible as things are?

I liked train travel when I was a kid but wonder if nowadays it would be like riding a bus - you only see the lower classes of people there.

Re:Well

[einhverfr]

I think most of the rails are owned by freight train companies like Burlington Northern.

Re:Well

[einhverfr]

I am not sure how two local monopolies merging removes choice...

However, the I think that it is important for local governments to encourage choice by creating alternative local loop systems. For example, my county runs a fiber network where a number of telco's compete for our business. I don't like PUD networks that are single-vendor. But a multi-vendor PUD fiber network is really pretty nice from a market point of view.

Re:Well

[nelsonal]

Yup, AMTRAK just leases time on them. Passenger rail service makes a ton of sense (and is, surprise, profitable in the North East US). Where it is a very pleasant way to go from Boston to perhaps Richmond and everywhere between. The problem is that since it is a government institution Congress provides rail service from Seattle to Chicago (and similar places) which are a huge sinkhole of money that more than offsets the profitable rail service in the relativly dense locations. It would be better to privatize it and let the unprofitable lines die, but no politician wants to be behind something that would result in job losses in their district, so AMTRAK remains a boondoggle and investments in techonolgy and capital (Accela) that could occur in the i-95 corridor gets shunted to maintaining systems in the Midwest and West where it should never have occured.

I used to work at ATT in AntiTrust Litigation

[Ralph Spoilsport]

I worked as a paralegal "research analyst" working directly for the lawyers involved, and I can assure all that the break up of ATT was not the defeat of some evil megacorp at the hands of some valiant heroic upstarts. It was an ugly battle by giant corporations, all of whom were evil Evil EVIL, when they weren't being incompetent and utterly stupid.

Did ATT deny MCI, Sprint, ITT, sonitrol, and everyone else involved access to their lines?

Yep.

Was MCI a giant grasping hellhole bent not on defeating ATT, but becoming ATT?

Yep.

Was Sprint an incompetent bunch of losers who couldn't find their own butts with a flashlight, a map, and both hands at the ready?

Yep.

Was Sonitrol along for the ride?

Yep.

Was ITT a vast corrupt corporation run by thugs?

Yep.

It's all there in the evidence - which fills a freakin' warehouse somewhere. Representatives of ITT threating people, Sprint incapable of figuring out how to bill their customers, MCI pulling all kinds of nasty shenanigans on ATT and other providers - and ream after ream of circuit listings noting that the denial of service was for "Reasons Unknown" - it was ugly. Truly nasty. There were no good guys in that case.

And now ATT wants to rebuild its empire. Well, it's a different world now with VOIP, Cellphones, cable modems, etc. Even if they do corner the DSL market, there's another market out there...

I don't if I should laugh or cry for all my wasted effort in that messy trial.

RS

Southwestern Bell, AT&T, and BellSouth

[gmajor]

I've had horrible experiences with all three companies. I would seriously consider shorting AT&T stock now. Combining two bureaucratic and inept companies will never work!

I took a chance with SBC local phone service two years ago. I tacked on DSL for convenience, but soon regretted it. Every encounter with SBC has resulted in pain and grief. There were numerous misbillings. As soon as I had the chance to switch, I cancelled my service. I will never ever go back to them. I had the same experience with old AT&T. In fact, I currently do not use a land line. If I were to get one, I would use one of the cable companies.

I don't know how these companies can make or sustain profits when they treat their customers like they treated me. There must be some financial shenanigans occurring behind scenes. You can't run a successful business by pissing off your customers.

Re:Southwestern Bell, AT&T, and BellSouth

[EmagGeek]

Yes, serious financial shenanigans. It's called getting billions in government tax breaks at our expense to do a half-assed, incomplete job rolling out a few new fibers here and there and leave them dark.

I used to live in Radnor Township just outside Philadelphia, and verizon spent an entire summer ripping up my neighborhood to install fiber everywhere. That was 4 years ago, and that fiber is still dark. Verizon has told me that they have no plans of ever lighting it up.

I'm all for this as long as...

[Bodysurf]

The new SBC, ATT, Bellsouth, Cingular, whatever will run fiber to my house like Verizon is doing.

Their current Project Lightspeed is dead before arrival.

As a BellSouth employee

[edanshekar]

Maybe I should start looking for a job with Vonage? Fuck, I get my new health insurance tomorrow. 6 months with the company and we get bought out... literally to the day. Today is my 6 month anniversary with the company.

In related news:

[1-dollar]

In related news: AT&T says that SCO, Novell, and everybody else is wrong.... THEY own Unix.

Re:In related news:

[chawly]

I'm sure they don't. They sold it to SCO, then to HP, then to NCR etc. They created untold confusion by selling the same thing to (at least) 93 different customers. Probably where they got the money to buy back the 'phone companies they helped to create.

That's bull (was: Re:Inevitable.)

[linuxrocks123]

'There is no such thing as a "natural" monopoly.'

Bull. Water service, for example, is a natural monopoly because of the ridiculous inefficiency associated with RUNNING COMPETING PIPELINES to EVERY HOUSE. A natural monopoly results whenever there is such an economy of scale that only one provider can efficiently provide the product or service. With new techonologies, these types of products and services are becoming less common, but they still exist.

'Only government is able to grant monopoly status'

Bull. If there is a natural monopoly in an area, the free market will cause there to be only a single provider. Even if there isn't a natural monopoly, given large enough startup costs, the first provider in a market can sometimes maintain his initial monopoly through predatory pricing or the threat of it. This is harder to do when it is illegal, like it is in the U.S.

You made some goods points in your post, but the last two paragraphs are just nonsense. I can understand where you're coming from, though, because I used to think the same way. When I was 10.

Re:That's bull (was: Re:Inevitable.)

[Anonymous Coward]

My water comes from my well so obviously water is not a natural monopoly. The cost of my water is very cheap and the quality very high. Water doesn't come from the government. You can even set up rain barrels and collect it as it falls from the sky. Many monopolies are just the inability of someone to see outside of a very narrow perspective and belief system.

Re:That's bull (was: Re:Inevitable.)

[linuxrocks123]

"My water comes from my well so obviously water is not a natural monopoly."

I said "water service". If it wasn't clear from that that I meant running water, I'm sorry for the ambiguity.

By the way, I find it interesting that apparently you either live in an area that does not have running water, but does have Internet access, or you find paying for Internet access a better use of money than paying for water service. I'm curious to know which it is (and I'm not being sarcastic).

Re:That's bull (was: Re:Inevitable.)

[Anonymous Coward]

The fact you think I don't have running water is freakin hilarious. I am not sure if your confusion is with the water table, the well, the electric pump or the fact that is doesn't come in labeled plastic bottles but in my houses you turn one of the many conveniently marked faucets and water comes out. Hot or cold, your choice. As I said in my previous post, I have cheaper and better quality water than what is provided by either the municipality or poland springs. I would like to point out a fundamental misunderstanding in the premise of your question. Not that any of this really matters but I am not poor or even middle class by any stretch of the definition.

Think about it like email. You can get email service from a company or you can set up your own server. If you have the resources and knowledge you can get much higher quality at a much cheaper price running your own server. If I told you I was running my own email server, would you assume that I could not afford email or that is wasn't available in my area?

I find your assumptions interesting. Have you lived in a high rise apartment building your whole life? Do you work for the government in some capacity? Or maybe a large insurance/investment firm (and I am being sarcastic)?

Mod parent FUNNY

[Foerstner]

Sarcasm, people. The lowest form of wit, but more than most Slashdotters can muster.

FCC, too

[Foerstner]

http://www.fcc.gov/contacts.html

It probably won't matter, unless you can somehow convince them that the new Ma Bell will somehow result in increased profanity and nudity on television. But in theory, the FCC has some authority in this matter.

AT&T Wireless to Cingular back to AT&T

[Heembo]

So I've been an AT&T Wireless customer for many years now. Cingular recently bought out all of AT&T Wireless and that absorption is almost complete. Funny thing about who owns Cingular.... AT&T owns 60 percent of Cingular and BellSouth owns 40 percent. And now with the upcoming merger, Cingular will revert back to the AT&T name. What the dillio?

Re:AT&T Wireless to Cingular back to AT&T

[Anonymous Coward]

SBC, the great destroyer of brands.

Just as they started to establish SBC as a brand, they took a company (AT&T) that used up all public goodwill over the years and took over their brand.

Many people remember how bad their AT&T cable sucked. In many areas Comcast was a vast improvement which is hard to believe.

Will it matter, though?

[WheelDweller]

Bell Labs/Ma Bell/"The phone police" did one thing for about a century: run lines to people an d get'em connected. That was their main stock in trade. Maybe the merger means they'll all move to the same methodology- that cost savings, in the long run won't be a problem, but they have ONE PROBLEM that's got me bugged.

I'm just outside the city limits- about 3 blocks. There's only 2 DSL points...CLECS?...in this town of 250,000. The second one is on the other side of town, and useless to me. I'm stuck with fiber-backboned cable, so I'm thankful the only choice is at least a good one.

Now...my brother.

He lives three miles west of me. Out there, it's farmland. Deer are seen _every_night_ that he goes home. Huge "shredded wheat" rolls are parked here and there, and everyone knows what brand of tractor they have, and want. Everyone knows the county extension agent, even if they don't farm- he's a neighbor, too.

However, HE CAN'T GET DSL...not because he's even farther from the DSL point than I...but because, in his rural pastureland, his telephone service is based on FIBER OPTICS, and SBC won't let him tap into it, nor to use the increasingly-vacant copper lines to "leased-line-it" to my house. He's stuck on dialup at best, while we try to build towers and get an RF link up.

Do you see the irony here? He can't get basic internet, because his farmland technology has outpaced mine in the city somehow. WTF?

The company (and it's descendants) who built their industry on connecting people have two situations, very prevelant ones, in which they can't connect people. This isn't a technical problem, it's a policy problem.

"The Innovator's Delima", perhaps?

I spent a lot of time hating the old AT&T, not trusting that their components were really different somehow. My insticts are that we're all going to hate them, again.

don't forget cost

[kpharmer]

the cost of long-distance dropped dramatically *because* of MCI - not AT&T. Remember when calling long-distance meant something? That was back in the old days of MA Bell: back when it cost a friggin fortune. And calling overseas was out of the question for most people it was so expensive.

And in terms of innovation, Bell Labs of course produced some valuable ideas. But were they still producing great ideas in 70s & 80s? You've got to create at least one great idea a *decade* if you expect to be given a monopoly/tax for what? A hundred billion dollars a year at today's rate?

Re:don't forget cost

[ScrewMaster]

No, I agree ... AT&T was NOT innovating when it came to subscriber equipment. Sure, they made a lot of significant advances in communications technology (ESS and so forth) but the end user was still using Princess phones and the like. My point was, rather than take the relatively enormous step of breaking up old Ma Bell (which has had a number of significant consequences, not all of them good) it might have made more sense to start by eliminating portions of the monopoly. Since Judge Greene justified his breakup order, in part, because of the lack of competitive products available to consumers, the lock on end-user equipment would have been a good place to start.

Remember also that AT&T was, unlike a de-facto monopoly like Microsoft, a government-instituted, heavily-regulated monopoly. They got away with those rates because AT&T knew its way around Washington. All I'm saying is that the quality of my phone service and the quality of the support personnel I deal with have both deteriorated substantially since the breakup, since the government stopped bothering to enforce quality-of-service standards. Hell, I have Comcast Digital, and when the technician (I'm using the term loosely ... electronics hobbyist would be a better term) installed my two lines I ended up with a ball of wire hanging in midair in my utility room, with open wires twisted together. Not a wire-nut or terminator in sight, much less a punch-down block. I complained but nothing happened ... had to put in a punch-down block myself. When old Illinois Bell used to do it, it was solid and professional and the technician had a solid grasp of telephony principles. SBC and Comcast hire nudges in comparison.

yeah right

[elucido]

Democrats have no chance of retaking Congress or Senate! Are you out of your minds?

Even if Democrats somehow were to win a few seats, Democrats arent organized and arent good at politics. I myself will be voting Republican.

Democrats have old ideas, from the last century, which simply will not apply to this century. We need new ideas, and Republicans happen to be the party of ideas right now while the Democrats are the party of no ideas.

Re:yeah right

[masklinn]

We need new ideas, and Republicans happen to be the party of ideas right now

Duh, ideas != new ideas, current republicans ideas are anything but new, they come straight from 18th and 19th century at best.

Re:yeah right

[Ziest]

Democrats have no chance of retaking Congress or Senate! Are you out of your minds?

And I am glad of this for 2 reasons.

1) The Democratic party has failed so badly over the last 25 year, since the coming of Reagan, that they deserve to die. I am speaking as a former Democrat. A 4th generation Democrat. Time to die. Like the Whigs before them, it is now time for them to drift into the mists of history.

2) With the Republicans owning all 3 branches of goverment it is all on their head. Any screwups and it is their fault. No blaming the Democrats, that is like saying "My dog ate my homework" No blaming Clinton, he has been out of office for 6 years now. No, this is their show now, lock, stock and barrel. All my life I heard the Republicans whining "Put us in charge of the White House and both houses of Congress and things will be better" Well, my grandfater used to say "Don't ask for something, you just might get it" Now they have their wish and they also do not have someone to blame shit on.

Good luck, fuckwits. You shit is now out of the frying pan and into the fire.

Re:yeah right

[Doc Ruby]

You are living in a denial fantasyland. Democrats are favored to retake Congress this November by double-digit percentages. Counting only people with an opinion, the most likely voters, they've got about a 25% advantage.

But of course your Republicans, so good at "politics" (lying and stealing into election wins), will still get your vote. Because the total catastrophe they've produced is nothing compared to your Republicans' favorite slogans to say on TV.

Re:yeah right

[elucido]

The Republicans at least have ideas. What ideas do Democrats have?
Democrats have none, Republicans have some. Some Republican ideas are brand new, like reforming social security and privatizing it. Democrats never thought of this. What about reducing the dividends tax? Democrats never thought of this. Republicans are for a free economy, privatization, and a strong military. What are Democrats for? Universal health care? Democrats are for Universal Healthcare but who is going to pay for it?

Re:yeah right

[masklinn]

Privatizing social security? brand new? what the hell are you smoking? (it's not as if it worked anyway, private social security works as long as you're healthy and you can pay). Likewise, reducing the dividend tax? That's against what Democrats stand for, why the hell would they do that?

Republicans being for a free economy, privatization and a strong military is nothing new either.

And as far as universal heath care goes, no idea, i'm not a democrat, i'm not american either, but my guess would probably be "less stupid wars costing the country some $10.000 every second". Would be a good start, don'tcha think?

Re:yeah right

[elucido]

That is exactly the problem here. No one knows what Democrats stand for. Democrats don't stand for anything. At least we know what Republicans stand for. At least Republicans have a plan.

What is the Democrat plan? Democrats are reactionaries who simply go against whatever the Republicans say or do. Republicans cut taxes and Democrats are against it. Republicans want to save Schaivo and Democrats are against it. Democrats are simply against anything Republican and have no against besides being the party of no.

Re:yeah right

[iced_773]

Of COURSE their going to be against whatever the Republicans say or do. They're the MINORITY PARTY. Their job right now IS to oppose. When Republicans are in the minority, THEY oppose what the Democrats do. Look at the recent Virginia gubernatorial election. Kilgore was against everything Kaine said; he didn't have Mark Warner's endorsement.

And btw, sorry about the first part looking a bit like a Star Wars scroll.

Re:yeah right

[Anonymous Coward]

What are Democrats for? Universal health care? Democrats are for Universal Healthcare but who is going to pay for it?

Oh, I know this one! Taxpayers.

Considering what Bellsouth hasn't done with DSL

[Shivetya]

I can't see a problem here. In their home city of Atlanta we are still years behind SBC and Verizon. 3mb speeds and shoddy service were the norm for Bellsouth. Heaven help you if you were using another internet provider whose DSL line was hosted by Bellsouth.

Bellsouth if anything was keeping progress from happening so they could milk the customers for everything they had. Their treatment of their rank and file leaves a lot to be desired as well.

Re:Considering what Bellsouth hasn't done with DSL

[jrmcferren]

Well, Sprint up my way tops out at 3 Mb for business. They however act as a common carrier for other DSL ISPs. There are three DSL ISPs in my area (Sprint, pa.net, and Innernet Inc which I use). I'm heading off to college and I will be getting cable internet service and that 3 Mbit (mid package) will be overkill for me.

Conglomo... we own you

[shoptroll]

Chalk this and the MS anti-trust suit up to the ineffectiveness of the Rockefeller Anti-trust Legislation...

Nationalisation

[ObsessiveMathsFreak]

There comes a time, when a service, good or utility becomes so vital, so pervasive and so common in peoples everyday lives that a nation simply cannot afford to have this essential aspect of their civilisation in the hands of unscruplous private companies.

There are onlt a few such services. Electricity, water, sewage, air, and landline telecommunications. You cannot allow the free market anywhere near these services. If you do, service will degrade, people will suffer and your economy, and indeed society, will slowly but surely fall behind.

Broadband penetration in the US is pitiful in comparision to other OECD countries. There are electricty blackouts in major US cities. People in metropolitian areas are being told to boil their water. This is what happens when you privatise public services. You get the dregs of the profits running them.

Somethings are just too important to leave to the likes of Gordon Gecko.

Re:Nationalisation

[Bob_Robertson]

You forgot "food".

Oh, oops, that's right. Food is provided by many different providers, suppliers, packagers. Why didn't it make your list of important things? It's only with the establishment of the FDA and other redistribution and regulation agencies that corporate Agriculture has been able to consolidate and create monopolies.

Gee, there we go again! Government intrusion creates the very problems of consolidation and monopoly that get blamed on the "free market", long after the "free" part has been regulated out of existence.

Re:Nationalisation

[FrostedChaos]

You forgot "food".

Oh, oops, that's right. Food is provided by many different providers, suppliers, packagers. Why didn't it make your list of important things? It's only with the establishment of the FDA and other redistribution and regulation agencies that corporate Agriculture has been able to consolidate and create monopolies.

Gee, there we go again! Government intrusion creates the very problems of consolidation and monopoly that get blamed on the "free market", long after the "free" part has been regulated out of existence.

Actually, I'm kind of happy that there's an FDA around, setting minimum food standards and prosecuting those who don't meet them. Our FDA isn't as good as the agencies they have in a lot of other countries, and a lot of dubious food gets by, but it's still better than nothing. If you don't believe this, try reading Upton Sinclair's "The Jungle," to see what kinds of things they used to do to food back under the free market. Here's a hint... it turns out that lead chromate is cheaper than leavening in biscuits... and sawdust makes a great filler for sausages. You don't want to think about these things. The best part was, nobody knew what was in the food. There was no requirement for the companies to disclose this, because there was no government regulation of any kind.

Also, the free market naturally leads to harmful monopolies, "boom and bust" cycles, de-skilling and mechanization, and a lot of other bad things. It's just like any other incentive system-- it works well for some things but in others you need a different incentive system. This isn't a matter of philosophy-- it's a matter of economic fact. Put down that Ayn Rand and start reading the work of some serious economists.

Re:Nationalisation

[Bob_Robertson]

the free market naturally leads to harmful monopolies, "boom and bust" cycles, de-skilling and mechanization, and a lot of other bad things.

Wow. I am impressed. You have listed specific effects of legal restrictions, government control of the money supply, minimum wages, and somehow blamed them on "free" markets. Seriously, I am impressed, I'm not saying that to be sarcastic.

it's a matter of economic fact. Put down that Ayn Rand and start reading the work of some serious economists.

If I post the links, will you bother reading them?

Business Cycle Primer http://www.mises.org/story/606

Murrey Rothbard Monopoly and Competition http://www.mises.org/rothbard/mes/chap10a.asp

A Critique of Neoclassical and Austrian Monopoly Theory http://www.mises.org/story/1800

Politics Causes Unemployment http://www.mises.org/story/1782

Abolish the FDA http://www.lewrockwell.com/grichar/grichar17.html

Re:Nationalisation

[Anonymous Coward]

Tell me,
What amendment in the constitution mentions agencies like the FDA, NASA, etc?
What amendment in the constitution mentions any government regulations?

If you can't find them then according to the ninth and tenth amendments, the FDA and any government regulations are unconstitutional and must be abolished.

Our founding fathers didn't put regulations in the constitution and were against any government agencies because of the problems pointed out by bob_robertson.

_________________________________________________
A vote against a Libertarian candidate is
a vote to abolish the Constitution itself.

Re:Nationalisation

[Anonymous Coward]

Bob, this is exactly why our founding fathers didn't put regulations in the constitution and were against any government agencies because of the problems you have pointed out. Unfortunately, the citizens 'read sheeple' are also having to deal with the unconstitutional government funded schools that programs them to think that liberties are unimportant and the government shoul step in to 'solve' any and all problems, even if it means losing essential liberties.

_________________________________________________
A vote against a Libertarian candidate is
a vote to abolish the Constitution itself.

Re:Nationalisation

[FrostedChaos]

Laissez-faire capitalism has been tried before in the 19th century. It failed then, before any legal restrictions or minimum wage laws were in place. People were stuffing sausages with sawdust and adulterating milk with formaldhyde because there was no FDA. Markets went through boom and bust cycles that left millions unemployed. The Great Depression is the best-known one, but by no means the only one. Boom and bust cycles are the natural consequence of an unregulated free market.

Read some history-- I mean real history, not the kind that says the Jews started World War II or that aliens invented the automobile. Your local library might be a good place to start-- see what textbooks they have for high school history classes.

If I post the links, will you bother reading them?

Maybe, but I will read them in the knowledge that they are NOT the work of real, mainstream economists, but rather that of racist political kooks. One step above the "time cube" guy. One very small step.
When I told you to put down the Ayn Rand, this is not what I meant.

of course

[ActionAL]

didn't you know they're doing this to make it easier for the echelon wiretapping computer for homeland security?

psst.. wanna know the number?

[way2trivial]

1(800)-444-4444

Re:psst.. wanna know the number?

[danielsfca2]

That wouldn't work on most dorm systems. They tend to share a single or a few outgoing numbers, that don't work for calling in. So when you call an ANI like that, or someone with caller ID, it's not your real number. It's set up that way so they don't have to pay for like 1000 outgoing lines when only a few will be in use at a time.

A more likely way to get your number would be to call your dorm's front desk or office. Most of the PBX-type phone systems they have support a kind of "caller id" internally, even though the cheap phones they put in dorms don't have screens. Anyway, the desk probably has your number pop up when you call them.

Just proves the old SNL joke

[Anonymous Coward]

AT&T - We'll be a monopoly ... AGAIN.

Doesn't really change anything.

[Kaellenn]

I'm really surprised at the usually-fairly-savvy slashdot crowd for not understanding the way the "antitrust" action against AT&T worked and are crying "monopoly again." I've lived in Georgia for the past 18 years--if I want local phone service, Bellsouth is the company that brings it to my door.

That's because the breakup of AT&T was nothing more than a ruse; instead of a national monopoly it created a host of regional monopolies. But, regardless of the territory in which it operates, a monopoly is still a monopoly. As other commenters have touched upon; the reason no one wants to compete in this space is that it simply does not make sense financially. The natural (financial) barriers to entry in these highly-infrastructure based markets are simply astronomical. The issue is not a matter of whether or not you are allowed to compete; the question is: is that even possible? Given the time and investment required to roll out the infrastructure the Bell System already has in place, it's simply not reasonable.

Re:Doesn't really change anything.

[The Cisco Kid]

Amen - Someone else who understands it. There is a possible solution - its called structural seperation - return ownership of the outside wire plant to the people that paid for it, the long-time captive customers of monopoly telecoms. The telecoms will fight it tooth and nail of course.

Bell south is crap

[Anonymous Coward]

I get this when I try to sign up for DSL service.

GOOD NEWS! BellSouth is establishing BellSouth FastAccess Internet Service in your area. Your FastAccess DSL connection can be provided after 04/28/2006. If this is the telephone number that you would like for FastAccess DSL Service, you may "Continue".

You can order BellSouth FastAccess Internet Service today since availability may be limited. If there are changes to your order, a BellSouth representative will contact you.

My fastest modem speed is 28.8k baud and I live in metro Atlanta!!!!

Nathan

Re:Bell south is crap

[Anonymous Coward]

> My fastest modem speed is 28.8k baud and I live in metro Atlanta!!!!

That is a typical way BellSouth does business, but it is somewhat understandable. In places with relatively newer equipment like faster growing areas of towns that have populations of about 50-200k, BellSouth is only 5 years behind the rest of the country. The wiring isn't as old as in some places, and they can justify new equipment purchases because the average customer spends more money. In areas with old wiring and equipment, like many small towns and parts of metro areas that are not growing, they're about 10 years behind. They simply can't jusitfy spending money on a small town or on a poor area of a city to provide service. In metro areas where there's a lot of grow, they're hopelessly behind. While they may have new equipment, there's a mix of brand new fiber and ancient copper. They simply can't keep-up. You really have to do research in BellSouth land before opening a business that depends on telecommunications because their coverage is so spotty. I work hard at trying to find the right space to lease, but I still get screwed by BellSouth most of the time.

I wouldn't count on being able to get the DSL installed for another three to four years. Typically that's how long it takes the leftover employees there to figure-out how to get something new to work. Where I live it was four years from the time that they first supported DSL until when they could actually get it to work. BellSouth used to be worse. My ISDN line order took almost six years even with a VP of BellSouth calling weekly to expedite it. His brother was the customer on the other end.

Re:Bell south is crap

[Anonymous Coward]

I have 6 meg BellSouth DSL in Marietta. Always up and works great!

Verizon was GTE not AT&T

[CrownFive]

At least in California, Verizon started life as GTE, which was a rival company to AT&T. GTE was not a part of AT&T. It is probably not fair to call GTE a rival to AT&T, because both companies held/still hold monopolies over their service areas. Los Angeles County is divided into two service areas, AT&T and Verizon. If you live in one territory, you cannot get service from the other. Years ago, GTE was known for its lousy service, with their customers yerning for AT&T, which they couldn't get without moving.

Polls are meaningless

[elucido]

I don't know why you pay any attention to those ridiculous polls.
Democrats can have all the poll numbers, the fact is, when voting time comes, no one wants to vote for a party with no new ideas. Democrats refuse to innovate, and only want to continue with more of the same tax and spend garbage which they have tried before.

Look, as far as politics and organzing goes, Democrats suck at it. Democrats have no leader, Democrats have no message, Democrats have no organization, and worst of all Democrats have no base. Who are the Democratic base anyway? Most people vote for Democrats on issues, not because Democrats are skilled politicians who efficiently run government.

The polls supported John Kerry, remember? John Kerry lost the election. The polls supported Al Gore, remember? Gore lost the elections. The polls don't matter. The point is, Democrats are in the wrong century. I mean, look, show me one Democrat who you think is going to lead this so called take back of Congress. Even if Democrats somehow take back a few seats, lets face it, our country is conservative. I don't know who where Democrats are going to get the votes from at this point. They are just out of the mainstream and falling off the edge of the left cliff right now.

Re:Polls are meaningless

[Doc Ruby]

You've got a fascist party that manufactures dangerously incompetent spokesmodels like Bush to fill their stolen elections. So you support them. Congratulations - you're a fascist, and you actually deserve this criminal government you keep voting for.

You're right. The polls mean nothing, the Democrats are finished. Don't bother going to the polls in November - your boys have it all fixed.

Re:Polls are meaningless

[iminplaya]

Republicans...Democrats...BAH! It's been "all downhill since Kennedy died".

Re:Polls are meaningless

[elucido]

What makes you think the Democrats would run government any better?
No matter how leftist the Democratic party decides to go, Democrats are the party of big government. Also this myth about the "Stolen" elections. Republicans win elections, Democrats lose. Republicans are simply better at winning actual elections, while Democrats perhaps are better about talking about the election and hyping up their victory which usually means they've lost already.

I don't listen to all the hype, it's really simple, Democrats don't know shit about politics, if Democrats knew about politics they'd be running congress, senate and the presidency right now. So we can debate all night, but the Republican majority speaks for itself. We can also debate the free market, look, you cannot fight the market, as much as you want to bring socialism and regulation, if big corporations want free markets they will have free markets, and if you were a smart politician then you'd know that if you want to win at fundraising you NEED the support of big corporations and of CEOs.

Democrats have been consistantly out funded, their political skill s are weak, their organizing skills are weak, lets face it, it's pointless even for you, to bother trying to solve the Democratic parties problems. I know you must be a socialist, but look, socialism is dead, it died in the last century, it's not coming back, it will never be back. The days of FDR are over, the days of social security, medicare, and support from the federal government are over, these days are never coming back. Learn to survive without these things. Social security will be privatized. Private schools will become the norm. Taxes will be cut. All of these social engineering programs will be cut. If you want these programs, pay for them yourself. No one stops you from paying for your own retirement. In the end, the government saves money by privitization. You save money from privitization, you just don't know it yet. The world will be better because of this.

Re:Polls are meaningless

[Doc Ruby]

Party of big government.

One local loop

[wwwillem]

Once read an article about Reykjavik (search the net a bit, for example) where the utility company installed fiber optic into every home, but doesn't provide any services on top of it. If you plug your computer in that RJ45 on the meter panel, you get to a simple portal that allows you to sign-up for only those services you like. Could be ISP (choice of many), could be VoIP, could be video on demand, could be home security, etc.
I think that's a very cool model, allowing competition where it really matters. You only need a little government control over that utility company to avoid price fixing on that level, but that should be not too difficult to do (probably with the exception of the US :-).

Chalk up another flub

[Anonymous Coward]

to president duh and his administration. It is ridiculous to see this happening at the pace AT&T (SBC) is doing this. I fear if they can come up with enough money in the near term after the BellSouth buy out they could possibly go after Qwest or Verizon. In either case that would be catastrophic for those dependant on their services whether it be voice or data.

Re: Physical network requirement dying.

[RossumsChild]

But one can achieve toll-quality audio across a low-bandwidth line. Which means it could also be done across a wireless connection.

Within the next ten years, as long range wireless systems like WiMax come into play, the inability for a provider to serve a customer without building a physical network will disappear--all you'll have to do is build a phone that connects directly into a WiMax-type network a peripheral. Build one really well designed WiMax call center capable of servicing millions of low bandwidth connections, put it in the right place in a major city, and voila--everyone in the metropolitan area of that city could switch over to your network tomorrow.

I agree that it's preposterous to say that the phone companies didn't have a monopoly on the phone service they provided, and that monopoly also seriously depressed any competition from providing a compelling alternative. But I don't think that limitation is going to stay with us for much longer. It's already fading out as major cities implement their own Wifi hotspots.

Next news item.

[twitter]

When do I sign up for actually renting my telephone again?

What, komrad, no one owns the phone but be careful how you use it.

Next News items:

• CIA acquires the KGB for TIA Technology.
• Microsoft Nationalized. RMS always said software should not have owners and KGB advised against copy machines without guards.
• Ma Bell moves Lucent to Moscow, despite furious bidding from China.

You may think everything old is new but the new old can be much worse with DRM and evolved "IP" laws.

Well, I, for one, welcome. . . . .

[jafac]

. . . our new telecom monopoly overlords?

No, wait - what I mean to say is; meet the new boss. Same as the old boss.

I have altered your wireless contract

[tenzig_112]

Pray I alter it no further.

Anybody notice that all this happened just a month or two after the premiere of their slightly less Death-Star-ish logo?

Here's the new one:

http://www.ridiculopathy.com/stock/att_logo.jpg

Question from someone who doesn't know...

[ErichTheRed]

...was AT&T and the Bell System's service really that bad? Or any worse than it is now?

Looking back, it seems like it would have been a good idea to keep telecom a monopoly for several reasons:
- No Worldcom, Global Crossing, etc. scandals.
- Reliable service. The pace of innovation might be a little slower, but it wouldn't take months to turn on a DSL line.
- Bell Labs was able to produce much of their science because of the recurring revenue generated by phone company customers. Centralized research like this isn't possible without huge amounts of money, more than the regional Bells could generate on their own.

Other than the rates and renting phones, what else were people complaining so much about that they don't complain about now?

Re:Question from someone who doesn't know...

[The Cisco Kid]

Local wireline telecom has never *NOT* been a monopoly. Note that 'the new AT&T' is entirely unrelated to 'Bell Labs', which was renamed Lucent a long time ago. (And I think since merged with Ascend)

Also, it takes months to get a DSL line activated specifically *becuase* the ILEC now you dont have any choice but to wait for them. If there were true competition, then they might just have some motiviation to get on the ball.

Its about CHOICE, and service providers recognizing that customers have it, and motivation them to provide better service to keep them. When customers have no choice, the monopoly provider have no motiviation to provide good service.

When they broke up AT&T, they only market that was de-monopolized was the long distance market (which brought great benefits to the market, LD is now damn cheap or often free).

Unfortunately, all they did in regards to the local wireline was create a number of smaller geographic monopolies. The 'ILEC' baby-bell companies still had (and still HAVE) a complete stranglehold over wired last-mile. That a hard-to-enforce law said they had to 'share' access to it, they did so as grudgingly as possible, stalling and stumbling anywhere they could. The claimed the new startups should have to 'build their own network', despite that doing so would cost billions and take decades to do (which as it happened, is how the ILEC's built the existing one, with not a little govt-guaranteed captive customer base, exclusve access to right of way, etc). Now they have brushed even that away in most markets, and I find it fitting that the new monopoly bears the 'mark of the beast' of the old one. I only hope that they meet with the same fate, only done correctly this time (see: http://www.isp-planet.com/politics/2002/structural _separation.html )

So....

[Albert71292]

If the AT&T takeover of BellSouth goes through, do you suppose they will finally take my telephone off the top of the pole and put it inside my house?

Bit of a pain having to climb the pole everytime the phone rings...

So this means....

[slapout]

...that I still can't get broadband, right?

ATTWS was spun off prior to Cingular acquisition

[danielsfca2]

You're wrong when you say AT&T Wireless ("ATTWS") was "100% owned by AT&T" when it was bought by Cingular. At that time, ATTWS was NOT part of AT&T. AT&T spun off ATTWS in 2001, after which point it might as well have been called 'Sgt. Pepper's Lonely Hearts Club Wireless'—it had no ownership connection with AT&T after that.

ATTWS simply retained the exclusive right to use the AT&T name in the wireless space, simply for branding reasons. Also, ATTWS had a partnership with AT&T to cross-sell wireless and local phone service, which was very similar to the partnership between DISH Network and SBC (ahem, at&t)--they cross-sold "bundles" because they had no competing services with one another. Partnership != ownership though.

Maybe Bell Labs will be revived as well....

[Proudrooster]

That little thing called the "transistor" was invented in Bell Labs. It would be great if Bell Labs made a comeback as well and rocked the world with the next disruptive technology.

Regulation CAUSED the problem!

[SonicSpike]

Our telephony mess that we are in now was caused by excessive regulation.

I don't one can reasonably think more regulation will fix things or cause less problems 10-50 years down the road.

Re:Nationalization

[SonicSpike]

Yeah -

That was Castro's excuse too

Technology changes

[SonicSpike]

Technology changes all the time.

The gov't couldn't keep up with technology regarding their "regulation" on this issue, what makes you think they can keep up with it in 5, 10, 15, 20, or even 50 years?

Government is usually the CAUSE of problems, rarely the solution. Less regulation is needed, not more.

Personal water service (was: Re: That's bull)

[linuxrocks123]

Okay ... well, that changes things a bit. "My water comes from my well" to me meant that you literally went to a well, probably on your farm or ranch, to get water. Perhaps I took what you said that literally because I know of some people who don't have running water, and they get water by going to the wells on their farms. Thank you for clearing up my confusion.

First of all, congratulations on completing what must have been a pretty big project. Good analogy with the email server, and, at least in my mind, building or even setting up your own water pumping system gets you major geek cred. Out of curiosity, did the cool-tech factor play a role in your decision to set this up, kind of like how some people run their own email servers even though they really don't have to (like me)? Or was it a purely rational decision, where the lost interest due to paying for the well, pump, etc. was more than offset by the increase in quality and lower maintenance costs?

Since you probably have a large estate (after all, you did say "houses", and I'm assuming that that's not a typo since you also imply you're rich), perhaps this is a quality and low-cost water solution for you, but I'm guessing that it would take some pretty significant construction to do that for everyone. I'm fairly confident in saying that buying a water pump, digging your own well, and then connecting (or hiring someone to connect) this new setup to your house's pipe system probably isn't the cheapest solution for most people, who only have one fairly small house each. For one thing, there would probably be a lot of unused capacity in each pump, which is inefficient. If I have a pump, my neighbor can either buy a pump or buy water service from me. If a new pump for him costs more than the wear and tear on my pump to provide him service, it's better off for both of us if he pays me some amount of money greater than the cost of the wear and tear on my pump and less than the cost of setting up a pump system for himself, and in exchange I let him connect his house to my pump. Though my technical understanding of water technology is probably less than yours, my understanding is that water pumps and pipe systems scale very well, so in a single area it is most efficient for there to be one pipe system, with very large pumps powering it. Thus, it is most efficient for there to be one provider of water service for a town or city, and water service is a natural monopoly.

If I'm wrong, then why aren't more people doing what you did? If it is cheaper and more efficient to buy your own water pump and hook it up to your house, why are so few people doing that?

To answer your sarcastic questions: No, no, and no.

I'm curious now about how you deal with other basic utilities, if you'd care to share. For instance: do you have your own power generator?

Re:Personal water service (was: Re: That's bull)

[Anonymous Coward]

Thanks for your reply,

First of all, congratulations on completing what must have been a pretty big project. Good analogy with the email server, and, at least in my mind, building or even setting up your own water pumping system gets you major geek cred.

Thanks, but a well is really just a deep hole with a pump at the bottom. There are many ways you can geekify your well but it is a very simple concept and execution.

Out of curiosity, did the cool-tech factor play a role in your decision to set this up, kind of like how some people run their own email servers even though they really don't have to (like me)? Or was it a purely rational decision, where the lost interest due to paying for the well, pump, etc. was more than offset by the increase in quality and lower maintenance costs?

I am not sure if anything I do is "rational" but the cost benefit analysis was very positive for the well.

I'm fairly confident in saying that buying a water pump, digging your own well, and then connecting (or hiring someone to connect) this new setup to your house's pipe system probably isn't the cheapest solution for most people, who only have one fairly small house each.

I am not rich, I am too lazy. The spread in the top 30% is too wide for me to be rich but even Bill Gates doesn't think he has enough money so who knows?

There are many variables in determining costs. The quality of the water that is beneath your property is the first variable. Good water requires little to no remediation. Crappy polluted water costs money to fix. The quality of the water available from your city or municipality is the next variable. I have lived in some cities where the water was undrinkable because it tasted like ass. Many people drink bottled or filtered water because of this. Just for my house, the ROI was quick because I have very good water and the municipality has very bad water. Wells really aren't expensive, they provided water to poor people long before "city water" was even invented.

It is always cheaper on day one to go to McDonalds for lunch than to buy a stove and refrigerator. On day X it will become a money loser. What defines X is very personal and unique for every individual.

Though my technical understanding of water technology is probably less than yours, my understanding is that water pumps and pipe systems scale very well, so in a single area it is most efficient for there to be one pipe system, with very large pumps powering it. Thus, it is most efficient for there to be one provider of water service for a town or city, and water service is a natural monopoly.

I understand your point but it requires that water be a commodity item with no differences in quality or availability. What defines quality depends upon the application. Human and animal consumption (drink a glass of water), industrial (wash your clothes), agricultural (water your rose bushes), aquafarming (top off your fish tank) are all examples where the definition of quality will be different in each circumstance.

Water availability is also a component of quality. Many municipalities use a reservoir to supply water which is affected by droughts. Mandatory water use restrictions are used to manage periodic water shortages and multiple violations of these restrictions can result in your water being turned off. For anyone who does non commercial agriculture, the idea you may lose your access to water because you don't want your blueberry bushes to die is an important aspect of water quality.

We can not define efficiency without looking at quality and therefore intended use. If someone's ideal water is what comes out of the pipe from the city then I agree that it would be difficult for someone else to sell that exact same product cheaper. Just as if someone's ideal lunch is a Quarter Pounder w/ cheese then it will be very difficult for another company to provide the exact same sandwich for a lower cost. We cannot define this as a monopoly because everything would the

Question.

[Descalzo]

I have been reading this little exchange with great interest, and I think there's a communication problem going on here. How is Bob not addressing your differences between Monopoly and Natural Monopoly? I think you guys are really not settling on definitions, or perhaps not even defining the discussion. As a bystander, I would get more out of this if you two would settle on some definitions or something. This is interesting stuff, and I don't want to miss anything.

Plato

[Descalzo]

"Utopia was the creation of Plato, who argued that the best humans could attain would be done through incorruptible and all-powerful philosopher Kings."

Actually, I agree with that, but until the Lord comes to rule personally, we've got to make do with liberty.