Comments on: SBC to Acquire AT&T for $16 Billion

SBC to Acquire AT&T for $16 Billion

gren — Mon, 31 Jan 2005 05:15:59 -0800

SBC to Acquire AT&T for $16 Billion or Death to the Deathstar "Luke, I am your father![pdf] " -Noooooo... oh wait, now I own you.

By: gren

gren — Mon, 31 Jan 2005 05:26:43 -0800

The end of an era of a once great company...now make way for the SuperBell.

By: Plutor

Plutor — Mon, 31 Jan 2005 05:52:43 -0800

Is anyone else upset by this continual re-merging of baby-bells? Wasn't AT&T broken up for a reason?

By: trharlan

trharlan — Mon, 31 Jan 2005 05:57:12 -0800

Why does that upset you, Plutor?

By: shoepal

shoepal — Mon, 31 Jan 2005 06:21:48 -0800

There can be only one. /fake scottish accent

By: notsnot

notsnot — Mon, 31 Jan 2005 06:28:00 -0800

Monopolies BAAAD, m'kay?

By: TeamBilly

TeamBilly — Mon, 31 Jan 2005 06:45:08 -0800

Bet you a quarter they collapse under their own weight within 15 years.

By: gren

gren — Mon, 31 Jan 2005 06:52:37 -0800

Think we'll still have quarters in 15 years?

By: gren

gren — Mon, 31 Jan 2005 07:00:26 -0800

btw, was the .pdf warning good? I use the Target Alert Firefox extension so these links are obvious to me...just wanted to make sure no one opened Acrobat when they didn't want to.

By: smackfu

smackfu — Mon, 31 Jan 2005 07:10:34 -0800

What business was AT&T in nowadays?

By: mischief

mischief — Mon, 31 Jan 2005 07:21:46 -0800

A monopoly in what, notsnot? Outdated hardwired telecomm??? heheh

By: odinsdream

odinsdream — Mon, 31 Jan 2005 08:06:53 -0800

gren, thanks for the link to TargetAlert!

By: gazoo

gazoo — Mon, 31 Jan 2005 08:11:20 -0800

In their ad campaign last year, SBC seemed to suggest that its origins can be traced back to the early days of telephone and claimed credit for the development of telephone industry in the U.S. Pretending to be the Ma Bell that it wasn't, I felt. But now I guess SBC can say it with a straight face.

By: rushmc

rushmc — Mon, 31 Jan 2005 08:13:05 -0800

I use the Target Alert Firefox extension so these links are obvious to me That is excellent, thanks.

By: fandango_matt

fandango_matt — Mon, 31 Jan 2005 08:40:34 -0800

Great. I suppose this means they'll be changing the name of ~~Pac Bell Park~~ ~~SBC Park~~ Constantly Renamed Park yet again.

By: kurumi

kurumi — Mon, 31 Jan 2005 08:49:59 -0800

Is it or this SBC or this SBC?

By: zsazsa

zsazsa — Mon, 31 Jan 2005 08:54:08 -0800

Gazoo, well, its origins *can* be traced back to Ma Bell, and they were responsible for the development of the telephone industry in the areas they operated in since 1984. The commercial was their assault against the CLECs, which indeed piggyback on SBC's wiring and equipment. Now the CLECs are becoming more obsolete as VOIP gains steam. (continued derail regarding PDFs: Hm. How about looking in the status bar to see if a PDF is being linked to? Status bar-less browsing is browsing with blinders on...)

By: rough ashlar

rough ashlar — Mon, 31 Jan 2005 08:55:07 -0800

A monopoly in what, notsnot? Outdated hardwired telecomm??? heheh posted by mischief at 7:21 AM PST on January 31 Laugh now funny boy. But you've not been paying attention. 1) Telcos are required by law to share the copper. The new fiber to home - no sharing needed. The others are just a vague potentional 'threat'. 2) SBC sues over web patents - American Scientific and Surplus was one of the targets. You may be next over some other patent. 3) AT&T may have some UNIX(tm) rights left over. The BSD's have a 'legal immunity' - GNU/Linux only has an interpertation that copying an API is ok. If times get tight, and GNU/Linux is big enough - well, I would not put a lawsuit past SBC.

By: [expletive deleted]

[expletive deleted] — Mon, 31 Jan 2005 09:46:46 -0800

Why the hell was AT&T broken up in the first place? Apparently to breifly create the illusion of competition. Does the US still have antitrust laws? Aren't those laws there for a reason?

By: bitdamaged

bitdamaged — Mon, 31 Jan 2005 09:51:23 -0800

AT&T has been a virtual yard sale for years now. I remember going to a Cable Industry trade show a couple of years back and there were about 5 different "AT&T" companies, their cable business, wireless etc. All of which have slowly been sold off. This has been coming for ages.

By: delmoi

delmoi — Mon, 31 Jan 2005 10:22:05 -0800

3) AT&T may have some UNIX(tm) rights left over. The BSD's have a 'legal immunity' - GNU/Linux only has an interpertation that copying an API is ok. If times get tight, and GNU/Linux is big enough - well, I would not put a lawsuit past SBC.

SBC is the new SCO?

By: AloneOssifer

AloneOssifer — Mon, 31 Jan 2005 11:21:02 -0800

AT&T seems to be pulling of out everything... local, long distance... is anything even left of the company?

By: Steve_at_Linnwood

Steve_at_Linnwood — Mon, 31 Jan 2005 12:06:53 -0800

Why the hell was AT&T broken up in the first place? Apparently to breifly create the illusion of competition. LOL

By: wendell

wendell — Mon, 31 Jan 2005 12:10:48 -0800

AT&T recently spun off its wireless division, which was almost immediately acquired by the annoyingly misspelled Cingular, a division of SBC. Think of it as a reunion.

By: mischief

mischief — Mon, 31 Jan 2005 13:25:24 -0800

They can share all the copper they want, since I haven't relied on a hardwired phone in years. Further, a glance at the AT&T page shows they are in other sectors that are far from being monopolized. So there! ;-P

By: TeamBilly

TeamBilly — Mon, 31 Jan 2005 14:39:48 -0800

Now the CLECs are becoming more obsolete as VOIP gains steam. And just who do you think is deploying that VoIP technology? CLECs, ILECs and everyone else are offering VoIP services (Hosted PBX, IP Centrex) in addition to regular copper-carrier services. They have to, to survive. Gone are the days of buying a tandem switch and selling LD, prepaid and hosted operator services for millions in revenue. It just ain't there anymore. I find it interesting because I believe the entire telcom industry is charging down this VoIP path whether the markets are ready for it or not, rapidly expanding in 30 directions at once. There's gonna be another bubble bursting like there was for dot coms. At least, that's what I think. 1) Telcos are required by law to share the copper. The new fiber to home - no sharing needed. They're mostly preventing sharing to offset the cost of the fiber. Verizon has a massive project going in TX right now to bring fiber direct to the home. However, there are some cities fighting the exclusivity of this. And if the FCC sides with those fighting it, well.... Smart RBOCs who are running fiber projects like this will offer leasing services back to CLECs anyway. It'll be just like 1988 again, only with glass instead of copper. Back on topic.... SBC, on paper, is one company, but in practice it's still a bunch of different companies. Pac Bell and Ameritech are under the SBC banner but they operate differently (and compete, to my amusement, in some markets.) I doubt very seriously any communications company can be run with that type of command and control structure at their size for very long. They'll dump off the dead-weight business units or they'll drown.

By: gren

gren — Mon, 31 Jan 2005 15:24:03 -0800

It still seems pretty lame to let this go through...while there may not be a single national monopoly for telco service, now we are stuck with several regional monopolies for telco service :*(

By: gren

gren — Mon, 31 Jan 2005 15:25:43 -0800

This makes Sockbabyjesus cry :**(

By: rough ashlar

rough ashlar — Mon, 31 Jan 2005 16:24:03 -0800

They're mostly preventing sharing to offset the cost of the fiber. The whine from SBC was "this is neeed to sell data services" - yet SBC won't sell me DSL because another comapny provides my local service and leases the copper from SBC. Errr, if you wanted data customers, sell me data SBC.