In a shocking turn of events, AT&T lied

comfortably_numb

Dogs have owners, cats have staff
Pub Member / Supporter
Nov 30, 2011
9,321
9,918
Missouri/Kansas
Unchecked and unregulated monopolistic behavior by the one of the oldest, least-accountable telco's in the history of communications. Why am I not shocked?!!
 

harshness

SatelliteGuys Master
May 5, 2007
16,349
2,577
Salem, OR
The only real question regarding AT&T's shooting themselves in the foot seems to be how big the gun will be.

It isn't that the titans aren't unchecked or unregulated, it is their willingness to lie and cheat to get what they want that is fooling the regulators.

I think the answer lies in creating a list of specific things that will and won't happen. If any of those items is not met or entirely blown off, the conglomerate should be liable for substantial penalties (as well as very punitive damages in the case of being blown off). This will be a bitter pill but if they want to do things that aren't in anyone's interest, it is one they'll need to swallow.
 
  • Like
Reactions: comfortably_numb

ncted

Thread Starter
SatelliteGuys Pro
Pub Member / Supporter
Jul 4, 2004
4,616
3,112
Durham, NC
It is times like this I wish I didn't have AT&T Wireless (c'mon Verizon, fix your congestion issues in central NC) and AT&T Fiber (Charter is an option, but AT&T peers directly with our employer, and Spectrum doesn't, so the VPN experience is not as good, and Spectrum costs more).
 
  • Like
Reactions: comfortably_numb

harshness

SatelliteGuys Master
May 5, 2007
16,349
2,577
Salem, OR
Its a different att....its southwest bell in disguise
It has been this incarnation of AT&T long enough (over 14 years) that it is the one that most everyone is familiar with. SBC was formed in 1984 when AT&T went back to their roots as a long distance carrier, R&D and manufacturing company and SBC got everything else. The addition of Bell South and their Cingular Wireless service was something that the old AT&T was never part of.
 

Juan

Supporting Founder
Supporting Founder
Sep 14, 2003
24,459
5,160
Moscow Russia
There is a whole lot of it missing...their evil twin Verizon
It has been this incarnation of AT&T long enough (over 14 years) that it is the one that most everyone is familiar with. SBC was formed in 1984 when AT&T went back to their roots as a long distance carrier, R&D and manufacturing company and SBC got everything else. The addition of Bell South and their Cingular Wireless service was something that the old AT&T was never part of.
Sent from my SM-G950U using the SatelliteGuys app!
 

Bobby

Publican
Supporting Founder
Lifetime Supporter
Sep 7, 2003
58,587
11,801
Rohnert Park, CA
It has been this incarnation of AT&T long enough (over 14 years) that it is the one that most everyone is familiar with. SBC was formed in 1984 when AT&T went back to their roots as a long distance carrier, R&D and manufacturing company and SBC got everything else. The addition of Bell South and their Cingular Wireless service was something that the old AT&T was never part of.
Just to clarify, SBC didn't get everything else. They were simply one of the 7 RBOCS that were created when the mandated AT&T divestiture came into effect in 1984. After SBC ate up some of the RBOCs they changed their name to AT&T.
 

Yespage

SatelliteGuys Master
Pub Member / Supporter
Feb 27, 2010
6,232
3,726
Ohio
I’m certain regulators will wag a serious finger.... and call it a day.
 

harshness

SatelliteGuys Master
May 5, 2007
16,349
2,577
Salem, OR
The history of the other Baby Bells is of no consequence in this discussion. Today's AT&T has a well established pattern of indirection (and possibly misdirection) and that's all that really matters given the title of the thread.
 

Juan

Supporting Founder
Supporting Founder
Sep 14, 2003
24,459
5,160
Moscow Russia
If you are going to compare current att to past ATT it most certainly does
The history of the other Baby Bells is of no consequence in this discussion. Today's AT&T has a well established pattern of indirection (and possibly misdirection) and that's all that really matters given the title of the thread.
Sent from my SM-G950U using the SatelliteGuys app!
 
  • Like
Reactions: Geronimo

harshness

SatelliteGuys Master
May 5, 2007
16,349
2,577
Salem, OR
If you are going to compare current att to past ATT it most certainly does
I'm saying that no comparison is necessary. The current AT&T has been around long enough that its record stands by itself. That you felt a need to insert the old AT&T into the discussion is unfortunate.
 

Bobby

Publican
Supporting Founder
Lifetime Supporter
Sep 7, 2003
58,587
11,801
Rohnert Park, CA
I'm saying that no comparison is necessary. The current AT&T has been around long enough that its record stands by itself. That you felt a need to insert the old AT&T into the discussion is unfortunate.
and I agree with Juan!... I worked for Pacific Telephone, a subsidiary of the old AT&T, from 1967 to 1984. I was a member of the Pacific Telephone Headquarters Staff that worked on the transition of Pacific Telephone to Pacific Telesis (Pacific Bell and Nevada Bell.) The old AT&T worked very well except for two issues. First, it was bogged down in traditional telephony, little or slow advancement in switching systems, dialing systems, end user telephone equipment. Yes, with the old AT&T when you ordered telephone service you not only got dial tone you got the inside wiring as well as the telephones. You paid a monthly rate for the telephone service of your choice, private party, multi party, as well as $1 a month for each extension telephone, a single charge of $5 for a color telephone, $1.25 a month for a Princess telephone, and $1.50 a month for a Trimline telephone. Business systems, key telephone and PBX were a lot more complicated. The second issue and this is what caused the divestiture in the first place was the price of long distance. It could be very expensive to call coast to coast or even across town (especially in a big city.) MCI came up withe a better, cheaper, plan. AT&T tried to squash them and they sued. The end result is divestiture. After I retired from Pacific Bell at the end of 1991 I did contract work, beginning in 1995, with Pacific Bell and that work continued through 2001. In 1997 SBC aquired Pacific Telesis and its companies, Pacific Bell and Nevada Bell. They maintained the old monikers until 2002 when they changed the name to SBC. In 2005 after SBC acquired AT&T the SBC name and logo were changed to AT&T.

I have worked with and have contacts with employees of both the old and new versions of AT&T. There is a huge difference between the two. The old AT&T was known as Ma Bell and it's employees felt themselves part of a family. It was a great place to work. While the old AT&T was a for profit business they leaned toward customer service as their primary image. The new AT&T, and SBC, in front of that, has a different outlook. It's all about the money, the customer doesn't really matter. I believe the new AT&T is evil, the old one less so. Most present day employees that I talk to can't wait to retire. They are not too happy with their employer. It seems that not only does the new AT&T not care about its customers, they don't care about their employees either, very different from the old version.

What started this comparison of the two AT&Ts was a post from comfortably_numb that said "Unchecked and unregulated monopolistic behavior by the one of the oldest, least-accountable telco's in the history of communications. Why am I not shocked?!!" That insertion brought this entire thread to another level...
 
  • Like
Reactions: Jimbo

Users Who Are Viewing This Thread (Total: 1, Members: 0, Guests: 1)

Top