Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

Remember back when AT&T was IT&T?

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (1/22-2007 thru 12/14/2010) Donate to DU
 
bluesmail Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jun-22-08 02:58 PM
Original message
Remember back when AT&T was IT&T?
Edited on Sun Jun-22-08 03:25 PM by bluesmail
36 years ago I saw a bumper sticker that had the logo for IT&T, and below it said WE DON'T CARE WE DON'T HAVE TO In the same league as NO AMNESTY FOR NIXON :evilgrin: On Edit, I may or may not be right but the gist of my post was the bumper sticker!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
Duke Newcombe Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jun-22-08 02:59 PM
Response to Original message
1. I think they were two different companies, no?
Duke

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Warpy Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jun-22-08 03:01 PM
Response to Reply #1
2. They were, and IT&T was the driving force
that got AT&T broken up as a monopoly.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
TexasProgresive Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jun-22-08 07:18 PM
Response to Reply #2
8. Sorry that was MCI that filed the original suit that finally
ended with the breakup of MaBell. When AT&T and Verizon merge back together then it will be back like it was only worse - an unregulated monopoly.

These are WIKI articles but it seems to be right on:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ITT_Corporation
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MCI_Communications

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Warpy Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jun-22-08 09:28 PM
Response to Reply #8
9. Thanks, I was relying on memory
I should look these things up more often.

:blush:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Touchdown Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jun-22-08 10:06 PM
Response to Reply #8
10. Correct, but not quite complete
Edited on Sun Jun-22-08 10:10 PM by Touchdown
MCI did sue because of AT&T's (Bell System) monopoly, but so did IBM and Sprint.

See, when AT&T bought NCR (National Cash Register), they were poised to enter into the personal computer market, which they made no secrets about. IBM complained that a monopoly like the phone company would have an undue advantage over their PC counterparts. AT&T then found out that they made shitty computers, and lost a lot of money on that debacle.

Here's something that's lost in the ruling. AT&T volunteered to break up the company. Taking Western Electric (Eventually Lucent/Avaya and now owned by French Firm Alcatel), Long Distance, NCR, and Bell Labs with them, and leaving the local carriers to form themselves. Judge Green (the presiding judge who is credited for breaking the Bells up) just accepted their terms and pounded the gavel. MCI and IBM were happy enough to drop the suits.

15 years at the LD (Now SBC owned lower case at&t) company. I've heard a lot of stories from my older co-workers who were around in 1984. It's a complicated case that things get lost to history.

ITT was never AT&T or even IT ampersand T(EDIT- take that back. It did start out with an "&"). That is the company with a shady history of nazi ties and other nefarious activities. Not that AT&T hasn't been a brutal monster in it's 100 year history, such as forcing smaller ma/pa phone companies in the teens & twenties to sell to them because of squeezing them out. It's just never been affiliated with ITT. GTE was really the only one big enough to claim their own pockets of territory and stand up against AT&T, but now they're part of Verizon.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
readmoreoften Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jun-23-08 05:22 AM
Response to Reply #10
13. Thanks for the info. I was wonderin' there for a sec.
AT&T was involved with Pinochet? (Well, Ford was so...)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Touchdown Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jun-23-08 08:29 AM
Response to Reply #13
17. No. It was ITT, who owned the Chilean Phone co.
...and owned the right wing newspaper in Santiago. ITT was involved in the coup against Allende.:hi:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
MinM Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jun-23-08 09:10 AM
Response to Reply #17
18. Involvement in 1973 Pinochet coup in Chile -- Watergate
Involvement in 1973 Pinochet coup in Chile
In 1970 ITT owned of 70% of Chitelco, the Chilean Telephone Company and funded El Mercurio, a Chilean right-wing newspaper. Declassified documents released by the CIA in 2000 suggest that ITT financially helped opponents of Salvador Allende's government prepare a military coup (National Security Archives). On September 28, 1973, ITT's headquarters in New York City, New York, was bombed by protesters for alleged involvement in the overthrow of the democratically elected and emerging socialist government in Chile.

In 1972 newspaper columnist Jack Anderson disclosed a memo of ITT's Washington lobbyist, Dita Beard, which revealed a relationship between ITT's providing funds for the Republican National Convention and a Justice Department settlement of an antitrust suit favorable to ITT...

This was of interest to me having just read:

CounterPunch: Deep Throat, Bob Woodward and the CIA
In 1972, when Mark Felt was reading transcripts of Yeoman Radford's conversations, Robert Foster 'Bob' Bennett was the new owner of the Robert R. Mullen Company. This was a CIA front with offices in Washington and abroad. Among Bennett's employees was the seemingly retired CIA officer, E. Howard Hunt. Politically hyper-active during the Nixon Administration, Bennett was also the Washington representative of the Howard Hughes organization (which was just entering negotiations with the CIA over plans to recover a sunken Soviet submarine from the Pacific Ocean's floor). It was Bennett who suggested that Hunt might want to interview ITT lobbyist Dita Beard, and it was Bennett who volunteered his own nephew to work as an infiltrator at the DNC. One might go on, but the point is made: Bennett was a very well-placed source, if not a co-conspirator.

Today, Senator Bennett is a Mormon elder and one of the richest men in Congress. That he was also a key source of Bob Woodward's during the Watergate affair is memorialized in a Memorandum to the Record written by Martin J. Lukoskie, Bennett's CIA case-officer in 1972. (4) According to Lukoskie, Bennett "established a 'backdoor entry' to the Edward Bennett Williams law firm which was representing the Democratic Party (and the Washington Post...)" Bennett's job was to "kill off any revelation" about the Mullen Company's relationship to the CIA. But he was also responsible for dissuading reporters from the Washington Post from pursuing a 'Seven Days in May' scenario" that would have implicated the CIA in a conspiracy to "take over the country."...
http://www.counterpunch.org/hougan06082005.html


http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=209x6350
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
soothsayer Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jun-23-08 05:00 AM
Response to Reply #8
12. No, it was actually the Computer and Communications Industry Association
who filed the antitrust suit that ended in the breakup of Ma Bell.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Sanity Claws Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jun-22-08 03:04 PM
Response to Original message
3. Two different corporations
AT&T is the older corporation.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
BlooInBloo Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jun-22-08 03:05 PM
Response to Original message
4. huh?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Tab Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jun-22-08 03:11 PM
Response to Original message
5. AT&T was never IT&T as far as I recall.
It was formed around 1920 and purchased some subsidiaries of AT&T, but they were totally different companies. AT&T was no saint, but IT&T was in league with the Nazi's.

What are you talking about?

Maybe you saw a joke bumpersticker.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Jack Rabbit Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jun-22-08 03:12 PM
Response to Original message
6. ITT has never been and is not now AT&T
Wikipedia is your friend.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
karynnj Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jun-22-08 04:03 PM
Response to Original message
7. They weren't - they were two different companies
Not only that the At&T of today is NOT the AT&T of pre- divestiture. +Southwestern Bell, IMO the worst of the Bell RBOCs, bought and merged with AT&T. It is their management that runs the company. (Incidently, rumor is that that merger deal was made at Bush's second inauguration.)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Touchdown Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jun-22-08 10:09 PM
Response to Original message
11. NYSE symbols AT&T =T ... ITT=ITT
They've never been the same company.

American Telephone and Telegraph
International Telephone and Telegraph

Sounds the same, but isn't.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
AllentownJake Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jun-23-08 05:30 AM
Response to Original message
14. The old AT&T was good to its employees
My Father started at Western Electric in the 1960s than it changed to AT&T and they used to do alot for the families growing up. The annual picnic a Dorney Park was one of my favorites as a kid. We had free long distance till the break-up. My first computer was manufactured by AT&T. Than Lucent was spun off and that management team killed that part of the company.

The old Western Electric portion of the company had more patents than any other company in the country and was an innovative powerhouse. No company has wasted more intellectual research than Lucent Technologies/Avaya/Agere.

Whatever you say about the monopoly AT&T always treated its people well in comparison to companies today.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
dysfunctional press Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jun-23-08 07:06 AM
Response to Original message
15. no.
nt
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
HamdenRice Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jun-23-08 07:13 AM
Response to Original message
16. AT&T=Telephones. IT&T= telegraphs nt
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Fri May 03rd 2024, 08:18 PM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (1/22-2007 thru 12/14/2010) Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC