'Ma Bell is back'

Source: Los Angeles Times

When the Bell telephone system — aka AT&T — was broken up in 1984, consumers were told this would be a good thing because it would increase competition.

When the U.S. telecommunications market was deregulated in 1996, consumers were told this would be a good thing because it would increase competition.

And now AT&T is planning to merge with T-Mobile, the latest in a string of acquisitions that effectively restores Ma Bell to her former girth yet allows the company to operate in a looser regulatory environment.

Consumers might wonder if they've been played.

"There's no way this latest merger can be good for consumers," said Sally Greenberg, executive director of the National Consumers League. "This places a lot of power in the hands of only a few companies."

... So Ma Bell is back. Federal regulators should waste no time in welcoming her home with new rules that address the shortcomings of our failed experiment in deregulation.

Read more: http://www.latimes.com/business/la-fi-lazarus-20110321,0,1097806.column

Service or price. In additon, I'm hearing impaired Ma Bell had options for me that worked.

If I recall the deal correctly, Cingular essentially bought
the name "AT&T Mobility" and not much else. They (Cingular)
then continued operating their GSM cellular network under
this new (and much-better-known) name. There's really
nothing much left of the old American Telephone and
Telegraph Corporation and the company that's acquiring
Tmobile's American assets certainly isn't the old "Ma Bell".

Tesha


Tesha

ATT had a huge failure with a product they called ATT Wireless. This was a wireless system to bring broadband and phone service wirelessly into homes and businesses. It was a humongous flop. The service was horrible. It so sullied the name ATT that they changed the name of their mobile phone service to Cingular. When SBC consolidated ATT, New England Tel and others they brought the name ATT back to their mobile service but still avoiding ATT Wireless choosing to go with ATT Mobility.

The final act in this play will be the merger of ATT and Verizon. Then it will be a true monopoly and virtually unregulated by local, state or federal agencies. This will make the people happy- well, some people.

still SBC....

:sarcasm:

This new Bell is getting what they always wanted-deregulated and metered service. The break up of the Bell system was the 1st victory of the deregulation forces. People bought it and people lose.

Can the merger be blocked?

that was stopped. I am sure some have been since Reagan, but I sure can't remember them.

AT&T Wisconsin Employee PAC (formerly SBC)gave $5000.00 or more to Gov. Scott Walker's campaign.

They are based here in Texas. They have many a repuke in their pockets.

They are funding much of the anti-neutrality legislation.

Verizon was a "Baby Bell" after the Big Bell was broken up. It grew to bigger proportions than the old entity. And now these two entities eclipse any dream the old Bell System had.

Message to consumers: Fuck You

it seems the ghost of that old woman is proving them correct lol

various companies that have been bought,sold and merged, all the way back to AT & T again, with no other choice today and still the same fabulously crappy service and it costs twice as much as originally. It only took ten years.

Ma Bell was too socialistic, making sure everyone got a line, no matter what the plant cost was. That model had to fall before the reactionaries who wanted Reagan. Not only that, it broke one of the largest unions in the USA that had made AT&T behave itself. After the break up, it was all divide and conquer. We've gone a long way down the road since then, and all of it bad. If we have anyone with the guts to strongly regulate this industry, it will be beneficial. But who is calling for regulation, not even Obama at last report. We don't seem to have any say about this whatsoever.

Breaking out my crystal ball I'm seeing consumers like me paying higher rates to cover the M&A froth. With fewer players in the market the tendency is toward collusion rather than competition.