-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On (06/03/06 09:45), Berkman, Scott wrote:
>
> The best things I see coming out of the merger will be the drive
> for improvement and innovation.
having recently lived in a BS-service area I can say that there is no
improvement or innovation c
Going down to three companies controlling all of the last mile copper
doesn't change very much.
Regardless of who owns it, there has always been only been one
company to get local loop/last mile from. SBC and BellSouth (or BS as I
like to call it) have never been in any direct competitio
On 3/6/2006 7:17 AM, Omachonu O. Ogali wrote:
> Section 271 of "The Act" prevented RBOCs from selling long distance
> unless if they truly opened their networks to competitive access by
> CLECs (UNE-Ps primarily
Right, LD was the carrot in the MFJ
> Then, AT&T and Sprint exit the long dist
Thus spake "Justin M. Streiner" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
On Mon, 6 Mar 2006, Christian Kuhtz wrote:
That being said, the 'new ATT' with all those assets will need to be
integrated, and work efficiently. Turf battles will ensue. Tens of
Integration, going on past experience, is highly unlikely.
On Mon, 6 Mar 2006, Christian Kuhtz wrote:
That being said, the 'new ATT' with all those assets will need to be
integrated, and work efficiently. Turf battles will ensue. Tens of
Integration, going on past experience, is highly unlikely. The last time
I had any interaction with Worldcom r
On Mar 5, 2006, at 8:05 PM, Eric A. Hall wrote:
On 3/5/2006 7:10 PM, Steve Sobol wrote:
Eric A. Hall wrote:
What are people worried about here exactly?
The same lack of competition in telecommunications that we had in
the 1980s?
Well that's an overreach. And if the primary concern i
Nice rant. But since this isn't your blog you'll probably have to grace us
with some substance.
None of AT&T exists anymore--SBC acquired that corpse last year, so the
company currently calling itself "AT&T" isn't even really "AT&T". The new
deal is basically SBC buying up BellSouth and getting
On Mar 6, 2006, at 3:24 AM, Fergie wrote:
An overreach? Really?
I'd say that you're not paying attention.
Sorry, Fergie, but I gotta disagree with you here.
In the 1980s, cell phones were not even close to useable by most
people, but now there are lots of people who don't need anything
An overreach? Really?
I'd say that you're not paying attention.
And how do you come to that conclusion? By the fact that "very
little" of the original AT&T is in the current monolith?
Well, given the entire 'two-tiered' money-grab-tastic issues
involved, I'd say you're a little out of touch.
-
On 3/5/2006 7:10 PM, Steve Sobol wrote:
> Eric A. Hall wrote:
>
>>What are people worried about here exactly?
>
> The same lack of competition in telecommunications that we had in the 1980s?
Well that's an overreach. And if the primary concern is consolidation then
we should have blocked NYNEX
> > What are people worried about here exactly?
>
> The same lack of competition in telecommunications that we had in the 1980s?
>
> Granted, it won't ever be quite *that* bad again, but we're slowly moving
> back towards one monolithic ILEC, and that does worry me.
To worry most is the fact that
Eric A. Hall wrote:
> What are people worried about here exactly?
The same lack of competition in telecommunications that we had in the 1980s?
Granted, it won't ever be quite *that* bad again, but we're slowly moving
back towards one monolithic ILEC, and that does worry me.
--
Steve Sobol, Pr
You know what they say about opinions...
Well, anyways, the main thrust of the concern here is not a
technical one -- unless you consider the lack of susbcriber
options technical. It is, perhaps, a technicality, but I digress...
I guess we'll just have to wait and see how this all plays out.
No
With Katrina and all the other hurricanes hitting Bell south's area, they
are just overwhelmed. The prize here is Cingular anyway; the landline
business is declining. Since neither SBC nor Bell South have too much
interest in FiOS, the harm the consumers near term is minimal. In fact,
some of t
With Katrina and all the other hurricanes hitting Bell south's area, they
are just overwhelmed. The prize here is Cingular anyway; the landline
business is declining. Since neither SBC nor Bell South have too much
interest in FiOS, the harm the consumers near term is minimal. In fact,
some of
On 3/5/2006 9:18 AM, Suresh Ramasubramanian wrote:
> I somehow wonder if the old executives at Ma Bell had already worked
> out a timeline for resurrecting her well before she was split up ..
That would include divestiture of residential LD, equipment sales, bell
labs, etc? Really, there's just
Not that mind-boggling. The FCC under the Bush administration has been a
joke from the get-go. (This coming from a very right-leaning
independent).
This is the ultimate shell game, considering ATT's antics last year.
cheers,
brian
On Sun, 5 Mar 2006, Fergie wrote:
:
:Reuters and CNN/Money al
Reuters and CNN/Money also reporting same:
http://money.cnn.com/2006/03/05/news/companies/att_bellsouth/index.htm
Mind-boggling.
- ferg
-- "Suresh Ramasubramanian" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
This is from Dave Farber's list ..
> Subject: Everything old is new again
> From: Kevin G. Barkes
18 matches
Mail list logo
