digg

Facebook Connect Join Digg About

AT&T Will Buy BellSouth for $65 Bln

bloomberg.com — AT&T Inc., the largest U.S. telephone company, agreed to buy BellSouth Corp. for $65 billion to gain control of their shared wireless company and expand its local telephone business, people familiar with the matter said.

Who dugg this? Made popular Mar 5, 2006

Digg DudeWhat is Digg?

Digg is a place for people to discover and share content from anywhere on the web. Digg surfaces the best stuff as submitted and voted on by the community. Take the Tour to learn more.

104 Comments

show profanity settings
expand all
  • dgath, on 10/12/2007, -2/+4710: Government breaks up AT&T
    20: Baby bells slowly merge together
    30: AT&T bought by a baby bell
    40: Baby bell takes AT&T's name
    50: "AT&T" buys other baby bell
    60: "AT&T" builds up a monopoly
    GOTO 10
  • geminitojanus, on 10/12/2007, -1/+22They have GOT to be KIDDING me. Are you SERIOUS? What was the whole AT&T breakup even for, a nice gesture to the Justice department that their business actually cares about people?

    This would give AT&T entirely control over Cingular Wireless (wait, we should get used to saying AT&T Wireless again), and what's worse, my favorite Regional Bell operator.. (I live in the southern US).

    This cannot bode well for the consumer.
    (for history's sake, read here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_break_up_of_AT&T ).
  • Taniwha, on 10/12/2007, -1/+11One more example of my AT&T/T2 analogy .... so think of the break up of AT&T as that scene in T2 when the evil robot gets frozen and smashes into little pieces ...... then the pieces slowly start to move together, merging, getting bigger and bigger ... pretty soon we'll have an evil robot again ....
  • geminitojanus, on 10/12/2007, -3/+12"I'm guessing that they are going to say that cable & Internet voip is eating away at their traditional market, so the breakup is so 1980's... At any length, remember the Microsoft breakup? This government doesn't give a crap about protecting people from abusive, and predatory monopolies... Just ask the RIAA lawsuit people."

    Well back in the 80s they suggested Microwave telecommunication (basically, MCI), and fiberoptic businesses (Qwest, prior to its merging with a baby bell itself) were eating away at their traditional markets. The Internet's infrastructure itself is greatly controlled by the Bell infrastructure itself (Verizon, BellSouth, and AT&T; the Internet pretty much traffics the same route as the telephone cables laid prior), even though it was tax payer's money that went to building both infrastructures. And the Microsoft case; Microsoft was given a slap on the wrist by the Justice department. All they were ordered to do was to open up their APIs a bit for competitors to make use of them (and they have yet to fully comply with this term of the settlement), and to pay a little fine for wasting the court's time (a breakup of Microsoft is widely considered to be a virtual impossibility. The only way for Microsoft to be reduced in size would be to start spinning off companies, which would be a good thing for their bottom line anyways).

    This, however, is just plain ridiculous. AT&T was broken up because of their blatent anti-competitive behavior towards any startup telecom business in America; AT&T would nickel and dime them to death before they ever got a chance to even start selling anything, and would bully people who tried to use the tax-payer's infrastructure for anything other than what AT&T intended (sounds like Verizon/-SBC-errAT&T today now doesn't it?)

    I just hope we don't have to wait another 20 years before another formal anti-trust trial gets launched against this. And I promise you if this merger gets approved I will not vote for any elected official who didn't stand his ground against it. I urge everyone for the sake of telecom to do the same. (remember kids, VoIP is a great solution to traditional telecom... if Ma Bell lets you use it after they've gotten control of 65% of the Internet's infrastructure in America.)
  • buss, on 10/12/2007, -0/+8We won't see true competition in this space again until wireless internet is fast, cheap, and long-distance. Look at what happened with MCI, they started putting microwave transmitters up and didn't rely on the wires in the ground. They were able to charge far less for long distance and started some competition. Wireless is the only way to truly compete in this business because it has the least amount of infrastructure to put in place, and you don't have to piggyback on other people's network.
  • 7of7, on 10/12/2007, -2/+10"trusts have made products cheaper, have reduced prices; but if the price of oil, for instance, were reduced to one cent a barrel, it would not right the wrong done to people of this country by the trusts which have destroyed legitimate competition and driven honest men from legitimate business enterprise"
  • bobbyj1049, on 10/12/2007, -2/+9now just to see if the FCC will approve the third mega telco monopoly merger in two years
  • szelij, on 10/12/2007, -1/+8It sure sucks to be an internet user in the US. I'm all for capitalism but this sort of thing practically guarantees superhigh charges and low bandwith.
  • 7of7, on 10/12/2007, -1/+7The fact that oil was cheaper is a rarity. A monopoly is at liberty to produce poor products by virtue of it's stronghold on the industry. Not only that, but the government gave away thousands of miles of land to railroads who then gave rebates to Standard Oil, thus essentially taxing American citizens. As for burying your comment, that'd be really stupid. This new comment system is bad in that most people bury comments they disagree with rather than those that actually are off topic or flames.
  • panique, on 10/12/2007, -3/+9The DoJ is already bought and paid-for. Stop deluding yourself.
  • Oakes, on 10/12/2007, -1/+7I should note that Rockefeller's crude oil monopoly lead to dramatically lower prices. Monopolies don't always mean higher prices.
  • buss, on 10/12/2007, -1/+7We really do not have competition of communications services in the US. We have an oligopoly of services. Two or three companies providing service is not competition. There simply isn't enough companies to make the free market work in this situation. The consumer gets screwed without serious regulation of this industry. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oligopoly if you've never heard of an oligopoly.
  • CygnusXII, on 10/12/2007, -1/+6I was on the same track as gemenitojanus. Those that forget their past are doomed to repeat it.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Baby_bell

    "On January 8, 1982, AT&T settled the suit and agreed to divest ("spin off") its local exchange service operating companies in return for a chance to go into the Internet services industry. Effective January 1, 1984, AT&T's local operations were split into seven independent Regional Bell Operating Companies known as "Baby Bells." RBOCs were originally known as Regional Holding Companies, or RHCs."

    The populace won't even realize what has happened, until the prices start getting (fixed) and (Manipulated).
  • kidvicious1973, on 10/12/2007, -0/+5Ma bell was broken up because they were a complete monopoly. They designed the equipment, used its own equipment and had control of the entire network. What the break up did was allow other companies to compete in all aspects of telecom, not just the end services. Because of this new technologies were slow to come into use. Companies like allcatel, Fujitsu, etc would not have had a chance in the U.S. market. It may become a huge company again, but there is still competition.
  • Sabot, on 10/12/2007, -3/+8Humpty Dumpty sat on a wall.
    Humpty Dumpty had a great fall.
    All the king's horses and all the king's men
    Couldn't put Humpty together again.
    It looks like AT&T is having no problem putting him back together again.

    Please write your congressmen. This really spells bad news for us. Do you think AT&T will be less interested in making the web their private network after this? These Bells were broken up for a reason, and now here we go again.

    If this administration would pull it's head out and see that we need real market competition and not Monopoly in Telecom, we would have outstanding broadband service.
  • karch, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4Ahahaha, this is RIDICULOUS! I just read up on the history of AT&T. Looks exactly like we're going back to a monopoly again..
  • Ghazi, on 10/12/2007, -1/+5Back to square one (almost)!
  • AHIGHERGOD, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4The corporate monster gets bigger and has more influence on our rights and options.
  • neozeed, on 10/12/2007, -2/+6I'm guessing that they are going to say that cable & Internet voip is eating away at their traditional market, so the breakup is so 1980's... At any length, remember the Microsoft breakup? This government doesn't give a crap about protecting people from abusive, and predatory monopolies... Just ask the RIAA lawsuit people.
  • Oakes, on 10/12/2007, -4/+8Thank you, 7of7. I had forgotten that quote. It's a perfect example of the corrupt motives some politicians have to bring antitrust cases. The motive isn't to protect the consumer from high prices (trusts often make them lower); the motive is to allow incompetent companies to survive.

    Watch this post get buried in -diggs.
  • sonicdevo, on 10/12/2007, -1/+5While I don't agree with the finger pointing at this administration, I think that there is some serious need for competition in the telecom industry. I don't claim to have the solution to that particular problem, but something different needs to be done, because companies are only interested in gathering power (read: money) to themselves. And it seems as if the standard answer to this problem: competition, doesn't work in this instance.
  • hiredgun, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3AT&T plans to change the name from Cingular back to ATT wireless over time
  • 7of7, on 10/12/2007, -4/+7Why are you all for capitalism? This is always gonna be the end result. If the US government didn't incorporate several socialist ideas from the progressive era in the first decade of the 1900s, then our economy would've been destroyed by companies like AT&T, Standard Oil, et all. The second a government like the current one gets in and gives companies free reign, look what starts to happen.
  • carpespasm, on 10/12/2007, -1/+4sheesh, this is such a load of crap. there should be some law stating that any corporation which has to be broken up by the federal government shouldn't be able to buy itself back into being a single company again.

    there's one difference in the old at&t vs the new ma bell, there's competition from voip and cellular. the only problem with that is that in many places the only broadband connection is through at&t, and many cellular companies have been bought up by them....
  • panique, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3I think this is going to be more like a game of Risk. AT&T will go for Qwest next, then Verizon. I think we'll see a complete reunification by mid-summer, and then we'll be watching more corporate accounting-related indictments by Q1 2009.
  • dr_benway, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3I dare something good to come of this...
  • 7of7, on 10/12/2007, -1/+4I can't believe how much money is flying around everywhere. I was this close to asking what difference $2 billion makes. I guess all the stuff about how Iraq costs like $80 billion a month has desensitized me to huge amounts of money. $2 billion really is a massive amount. Good catch.
  • GuineaPig, on 10/12/2007, -4/+7It will probably go through, then. Dubyah was drunk during that period. He can't remember anything.
  • alexanderhazard, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3This screams antitrust
  • dpknc84, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3It's alive!! It's alive!!! Muhahahhaaaa....

    Yeah, this was one of the last things I expected to see in the news today.
  • allenu, on 10/12/2007, -3/+6If they were a Chinese company on the other hand...
  • Pottersquash, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3This makes no sense, we Break up MaBell to watch her reform????? This flies in the face of common sense, how is it any less antitrust today?
  • rmassie, on 10/12/2007, -1/+4$67 billion, not 65

    http://today.reuters.com/news/articlenews.aspx?type=businessNews&storyid=2006-03-05T202645Z_01_N05197609_RTRUKOC_0_US-TELECOMS-BELLSOUTH-ATT.xml
  • Brutis, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3im not worried about land lines, im more worried about what they do with thier backbones, it could be ugly
  • RadicalBender, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2By sheer coincidence, I just dumped SouthwesternBCT&T last week because my DSL contract with them was up. I'm switching DSL to Speakeasy and using their VoIP instead. I'll be saving $15/month instantly with much, much better service.
  • whfsdude, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2Here is what happened:
    SBC bought AT&T backbone, became AT&T. (I'm not sure how long distance came to be). But they now hold the rights to AT&T name.

    Cingular bought AT&T wireless (without rights to name) a year before.

    SBC owns stake in Cingualr, decides to change name to AT&T wireless.

    BellSouth owns other half SBC(not AT&T) buys BellSouth.
  • inactive, on 10/12/2007, -2/+4On the up-side, however, this makes it easier for the government to gather data on you as they only need to tap one location rather than fighting for permission and cooperation with every telco. Hurrah! :/
  • GhostFreeman, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2Then why the hell has your company dicked around non-RBOC phone companies for the past 20 years? Why the hell are they fighting VoIP???

    Why does Ma Bell want to keep us stuck with copper?!
  • leonbev, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2It's been confirmed by AP, so it's probably true. Besides... Unless you're an at&t exec, you would have been left out of the loop anyway :)

    This is pretty scary, actually. All they need is Verizon and Quest now, and the old AT&T "Ma Bell" monopoly is back in business.
  • inactive, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2Monopoly? Seriously, kids. This isnt the 1980s. We have so many ways of sending voice calls, that a company made up of the original componets of the old AT&T is no longer the giant that it was 20 years ago. THese guys will not be able to control the market.
  • SilentBobSC, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2Isn't this undoing the split of Bell? I thought that's why we had all these annoying little baby-bells all over the place
  • jobeats, on 10/12/2007, -1/+3great timeline, bellsouth user here who thinks this sucks
  • rudolphdude, on 10/12/2007, -1/+37of7 says "Why are you all for capitalism? This is always gonna be the end result. If the US government didn't incorporate several socialist ideas from the progressive era in the first decade of the 1900s, then our economy would've been destroyed by companies like AT&T, Standard Oil, et all. The second a government like the current one gets in and gives companies free reign, look what starts to happen."

    I don't know if I totally agree with that first sentence. Leo Laporte made a comment that caught me. We don't allow private companies to make decisions about the interstate highway system. Why do we allow extremely competitive, short-term thinking companies run our interstate communication systems?

    I don't think it is capitalism not working as much as it is government absolving itself of the responsibility to manage critical infrastructures in America. The average Senator or even Representative in Congress were coming up in the world when there was no Internet, and sadly, even phones in many cases. They did grow up with roads, they understand the post office, and even the military...

    However, the Internet is a luxury to these guys. Their assistants print out their emails. They just don't see how the government could manage this magic, voodoo thing that enables interactive exchange of information called the INTERNET (bold letters for lack of dramatic Simpson's-esque theme music.) So, just like everything else that we want or don't want from the government, it comes down to contacting your Senators offices and Representatives offices and if you really want to get nasty, cite the actual bills that come along.

    The few thousand digg people here who take the time to write their disgust with the political system could easily get a bill shelved or altered a bit. Better than nothing.

    EDIT, that last comment was totally wishful thinking, but I guess if we voted in some tech-savy people it might have more effect.
  • whfsdude, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2Judge Greene has to be rolling over in his grave. I guess the question is who has to approve this? The SEC, FCC or both? I doubt this will get approved, it'll make them the largest telco and only leave Qwest (which is bankrupt or headed there and Verizon).
  • Sabot, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2jkfan you are correct it is not total monopoly at this time. The goal is monopoly. The reason why this is happening now is that they feel that the current administration will do nothing to stop it. They are correct. Why do companies seek monopoly? They can lower their prices to kill competition and they can also shut out more companies that would compete with them. The prime goal is to reach true monopoly and be able to control prices. At this point innovation dies and prices stabilize or go up. The reason why you do not want monopoly is it destroys innovation. It also destroys choice and freedom. How many have given so much for our freedom.
  • blackbelt88, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2lol, didn't the government force AT&T to break up for a reason? It seems like we're headed right back to where we started with all these telecommunications companies buying each other.
  • ihybridora, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2yeah, i would think that
  • inactive, on 10/12/2007, -3/+5isn't capitalism just dandy. I can't wait until they move ahead and merge the three branches of government, because who needs judicial and legistlative powers, when executive get their way anyway! God bless america.
  • antdude, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2You can change the category if you goofed.
  • r0x0r, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2the government won't stop at&t...this time
  • Fetching more discussions...
    Show 51 - 100 of 104 discussions

  • Add a Comment

    Login or register to comment!
    Or, sign-in super fast with your Facebook account ...


© Digg Inc. 2009 — Content created and posted by Digg users is dedicated to the public domain | Terms of Use Updated | Privacy Policy
DIGG, DIGG IT, DUGG, DIGG THIS, Digg graphics, logos, designs, page headers, button icons, scripts, and other service names are the trademarks of Digg Inc.