STORM2K

How can they do this? I thought the Ma Bell thing was broken up because of the monopoly situation...

NEW YORK (Reuters) - AT&T Inc. , which has agreed to buy BellSouth Corp. for $67 billion in stock, Monday said it expects to cut some 10,000 jobs between 2007 and 2009, once the acquisition has closed.

The deal, announced on Sunday, would bring ownership of Cingular Wireless, the No. 1 U.S. wireless telephone company, under one roof, which Wall Street analysts have said would streamline management and allow one parent company to enjoy all of the financial benefits.


A purchase of BellSouth would recombine the former AT&T (Research), also known as "Ma Bell," with four of the seven original "Baby Bell" regional telephone companies that were split off when AT&T was broken up by a court order in 1984.

At the time, AT&T controlled the long-distance telephone assets and its seven offspring offered regional and local telephone services.

Together, AT&T and BellSouth (Research) would have a national long-distance telephone and data network, residential customers stretching from Florida to California and business customers comprising more than half of the Fortune 1000, analysts have said.

The next largest telephone company is Verizon Communications.

Meanwhile, two consumer groups said Sunday that they'll urge U.S. antitrust authorities to block the deal, arguing it would lead to higher prices.

Consumers Union and the Consumer Federation of America said they would ask the Justice Department's antitrust division to reject the $67 billion deal that would extend AT&T's reach and solidify its position as the No 1. U.S. telephone company.

BellSouth stock jumped about 11 percent in morning trading while AT&T fell about 1 percent, both on the New York Stock Exchange.

I hope someone stops this merger. This is one that does not need to happen.

Lindaloo wrote:I hope someone stops this merger. This is one that does not need to happen.

Agreed. More mergers means less competiton and its only a matter of time before rates go up.

so why doesnt the law that applied to break Ma Bell up in the first place apply now?

alicia-w wrote:so why doesnt the law that applied to break Ma Bell up in the first place apply now?

Good question alicia. ive wondered that myself

george_r_1961 wrote:

alicia-w wrote:so why doesnt the law that applied to break Ma Bell up in the first place apply now?

Good question alicia. ive wondered that myself

I've been wondring that too!

Actually I thought prices went UP when they broke it up years ago. I wish they would make up their mind.

I'm so confused.

I signed up for cell phone service with AT&T a few years ago. Then I got DSL service through SBC. But in the past year or so, my cell provider changed over to Cingular (didn't they buy AT&T?). Next thing I know, I go to pay my DSL bill...and the SBC logo has been replaced by the AT&T one. So, is it AT&T or not?

I'm afraid to go to my fridge for fear of what I might find there.

cut jobs while merging thats a disaster

from the article below:

http://biz.yahoo.com/ap/060306/at_t_bel ... html?.v=13

San Antonio-based AT&T expects the acquisition announced Sunday to save it $2 billion annually at first, increasing to $3 billion a year by 2010. Slightly more than one third of the savings would come from reduced labor costs and consolidation of support functions and corporate staff, Lindner said. The combined company would be based in San Antonio.

I have a feeling the reduction of work force is a product of duplication of jobs and simple attrition. However, I have been thru a couple of these large corporate mergers and it is NEVER a smooth process for employees.

fwbbreeze

Actually its economics...when Judge Greene broke up the monopoly in the 80s there were few choices...ATT or MCI and MCI was a small company. Now you have many choices and all of them are cheaper and offer more services than Ma Bell did 25 years ago.

You now have cable phones over the Internet, Wireless services and the so called ride alongs like Cavalier etc.

ATT, Bell South and SBC (now ATT) all ineffecient since 2001 due to the collapse of the Internet craze.

There is more than enough fiber optic capacity, satellite capacity and job duplication to make this merger go very smoothly and make the resultant company very much more efficient than it would be going it alone.

Think about it...you have so many more choices in the last five years than anytime before.

alicia-w wrote:so why doesnt the law that applied to break Ma Bell up in the first place apply now?

Because unlike when AT&T was broken up, there is loads of competition in the telecom industry.

Pondbuilder wrote:Actually its economics...when Judge Greene broke up the monopoly in the 80s there were few choices...ATT or MCI and MCI was a small company. Now you have many choices and all of them are cheaper and offer more services than Ma Bell did 25 years ago.

You now have cable phones over the Internet, Wireless services and the so called ride alongs like Cavalier etc.

ATT, Bell South and SBC (now ATT) all ineffecient since 2001 due to the collapse of the Internet craze.

There is more than enough fiber optic capacity, satellite capacity and job duplication to make this merger go very smoothly and make the resultant company very much more efficient than it would be going it alone.

Think about it...you have so many more choices in the last five years than anytime before.

But those "choices" are not giving me better prices. IMO, it is all about "gain" for them.

Lindaloo wrote:But those "choices" are not giving me better prices. IMO, it is all about "gain" for them.

Have you looked into choices like Vonage? or phone throughg your cable company? These options are almost always much cheaper than the phone company's service.

I do not understand how Vonage works gtalum. I know the price of that sounds great but... who would provide my service and maintenance? If Bellsouth, then I am no better off right?

My cable company is too busy ripping us off period. I would never use them.

Do you have broadband internet (ie cable modem or DSL)? You need it to use Vonage. If you have DSl, it's not big savings because you need to maintain a phone line. If you have cable internet, you can drop your phone altogetehr with Vonage. It operates through your internet connection.

Oh awesome. I have cable internet.

Lindaloo wrote:Oh awesome. I have cable internet.

Then I would definitely recommend that you look into Vonage. For $27 ($29 something after taxes) per month you get unlimited local and long distance, with pretty much every option that the phone company would charge you for included. You can get a 500 minute package for even less. These days you can even take your current number with you.

I truly enjoyed telling Verizon to take a hike!

But those "choices" are not giving me better prices. IMO, it is all about "gain" for the

Oh but they are...You used to pay a flat rate for phone service and in some (many) cases that gave you a set number of calls every month. Long distance was ridiculous...person to person calls out of state were in excess of 3 dollars a minute. Calls home or reverse the charges were much higher. Today for a flat rate you can talk as long as you like. With Internet services like Vonage you can call internationally and talk forever. Ever try calling internationally 10 years ago. Better have your thoughts organized get your message across and get off. Try calling the US from an international hotel...it was riduculous.

Now factor in inflation and we are paying a lot less for much more than prior to the breakup or even 5 years ago.

gtalum wrote:

Lindaloo wrote:But those "choices" are not giving me better prices. IMO, it is all about "gain" for them.

Have you looked into choices like Vonage? or phone throughg your cable company? These options are almost always much cheaper than the phone company's service.

actually phone service through our cable company (Cox) is 30 more a month than our current service.