In AT&T Deal, Bankers Guaranteed To Benefit

I remember when they broke up Ma Bell.....it was supposed to bring about greater competition, give us lower prices, increase jobs......it actually made little, if any, difference in how business was done.

archer wrote: I remember when they broke up Ma Bell.....it was supposed to bring about greater competition, give us lower prices, increase jobs......it actually made little, if any, difference in how business was done.

That is not at all what I remember. Before the break up long distance was for the rich. When I was a kid if I travelled I would make a collect call to myself to let my parents know I had arrived without incurring any charges. Today does anyone even know what a long distance charge is.

I knew a lot of people who made more than beer money collecting cash bonuses for continually switching phone companies.

I also knew people who made excellent $ running fiber optics for them.

Sidebar: do you remember the movie "The Presidents Analyst"?


[youtube:2srqpj8q][/youtube:2srqpj8q]

neptunechimney wrote: Sidebar: do you remember the movie "The Presidents Analyst"?

I must have missed that movie....after seeing the clip, I didn't miss much.

That is not at all what I remember. Before the break up long distance was for the rich. When I was a kid if I travelled I would make a collect call to myself to let my parents know I had arrived without incurring any charges. Today does anyone even know what a long distance charge is.

I knew a lot of people who made more than beer money collecting cash bonuses for continually switching phone companies.

I also knew people who made excellent $ running fiber optics for them.

I think the changes in phone service would have happened anyway....and I certainly didn't mean to imply I thought the breakup was a bad thing, just that it didn't seem to make a lot of difference in the phone companies being consumer friendly or in the phone bills (as they continue to rise now). I've never seen a bill so laden with fees and taxes and surcharges such that the $14.95 basic phone line is $39.99 on the bill. The cell phone made a greater difference in how we communicate. Now they are going in the opposite direction and we have fewer and fewer options.

archer wrote: I think the changes in phone service would have happened anyway....and I certainly didn't mean to imply I thought the breakup was a bad thing, just that it didn't seem to make a lot of difference in the phone companies being consumer friendly or in the phone bills (as they continue to rise now). I've never seen a bill so laden with fees and taxes and surcharges such that the $14.95 basic phone line is $39.99 on the bill. The cell phone made a greater difference in how we communicate. Now they are going in the opposite direction and we have fewer and fewer options.

The breakup set the stage for competition. That competition is what drove the changes to be so diverse. Even broken up, the companies were still massive - that's why customer service was still questionable.

The breakup allowed for companies like MCI to start offering communications as well as the Bell. It worked well for quite a while. But, as is the nature of pure capitalism, companies tend to merge and the power consolidates. I wonder if the current At&T/ T-Mobile merge is best for the consumer. I think the SEC should take a really long look at it.

And, I think that while the fees are burdensome, they did allow for the expansion to rural areas as well as reliable 911 service.

LJ, this is not as much about the bankers as AT&T's own business case. If AT&T has a business case that shows how they can turn Tmobile into a viable service, then there shouldn't be anything wrong with bankers loaning them money to do the deal.

I believe your issue is more about when there isn't a good business case and companies and bankers jump into bed together based upon a bunch of fiction. Normally these don't come to light until it is to late and has been picked up by the media.

archer wrote: I remember when they broke up Ma Bell.....it was supposed to bring about greater competition, give us lower prices, increase jobs......it actually made little, if any, difference in how business was done.

I have to disagree with you. Remember having to rent your phone or the huge long distance charges? The long distance user subsidized the bills of the people who didn't use long distance. So it looked cheaper, but only if you didn't use LD.

Now you can go without landlines and get a real cheap per-use plan if you want. I think breaking up ATT was a good thing.

I wonder if Looney Jerk hates the local mortgage consultants and real estate agents too. They arrange the buy/sell and finance of home...despite what happens to the home owners investment.

SS109 wrote:

archer wrote: I remember when they broke up Ma Bell.....it was supposed to bring about greater competition, give us lower prices, increase jobs......it actually made little, if any, difference in how business was done.

I have to disagree with you. Remember having to rent your phone or the huge long distance charges? The long distance user subsidized the bills of the people who didn't use long distance. So it looked cheaper, but only if you didn't use LD.

Now you can go without landlines and get a real cheap per-use plan if you want. I think breaking up ATT was a good thing.

It was painful at the time, but in hindsight, it WAS a good thing...