SBC, AT&T say Bell breakup doesn't work

TalkBack 3 of 23:

Next »

« Previous

• Thread View
• Flat View

Bell breakup failure, not a failure.

Look at this Bell fiasco, you ask rhetorically, in echo to the article. I'm sure others will agree with the sentiment. Most, I would opine, don't remember how it used to be. The warning to be writ large should be: Don't swallow SBC's and AT&Ts Kool-Aid.

Shall we look at the "fiasco"? How about we consider average cost to consumers under Bell versus broken-Bell? Average price for a long distance call in the Continental US - pre-breakup: 25 cents/min and post-breakup: 4 cents/min. That's 6 minutes now for every 1 minute the caller could have had in the 1970s. Customer convenience has improved also because of both long distance and local competition.

The root of the AT&T antitrust trial, which flowered into the break-up was that AT&T refused access of microwave transmitted calls through GTE into AT&T's network. "Who cares?" many may ask. Microwave transmission is the root of mobile phone service. That little portable phone is the great-grandchild of the 80s monstrosities that AT&T tried to suppress to preserve their landline business. Had they been successful, no-one would have had the convenience and inexpense of calling wherever they wanted.

How about data transmission? In the late '70s your phoneline wouldn't handle more than 150 baud - 15 characters/second. Unless signal-to-noise ratio of the lines was improved, faster modems were impossible. Ma Bell didn't want to give you a clearer line for fear that their business customers would buy them and that would cannablize Bell's leased data-line service. Within five years of the breakup, modem speeds octupled, because the Baby Bells installed the clearer lines - the BBs weren't in the leased line business. The same transition applies to DSL and ADSL. No breakup? No sane reason why anyone would have them - such would have been contrary to AT&Ts business model.

So, as a consumer, this "failed" breakup has given all of us lower rates than their parents enjoyed, better services, faster modems, and mobile phones. I'd hardly call that a failure. Ma Bell had no reason to change their tune before the breakup. They had adequate means to crush their competitors so that no common consumer would have the products the competitor promised.

A fractured Bell system did have reason to sing a different song. You received the blessings of the music.

Now, that said, I'm fully in favour of a merger between AT&T and SBC, but I am also in favour of them being hauled into court, tried, convicted, and broken apart; if they act as the old Ma Bell did. If they violate the law, if they bar access, if they roadblock expansion and technological growth, if they begin charging monopoly prices; break 'em apart I say. Big and Bully works, until someone notices - then the bully fall; if not immediately, then eventually. All bullies are responsible to market forces, but as much and moreso, all are responsible to their government.

Posted by: John Le'Brecage   Posted on: 02/22/05 You are currently: a Guest | Members login | Terms of Use

Alert moderator to an offensive message

Subscribe to this discussion via Email or RSS

SponsoredWhite Papers, Webcasts, and Downloads

• MessageStats Version 6.5.1 ScriptLogic MessageStats allows you to: Justify expenses on Exchange ... Download Now
• The Impact of Virtualization Software on Operating Environments VMware Today's use of virtualization technology allows IT professionals to ... Download Now
• Trend Micro Email Encryption Trend Micro Take this tour of our Email Encryption demo, and learn: Why you ... Download Now