Talk:Breakup of the Bell System

message: I'd like to see a link to the original industrial video about the Ma Bell to Baby Bell divestiture. I believe it was created in '84 or '85.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by SystemoftheWorld4 (talk • contribs) 20:15, 4 August 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: Official Video

message: Maybe this page should merge with Regional Bell Operating Company and keep the name Bell System Divesture.--85.130.153.231 05:09, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Merger

message: "In 1982 the FCC declared that Internet service providers would be treated as if they were local and would not have to pay these access charges. This led to VoIP service providers arguing that they did not have to pay access charges - resulting in significant savings for VoIP calls."
Is this correct?  The date seems way too early. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 74.105.136.180 (talk) 19:04, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: FCC regulation of Internet in 1982?

message: :The local telecommunications market has remained essentially a monopoly, with the incidental and short lived appearance of competitive telephone companies (CLECs) after the Telecommunications Act of 1996.
Funny, nobody seems to have told Comcast and RCN that.  121a0012 17:13, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: CLECs

message: I'm not a business major and there are many words here that I don't understand. (I'm assuming, perhaps wrongly, that many others do not.) Would someone consider "dumbing things down" a bit? 
Some passages/words that I would like to see a more layman's term for are: 
divestiture, In this way, the implicit subsidies of Ma Bell became explicit post divestiture, sought to arbitrage the network and avoid these fees, VoIP, largest (nominal) block tradeMoonrythm (talk) 00:41, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Plain English Please!

message: The Effects section needs some work.  I made some corrections to the punctuation (remember the difference between its and it's), but I don't know enough about the subject to make more substantive changes.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by MattCox78 (talk • contribs) 03:42, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Effects section

message: Legal Battle with Bell South over Domain Names 
this link is irrelevant to the article  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.93.62.36 (talk) 06:32, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: external links

message: "Humerous Cartoon" We should remove this cartoon. The "humor" on it is crude and unnecessary to the article. I see it serving no encyclopedic purpose. HawkShark (talk) 13:55, 21 June 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Humor?

message: Verizon recently exited Maine, New Hampshire & Vermont and sold its facilities to Fairpoint Communications. Verizon's presence in New England now only consists of Massachusetts, Rhode Island and a very small sliver of southern Connecticut.
If an updated map can be located, could it be used to replace the now outdated map that is now being displayed?209.130.177.141 (talk) 18:33, 24 April 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Updated Map Needed.

message: The above book has a lot of info on this subject.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tbilltbj1a (talk • contribs) 00:08, 15 May 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: 2600: A Hacker Odeyssey

message: I've added about two paragraphs of info to this article (under "Effects") regarding the divestiture's effects on the broadcast industry, who heavily relied on Ma Bell's facilities for transmission of their programming to their local stations prior to the mid-70s.  Having been a former TV (and currently radio) broadcast employee, most of the info I typed was gleaned from talking to co-workers (and b'cast people on the internet) who were in the industry in the AT&T era, as well as from the little info I can find on the 'net and from books and other publications about b'casting that mention AT&Ts relationship with the broadcasting industry.  I hope it's accurate, if not, please feel free to correct it...  misternuvistor (talk) 13:20, 12 October 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Ma Bell and the Broadcasting industry...

message: Is the identity of the person(s) that filed suit in 1974 kept confidential or was it made public?
Musicwriter (talk) 15:56, 18 October 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Antitrust Suit

message: What was it exactly about the Telecommunications Act of 1996 that invalidated the Memorandum of Final Judgement? The whole point of divestiture was to eliminate the monopoly that Bell held (notwithstanding GTE). But in 1996 they decided it would be okay if over 50% of the country was run by a single RBOC? There is a huge gap in the history here. - 67.168.125.31 (talk) 06:05, 21 March 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  What happened in 1996? 

message: Given that they'd been explicitly ordered to break up, how did many of the spinoffs manage to merge back together again in recent years? Did they have to get the old court rulings overturned, was legislation passed to make the rulings irrelevant, or did the federal government simply let them know that they weren't going to bother enforcing anything any more, rather like Ronald Reagan letting business know he wouldn't be enforcing employment laws and they could get on with union-busting? How are the new 'remerged' companies not in violation of the rulings given in United States v. AT&T? Beorhtwulf (talk) 17:38, 23 August 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Legality of subsequent mergers 

message: I’m surprised that this article was moved to "Breakup of AT&T". While I agree that "divestiture" was inappropriate, so is the present title. It should’ve have been titled "Breakup of the Bell System", because it was fundamentally the "system" that was broken-up, and not really the company. 138.16.102.39 (talk) 19:42, 5 April 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: This was addressed in the discussion above. The Bell companies were entirely owned and controlled by AT&T, so for all practical purpose, there was no difference. The Bell System was AT&T's system, that is, the Bell System WAS AT&T, and AT&T is better known as a name than Bell. Ego White Tray (talk) 02:51, 6 April 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: That doesn’t make even the slightest sense. Most of the companies that were part of the Bell System continued to exist after the breakup. They were simply no longer connected through the Bell System. As an example, SNET, which AT&T only had a minority share in (and hence did not own), provided local service for most of Connecticut. Through the Bell System, it was able to provide long distance service outside of its own operating area. Especially in this case, it was not the "breakup of AT&T" because the local telephone operating company in question wasn’t even owned by AT&T. All of the little local Bell companies operated on their own, and even though many were owned by AT&T, not all of them were. What was fundamentally broken up here was the "system" by which all these companies were connected, both those owned by AT&T and those not owned by AT&T. As said before, the companies continued to exist, including AT&T. "Break-up" implies AT&T was destroyed through fragmentation, which wasn’t the case…there is just no way that the current title works…it is ambiguous and quite frankly incorrect. 138.16.102.39 (talk) 04:13, 6 April 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Oh, and furthermore, your claim that AT&T is a better known name than Bell is incorrect and ambiguous. There are two AT&Ts, old AT&T Corp and new AT&T Inc. (formerly Southwestern Bell, one of the RBOCS). These companies DO NOT have a direct corporate lineage. AT&T might be "better known" for the modern AT&T, but the old AT&T Corp is more often known as "Ma Bell" or "Bell" a derivative of the Bell System. Even if you disregard my arguments above, calling it "Breakup of the Bell System" removes ambiguity and makes it certain that one is referring to the old AT&T, which has absolutely nothing to do with the present company that uses that name. The current title muddles it up terribly. 138.16.101.4 (talk) 21:58, 6 April 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, I looked it up, and SNET was never considered part of the Bell System despite the marketing, but was instead considered an independent company. This is, of course, because AT&T didn't actually control it. All that said, if you want to start a new move request to Breakup of the Bell System, go ahead - but I will oppose it. I'm just happy that we got the word "divestiture" out of the title. Ego White Tray (talk) 03:11, 7 April 2013 (UTC)
thread_title: Possible move?

message: I added some references in my drive to improve the article, yet it seems like reflinks isn't working. I try using it and it says that the "server is too slow" or some such nonsense. Could someone else try it and see if they can finish off the links for me? 128.148.231.12 (talk) 18:33, 15 April 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Reflinks 

message: I am quite surprised to find no mention in this article of Bellcore (now Telcordia.) This was an importatn piece of the breakup, as Bell Labs had long been one of AT&T's major strengths and the baby bells were seriously threatened by separation from it. There is an existing article on Bellcore/Telcordia elsewhere, but I think there sould be a section here on its creation and role in the breakup.
I have enough knowledge on this to make a start at such a section, but I don't know it all, nor where to find references. Anyone else care to take this on?   Joe Avins (talk) 14:10, 24 April 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Creation of Bellcore 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified  on Breakup of the Bell System. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130502012749/http://connectedplanetonline.com/independent/news/Connect-America-Fund-order-details-access-charge-reforms-1208/ to http://connectedplanetonline.com/independent/news/Connect-America-Fund-order-details-access-charge-reforms-1208/
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 18:20, 7 November 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Breakup of the Bell System. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20141006093659/http://www.celtnet.org.uk/telecos/AT%26T-Bell-4.php to http://www.celtnet.org.uk/telecos/AT%26T-Bell-4.php
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 01:16, 25 July 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: My dad worked for AT&T and was leading a project to install fiber into every home in america by the year 2000. After the breakup, that project was scrapped because none of the baby bells had the capital or incentive to finish it.
I think this would be an interesting addition to the article but I'm not sure what type of references would be necessary. Can anyone advise on the best way to include this information in the article?
Thanks!  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.201.243.34 (talk) 17:40, 12 March 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: In order to include that information into the article, you need to find a book, or something similar, that mentions the project and its outcome. I'd suggest using a Google Books search for this purpose. RGloucester  — ☎ 19:35, 12 March 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Consequences for High Speed Internet