Talk:AT&T Corporation

message: It would be good to place the current AT&T marble logo into the infobox. Isn't that logo the company's current logo? Fairly OddParents Freak 15:22, 28 January 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: Should there be a logo for this article?

message: AT&T is also known as the Death Star.  This term of reference can be found throughout popular culture.  Doonesbury, Bloom County, Bruce Sterling, BSD hackers, and even AT&T employees themselves have popularized the image.  Please google and consider adding it. --Viriditas 11:35, 7 Sep 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Nicknames 

message: The articel says that ""The buyout marked the first time that any company with Bell roots would hold operations in the non-contiguous United States.""
yet the article on Bell Canada says "In 1879 Melville Bell sold the rights to National Bell Telephone Company in Boston, Massachusetts and thus officially became one of the first regional operating companies of what was to become the Bell System. The Bell Telephone Company of Canada Ltd. was founded in 1880 and granted a government monopoly on Canadian long distance telephone service. By 1914, the Bell Telephone Company serviced 237,000 subscribers.
"
This to me certianly says that Bell Canada has "bell Roots""??
cmacd 18:45, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: No, that statement is only referring to operations in the United States. KansasCity 15:03, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Alascom

message: Very Strong Emphatic NO. These are two very different companies, different origins, different business focus, one defunct and the other still active. Merging would simply make no sense.
:Very Strong Emphatic YES!!! This article should be merged with the other AT&T article, as they have the same name and come from the same bloodline.
While I do realize that the "new AT&T" is a totally different company, I think that when someone types in AT&T, they want all of AT&T. Telepheedian 18:06, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Please no! They are different. Its very simple, two different companies get two different articles. Imagine trying to explain on the same page how AT&T is defunct and currently running. =0 YaanchSpeak! 20:42, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

text: Strong No They are very different companies and this would make their respective histories very confusing.  Cornell Rockey 19:37, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

text: NO MERGER! These are 2 diffrent compaines! 2 companies. Mergeing these two pages would be a failure. It would be Penn Central Crisis all over again. (It was a big rail merger that failed a year after merger.)--The Navigators (talk)-May British Rail Rest in Peace. 15:18, 28 January 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Merge (Feb 2007)

message: I think this article should be merged with AT&T and they are not different companies
-Mrsanitazier Martch 10,2007
:Don't Merge - they ARE different companies. It would be possible to merge these two articles but doing so would create one huge bloated article out of two, and wouldn't take into account the unique history of the two companies. TheQuandry 19:38, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Strong Disagree! They are different companies! Very different. They have different histories and we have already gone over this extensively over time. Dont Merge! YaanchSpeak! 23:56, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

text: Don't Merge, Do not - they ARE different companies.  One was almost Bankrupt in 2004.  The other had the cash to buy the remains and took over the name.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.163.237.170 (talk) 12:07, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

text: Oppose. In the first place, that's patently false. Secondly, even if they were not, it would be useful to conceptually separate the topics. Having different articles for AT&T and SBC during this period is the only logical way to divide them up. One article would be bloated and illogical. Cool Hand Luke 19:13, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

text: NO MERGE This has already been brought up on BOTH pages and rejected multiple times, these pages are not supposed be merge.--The Navigators (talk)-May British Rail Rest in Peace. 15:32, 28 January 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Merge II (Mar 2007)

message: This page should be moved to American Telephone & Telegraph. The current title of the article violates Wikipedia naming conventions. Adding "Company" to the article title does not convey any special significance. KansasCity 18:51, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: This page has been moved as the result of an uncontroversial move request. Dekimasuよ! 09:24, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

text: Refer to WP:NAME. KansasCity 00:51, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, it says LEGAL STATUS. Company in American Telephone and Telegraph Company doesn't refer to Legal Status. IT IS THE NAME OF THE COMPANY. As in "we are a Company that provides Telephone and Telegraph services. Once again, history is being rewritten to conform to arbitrary rules, and once again is the reason Wikipedia is worthless as a research tool. Just another internet toy like the dancing jesus! 24.185.31.111 06:34, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Requested move 2007

message: Someone has vandalized the site stating AT&T Corp is defunct when it still LEGALLY exists as a subsiary of AT&T, Inc.  Problem has been fixed 69.104.165.61 (talk) 05:13, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: It is no longer an independently operating entity, however; its operations have been absorbed into those of AT&T Inc., formerly SBC Communications, Inc. If you want to use this as your reasoning for continuing to vandalize this page, then please kindly visit GTE, MCI Inc., Dobson Communications, Pacific Telesis, Ameritech, AT&T Wireless Services, Western Electric, Lucent Technologies (old company), AT&T Broadband, and a bevy of many other companies that have been bought out and kindly try to do perform the same sort of editing. The theory that AT&T Inc. is the same AT&T that was around in 1885 is incorrect. KansasCity (talk) 04:53, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

text: You're right, it does exist as a legal entity. So does New World Communications, even though it hasn't operated independently since it was purchased by News Corporation in 1997. Would you please go to that article and change the wording to make it sound like it still exists? After all, that is what should be done to other articles like BellSouth, Ameritech, GTE, MCI Inc., NYNEX, King World, Pacific Telesis, Lucent Technologies (old company), Mark Goodson Productions under your rationale that any company that has been absorbed into another still exists freely to this day. It is different from the Bell Operating Companies because those companies still actively do business within the AT&T structure, or with other telephone companies, albeit they have d/b/a names now. All of the forementioned companies have been dissolved as independent entities and their operations/personnel sent to the owning company, essentially making them nothing more than a defunct holding shell. How come you keep editing the corporate infobox to make no mention of AT&T Corporation having been purchased by SBC Communications? That is why I am suspect of these edits. You tried to vandalize the AT&T within the last year to no avail, so please don't think your tactics will work again.  KansasCity (talk) 05:25, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: If it is a legal entity then it is a legal entity.  Your argument that other pages on Wikipedia should be changed is not valid at all.  First off many of those you mention like BellSouth & Pacific Telesis do not say defunct but say subsidiary of AT&T, Inc, just like this article should say! Obviously there are lots of problems on all of the Bell System pages because people did not do their homework and assumed some of these companies are defunct.  The corporate infor box edit CLEARLY states that AT&T Corp is a legal subsidiary of AT&T, Inc.  BTW, there is NO SBC Communications (although it is quite obvious that that fact is just killing you!)  It is AT&T, Inc.  Obviosuly the company though more highly of the name & history as it is so prominently featured on their corporate web site!  A defunct holding shell is your OPINION and is not in any way a legal term.  Wikipedia is based on facts and not opinions.  As for the AT&T page that page has been changed by several people to give much better facts than the very pro-SBC page its was before!  Stop using your opinions and stop vandalizing the site.  AT&T, Corp exists!!  Your tactics and vandalism will not work!!
On Jan. 31, 2005, SBC Communications Inc. ("SBC") announced its historic agreement to acquire AT&T Corp. After the closing of the acquisition, AT&T Corp. became a wholly owned subsidiary of SBC. In recognition of the global importance of the AT&T name, SBC changed its corporate name to AT&T Inc. The acquisition was completed on Nov. 18, 2005. For more information on this please click  Source: http://www.att.com/gen/investor-relations?pid=7958  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.105.168.46 (talk) 01:43, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

text: I have already stated that I agree that AT&T Corporation is a company owned by AT&T Inc. The reason it, along with Dobson Communications, BellSouth, GTE, NYNEX, Ameritech, Pacific Telesis, MCI Inc., Nextel Communications, Western Wireless, May Department Stores, and AT&T Broadband, all companies that were acquired and are now owned by their buyer are called defunct is because they no longer function independently. The fact of the matter is that AT&T Corporation existed from 1885-2005 as a lucrative operation, and now it has been acquired and replaced by the image of its buyer, AT&T Inc. KansasCity (talk) 04:24, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

text: The SBC brand may have died, but the company is still around today as AT&T Inc. KansasCity (talk) 05:39, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

text: I would hope that someday you will realize that the company that has been promoting itself as AT&T Inc. this very day was formerly named SBC Communications, Inc. I cannot understand why this underlying historical fact is some basis for you to accuse someone of having an agenda to keep an old name alive. AT&T Inc. says it has been around for 100+ years because it seems that some people may not be able to tell a difference. I feel I have been very civil about discussing this matter, and all I have seen you do is nothing but attempt to belittle and disgrace anyone who gets in the way of what you want to see on a Wikipedia page, as witnessed also with a Little League article that has now been deleted. Several users have shown their frustration with your disruptive edits even to the point of page protection on the Verizon Communications page. I will say it again - AT&T Corporation is considered defunct in the infobox just like all of the other major defunct companies I mentioned earlier because it is no longer an independent freely running organization. It is subject to the current AT&T Inc. in all it does and in that regard is pretty much defunct in what it as a company wants to do, since its management has been replaced by AT&T Inc. That is why the other companies aforementioned, at least from what I have read and come to understand, are also called defunct. KansasCity (talk) 05:03, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Legal Status of AT&T Corp

message: Removed copyright violation.
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=American_Telephone_%26_Telegraph&diff=225537432&oldid=225537200
Text was taken direct from the linked press release.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.238.174.69 (talk) 05:27, 14 July 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[wp:copyvio]] 

message: AT&T Corp DOES NOT provide long distance service. See AT&T Communications for the former subsidiary of AT&T Corp that did. Now they are a subsidiary company of AT&T Inc.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.238.174.69 (talk) 05:35, 14 July 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: To clarify, "AT&T Florida" is a fictitious d/b/a name for BellSouth Telecommunications, while "AT&T Long Distance Service" is a fictitious name for BellSouth Long Distance, 2 separate companies of AT&T Communications. KansasCity (talk) 05:39, 26 July 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Long Distance 

message: It has been documented (in the article itself there is a press release from the company) that AT&T Corp exists a a wholly-owned subsidiary of AT&T, Inc.  I am not really sure how else to explain it, but putting defunct is not accurate.  Please see http://www.att.com/gen/press-room?pid=4800&cdvn=news&newsarticleid=24633 for info 68.125.216.191 (talk) 03:28, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I Surrender! You were totally right all along. I guess I can be a real dunce sometimes, so I've made some changes on the page to improve on your version. Now the only thing left to do is to convince Speer320 that he is not correct. Regards. Retro00064 (talk) 05:54, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Stop Edit warring

message: http://controlrooms.christiedigital.com/Installations/Telecommunications/control_room_installations_ATT.htm - Bedminister, NJ is the location of AT&T Global Network Center.  As a subsidiary of AT&T, Inc, AT&T Corp would also have to have HQ in Dallas, TX.    Here is a second article http://broadcastengineering.com/news/att_upgrades_global_network/.  They are all over the web!!  69.105.171.165 (talk)D2  —Preceding undated comment was added at 21:41, 13 September 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: They are still based in Bedminster, NJ See  and   —Preceding unsigned comment added by Speer320 (talk • contribs) 22:39, 13 September 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Both of those links are from pre-2005 merger.  How does a subsidiary have its own HQ?  Here is another linki showing Bedminister is the Global Newtwork Operations Center http://www.corp.att.com/history/milestone_2002.html  However, if someone has other proof that they are in Bedminster than I am good with that but those two links are old.  Secondly, the logo should be the new AT&T logo as the old logo is no longer used.68.126.114.182 (talk) 04:30, 15 September 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Please, lets try not to get into a whole new edit war over a simple company headquarters. This website: https://www.sos.mo.gov/BusinessEntity/soskb/Corp.asp?458695 is the offical Missouri Secretary of State website page on AT&T Corp. If you click on the Filed Documents link and then click on the AT&T Corp. annual report from 5/5/2008, it says they're still headquartered in Bedminister, New Jersey. I'm don't mind the post-2005 AT&T logo on the page, but stating that they are headquartered in Dallas, is false. Annual reports don't lie. [|Retro00064 | (talk/contribs) |] 06:15, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

text: Okay I can agree with that we should keep the new AT&T logo and keep Bedminister until someone investiagtes further.  I still don't entirely trust that Missouri SOS website over AT&T's corporate website.  Maybe some info is also needed on the GNOC69.105.23.201 (talk) 05:59, 16 September 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Why on earth are you not trusting a LEGAL authority regarding this? For God's sake, that website has legal documents which are first initiated by the company. The state doesn't make up something on the fly to say that AT&T Corporation has its primary headquarters in New Jersey. A legal document is just that, legal, and no company's website can disprove a legal document without further legal documentation. Second, the old AT&T logo should be on this page because of what we see with Pacific Telesis, and if you have a contention with that, then there shoudn't even be a logo in the infobox, per Southwestern Bell, Pacific Bell, and all the other BOCs that AT&T owns. Why we are trying to make this page custom to what you want is beyond me. 69.150.147.142 (talk) 15:43, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

text: Any subsidiary of the AT&T, Inc should have the company's current logo.  Who said the state makes up something on the fly?  How do we know it's not outdated material?  Like I said more investigation is needed, I am shocked that someone would dismiss investigating something further or getting mutliple sources.  The overall tone of your comment seems like you have some sort of personal issue, which wikipedia is not the place for that!69.105.168.168 (talk) 03:16, 18 September 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  Settle down, you guys. Let's please note that the annual report on the Missouri Secretary of State website was made by The Very Company (AT&T Corporation) That We are talking about! Again, this annual report was not made by the MSoS website, but by AT&T Corporation. As said above in my last post, annual reports don't lie. [|Retro00064 | (talk/contribs) |] 11:49, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

text: I agree.  We should go with the annual report.  Let's just be sure its 100% verifiable and that there aren't other sources to dispute the HQ location.  However, let's check the status of the Global Network Operations Center in Bedminster, NJ.  It is a fact the GNOC is currently located there and AT&T Corp was HQ'd there prior to the merger and it appears that AT&T, inc also has the AT&T Corp subsidiary located there as well - I just want to check more info, let's make sure its 100% right.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.123.207.118 (talk) 01:18, 19 September 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Network Operations Center in Bedminster, New Jersey

message: During several automated bot runs the following external link was found to be unavailable. Please check if the link is in fact down and fix or remove it in that case!
* http://www.firstamny.com/stoler_9_8_05.aspx
** In 195 Broadway on 2011-05-25 03:40:18, 404 Not Found
** In 195 Broadway on 2011-06-04 18:50:10, 404 Not Found
** In 195 Broadway on 2011-06-04 21:59:27, 404 Not Found
** In AT&T Corporation on 2011-06-20 01:04:56, 404 Not Found
--JeffGBot (talk) 01:05, 20 June 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Dead link 

message: AT&T is a company (or maybe two or more) with a history that is confusing to non-experts - especially since a company split off from AT&T later bought the old AT&T and took its name. A have a proposal to address this at Talk:AT&T#DABConcept. Please comment. Ego White Tray (talk) 13:43, 9 November 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  The confusing history of AT&T 

message: There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:AT&T which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you.  —RMCD bot 01:59, 26 November 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: Move discussion in progress

message: The introduction to this article as written gives the impression that this is the current AT&T company. Isn't this one just a small subsidiary of the big guy (AT&T)? The lede should be written to say it's merely a subsidiary. Ego White Tray (talk) 03:44, 27 November 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Introduction needs rework 

message: There seems to be a big gap in the history of the article between the 80s breakup of the baby bells and the purchase of AT&T by SBC.  Shouldn't there be a section about spinning off Lucent, AT&T Broadband, etc?  And the lawsuits they faced then?  174.62.69.11 (talk) 19:12, 15 April 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Where's the 90's lawsuit that forced AT&T Broadband to be sold off? 

message: There ought to be some mention of UNIX and definitely Bell Labs. A great deal of telecommunications and computer technologies comes directly from Bell Labs. There ought to also be a mention of some of the excellent quality standards AT&T adhered to before the break up, if reliable sources can be found (e.g. Five Nines Reliability). W. M. Martínez (talk) 19:38, 27 October 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Bell Labs and UNIX 

message: The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:
* 
Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 17:58, 11 December 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion 

message: The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:
* 
Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 04:37, 9 August 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion 

message: The lead starts out with "AT&T Corporation, originally the American Telephone and Telegraph Company, ..."
The long version of the name using "and" instead of "&" is also used in the body of the article at times. Unfortunately, none of the mentions have citations that support this.
A Google image search for "American Telephone and Telegraph Company" shows support for both the "&" and "and" in the results. I could not detect a pattern though it appears they were using "and" on stock certificates in the early 1970s though mainly used "&" --Marc Kupper|talk 19:46, 8 November 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Should it be American Telephone ampersand Telegraph? 

message: Shouldn't the old logo from before 2007 and not the new logo be there? they're different things pls change 2601:1C0:5380:55E0:4046:B9B2:2601:193A (talk) 21:24, 7 March 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Logo? 

message: Despite the 2005 merger with SBC, AT&T Inc. has been including "AT&T Corp." in its assets lists until at least 2021, which implies the company is still operating and is not yet defunct, or at least became defunct years after 2005. 2A01:119F:23A:6400:5094:6EFA:F723:73DF (talk) 19:16, 2 April 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  AT&T Corp. still operates as of 2021 

message: There seems to be controversy regarding the founding date of AT&T Corp. It is no secret that this entity was incorporated in 1885 as the long distance subsidiary of the Bell Telephone Company that eventually acquired its parent in 1899. This page has always stated AT&T Corp’s foundation date as 1885 until the last couple days, when a user has changed it to 1877 out of the belief that AT&T Corp. was founded as Bell Telephone Company in 1877. While corporate lineage could be traced to 1877, there is already a page for Bell Telephone Company which describes that company prior to its 1899 acquisition by its subsidiary. AT&T Corp.’s history is quite distinct from that of the Bell companies that eventually spun off, and of course post-divestiture AT&T was forbidden from using the Bell name (sans Bell Labs) and logo. Just wanting to get some different perspectives on this as there has been no controversy prior to this week regarding this company’s founding date listed as its incorporation in 1885. KansasCityKSMO (talk) 06:26, 8 May 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: Another point to be made, all of the Bell Operating Companies (Southwestern Bell, Pacific Northwest Bell, etc.) and the Baby Bells trace their lineage to the historic Bell Telephone Company founded in 1877 and could be said to be successors to the 1877 company. However, like AT&T Corporation, each has their own foundation date because all of them have a distinct history from the original 1877 Bell Telephone Company. KansasCityKSMO (talk) 11:41, 8 May 2024 (UTC)
thread_title: Founding date

message: I'm pulling the plug on this RFC. It's malformed. Nemov (talk) 13:11, 10 May 2024 (UTC)
thread_title: Discussion

message: This Rfc comes to resolve a dispute regarding when AT&T Corporation was founded. Should the founding date be listed as (A) 1877: the date when Bell Telephone Company was originally founded or (B) 1885: when AT&T was originally created as a subsidiary of Bell Telephone Company?
Emiya1980 (talk) 22:23, 16 May 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: Emiya1980 (talk) 07:10, 2 June 2024 (UTC)

text: I believe it should be 1885 2601:1C0:5380:55E0:B417:C794:200:786D (talk) 07:14, 17 May 2024 (UTC)

text: It should be B, 1885, when it was originally founded. KansasCityKSMO (talk) 03:46, 18 May 2024 (UTC)

text: A The American Telephone and Telegraph Company (which later become known as AT&T Corporation) was originally created as a subsidiary of American Bell. AT&T Corporation only emerged as the Bell system's parent in 1899 because American Bell transferred its assets to the former to get around Massachusetts laws restricting its growth. From this moment forward, AT&T became a successor company to American Bell for all intents and purposes.Therefore, the foundation date for the entity that ultimately became known as AT&T Corporation should be listed as 1877, the same date when American Bell was originally founded.Emiya1980 (talk) 01:19, 19 May 2024 (UTC)

text: B - As the entity AT&T didn't exist until 1885. Bell Telephone Company is/was a completely different entity. Goldenarrow9 (talk) 19:21, 21 May 2024 (UTC)

text: B — Per Timeline of the telephone: 3 March 1885: The American Telephone & Telegraph Company (AT&T) is incorporated as the long-distance division of American Bell Telephone Company. It will become the head of the Bell System on the last day of 1899. ... 30 December 1899: American Bell Telephone Company is purchased by its own long-distance subsidiary, American Telephone and Telegraph (AT&T) to bypass state regulations limiting capitalization. AT&T assumes leadership role of the Bell System. — WFinch (talk) 16:58, 2 June 2024 (UTC)
replies: text:  Care to weigh in on this discussion?Emiya1980 (talk) 01:01, 20 May 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: Emiya1980 (talk) 05:57, 21 May 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: My view is that 1877 is the correct date. Joseph (talk) 21:59, 28 May 2024 (UTC)

text: Avgeekamfot I'm confused. If you believe the company traces its roots to 1877, don't you mean A? Emiya1980 (talk) 07:58, 29 May 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: My bad. Yes, I meant A when the predecessor company was founded. If needed, include both in the infobox (as done at British Airways) or use 1877 then explain corporate history in the text. Avgeekamfot (talk) 08:57, 3 June 2024 (UTC)
thread_title: Rfc on AT&T Corporation's Founding Date

message: The defunct date should be 2005 as other companies used their buy out date as defunct dates?
For example MCI they own several exchanges in my area? Are they independent? No they're just Verizon Their intercepts are from MCI most likely see where their network problems on what network and easily look up Tandem ID 2601:1C0:5380:55E0:B417:C794:200:786D (talk) 07:09, 17 May 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Defunct date and founding date?