Talk:AT&T/Archive 1

message: I have seen various dates for founding of the current AT&T - 2005, 1984, 1885, and 1877. Which is it?
*According to this PDF file,  1885 is when the AT&T was formed as a subsidary to the American Bell Telephone Co. In 1984, AT&T was broken up into baby bells which contain Southwestern Bell (later became SBC when it acquired a couple of other former baby bells). I think the reason why Wikipedia is listing it as 1877 because of the original parent company of AT&T was founded in that year. --J. Nguyen 01:01, 23 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Older comments

message: The article refers to AT&T Inc. Shouldn't the title correspond with that? --Akhristov 22:48, 24 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Add *Support or *Oppose followed by an optional one sentence explanation, then sign your vote with ~~~~
*Support, I agree, the title should read AT&T Inc.--Roadrunner3000 00:32, 25 November 2005 (UTC)

text: Add any additional comments
**Shouldn't the requested move be to at&t if anything? after all, the companies new name is in lower case letters?--Bob 00:46, 30 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Requested move (archived)

message: :Add any additional comments
**Shouldn't the requested move be to at&t if anything? after all, the companies new name is in lower case letters?--Bob 00:46, 30 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Discussion (archived)

message: The founded date shouuld be November 28,2005 because the company created in 1887 ceased to exsist on that date.
:The King is Dead, Long Live the King.  The original company may have ceased to exist on the financial books, but the article still refers to it, and all the assets of the AT&T that existed on November 27, 2005 are now part of the new company.  We need to keep history in perspective. Chadlupkes 14:25, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  AT&T | SBC Merger 

message: This article does a great job describing AT&T up until the point of the merge, however it lacks enough information about the company SBC which is what AT&T has become. There should be a seperate article specifically about SBC before its name change, and what it was before being combined with AT&T. I suggest we pull up the old SBC article and use it for that purpose. --69.232.197.133 03:26, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't see a problem using the SBC article as a "History" article.  Besides, it was SBC who bought AT&T, not the other way around, and I feel this fact gets lost in the article in it's current format.Dknights411 06:38, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Wheres SBC? 

message: Why does the intro refer to "local long distance"? I thought it was a mistake, but the Long distance article says there is such a thing. But doesn't AT&T do regular long distance as well? Wkdewey 01:42, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Intro 

message: I've prepared a summary of what happened to the equity investors in the old AT&T, from the perspective of a hypothetical investor who purchased 100 shares in 1970.  My summary is not NPOV and is to some extent original research, so I'm not going to put it in the article directly, but the information there may be of some utility to future editors of this article.  (Note that I explicitly exclude dividends, which are much more difficult to account for, particularly when converting to constant dollars.)  18.26.0.5 18:51, 27 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Summation that may be of interest 

message: AT&T bought BellSouth....http://www.engadget.com/2006/03/05/ma-bell-returns-atandt-buys-bellsouth-for-67-billion/ - Unsigned post
* There have been additions about the bellsouth merger already, but it has not been approved yet (a foregone conclusion in the US at this time, true, but it's still not finalized yet. Daniel Pritchard 16:32, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  This article needs new stuff 

message: Why's there a link to "BellIsBack.com"? The site is just parked! Daniel Pritchard 16:32, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That was, briefly, a very funny one-page site, where the SBC and AT&T logos morphed into the old Bell System logo.  AT&T arranged to shut it down. It looked real. --John Nagle 18:40, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  What's with this link?? 

message: I remember a while back...I think in 2003...Popular Science had a flowchart that depicted the consumption of AT&T that occurred.  I went on the website for the archives, but alas, they only have articles only as far back as 2004.
Would anyone happen to have a link to the article/a copy of the issue that could scan it and sent it to me?
--Nelson 00:23, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Popular Science's Flowchart For AT&T? 

message: I'm sorry to go slightly off topic here, but if you are interested in editing business articles you may want to look into Wikibiz, the Wiki I started, hosted on Wikia. It is likea Wikipedia, but just for businesses. [www.business.wikia.com]. I'm sorry to veer off topic, we now return to our regularly scheduled AT&T Disscussion.    Aidan C. Siegel 04:11, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Little off topic...

message: There are two paragraphs:
* 2005 - Phone calls were recorded and sent to the NSA
* 2006 - Records (not recordings) of calls were sent to the NSA
Is this a typo or two incidents? Either way it should be clarified. -Harmil 20:26, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Oops! The 2005 date is a typo, by my slip of the keyboard, it should say 2006 - news reports on KCTV in Kansas City reported that calls were recorded, however, they may have meant calls were recorded as in documented. KansasCity 04:12, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: OK, I've re-merged the two. There is now just one combined paragraph that references the NSA call database. -Harmil 11:25, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  NSA controversy 

message: The old ATT is gone. I thijnk we should make a new article, for ATT before merger. Discuss? Aido2002 22:08, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: There is a reason to debate it, the article was a good article the way it was before. The split was not properly proposed. The articles have been rejoined and, the split has been properly proposed to allow for a consenus to be reachedHypernick1980 20:54, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Split into 2

message: I think we need to put more information about AT&T's products and services. We mention none of their phone plans and the word "DSL" is only mentioned once. Most of the content is about the merger right now. --Blackjack48 02:08, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Action taken and the request may be fulfilled. Please check sub section for completeness. Content added is minimal stub. Neutralaccounting 00:53, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  AT&T's Products/Services 

message: On every RBOC page, AT&T, BellSouth, Verizon, and Qwest, there is a section "Comepetitors", and in each is listed the other RBOCS, as well as various independant ILECs. The independants I could see, as they may be a CLEC in various Bell areas, but the RBOCs do not compete with eachother, in other words, they don't intrude on eachother's turf for LEC service.
I think the competitors section on the RBOC pages are irrelevant, inaccurate, and incomplete (they list few if any of the actual CLECs that "compete" with the Bell company), and irrelevant.
X570 08:38, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Competitors??? 

message: 24.4.195.251 changed the chart from the one concerning AT&T only to the complete one concerning AT&T, Verizon, and Qwest. I believe this one is beyond the scope of this article but I figured I'd discuss this before being quick to revert the change.  X570 19:36, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Complete chart? 

message: I'm delisting this GA based on the fact that it was arbitrarily added in after it had been removed  and apparently didn't go through a formal nominating process. Hbdragon88 02:54, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Delisted GA 

message: *AT&T Co. was not allowed to use the bell logo after 1984.
Does anyone know if AT&T Inc. is allowed to use the bell logo now?
:*I thought the new swirling globe logo was just a rebranding for Ma Bell in the 90's, e.g. e.g. when AT&T starting becoming a Cable provider and the like and needed a logo that was no longer just about the "bell" a.k.a. old long distance and POTS system. CaribDigita 03:16, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: *I think technically, the new AT&T could use the Bell logo, since the logo was authorized to all the Baby Bell, and in reality the new AT&T is really SBC rebranded.  Just as you mention about the old AT&T wanting to move away from LDT and POTS back in the 90s, I don't think we'll ever see the current company use the logo, other than in a historic sense.  AT&T wants customers to see them as more than just a phone company, which the Bell logo is pretty much the icon for.  In addition, I'm sure AT&T wants to distance itself from as many similarities of the old Bell System as possible, keeping those in government from getting any ideas of repeating 1984 all over again.  --Brownings 03:35, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: *AT&T is allowed to use the Bell logo and name, and does use in a sense, that it licenses it to Conairphone for their Southwestern Bell Freedom phone brand: http://www.swbfreedomphone.com/, also they still use it for the time being in BellSouth Telecommunications territory, and payhones that still sport the Bell logo on signs is considered active use.  X570 14:04, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

text: *Actually the current swirling globe was created when SBC bought out the "old" AT&T and assumed the brand identity to make the "new" AT&T.  The old globe was created because AT&T was disallowed to use the Bell as part of its brand identity, and was unveiled the day the Baby Bell split became final. --Kitch (Talk : Contrib) 12:42, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Bell logo. 

message: AT&T Unity Plan needs to be merged into the main AT&T article as a section. The Unity plan is badly written and really has no real purpose as it is not a separate AT&T company, it is just a combination of billing options. KansasCity 01:29, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Agree This should not exist as a separate article.(Ke5crz 04:49, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

text: Agree --Brownings 04:50, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

text: Strong Agree Why should a billing plan even be in Wikipedia? Unnecessary bloat. Telepheedian 19:55, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: comment:  Because Wikipedia used--- to say that it was about having an un-biased encylopedia on any- and everything. CaribDigita 16:40, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Merge with AT&T Unity

message: Anyone mind if I remove it? It's completely unnecessary, and fast turning into "Lists of US wireless and cable TV telecommunication companies". --Squiggleslash 12:27, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  AT&T Competitors section 

message: Strong No For the 400th time, this page should be kept separate from American Telephone & Telegraph. See why in the previous debate Talk:AT&T#Merge Suggested.KansasCity 11:41, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The horse is dead.  Lets not shoot it too.--Donovan Ravenhull 19:18, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Merge

message: Someone continues to vandalize the corporate infobox changing the founding date of AT&T from 1983 to 2005. There is a disclaimer explaining the "1983" date; a similar disclaimer exists on the CBS Corporation page. This user is anonymous, and each time the date is changed a new IP address is used. KansasCity 04:28, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Founding date

message: I have a GFDL image of AT&T's headquarters on Houston St.  Does anyone think it'd be a nice addition to the article?  If so, I can upload it.  It's not really a fancy office building, so don't get your hopes too high.  --Brownings 01:27, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: AT&T Headquarters

message: :Image:Lockup.gif is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.
Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.
If there is other other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page.  Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 23:42, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Fair use rationale for Image:Lockup.gif

message: The current sentence "Although Southwestern Bell Corporation (later named SBC, later took the name AT&T, inc) was incorporated in 1983, the company currently uses the whole Bell System's history as its own history, after merging with AT&T in 2005. The AT&T Website details milestones in the Bell System's history, history of the telephone, history of the original AT&T network, television, and AT&T history links."
Question: Wouldn't that be like saying that SBC was the nation's largest cable company??? Because that would be incorrect.  The point is AT&T did somethings that clearly SBC did not.  And SBC did somethings which AT&T did not. They have simultaneous histories after 1984.  And only have inter-related histories after 2005?  Example.  AT&T never bid for DirecTV but SBC did. CaribDigita
: I have a problem with that whole section, but limited what I did to cleaning up some of the language because the whole topic is controversial at the moment (see thread above about founding date.) The point the original creator of that section was making was that SBC (now called AT&T) is using the history of the entire Bell System up to 1983, SBC, and the companies it acquired (which includes the 1984-2005 "AT&T"), when it talks on its own website about its history. --Squiggleslash 13:13, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I have removed the entire section earlier today, simply because it was extremely unnecessary. KansasCity 23:43, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

text: The section was removed because it was unnecessary as there are two disclaimers at the top of the webpage explaining that there is an entirely different entity that also had the AT&T name that can be found in another location on Wikipedia. Having this section is a redundancy. KansasCity 05:10, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

text: @Down2000: This is a democratic encyclopedia. You can add virtually any crap you want to any article. Of course, others can also remove any crap they want from any article. That's how it works, get over it. What you added seems to most of us to be entirely inappropriate and unnecessary. This is not a review of the AT&T corporate website, it's an article about AT&T. Nor is it a copy of the AT&T website or is it bound by its corporate policies. KC's incorporation of the explanation as to why AT&T's corporate "timeline" website is entirely irrelevent to the legal question of when SBC was founded really going above and beyond to appease you. --Squiggleslash 10:59, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  AT&T/SBC histories are still separate. No? 

message: At 12:00am on June 12th 2007, all Cingular logos on cell phone faces changed from 'Cingular' to 'AT&T'. I dont think this is something to include in the article. Just an Interesting fact because of the merger.--130.108.192.199 00:38, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Service Provider for Cingular Cell Phones 

message: Apparently, AT&T has expressed their intention to block pirated content from their network.
LA times article: http://www.latimes.com/entertainment/news/business/la-fi-piracy13jun13,1,545348.story?coll=la-headlines-business-enter&ctrack=1&cset=true
I think this article should mention it, it's notable. 80.175.118.157 14:09, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  AT&T to target pirated content on its network 

message: Shouldn't we spell AT&T's name as at&t? After all, it's in their logo. — JuWiki (Talk <> Resources) 01:15, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Logo, yes.  Name, no.  The name is still upper-case.  The lower case bit is just a logo/marketing thing. - TexasAndroid 16:04, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

text: To emphasize the point, AT&T has never called itself "at&t" other than in its logo. KansasCity 05:03, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Name

message: I just cleaned out the external links; second reviews welcome.  I'm a little perplexed by this one. Not sure what this one has to do with AT&T, seems to focus on BellSouth with some tangental commentary on AT&T.  Thoughts? Kuru talk 23:35, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: External links

message: Okay, I just did a little copyediting on the section added about the Dobson Communications merger.  For one it read like the contributer (who has just this one edit) simply copied and pasted a press release.  I editted it down to a more NPOV.  Secondly, while it was aquired by the AT&T parent company, it's effects would be primarily to the wireless division.  As such, I propose that the section be moved to AT&T Mobility.  (A disclaimer, I am an AT&T Southeast (formerly BellSouth) employee, though I am attempting to maintain a neutral POV here for this.) --Donovan Ravenhull (talk) 18:33, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Moving now. --Donovan Ravenhull (talk) 17:39, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Okay, when I went to put the section in, there was a better version already there.  So, at this time, I simply blanked the section here. --Donovan Ravenhull (talk) 17:42, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Dobson Merger 

message: I came across these when formatting references in the Qwest article:   Jason McHuff 10:56, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: FYI: 2 news articles

message: Is there a logo for the TX region SW Bell?  During the mid-1990s, service vehicles for SBC had the 'Southwestern Bell Telephone of Texas' markings which replaced the 'classic' two-tone vans (with a dark gold and blue stripe on a silver/white background).  This also includes the latter day sbcglobal.net and swbell.net internet domains...  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.196.138.68 (talk) 18:40, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: From what I've seen here in Texas, the new AT&T has made a global change of all signs, vehicles, payphones, marketing, and uniforms.  Almost everything is AT&T, with the isolated building plague that was left for various historical reasons.  There isn't an overall theme of what they keep, just seems to be up to the site's manager/lead.  For example the downtown COs in both San Antonio and Houston had the old 40s style Bell System brass plagues at the entrances.  In San Antonio, they're still there, with the new signs on the other side of the door.  In Houston though they've scrapped them all and put in all new (oh the HORROR!).  --Brownings (talk) 18:51, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Southwestern Bell Telephone of Texas

message: AT&T stands for what exactly? nothing listed in the article.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.132.245.126 (talk) 17:39, 19 May 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I think it's "American Telephone and Telegraph Company." Can anybody confirm this with a reference? Kevin chen2003 (talk) 21:17, 24 July 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: AT&T

message: I still can't believe the article doesn't show any relevance to the 3G network. Why isn't it there when it happens a million times on TV? I can't find it on Verizon, either.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Clammybells (talk • contribs) 14:48, 17 January 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  3G 

message: There's no corporate history on SBC (It all starts at 2005) and seeing how SBC redirects to here either A. someone find some info on SBC and post it or B. make SBC it's own page and someone find some info on it.--The Navigators (talk)-May British Rail Rest in Peace. 01:15, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  SBC? 

message: AT&T was not founded in 1983. i have added  to that, but i am kinda sure that at&t was founded in 1876. badmachine (talk) 18:29, 28 November 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: You're correct about AT&T not being founded in 1983.  The original company was American Telephone & Telegraph, and was known also by the "AT&T" moniker from the earliest days.  The way this article is currently written is crap.  It muddies the true lineage of the AT&T name.  It fails to clearly point out that Southwest Bell, a.k.a. SBC, slaughtered, er, acquired AT&T and dressed itself in the skin of its victim, mostly because SBC had developed such a rotten reputation with the public.  The current AT&T is merely SBC in disguise; the old AT&T is dead. (World Telecom pulled a similar name change trick when it restyled itself as MCI, a company that it had acquired before it was forced into bankruptcy by its debt load and the financial shenanigans of top executives.) Also, the diagram under "AT&T Corporation acquisition", showing the various mergers is incorrect in the Pacific Telesis branch.  Pacific Telesis was first known as Pacific Bell after the original AT&T breakup and changed its name to Pacific Telesis sometime in the mid-1980s, during a time of diversification mania, when it was fashionable for corporations to pick fanciful-sounding, vague names that didn't really tell you what their business was.  I think the Pacific Telesis article is equally screwed up in its corporate time line and should not be used as a reference for this article. —QuicksilverT @ 06:55, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

text: This article is about AT&T Inc., the company that acquired AT&T Corp (although it was known at SBC Inc. at the time). It was incorporated in 1983 as part of the consent decree to resolve the government's antitrust action against AT&T Corp. I don't know how we could make this more clear; it causes constant confusion. Maybe if we have more pointed language, like a more moderated version of what Hydrargyrum uses above. Cool Hand Luke 10:53, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

text: I've reworded the first paragraph of AT&T#History.  Hopefully it is clearer now.  I also rearranged the history to be in chronological order while I was at it. --Closeapple (talk) 05:04, 23 December 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I have removed the clutter on the "founded" date in the infobox; there is a reason that footnote was placed there. KansasCity (talk) 05:24, 26 December 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  "founded in 1983" 

message: After SBC purchased the wireless portion of AT&T, SBC gained the rights to use 'at&t' not 'AT&T'.  SBC may use 'at&t', not 'AT&T'.
67.52.71.200 (talk) 05:41, 21 December 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: And you are citing what exactly? I know that the ds use lowercase, but come on. Who cares? Lexlex (talk) 14:25, 10 February 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: I believe the official name of the company is "AT&T". "at&t" is used only in marketing. Leasnam (talk) 16:40, 27 July 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  It's 'at&t' ''not'' 'AT&T' 

message: An SBC article should be separate from the AT&T, Inc page.  It seems that every other former subsidiary has a page (Pacific Bell, Ameritech, Bell South, etc).  Shouldn't SBC have its own page as well.  I propose removing SBC links to this article -California Res.
:SBC isn't a separate subsidiary. It was renamed to AT&T Inc. in 2005. KansasCity (talk) 03:52, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Technically you are wrong.  Southwestern Bell (which changed its name to SBC) is a subsidiary of AT&T, Inc.  Southwestern Bell was the company founded in 1983 and should have its own page!  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.104.18.21 (talk) 05:44, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: No, you are wrong. Southwestern Bell Corporation was founded in 1983 and changed its name to SBC Communications, Inc. in 1995. It then changed its name to AT&T Inc. following its acquisition of AT&T Corporation. Southwestern Bell Telephone Co., on the other hand, still freely exists. It was founded in 1920, and is a subsidiary of AT&T. AT&T has veiled the name through a series of d/b/a names. KansasCity (talk) 15:47, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

text: Southwestern Bell Corporation was incorporated under the laws of the state of Delaware in 1983.  Founded is a poor term.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.123.204.95 (talk) 03:56, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: There is NO information on either Southwestern Bell or SBC Com. There needs two different pages for both companies (i.e.: SBC page, Southwestern Bell page, at&t page.)  —Preceding unsigned comment added by The Navigators (talk • contribs) 21:23, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

text: Where were you in the roughly month or so when I first pointed out there was no info on SBC and I went and fixed the problem?--The Navigators (talk)-May British Rail Rest in Peace. 05:58, 18 December 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: SBC Communications Page

message: They say be bold on Wikipedia so I'm being bold...
I will be removing the redirects for SBC Communications, and redirecting it to a page for SBC. I'll do this in a few days to a week with a page I just started working on, here's your moment to object. --The Navigators (talk)-May British Rail Rest in Peace. 00:27, 16 February 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: You know, it's about time. I'm all for it. 15:17, 17 February 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm going to point out that I had already done that months ago, you should have objected when I was actually doing it. (And I pry should have removed this section once I did it...)--The Navigators (talk)-May British Rail Rest in Peace. 05:53, 18 December 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: I had not been around this article to discover the seperate article until the time taht I proposed the merge. If I had been around when you had proposed the seperate article, then I would have opposed it then. But since I discovered it in more recent months instead, I thus listed it then. [|Retro00064|☎talk|✍contribs|] 06:02, 18 December 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  NOTICE! 

message: SBC Communications → AT&T#History
Back in February, some user created the article SBC Communications. This is total nonsense. SBC Communications, Inc. and AT&T, Inc. are exactly the same corporate entity, and there is no reason to have two articles on the same corporation. There is no need to have an article for every name that a corporate entity used over the years. It is total nonsense. So what I am saying is to merge the relevant information in SBC Communications into the History section of this article (AT&T#History), where it belongs. It would take a really good reason for there to be two seperate articles on the same company, and I do not see any good reason in this case. [|Retro00064|☎talk|✍contribs|] 02:39, 5 November 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Agree. I'm not sure why they have two articles as well. You have a careful eye, and I will award you a barnstar.  Lucasoutloud (talk) 04:47, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

text: The old Viacom and the new Viacom are two seperate corporate entities (corporations). Just because the two companies share the same name does not mean they are the same corporate entity. The way it looks now, the current CBS Corporation may be the same legal entity that the old Viacom was. More research would be needed to clarify those things, but if the old Viacom, Inc. and the current CBS Corporation are the same corporate entity, then a merge will probably be due there also. [|Retro00064|☎talk|✍contribs|] 03:22, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

text: Merge To be honest, I didn't know there were two separate articles. Jgera5 (talk) 00:57, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

text: Do Not Merge Merge The separate article was created due to the fact that there was zero information on SBC at this page originally.--The Navigators (talk)-May British Rail Rest in Peace. 05:50, 18 December 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Comment: Just becuase there was no information on SBC in this article in the past, does not mean that that information can not be added/merged into it now. ;-) [|Retro00064|☎talk|✍contribs|] 05:59, 18 December 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Check the top of the page.
To-do list for AT&T: 	
    
* Create a separate SBC page explaining the esoterica behind the mergers.Lexlex (talk) 19:40, 26 September 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Just becuase it is in the todo list, does not mean that it is something that should be done. That was only that one editor's opinion on the matter. He also needs to see this discussion and see why two articles on the same corporate entity (regardless of what names the corporation used in the past) is nonsense. [|Retro00064|☎talk|✍contribs|] 06:21, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

text: As a side note, around the time that I proposed this merger, I was tempted to remove that entry from the to-do list (e.g. the action had already been done by you). But I did not. [|Retro00064|☎talk|✍contribs|] 06:22, 18 December 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Read This http://www.att.com/Common/files/pdf/logo_evolution_factsheet.pdf. It was it's own company.
"AT&T agrees to divest its
local phone companies,
and Southwestern Bell Corp.
(SBC) is incorporated as one
of seven regional holding
companies in anticipation
of the AT&T divestiture and
retains the bell in its logo."
--The Navigators (talk)-May British Rail Rest in Peace. 02:42, 25 December 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: That quote is about the time when the Bell System broke up. That AT&T was AT&T Corporation (then known as the American Telephone and Telegraph Company). The current AT&T Inc. is actually a renamed SBC. The old AT&T Corporation is currently AT&T Inc.'s subsidiary. One needs to know that the AT&T that formerly owned the Bell System is a seperate company from the current AT&T that operates today,m in order to see sense out of all of this. [|Retro00064|☎talk|✍contribs|] 03:01, 25 December 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Okay, do it, please feel free to use the data on the page, sorce are cited.--The Navigators (talk)-May British Rail Rest in Peace. 08:08, 26 December 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Merging the two should be rather straight-forward, mostly just a simple copy-and-paste of most of what the SBC Communications article contains. However, I am going to wait a little bit longer before doing the merge, to see if any more consensus comes up. It will not be much longer until this merge proposal is two months old. [|Retro00064|☎talk|✍contribs|] 08:32, 26 December 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: I wish you luck, Retro00064.--The Navigators (talk)-May British Rail Rest in Peace. 07:59, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

text: Do Not Merge The New AT&T is not just the Old SBC, it also includes AT&T Corp & Bell South.  AT&T Inc should have a seperate article just like ST&T Corp & Bell South do.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.31.78.134 (talk) 07:26, 23 December 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: The old SBC is the same as the new AT&T. SBC Corp. simply acquired AT&T Corp. in 2005, and changed its name to AT&T Inc. Get it? They are the same corporation, just under different names over the years. The other companies are subsidiaries--seperate corporations under the ownership of the holding company (AT&T Inc.), and thus, since they are corporations of their own, they get their own articles. AT&T Inc. is legally the same corporate entity as SBC, just under a different name. The other companies are seperate corporations and thus get their own articles. [|Retro00064|☎talk|✍contribs|] 01:19, 25 December 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Merge the [[SBC Communications]] article into this article 

message: The source for this statement is Forbes ranking of "The Worlds Best Companies," of which, at&t is the 13th best; best being of Forbes' opinion and not synonymous with largest. To get the ranking of the largest companies in the world you would have to filter this ranking by Market Cap, revenue or assets, depending on your tool of measurement.  Bottom line is that to say at&t is the 13th largest company in the world is false and my attempts at correcting this are getting reverted.74.141.199.224 (talk) 05:11, 19 January 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Ranking as 13th Largest Company in the world 

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.dallasnews.com/sharedcontent/dws/bus/stories/DN-att_28bus.ART.State.Edition2.4d5475b.html
** In Downtown Dallas on 2011-03-17 15:37:28, 404 Not Found
** In AT&T on 2011-06-20 01:04:38, 404 Not Found
--JeffGBot (talk) 01:05, 20 June 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Dead link 

message: I think it should be noted that AT&T is the 16th top spender out of every industry for lobbying the government from 1998-2011 at $126,449,336 total. http://www.opensecrets.org/lobby/top.php?indexType=s
And I think it should be mentioned that they are the 3rd top spender (total) out of everybody frmo 1989-2010 for political contributions.
http://www.opensecrets.org/orgs/list.php?order=A  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.58.125.85 (talk) 16:58, 20 August 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Why? And is that the new AT&T or AT&T Corp? In short, seems meaningless pot stirring. oknazevad (talk) 03:21, 21 August 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Lobbying and Political Donations 

message: I have the history of AT&T, straight from their corporate website which proves the descendency of the modern AT&T from the old one, and should solidify the fact that this should be merged with the other AT&T article:
Corporate History
The birth of the new AT&T is, in large measure, the culmination of the evolution of communications in the United States. AT&T's roots stretch back to 1876, with Alexander Graham Bell's invention of the telephone and the founding of the company that became AT&T. As the parent company of the Bell System, AT&T provided what was by all accounts the best telephone service in the world.
The Bell System was divested in 1984 by an agreement between the former AT&T and the U.S. Department of Justice, in which AT&T agreed to divest itself of its local telephone operations but retain its long distance, R&D and manufacturing arms. Out of the divestiture was born SBC Communications Inc. (formerly known as Southwestern Bell Corp.) and BellSouth Corporation.
In the face of dramatic changes to the competitive landscape triggered by the Telecommunications Act of 1996, SBC Communications Inc. embarked upon a series of acquisitions to establish itself as a global communications provider: Pacific Telesis Group (1997), Southern New England Telecommunications (1998) and Ameritech Corporation (1999).
In 2005, SBC Communications Inc. acquired AT&T Corp. and created the new AT&T, poised to lead the industry in one of the most significant shifts in communications technology since the invention of the telephone nearly 130 years earlier.
With the merger of AT&T and BellSouth in 2006, along with consolidated ownership of Cingular Wireless and YELLOWPAGES.COM, the new AT&T will have greater financial, technical, research and development as well as network and marketing resources to better serve consumers and business customers of all sizes. The merger will accelerate the introduction of new and improved product and service sets for those customers.
reference: http://www.att.com/gen/investor-relations?pid=5711  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Xen0blue (talk • contribs) 17:56, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Geez, not this again. The AT&T this page is about is the old SBC. Sorry. The only way you can legitimately merge all the pages together is if you also merge it with Qwest and Verizon, both of whom have as much claim to being the decedents of the 1880s company. --Squiggleslash (talk) 18:59, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  They might as well merge it all with Verizon and Qwest at this point.  The AT&T/SBC articles are a mess with all their histories smudged together. CaribDigita (talk) 21:24, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

text: If AT&T itself asserts it is the same entity as the old Ma Bell, then for Wikipedia to state anything else would be original research. The article should encompass the original company, the post-breakup long-distance provider, and the current company, which emerged from SBC; all of these entities were called "AT&T". It's already problematic that the article gives 1984 as the foundation date, without qualification of any kind. ProhibitOnions (T) 16:12, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

text: Um...No.  "Historical stuff" is the body of the article.  Yes, readers DO care and many contributors DO understand the lineage of the businesses.  Our job is to explain it clearly.OldZeb (talk) 05:24, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

text: So, having seen no response to this for over 40 days - can we get on with making one comprehensive AT&T page that incorporates both flavors? Some poor school kid is going to screw a up a term paper because of this. Yes, historically accurate - but don't you agree that this is too granular? I know not everyone agrees, but please humor me for a moment with this question: If we did create one AT&T page that incorporated the history of pre-anti-trust and post anti-trust all in one page, how would/could it be structured so a lay reader could figure it out? For some ideas, see this youtube video. Lexlex (talk) 00:32, 29 June 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Sorry, Colbert's charter is to entertain, Wikipedia to enlighten.  We, as a community are responsible to educate by writing and explaining clearly.  AT&T  (upper case or lower case) was founded in 1877 as stated on their own web page.  Wikipedia should reflect that.  Every time Chrysler corporation changes owners does not give it a new date.  When a woman marries and assumes a new surname it does not change her birth date.OldZeb (talk) 05:24, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

text: OK -- No response on this at *all* for quite a long period of time. When I get around to it, I 'm going to merge AT& together and link to a separate SBC page. Lexlex (talk) 19:38, 26 September 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Just because SBC wants to thinks it's AT&T does not mean it is AT&T. The thought of merging the two is a horrible idea and is against what Wikipedia is about. Valcumine (talk) 00:53, 20 November 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Do not merge the two pages! This at&t is not the same as AT&T, Do not merge. Though feel free to create a seperate SBC page, or add some corporate history to this page.--The Navigators (talk)-May British Rail Rest in Peace. 15:45, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

text: The articles should definitely be merged. SBC and AT&T merged and continued under the AT&T name. For Wikipedia to insist on making a distinction that is not made otherwise is definitely original research.Sylvain1972 (talk) 14:47, 7 April 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: They didn't merge, SBC took the AT&T name because 'SBC' already had a bad enough reputation. This is not 'original research', the two companies are still seperate. The old AT&T is now a subsidiary of SBC--er I mean at&t. Valcumine (talk) 18:58, 28 July 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: OK, it's been years and this nonsense of keeping two AT&T pages with hat notes is now esoteric silliness (in my opinion of course). Can we put this up for a vote and get 'er done? Lexlex (talk) 23:15, 30 September 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Or maybe it's been two years and there's no movement on it because there's no consensus for a merge at all. Obviously, others do not agree that it's essoteric silliness to accurately describe that the current AT&T is actually SBC, and the old company is now a subsidiary. Seems pretty straightforward to me. oknazevad (talk) 23:43, 30 September 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: Merge with other AT&T article

message: I believe it is necessary to add information pertaining to Bell Labs regarding R&D. Presently, I am having difficulties integrating these details. It would be much appreciated if a more experienced user could assist. 
Thanks!
Twillisjr (talk) 19:53, 12 October 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Sometimes it is best not to start with the lead of a generic article but to go to the middle of a more specific article, e.g., Bell Labs. If you want to link your data to the new AT&T, you will need a third-party reliable source that explicitly makes the link to avoid WP:Original research. I and one other editor are suspicious of this link so you have a hard climb. Best wishes! 12.153.112.21 (talk) 20:21, 12 October 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm suspicious because Bell Labs has nothing to do with the modern AT&T other than some shared history. Bell Labs is NOT the r&d branch I the modern AT&T and any edit that implies such is on its face factually incorrect. There's nothing to integrate here, because your edits are based on a fundamentally incorrect assumption. oknazevad (talk) 23:38, 12 October 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Bell Labs 

message: The AT&Ts are being poorly disambiguated. We currently have AT&T and AT&T Corporation - but both of these are corporations, so these disambiguators are not really helpful. It would make sense to disambiguate both with the year they started using the AT&T name. So, in my view, this page should be moved to AT&T (2005), and the other to AT&T (1885). Meanwhile, at AT&T, we should write a disambiguation concept article explaining the history of these companies and of the name, and how they are all connected. I suggest an article starting with "AT&T is the name of several companies that provide telecommunications services, operating from 1885 to the present." AT&T is the classic case of an ambiguous name that needs more than just a list to disambiguate, but instead, a detailed explanation to disambiguate. Good models for what this type of thing are at Football and particle, two ambiguous terms that can't be disambiguated with a mere list. This would also eliminate the problem with mistargeted links. Thoughts? Ego White Tray (talk) 03:19, 3 November 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Sounds good to me. A similar idea is currently in use with Norfolk Southern Railway and Norfolk Southern Railway (1942–1982), although in that case, as you can see, the current company's article title has no disambiguation and the old company's article title has the full year range. —{|Retro00064|☎talk|✍contribs|} 08:32, 11 November 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: I oppose. There's no reason to force a reader to go to another page where the clear current primary topic is the current company, and therefore should have the undisambiguated name without question. Once again, if links are pointing to the wrong page, fix them. Don't break what is not broken! oknazevad (talk) 01:14, 19 November 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: There obviously isn't a clear primary topic. Yes, the 2005 AT&T is the big monstrous phone company, but the 100 years of history is a different one. If the old AT&T went out of business and the name disappeared, it would still be primary topic. If AT&T was a brand new company but still of its size, it would be primary topic. We clearly have two AT&T primary topics here. A large number of links pointing to the wrong page only happens if something is broken. This was the case with Las Vegas when that title was a disambiguation page. Conservative Christianity is a disambiguation page with 40-some links pointing to it because people refuse to let it be a dabconcept. If editors are constantly putting incorrect links to a page, it's because what's at the page isn't what should be. Also, don't assume everyone knows what you do. I expect a huge number of people think that today's AT&T and the historic one are the same. Ego White Tray (talk) 01:30, 19 November 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  DABConcept 

message: For the quick article I wrote at Talk:AT&T/sandbox, I've been thinking that I should rename it as History of AT&T. The idea here is that this history would follow the name AT&T (since the two AT&Ts are closely linked), and, while explaining everything, would generally treat the original AT&T and current AT&T as continuations of the same company. Considering the history of buyouts, I think this is reasonable. Most of the content on the history of AT&T Corporation could be moved here, as well as history about the Baby Bells and the current AT&T's history - the other history sections would be shortened to summaries with the link to History of AT&T. Thoughts? Ego White Tray (talk) 03:37, 27 November 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: I like it. It's a good sort of article to have per WP:SUMMARY, and doesn't waste your efforts while putting them under a far more appropriate title. Great idea. oknazevad (talk) 03:56, 27 November 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: It's a good idea. It would make a good daughter article branching from the main article on AT&T and would be a better way to detail the history of all companies named AT&T. Majoreditor (talk) 04:19, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

text: Me too, but from the move discussion above, it doesn't seem likely to happen. So, next best thing, right? Ego White Tray (talk) 13:41, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

text: I have three major problems with a dab page as a main page. First, the above-mentioned issue with primary topic; the current AT&T is the current primary topic for the name. Second, following that, it is reader-unfriendly to for e them to click through a disambiguation page when the clear primary topic is this article. Third, the "(2005)" disambiguator is pretty bad; yes the current AT&T may have only started using the name then, but it implies that's when the company formed, which is factually incorrect. See the above bits about why there's no separate SBC article; if this article is given an incorrect disambiguator it will only confuse the issue of the current company's correct history. oknazevad (talk) 05:01, 28 November 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: There is, though a separate SBC article - Southwestern Bell. Apteva (talk) 05:26, 28 November 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: No that's not the SBC article I'm talking about; I'm talking about the one at SBC Communications, which was merged into this article following the discussion seen above on this page. oknazevad (talk) 22:51, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

text: I'd like to point out that the current state of affairs doesn't disambiguate anything. Right now, the 2005 ATT is at AT&T while the original is at AT&T Corporation - the problem with this is that they are both corporations, so "corporation" disambiguates squat. Disambiguators need to refer to something unique about the entity, which is why I like using the year the company adopted the name. I'm open to other ideas, but let's hold off until the move discussion above is closed. Ego White Tray (talk) 21:17, 3 December 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: That capital "C" indicates clearly that "AT&T Corporation" is a proper noun, not just a mere disambiguator. oknazevad (talk) 20:40, 15 April 2013 (UTC)
thread_title: My AT&T sandbox article

message: I wonder: why are there is no any mention about their assembler syntax? IMHO it's the most renowned their achievment, how couldn't be it mentioned?109.234.25.228 (talk) 01:02, 24 May 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: That goes at Bell Labs, not here. oknazevad (talk) 01:32, 24 May 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Assembler language 

message: *Mendoza, Martha. "AT&T: We don't have to disclose NSA dealings." Associated Press at the USA Today. December 6, 2013.
WhisperToMe (talk) 21:00, 7 December 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  AT&T and the NSA 

message: I'm aware there's been a bit of debate about when AT&T was founded, and I don't know enough to get involved.  I just thought I should point out that, whatever the definition, Alexander Graham Bell did not found it in 1983.  This is surely a discrepancy?  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.44.10.150 (talk) 12:31, 10 April 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: That would be the original American Telephone and Telegraph, now AT&T Corporation and a subsidiary of this company, the former SBC Communications, which was founded as one of the Baby Bells in the 1983 split and later took the AT&T name when it bought out its former parent. So, yes, by the legal definition of its articles of incorporation, this company was founded in 1983, and not by Bell. oknazevad (talk) 13:02, 10 April 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Infobox 

message: The article on the original co. was at some point re-titled "History of AT&T" but the "about" box didn't keep up, thus redirecting to one of the new co.'s subsidiaries.  I've edited this but if anyone disagrees... Chrismorey (talk) 23:02, 7 May 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: No, the History of AT&T article was newly created as a sub-article not long ago in order to prevent this article from being bogged down too much with the at times convoluted history of the name. The name has been used by two companies, of which AT&T Corporation is to original company, which is now a subsidiary of the former SBC, itself a spin-off of the original company. So the links that refer to the historical AT&T that point to the current subsidiary are correct, as that subsidiary was and is actually the original company. oknazevad (talk) 18:19, 8 May 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Original AT&T 

message: I am surprised that this article makes no mention of Bellcomm, a subsidiary of AT&T which was associated with NASA and the Apollo Program. See https://airandspace.si.edu/research/arch/findaids/bellcomm/bci_frames.html4meter4 (talk) 17:15, 13 September 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Bellcomm 

message: The paragraph on Pearl Jam seems both trivial and old news. I suggest removing it. Majoreditor (talk) 00:14, 5 October 2014 (UTC)
thread_title: Pearl Jam paragraph seems dated and trivial

message: It's a keypoint of AT&T. 
It's a wonder of wonders it has no "Unix" on the whole page.
Xcislav (talk) 09:00, 29 April 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: --Hroðulf (or Hrothulf) (Talk) 11:16, 29 April 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  No mentioning of Unix at all 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified  on AT&T. 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/20110830202115/http://www.fi.edu:80/learn/case-files/att/ to http://www.fi.edu/learn/case-files/att/
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) 10:54, 1 October 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 8 external links on AT&T. 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:
*Corrected formatting/usage for http://yahoo.brand.edgar-online.com/EFX_dll/EDGARpro.dll?FetchFilingHTML1%3FSessionID=jaJ3juNdQ_X7dSV&ID=4390374
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120511000739/http://www.alec.org/about-alec/private-enterprise-board/ to http://www.alec.org/about-alec/private-enterprise-board/
*Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.opensecrets.org/orgs/summary.asp?ID=D000000076&Name=AT&T%20Inc
*Corrected formatting/usage for http://home.bellsouth.net/csbellsouth/s/s.dll?spage=cg%2Flegal%2Fatt.htm&leg=tos
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120102012925/http://www.consumeraffairs.com/news04/2007/10/att_tos.html to http://www.consumeraffairs.com/news04/2007/10/att_tos.html
*Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=%2Fc%2Fa%2F2006%2F06%2F21%2FBUG9VJHB9C1.DTL&hw=at&sn=002&sc=870
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20111205122946/http://www.teamusa.org/pages/sponsors to http://www.teamusa.org/pages/sponsors
*Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.fi.edu/learn/case-files/att/
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) 13:35, 12 May 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: I am unclear as to why, in the last couple months, there has been a push to change the date of foundation of AT&T Inc. from 1983 (its incorporation as a Baby Bell) to 1882 (the date of foundation of the telephone company, its subsidiary, known as Southwestern Bell since 1920). Sure, they shared the "Southwestern Bell" name from 1983-1995, but there has always been a clear distinction between the two companies, especially when the name SBC Communications Inc. was adopted in 1995 by the company now known as AT&T Inc. There was a similar dispute 10 years ago to change the foundation date of AT&T Inc. from 1983 to match the foundation date of AT&T Corp., 1885. 
We are doing a disservice to claim that AT&T Inc. was founded in 1882 when, in fact, the company that was founded in 1882 continues to exist and has a separate page with history (Southwestern Bell). It also is inaccurate to say that AT&T Inc. was founded in 1882 and used the Southwestern Bell Telephone Company name from 1920-1983 when in fact the name never ceased to exist (except as a brand, in 2003) as it was used during that time (and continues to be used) by the local telephone company. KansasCity (talk) 23:35, 3 September 2017 (UTC)
thread_title: Date of foundation dispute

message: AT&T → AT&T (new) 
AT&T Corporation →  AT&T (old)
AT&T title should be about the brand only. 
Reason: it is not appropriate to apply the “AT&T” stand-alone title to the new company only and not the old company. The old company was referred to as AT&T too before the new company. Granthew (talk) 07:09, 21 November 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: No. This has been discussed many times before. See the talk page history. Plus this article isn't merely about the new company, but covers quite a bit of history of the entire AT&T legacy. oknazevad (talk) 16:24, 21 November 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: Oh not you again, I would rather hear an opinion from someone elseGranthew (talk) 16:44, 21 November 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes this article is not just about the new company, yes this article covers quite a bit of history of the entire AT&T legacy, but just because this article is not just about the new company and covers quite a bit of history of the entire AT&T legacy doesn't mean the new AT&T should be titled "AT&T" and the original AT&T be titled "AT&T Corporation". Respectfully to both companies, both articles should be titled AT&T (new) and AT&T (old) and create a new article about the AT&T brand and title it "AT&T". I saw all available talk pages on this issue and each talk page did not go further about this issue. Now give me another talk page to look at. I would like to hear another opinion from someone else other than Oknazevad's opinion.Granthew (talk) 00:25, 23 November 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Requested move 2017 

message: While waiting for a different opinion to the Request Move 2017 section, AT&T Inc. has recently created new subsidiaries. I think we should update the subsidiaries section or creat a new article about all of the current AT&T Inc. subsidiaries currently in existence and only list the primary subsidiaries in the subsidiaries section of the AT&T Inc. article. The article should only include current AT&T Inc. subsidiaries.Granthew (talk) 03:03, 23 November 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  AT&T Subsidiaries as of 2017 

message: As you all know, AT&T now 100% own the company formerly known as Time Warner Inc. (and all it divisions and subsidiaries) as of June 14th, 2018. AT&T page  needs a complete makeover plus that chart is outdated. AT&T Media as it informally known until we know the new name also need a total makeover on it page. We can all do this. 
Thanks,
BBMatBlood. 07:25, 15 June 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: A) do not shout in section headers, nor make them vague. I've changed the header to fix that. B) the purchase is not yet complete, and we don't know the final details. We'll get to it as it becomes clear. You can just slow down and wait like the rest of us. oknazevad (talk) 10:40, 15 June 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: Media seems to be saying they've completed the takeover https://www.bbc.com/news/business-44492201 – numbermaniac 10:42, 15 June 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: I was not aware of that. That said, we still should proceed with care, and not all-caps shouting haste. oknazevad (talk) 10:47, 15 June 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed, no need to rush and get it wrong in the process. – numbermaniac 11:43, 15 June 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Edits regarding the Time Warner purchase 

message: Hi all, I recently made an edit to the first line of the article: 
*AT&T Inc. is an American multinational conglomerate holding company headquartered at Whitacre Tower in Downtown Dallas, Texas.
however User:General_Ization reverted the edit, stating: 
AT&T Inc. is an American multinational conglomerate holding company, as previously stated.
on their 2nd revert, after seeking clarification for the reason why.
Rather than get into an edit war, it would be better to come to consensus amongst the community. I think a more sentence of what the company does would be better.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Angryskies (talk • contribs) 14:00, 17 September 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: Your proposed opening sentence was: "AT&T Inc. is an American telecommunications & media company based in Dallas, Texas."  Since this is factually incorrect, your edit was reverted. Also note a) typo and b) WP:AMPERSAND. You're right to bring it here rather than edit war over it, but I'm not sure what there is to discuss. General Ization Talk   14:17, 17 September 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  First sentence  

message: In every sense from owning the former parent, taking it name, logo, stock ticker, and claiming origins going back to 1885 (see Xander page, see 25th Anniversary of AT&T prediction). We could merge or not merge both pages since it will be unprecedentedly long but if CBS Corp. founded in 2006 can trace it history to that of Westinghouse which rename to CBS in 1997 then same thing here or even look at Atari,SA (formerly Infogrammes) and Atari,Inc (originating from Nolan Bushnell original company). with the only exceptions in this type of corporate structure (working on a name for it lol; working title is Old Brand becomes New: Father becomes Son. The tales of AT&T, CBS, Atari, and THQ) are THQ Nordic AB (Nordic Games) and THQ Inc. (formerly Toy Headquarters); Broadcom Inc. (formerly Avago Technologies) and Broadcom Corporation. Thank you.BBMatBlood (talk) 03:53, 7 January 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: I do not agree with merging articles about two distinctly different companies. These articles have remained separate for over 13 years since SBC acquired AT&T Corp. Plenty of citations are made throughout the article detailing the separate identity of AT&T Inc. You have argued in favor of the “merger” of the 2 articles by making the changes and then expecting everyone to go along with it without a discussion. Thank you for finally beginning a discussion; any changes should await whatever consensus may come from it. KansasCityKSMO (talk) 03:36, 11 January 2019 (UTC)

text: I agree with BBMatBlood. Merge articles. No merger. These companies have their own stories (like Alphabet Inc. and Google). Federal Chancellor (NightShadow) (talk) 12:45, 12 January 2019 (UTC)

text: I agree with BBMatBlood. Articles should be merged.Planet Uranuss (talk) Blocked as a sockpuppet. Aoi (青い) (talk) 23:47, 31 January 2019 (UTC)

text: When will there be an official proposal where the AT&T and AT&T Corporation pages are flagged for this proposed merger? Right now, as it stands in this discussion, there is not truly a clear answer as there has not been a banner on each page directing users to discuss the idea. KansasCityKSMO (talk) 08:56, 16 January 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Old AT&T Corp (American Telephone & Telegraph Co) became New AT&T Inc. (Southwestern Bell/SBC)... 

message: The SEPTA (Philadelphia public transit) station mentioned under 'Miscellaneous' is no longer named after AT&T, as the naming rights have passed on to NRG Corporation.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:6C52:7C00:203:3943:528A:C00A:5E95 (talk) 18:51, 1 March 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  SEPTA station 

message: I have a couple of issues with this blurb:
In 2013, the Spanish Government would have dampened a friendly takeover attempt of AT&T on Telefónica, valued in 122,000 million euros. Such an impediment would be justified in the strategic nature of the company and AT&T would have taken a step backward.[11] 
# I have a hard time parsing this.  What does this mean exactly? Who was to take over whom?  
# It seems highly speculative and vague.  For instance, what does "...would have taken a step backward" refer to?
# Why is this blurb shown in such a prominent place in the article?   It is, at best, of regional interest, not critical to the (history of the) company as a whole...   Perhaps a separate "subsidiaries" type section would do? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hlorri (talk • contribs) 18:32, 7 May 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Telefónica blurb 

message: The Walt Disney Company offers $92 Billion for AT&T starts May 17, 2019. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.94.23.13 (talk) 16:09, 10 May 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: Seems like simple vandalism; AT&T's market cap is 220b. Kuru (talk) 16:32, 10 May 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Acquired by Disney 

message: I'm really don't want to get involved in the edit war going on over which photo should go into the infobox. However, I wanted to note my opposition to the good faith addition of this photo by BigRed606. I was OK with either of the two prior photos, but this newest photo is too overexposed. Aoi (青い) (talk) 05:36, 25 July 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Infobox photo 

message: NOTE: I’m proposing the following edits for FleishmanHillard on behalf of AT&T. I am a paid editor and aware of the COI guidelines. I’m submitting these edits to account for correcting inaccuracies in the lead, historical performance and criticisms sections and have provided related sourcing for review. Please let me know of any questions or comments as you review. Thanks for your time and consideration. Jon Gray (talk) 02:52, 26 March 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: Hi Jon, I've worked through these and done most of them per your request. The 'fraud enabling one' requires more careful reading and consideration than I've got time for now - the case cited seems notable even if it's attached to the wrong occasion, so that section might need to be expanded to include both. I (or someone else) will get back to it. Happy to discuss any thoughts you've got on my changes if you can see improvements. AntiVan (talk) 13:37, 5 April 2021 (UTC)
replies: text:  Thank you for reviewing! Jon Gray (talk) 00:45, 6 April 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Edit Request: Lead section, Historical financial performance and Criticisms