Talk:AT&T

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You have new messages (last change).
 This article is part of WikiProject Texas, a WikiProject related to the U.S. state of Texas.
Good articles AT&T has been listed as a good article under the good-article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do.
If it no longer meets these criteria, you can delist it, or ask for a review.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Telecommunications, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to telecommunications on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project as a "full time member" and/or contribute to the discussion.


To-do list for AT&T:

 edit - history - watch - refresh
  • As usual, make sure that the page remains vandalism-free, and keep the page up to date, and at its best. aido2002 01:08, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Add more information about the the products and services of AT&T. --Blackjack48 02:09, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

Contents

[edit] Older comments

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)

[edit] Requested move (archived)

The article refers to AT&T Inc. Shouldn't the title correspond with that? --Akhristov 22:48, 24 November 2005 (UTC)

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)
  • Oppose, Wikipedia naming conventions dictate the use of common names. Rhobite 03:47, 25 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Oppose per Rhobite. —jiy (talk) 07:33, 25 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Oppose article covers history of AT&T, Inc, and predecessor companies including AT&T Corp and SBC Communications. In everyday useage company will be refered to as just AT&T [[[User:Hypernick1980|Hypernick1980]] 10:21, 25 November 2005 (UTC)]
  • Oppose—"AT&T" is obviously the common name, and the company was not always "AT&T, Inc." Austin Hair ✍ ✉ 04:09, 26 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Oppose. The "Inc." in the lead paragraph is there only to distinguish the new company from the old (AT&T Corp.).
  • Support The company's name is at&t Inc. That's more than enough reason to change Ke5crz 07:12, 30 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Oppose. The more common name should be used. Dystopos 14:33, 30 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Oppose AT&T is the name that even the company use, see their latest press release--Bob 16:44, 30 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Oppose If there were a reference to AT&T that showed a significant difference, then yes. But there isn't. The addition of Inc. to the name wouldn't add anything to the article, since we all know it's a corporation. And other corporation articles don't follow this standard. Chadlupkes 14:29, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Discussion (archived)

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)
      • Actually, the lower case letters are just a style point on their logo. The official name is still in upper case. - TexasAndroid 14:40, 30 November 2005 (UTC)
        • You are correct --Bob 16:44, 30 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Please sign your posts. --Akhristov 23:48, 29 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Looks like this move is opposed. Should I close the discussion or wait a little longer? --Akhristov 02:18, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] history

A lot of the history here is the same as in the Bell System article. Obviously, they shouldn't be merged, but maybe this one should be shortened and reference the Bell System article?

[edit] AT&T | SBC Merger

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)

[edit] Wheres SBC?

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)

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)

[edit] Intro

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)

[edit] Summation that may be of interest

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)

[edit] This article needs new stuff

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)

[edit] What's with this link??

Why's there a link to "BellIsBack.com"? The site is just parked! Daniel Pritchard 16:32, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

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)

[edit] Conair refrence

The link to the conair, seems to be a diffrent conair than the one being talked about —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 64.19.147.2 (talk • contribs) .

[edit] Popular Science's Flowchart For AT&T?

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)

[edit] Little off topic...

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)

[edit] NSA controversy

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)

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)
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)

The new material on a change in AT&T privacy policy only references the SF Chronicle article. I can find no backup for it anywhere, including on AT&T's web site. Can anyone verify that such a new policy was actually announced, and what either the announcement or the policy itself says? --SteveG23 16:50, 22 June 2006 (UTC)SteveG23

[edit] Wired Leaks NSA/AT&T Spying Documents

Maybe this document and related information should be added to this story;

http://www.wired.com/news/technology/0,70944-0.html

Basicly, this PDF file details how the NSA is wiretapping on internet traffic by splitting optical cables.

I think it is fine.

[edit] Split into 2

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)

  • How about waiting a week after the proposal to gather a consensus, and flagging the article for a aplit before actually doing the split, I personally oppose the move. With AT&T being aquired by SBC, the history of AT&T which is also the history of SBC prior to 1984 was also aquired, but I guess it is just a little too late. Hypernick1980 20:34, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
  • I also oppose the move, since AT&T and SBC both started as part of the original AT&T (pre-breakup). This split should be undone. æle ✆ 2006-06-02t03:18z

The page was split already, BEFORE both of these comments. DO NOT post anymore to this category, the page was split, with good reason, and there is no pint to debateing it further. aido2002 19:46, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

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)

[edit] Vote here to split in to 2

  • Should the AT&T article be split in to 2 articles one that covers AT&T from 1885-2005 and another that covers AT&T from 2005-present
  • Opposemakes it easier for readers to read about the history of this great company by having all the basics in one page. Hypernick1980 20:54, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Oppose Why 2005? Why not the breakup of 1983? We already have Bell System as a separate article that treads common ground with this one. I might accept a separate article History of AT&T if this needs to be shorter, but not an arbitrary date, which would probably violate WP:NOR.  ProhibitOnions  (T) 21:00, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Support The article that was split from the main AT&T article (AT&T (1885-2005) was justified on the basis that an article called Viacom (1971-2005) exists. The AT&T (1885-2005) article details the defunct holding company that existed from 1885-2005. The AT&T article, without the history of AT&T Corporation, should detail the holding company SBC Communications that purchased AT&T and changed its name to AT&T, and its current status as a merged company. KansasCity 00:47, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
Additionally, this situation can be compared to the currently existing MCI Communications and MCI articles: MCI Communications details the history of the (now defunct) entity purchased by WorldCom; MCI details the history of WorldCom and its status as a merged company that eventually renamed itself MCI. KansasCity 01:01, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Support What is wrong with splitting the article? After looking at what was done in the case of MCI Communications/MCI WorldCom, I say split the article. ColbyJack 02:26, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Support Sometimes its confusing when making a statement about the various stages of this company. Example. When AT&T("Ma Bell") was the largest U.S. cable company, then sold those units off.(which SBC-- didn't do.) AT&T also sold AT&T Wireless off to SBC/Cingular. Then AT&T Consumer became SBC. Just thinking ahead, this same situation is going to happen on the Cingular article. Because it follows the path: AT&T Wireless + Cingular ---> Cingular --> AT&T Wireless(eventually) all of the old information about AT&T Wireless (existing info) might become cannibalized when Cingular becomes re-merged back into AT&T Wireless' article down the road. CaribDigita 02:52, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Support There is a new AT&T! It isn't the same company! It's the same thing as if the new AT&T was called Phone Corp.!!! AND BESIDES!! Why are people waiting until NOW, after the splitting to argue!!! A very annoyed aido2002 05:57, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Oppose per Hypernick1980. Ardenn 20:18, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Weak Support It is a logical break (even though there are others as well). I would prefer that the daughter article be renamed History of AT&T. Eluchil404 23:33, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Note:Due to the obvious concensus here, the voting will end at 8:00PM EDT/7:00PM CDT/6:00PM MDT/5:00PM PDT/1:00 UTC, June 6,2006 (In EDT Time Zone) and acted on.


As promised, due to the obvious concensus, voting has ended. The AT&T page will remain split, as it was.

[edit] AT&T's Products/Services

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)

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)

[edit] Bellsouth just announced they will stop fleecing customers to get merger oked.

http://www.usatoday.com/tech/techinvestor/corporatenews/2006-08-27-fcc-verizon_x.htm http://www.usatoday.com/money/industries/telecom/2006-08-30-verizon-surcharge_x.htm

[edit] Competitors???

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)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../a/t/%26/Talk%7EAT%26T_9c28.html"