Talk:AT&T
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
| This article is within the scope of the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
|||||||||||||||||
 |
AT&T was a good article, but it has been removed from the list. There are suggestions below for improving the article to meet the good article criteria. Once these are addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake. Delisted version: January 28, 2007 |
 To-do list for AT&T: |
edit · history · watch · refresh |
|---|---|
|
|
| Priority 1 (top) | |
 Archives |
Contents |
[edit] External links
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)
[edit] Poor Service
Is this a good place to mention AT&T's poor customer service? Is there a good place where this can be discussed? Perhaps we should add a link? 134.215.195.161 19:23, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
Generally, no. This isn't an area for a discussion. That said, if poor customer service becomes a notable attribute of AT&T, then it might become something that can be raised in the article, but even then it'd be in the context of external criticism. eg:
- ==Criticisms of AT&T==
- AT&T has become the target of much criticism over poor customer service. In 2012, the Alliance for AT&T Customers successfully petitioned[1] to have AT&T investigated by Congress after allegations that AT&T's Vice President of Customer Service, Marmaduke Munster, sent hitmen to kill complaining customers, and ate their babies[2].
would be legitimate (if it were true.) But:
- ==Criticisms of AT&T==
- AT&T has very poor customer service. It took nearly five hours to get a customer service rep to answer the phone after an installer failed to turn up at one customer's home during the designated time, and this is very typical of AT&T these days
wouldn't be, even if true, because the evidence has to be sourced, notable, and not original research on the part of the submitter.
Does this help? --Squiggleslash 19:49, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
- You missed a great opportunity to illustrate your proposed legitimate addition with Goya's painting of Saturn (see it at Saturn (mythology)). Kuru talk 02:15, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
- Wish I'd thought of that! --Squiggleslash 13:28, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
- Would this link help any?
http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/local/276703_cingular06ww.html
-
- My view is probably not, at least not here. That article refers to one specific division of AT&T which has its own Wikipedia entry. Also it might merit an entry in a "Criticisms of AT&T Mobility" subsection, but not a whole discussion of poor customer service. But that's my opinion, others here may differ. --Squiggleslash 13:28, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Dobson Merger
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)
I agree it should be in the AT&T Mobility article, as that would appear to be where it's most relevant - (unless there's some suggestion AT&T is planning to have two entirely independent mobile phone companies? Wouldn't be without precedent, BellSouth had BellSouth Mobility and BellSouth Mobility DCS for a time. Still, seems improbable) - --Squiggleslash (talk) 19:27, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
- Moving now. --Donovan Ravenhull (talk) 17:39, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
- 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)
[edit] FYI: 2 news articles
I came across these when formatting references in the Qwest article: [1] [2] Jason McHuff 10:56, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Southwestern Bell Telephone of Texas
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)
- 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)
[edit] Merge with other AT&T article
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)
- 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)
-
- 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)
Should be an old SBC Page, Old AT&T Page, and New AT&T page (that shows how far the history stretches back. Can't buy your Qwest or Verizon argument since Qwest in just one of the eight companies and Verizon is 2 of the 8. Neither claim the AT&T name or history as well (per their corporate websites) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.104.66.103 (talk) 06:42, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
No one wants to merge all the pages. Just seperate SBC from AT&T. Bell South, Pac Bell, Ameritech, GTE, and everyother company had a page, so should SBC —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.126.112.181 (talk) 23:48, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
- 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)
One "AT&T" company is consistent with language used in the real world and the general understanding of the public at large. SBC history is now trivia, sorry. This odd insistance of separation is beginning to smack of original research and devolving into esoterica. A provenance battle does not serve the reader and is difficult to follow. As WP:UCN states, "Except where other accepted Wikipedia naming conventions give a different indication, use the most common name of a person or thing that does not conflict with the names of other people or things." My read: This would be AT&T for all current companies under the umbrella. No one cares, much less understands why or how AT&T is really comprised of an old and a new, baby bells, whatever. It is (they are) now one company. The rest of this historical stuff can (and should be) a footnote. Lexlex (talk) 17:58, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Snail Mail Address
Why is it so difficult to get an old-fashioned snail mail address off this company's website? What if I don't want to send an e-mail? What if I want to send a paper letter? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.190.204.90 (talk • contribs)
- And this has... what... to do with improving the article? This is a talk page for improving the Wikipedia article on the company, not a general forum for gripes about the company. - TexasAndroid (talk) 15:57, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
-
- Good luck with finding a good address for them. Companies in gernal are moving away from mail, even though it alienates a small segment of their customers who have no idea what a computer is, let alone how to email someone. Honestly though, what are the chances these days that even if you did have a good address for them, that in a mamomth company like AT&T that your letter would get to the right person/department? --Brownings (talk) 17:10, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
-
-
- All public companies have mail addresses by law[3]. Here is AT&T's:
-
[edit] SBC Communications Page
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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
