Talk:AT&T/Archive 1

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

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)
  • Oppose This article clearly has the wrong date for the foundation of the company!

[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)
  • OpposeHow does the voting end before June 6th. I never knew 5-3 was an obvious consenus, did we get timewarped back to the Soviet Union?User talk:rl3

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)

[edit] Complete chart?

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)

[edit] Delisted GA

I'm delisting this GA based on the fact that it was arbitrarily added in after it had been removed [1] and apparently didn't go through a formal nominating process. Hbdragon88 02:54, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Merge Suggested

Considering that the "new" AT&T owns all of the original assets, and that it is a separate company in law only versus principle, I think that we should merge the old and the new. AT&T is an old company with a lot of history, so I don't think we should demote the old one on basis of technicality. Telepheedian 18:15, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

I agree, and this is how it once was. AT&T and former AT&T company coverage on Wikipedia is a mess, and a certain Wikiproject focused only on pre-84 AT&T is doing more harm than good, for one reason is that its one man band sees more distinction than really exists between pre-84 AT&T and the post-84 companies, and that pre-84 AT&T was composed of many seperate subsidiaries, all of which currently exist as they always have under AT&T, Verizon, Qwest, Lucent-Alcatel, Avaya, Telcordia, and Advanced American Telephones/VTech. X570 07:43, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
I agree also. The two articles are essentially talking about the same company, so why not merge the two together. Bentoman 07:20, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
No, the articles should not be merged. AT&T Inc. and AT&T Corporation are two different companies. Merging the two would cause much confusion. KansasCity 19:03, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
No, they should stay seperate. This has been discussed earlier above us on this talk page. They are two completely separate. And i dont see the "demoting" exactly.. YaanchSpeak!
No. The articles should NOT be merged. The companies are separate, and deserve separate WP entries. --Mhking 22:27, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
Yes The articles should be merged, they should have never been seperated to begin with Hypernick1980 02:23, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
I suggest keeping them separate The old company has enough history that people in the future (say 50 years from now) may want to access info on the forner "Ma Bell" as it was. If you merge the two no matter how you try- eventually much of the old history will get lost in time and you may not have a resource to find info on the old "Ma Bell". Ofcourse it's not totally gone you can always pay companies like "FT.com" or "Hoovers.com" to see defunct company profiles but it would be nice if there were also free open source profiiles on major companies like AT&T which did leave a huge mark on the country. CaribDigita 03:12, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
If keeping separate, then the title of the article should at least change to reflect the two separate companies, the current one with AT&T Inc. and other AT&T Corporation, or something simlar. Bentoman 08:29, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
What do you mean, Bentoman? The article on the old company is "American Telephone & Telegraph Company" and the new one "AT&T". Plus there's the note on top of both articles to avoid confusion ("This article describes the former AT&T Corp. that existed from 1885–2005. See AT&T Inc. for the current company.") Sean Hayford O'Leary 18:17, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
I agree to the merging of the articles. Consolidation of information CAN BE DONE PROPERLY in such a way that the histories of all pre-merger companies can be properly preserved in a merged article. Yes, it will take some effort, but its a worthwhile effort nonetheless. Having multiple articles for different companies/corporations that has a common history and are now operating as one can lead to confusion/misunderstanding on the part of people unfamiliar to the topic.
No. There are clearly problems with the articles as they are, but merging them will only make matters worse. The current AT&T&T article needs to be simplified, not made more complicated, and much of the content moved to more appropriate pages. --Squiggleslash 23:28, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
Simplification and merging are not mutually exclusive. --Dystopos 00:14, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
I disagree completely. The two companies are barely related, the original AT&T has a long history that would be required for any encyclopedia covering the topic, and the new company is a diverse collection of different operations that, again, need to be covered by the encyclopedia. Merging two complex articles, about two entities that share little but a name and one being made up in part of some of the components of the other, strikes me as bound to cause even more confusion and more complexity. We need to keep them seperate, we need to simplify this article - which fundamentally is about SBC - and move much of the information out of it.
And, FWIW, if we were to merge the two, why not also merge it with Verizon and Qwest? Because neither bought the name? If the intent is to show where the old AT&T is today, then that would make sense. But again, we're looking at turning two already complex articles into a major messfest.
I stand by no, it's the wrong solution to an actual problem. It doesn't solve any of the issues with the two articles, it just makes matters even worse. --Squiggleslash 14:12, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
No As mentioned before, these are two different companies: AT&T, Inc. and AT&T Corp. Besides the technical part of this, AT&T Inc., the new company, seems to be doing a lot of marketing to reimage them selves as a "new" company (i.e. "We are not your mother's Ma Bell"). Keeping the two articles separate emphasizes the difference between the old and the new.--Janus657 21:22, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
No These are two different companies and to add to that, these are not even the same company, just basically a different company with the same name with the old companies assets. Amlder20 23:29, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
No The only reason I see to merge them is that the new corporation took a similar name as the old one. Think about it like this: when a corporation buys out another corporation, do we merge the articles? The old AT&T has such a huge history, legacy, and much more. When another corporation takes over AT&T's assets, do they take over everything else that corporation had, like its history? No. Hell, if we merged articles everytime a corporation bought out another corporation, we'd have something like two articles on telephone companies. Jesuschex 05:07, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
Strong No Truly different companies. The "Old" AT&T has such a long and huge past while the "net" AT&T wants to forget about it. Best kept sepereate. The last time both were together, it was a nuclear mess. Just create a disambiguation page telling which is which. Loompyloompy313 00:30, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
Strong No There's a major difference between the content relating the historical AT&T and current AT&T. That is, even if all assets of the old company are owned by the new one, the content of the article about the old company pertains to the old company and is not relevant to the current AT&T Inc. It's important to ensure the historical information is properly preserved and emphasized, and that won't happen in one article. Sean Hayford O'Leary 18:11, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
Stong No for all the reasons listed above. They are very different companies. Cornell Rockey 19:37, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
Strong No In the interest of not making a huge, behemoth that would have to juggle pre-split AT&T, Southwestern Bell/SBC, post-split AT&T and "the new" AT&T (and, if someone decides not to stop there, potentially Pacific Bell, BellSouth and Cingular as well), we must have separate articles. --Kitch (Talk : Contrib) 22:16, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
Strong Yes, in consideration of how the SBC Communications is writen. Actually SBC and Bell South were part of AT&T before the Divestiture. Miaers 22:25, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
Actually, this AT&T was SBC Communications. This is not the old AT&T. --Kitch (Talk : Contrib) 12:38, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
No. The info is manageable in two distinct articles; there's just too much there to combine them without mass confusion. Lambertman 20:19, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
No Not only because of the above reasons, but if nothing else, combining the two articles would make it way too long. It makes more logistical sense to have two seperate articles, covering two different incarnations of AT&T, one historical and one current. Dknights411 01:55, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
No This article is about a former Baby Bell that now owns 11 of the 24 former Baby Bells, and the other article is about the original Ma Bell which legally has been disestablished. In addition, the article would be too long. AEMoreira042281 22:52, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
Strong No per Hayfordoleary and others. 1ne 09:46, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
No Per Hayfordoleary and Lambertman. TheQuandry 19:40, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
No Merging the two articles would demote the old AT&T; keeping them separate does not. This new company is "AT&T" in name only. --Captadam 17:42, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Bell logo.

  • 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)
  • 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)
  • 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)
  • 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)

[edit] Merge with AT&T Unity

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)

Agree This should not exist as a separate article.(Ke5crz 04:49, 3 April 2007 (UTC))
Agree --Brownings 04:50, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
Strong Agree Why should a billing plan even be in Wikipedia? Unnecessary bloat. Telepheedian 19:55, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
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)

[edit] Services section repetitive/confusing

A services section was added to the main article, which encompasses AT&T services. The addition of this section is not needed as it can already be found throught the holdings that AT&T Inc. holds as subsidiary links. If this were to be kept, it only provides confusion as it is first incomplete. The list covers mostly former SBC and Bellsouth services, and neglects that of the original AT&T Corp. (ex. DSL neglects to include AT&T Worldnet, which is till in wide use and sale). This section only adds for confusion. ----kungfuazn

[edit] AT&T Competitors section

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)

[edit] Trivia

I just added the commericial song in the background.


[edit] Merge

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)

I have a great idea, why don't we merge this article with American Telephone & Telegraph? Also we could merge it with Verizon and Qwest. What does everyone else think? --Squiggleslash 15:05, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

The horse is dead. Lets not shoot it too.--Donovan Ravenhull 19:18, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

More seriously: I've taken the (I believe necessary) step of removing the merge request, given the proponent never discussed his or her reasoning, and appears to have either made the proposal in bad faith, or in the belief such a discussion was still on-going when it was recently rejected. I've also added boiler plate to the source version of the page to encourage editors proposing merge requests to check Talk: first. I'm not sure what else can be done at this stage. Anyone aware of an official Wikipedia policy/mechanism for locking pages against merger requests? --Squiggleslash 15:27, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

I think that one point of confusion might be coming from the newatt.gif graphic on the page. It shows the old AT&T being broke up into five parts and then the five coming back together. What it doesn't show are the other parts of the old AT&T that became Verizon and Quest (and other part) that have not remerged. As a result, one who is not familiar with the telecomunications industry changes might not realize that the New AT&T is not just a rebirth of the old. Perhaps the RBOCs_Dec_06.jpg graphic from the Regional Bell Operating Company article should be used, or perhaps a new one that shows the 'lost parts.'

And if you think its confusing on the outside, hell, I'm still wondering when I'll get my new uniforms to replace my BellSouth ones.--Donovan Ravenhull 17:13, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

This appears to be the image you're talking about:

Image:RBOCs Dec 06.jpg
This diagram shows how the various RBOC companies have changed due to mergers and acquisitions since the 1984 breakup.

I see what you mean although I find the diagram a little confusing. It makes sense once you understand the logic but the temptation is to look at it as a series of confusing paths with AT&T turning into Bell Atlantic, and then NYNEX, and then USWEST, etc...

Maybe there's a way to alter the existing graphic to make it more obvious that there are:

(a) Parts of "the new" at&t that were never part of the Bell System. (b) Major parts of the old Bell System that are not part of "the new" at&t but have equal claim to be the "successor".

--Squiggleslash 16:15, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Founding date

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)

I agree with your logic, and the IP user should quit doing this. Assuming this is the consensus here, and the user continues to make these changes, perhaps we need to temporarily lock the page against anonymous edits? --Squiggleslash 12:24, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Wrong Founding Date

This page continues to list the date AT&T was founded as 1983. This is untrue. Even the AT&T Corporate Website does not list the company starting in 1983 but rather in the 1880s. SBC was PART of AT&T. Someone just doesn't get that!!

American Telephone and Telegraph were founded then. This 'AT&T' is a different corparate entity. In effect, when the devestiture happened, the company was 'reset' when it came to founding dates and such.--Donovan Ravenhull 09:56, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
SBC was founded in 1983, it was created as part of the AT&T break-up, and "the new" AT&T is merely a renamed SBC.. The AT&T Corporate Website is somewhat misleading as it's talking about the total history of many of the component entities, not of the current legal corporation. I'll change the page back to 1983 when I get back in to work (can't edit large pages from home for some reason.) --Squiggleslash 11:04, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Wait- so, I guess the AT&T corporation is wrong and Squiggleslah is right? I would think that since it is THEIR corporation, that is the date that should be used on Wikipedia!! Oh and the AT&T, inc corporation started in 2005. So 1885 or 2005 should be the correct date!

More interesting facts. According to Hoover's Corporate Guide (which is the source used for the 1983 founding date) it says this: "Is it Ma Bell's revenge? AT&T, the matronly telecom icon broken apart in 1984 after a landmark antitrust case, is reuniting the Bell family. AT&T Inc. (formerly SBC Communications) was formed in 2005 when former Baby Bell SBC bought AT&T Corp. for some $16 billion, creating the largest telecom outfit in the US. After the merger, SBC adopted the globally familiar AT&T moniker." Seems like the date is 2005 after all!

The basis of this dispute comes down to the fact that the current company, named "AT&T Inc." was incorporated, or founded in 1983 as Southwestern Bell Corporation. That company changed its name to SBC Communications, Inc. in 1995, and began its buying spree. It then acquired AT&T Corporation in 2005 and changed its name to AT&T Inc., and did not reincorporate itself. The only reason AT&T claims that it is a "new" company formed in 2005 is so that people will look at the current AT&T, formerly SBC Communications, in a new light as not to confuse the American public with the old AT&T, which was incorporated in 1885. And the corporate guide I have referred to is not the Internet version, but the actual multi-book reference set found at the public library, which also lists Verizon Communications' date of incorporation as in 1983. If I am mistaking this reference set as the Hoover's guide, then I will make that change after I get to the library again. The AT&T we know today has started in 2005, as in that it started branding itself as AT&T. The name change dispute can also be seen on pages such as CBS Corporation, which is similar in that the child company takes on its former parents' name (Viacom, now CBS, was spun off from the original CBS in 1971). Also, the comments regarding the AT&T founding as being 2005 are not being signed. KansasCity 03:55, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

I have personally emailed and will call AT&T corporate headquarters. I have asked them what is their official founding year. As Wikipedia tries to be as accurate as possible, I can only hope the SBC-crowd will respect what AT&T corporate answers with. Therefore if AT&T says, 1983 then its 1983, if they say 1885, then its 1885, if they say 2005, then it 2005. I would also say since this is in "dispute" all three years should be listed until it has benn settled!

What is so hilarious is that the "SBC" crowd on Wikipedia doesn't get the fact SBC was PART of AT&T. What's even funnier is that the AT&T Corporate Website and the Bell System Memorial Website (which is a top notch site) all list the companies founding from the 1880s. So SBC, the new AT&T or whatever will ALWAYS have its roots in the original company. Its a shame that some of you just don't get it! You are giving Wikipedia a bad name!-RL

This article is about the corporation that started out as Southwestern Bell, and ended up as AT&T. You wouldn't vandalize the Verizon and Qwest articles to claim they were also all founded in the 1880s now, would you?
To be honest, this looks like a stunt being pulled by the same mob that's always trying to get this article merged with American Telephone & Telegraph. If you can't get what you want, ie the articles formally merged, then start merging them right now anyway. Correct?
As for asking AT&T, as we pointed out earlier, AT&T's comments are irrelevent. It's talking about the total history of the component entities. It's talking, essentially, about the history of the Bell System. You are being actively dishonest by claiming I'm saying AT&T is "wrong", I'm saying they're answering a different question. It's as appropriate to put a founding date of 1880 on this article, this one here, this one about SBC (renamed to AT&T because that's their current name) as it would be to claim T-Mobile was created in 1495. --Squiggleslash 12:40, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
People. There is no straightforward answer to this, and the best solution is probably to list all these dates in the infobox, as is done in other cases. It's true, the current entity came into being in 1983 as a result of the breakup of the Bell System; however, AT&T is far from being the only company to insist that it began with an earlier company, and as it retains the name and most of the assets of this company, this should also be mentioned. It's not like the post-1983 AT&T was the only company that could claim its origins in 1885; all of the Baby Bells could, even if their corporate entity was brand new at the time, the RBOCs were themselves much older. It would be misleading to list only one date, and we have sources indicating all of them. Thus, I would suggest:
1885 (Original AT&T)
1983 (Southern Bell Corporation)
1995 (Renamed SBC)
2005 (Merger with AT&T, AT&T name adopted)
Hope this helps settle things. ProhibitOnions (T) 13:54, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
I appreciate you're trying to find a compromise that'll satisfy everyone, but it would be actively misleading to post four dates. This page is about a specific corporation. The 1880 date applies to American Telephone & Telegraph, but not SBC. SBC was renamed several times, but none of these renames can legitimately be described as a "founding" date.
Essentially, the only way it would be appropriate to put multiple dates in would be if we were going to merge this article (together with Verizon and Qwest) with American Telephone & Telegraph, making an article about everything that has ever been vaguely related to the Bell System. I don't think that would be appropriate, and indeed such a merge has been rejected numerous times. --Squiggleslash 15:06, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
Minor nit-pick. SBC was 'Southwestern Bell Corporation', not 'Southern Bell' which was one of the two halves of the old BellSouth.--Donovan Ravenhull 15:17, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Interesting that whenever compromise is mentioned people get hung up on not wanting to compronmise. I agree, multiple dates should be used for this web page. SBC corporation WAS AT&T, which started in 1880. It is also ridiculous to say that it doesn't matter what AT&T corporate says. I guess some Wikipedia user has the right to determine a companies history more than AT&T itself. SO, since it became AT&T inc in 2005 and there are seperate wiki pages on SBC (1985) and AT&T (1880), there is no reason the infobox should not be 2005.

Something is not an acceptable compromise if it doesn't actually solve the issue (indeed, it makes matters worse) for one of the parties. In this case, saying SBC, which is ultimately what this article is about, was "founded" in 1880, 1983, and 2005, isn't in any way accurate. This article is about a specific corporation, that was founded in 1983. Like I said, you wouldn't say T-Mobile was founded in 1495. The Reichspost was, and DT, which created T-Mobile, is a direct decedent. In that respect, it has a greater claim to being founded in 1495 than a company founded in 1983 due to a court ordered break-up does. Why would you claim SBC was "founded" in 1880?
And no, it doesn't matter what AT&T "says" when it's ADDRESSING AN ENTIRELY DIFFERENT TOPIC.
If you're going to pretend to be doing something other than trolling, perhaps you can address that issue rather than continuing to pretend AT&T's website is describing something other than the history of the Bell System. Perhaps you can also start arguing on T-Mobile's site that the founding date should be changed to 1495. You'd at least be being consistent.
I was unaware that there's a separate article about SBC Communications. That page should be merged into this one, it's redundant. --Squiggleslash 12:43, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

That is the most ridiculous argument I ever heard. Arguing T-Mobile started in 1495 is not the same as arguing that the NEW AT&T started in 2005. What did you flunk debating class? Look at your own chart you SBC-lovers put up. There is an AT&T at the top, a whole bunch of Baby Bells in the middle and then an AT&T at the bottom. I am no math expert, but if AT&T is at the top & bottom of a flow chart, then they must be the same in some way!! SBC IS AT&T. It was a company spun off of AT&T when the Govt forced the break-up. SBC's total history is AT&T's history. Why don't you get that. SBC is no more. They took the AT&T name for a reason...GREAT HISTORY!! SBC being founded in 1983 is BOGUS. Their history goes back WAY before that as the were a Bell Operating Company under AT&T. Learn your HISTORY!! As for 2005, when AT&T merged with SBC, they became a NEW COMPANY!!! Since you choose not to compromise I guess its back to square one- RL3 (BTW: Why are CITED/SOURCED items being deleted from the article??)

Sorry, but history may play a role in the industry, but corporate history cannot be changed. Corporate lineage does not mean that all spinoffs' founding dates are automatically the same as the former parents'. If you claim that the current AT&T Inc., incorporated in 1983 was actually incorporated in 1885, why not go to the Embarq page and change its founding date to 1899? Why not change the founding date of Lucent to 1872? Genworth Financial to 1878? CBS Corporation to 1922? In the case of the AT&T buyout by SBC Communications, SBC adopted a new name. They did not, however, reincorporate, which would be what belongs in the corporate infobox. If there is some sort of documentation that shows that AT&T Inc. actually filed documents of reincorporation in the state of Delaware in 2005 when it bought AT&T Corp., then bring it forward and feel free to change the founding date. However, those do not exist, because AT&T did not reincorporate itself like Viacom did in 1986, hence the reason on the CBS Corporation page its founding date is not stated as being 1971; rather, it was 1986. KansasCity 04:24, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
Also, if this topic is so important to you, why not become a registered user where you might gain some sort of credibility?KansasCity 04:27, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

I am a registered user but am not logged in. That is the MAJOR problem with Wikipedia and people like yourself that think your are Wikipedia gods. Your statement that only a "registered" user has such little credibility in itself. I always though Wikipedia was designed for ANYONE to edit. I guess in your world only the "registered" matter on Wikipedia!! As for your argument, stop all of your nonsense mumbo jumbo legal talk. This is the REAL WORLD. If AT&T considers their founding date to be in 1880, if AT&T considers SBC as a part of their company, so does the rest of the average people (or maybe I should say non-registred users) of the world. Why do you keep deleting parts of the article that give a different point of view than your own and that are SOURCED? Are you the same guy who said we have a strong consenus vote earlier when it was 6-4, or that the voting has been suspended before the time that was announced. Is this Wikipedia or Stalinpedia?-RL

I've been checking up on this page every so often while I'm at work and I went ahead and changed the page back to the last time Squiggleslash reverted vandalism. 24.163.231.91 00:24, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

Vandalism is not when someone puts a differing story that is actually BACKED BY SOURCES!

Backed by sources? The disclaimer, explaining in full detail why the legal entity named AT&T Inc. today was actually founded in 1983, is sourced by 3 sources, including an official legal proceeding. Notice the title: AT&T Inc. (f/k/a SBC Communications, Inc.). F/K/A means "formerly known as", indicating an official legal name change. KansasCity 03:42, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

Whatever Joesph Stalin. Your SOURCE is Hoover's Corporate Guide, which on-line lists the date as 2005. You have shown zero actual proof of any of your claims, and have made response such as AT&T Coroporate HQ has it wrong! AT&T Inc may have been incorporated in 1983, but it certainly was not founded then! It was founded in 1885. SBC was part of the orgiginal AT&T. The WHOLE AT&T (including SBC) has a history that starts in 1885! Why do you think they took the AT&T name? beacuse the history comes with it!! Why do you think their corporate web site talks about 1885 and lists all of AT&T's accomplishments from that time to the present. Everyone KNOWS that this company has a long, rich history, which you all for some reason deny. (I asssuming with names like Kansas City you are bitter midwesterners that are upset the SBC name was dropped). Using your argument, the Cleveland Browns football team starts in 1999. Wrong, everyone takes their FULL history. Obvsiously, you all do not want to compromise in any way and its basically, your right and any differing opinions are wrong. We can only help Wikipedia flags this article for neutrality!! It is people like you that give Wikipedia a bad name. Your Soviet-era mentality by not letting others have a voice is probably why most educators DO NOT allow their students to use Wikipedia as a source!

Gee, almost have an incarnation of Godwin's Law here. SBC took the AT&T name because the name had a history. Also, if you are this motivated by your thoughts on this, register and/or sign your posts.--Donovan Ravenhull 10:32, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, Donovan too bad no one mentioned Hilter or the Nazis, you may want to think before posting. Not allowing opposing points of view is a very Soviet-type (non-democrcatic) way of doing things. But it seems as though you are another Wikipedia elitist that think registering makes the difference. The internet itself is a big anonymous forum. I mean Kansas City, Squigglesquash, Donovan, what's the difference? You don't think people register multiple accounts and "anonymous names"? It does not make a difference anyway, when people don't want to listen to opposing points of view.--A person who understands history. There is a signed name for you!

It appears that in this case, a resolution cannot occur without insults. I am no Wikipedian elitists, if the number of times I've had my wang knocked into the dirt by others is any sign. But I do like to know that a person is willing to put their name/handle/whatever behind what they say. Yes, some do make multiple accounts, though many times a person can do some basic checking and see that, even if it is just recognizing posting behaviors. As for my use of the phrase "almost have an incarnation of Godwin's Law", well I feel that comparing somebody to Stalin is in some ways worse than calling them Hitler.
At no time has the free flow of information been sumarily censored here. There are opposing view points active around here. But the fact that it seems that no others have taken up your bandwagon might mean that you're view point might not have general support. Thus, it seems that the 'democratic' consensus is that the 'new AT&T' should not be given the founding date of 'American Telephone & Telegraph.' It would be like saying that any part of US Steel that was split off must have the same founding date as the former monopoly.
And don't think that you are the only one here who finds themselves 'out voted' in some of these articles. Personally, I think AT&T Mobility is an improper name for the former Cingular and should be called wireless from AT&T, but the general consensus at this time is that it should remain as it currently is.
What I am saying is, state your veiw points, read the responses, and discuss them without calling people Joseph Stalin or such. If you wish to remain anonymous, so be it, but don't declare that those of us that are registered are elitist or such.
--Donovan Ravenhull 15:25, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Elitist was only mentioned when it was stated "why not become a registered user where you might gain some sort of credibility?" (6/7/07). If that isn't elitist than what is? Secondly, to have voting and then saying we have a consensus when the vote is 6-4 and then closing the vote before the stated date is about as Stalineque a move as they come. (See:Vote here to split in to 2). I stand by both statements!

No, this was not a move of elitism as you have claimed. The reason I suggested you should become registered is that your initial edits to the AT&T article were done in a manner that were character of no other motive but vandalism with no intention but to disturb the article. KansasCity 23:48, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Grow up!! You said registering gives someone more credibility. Stop your vandalsim non-sense. The intent was that you have the wrong founding date. They may have been incoprated in 1983 but were founded in 1885 (all of AT&T and the Baby Bells have that history). Just give it a rest already!! Stop being a bitter Wiki-elitist!!

Now you're back to claiming 1885. Let me guess, it's 2005 when someone's criticising you for not being consistent (T-Mobile founded in 1495 using your 1885/AT&T logic) but it's 1885 when you're looking at AT&T's corporate website's history, even though you know full well the website is documenting the Bell System history. It's impossible to believe you're in any way acting in good faith. --Squiggleslash 15:01, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Every time you open your mouth and say T-Mobile 1495 you sound more ridiculous each time. Let me spell this out for you. AT&T was FOUNDED in 1885 (That's AT&T and all of its sub-companies). The company was broken up in 1984. Several companies including SBC were incoroprated. In 2005, SBC decided to drop their lame name and take the AT&T name & history (since they merged with their parent company). Got it now?

Again, more evidence of you not acting in good faith. I have multiple examples now:
  • Claiming multiple times I had said AT&T Corporation was "wrong" when I said they were talking about something different.
  • Claiming I had said that "T-Mobile being founded in 1495" was an argument countering a claim that "AT&T was founded in 2005" (2005 date wasn't mentioned, the 1880s was)
  • Claiming that I'm claiming T-Mobile was founded in 1495. (Nothing of the sort was implied)
  • Your allegations of "Elitism" and even "Stalinism", which amount to blatant, gratuitous, insults.
  • Your claims that KC refused to back up the 1983 date with sources.
  • Your refusal to address what was actually being said, such as the fact the AT&T website is documenting the history of the Bell System rather than SBC/AT&T as a corporation, and that it, as such, cannot be a relevent source for the founding date of SBC.
You go around and around in circles, vandalize the page every night, and instead of addressing the arguments actually made, address straw men arguments instead.
Now, for what it's worth, I'm not writing this because I hope you're going to look at this and go "Wait, maybe I'm not being terribly convincing, perhaps I should address this argument in a different fashion", because I have no hope you will do so. Rather, I'm putting this down in words because it's getting to the point that we need to address your vandalism at a higher level, to the point of considering IP-editor bans on the page itself, and your user ID on Wikipedia. Before we can do that, we (the editors who may or may not be wrong, but are at least acting in good faith) need to discuss it. This is the first part of that discussion. But, for what it's worth, I'd say it's very sad if we ended up having to take those kinds of drastic steps. --Squiggleslash 13:44, 14 June 2007 (UTC)


I have addressed the issues. First, you are elistists. You value no other opinions except SBC started in 1983. You (or others) have stated that registered users have credibility. That simply means you give little credibility to people who are not registered. You make statements like "we the editors will discuss the issue". HEY! I am an editor too. This is the encyclopedia that ANYONE CAN EDIT! Your statemets by definition are ELITIST!! Second, you consistently delete other contibutions to the site that are documented. Wikipedia wants cited/documented material. By not wanting other's opinions and deleting others researched work is STALINIST! Period.

Third, you have far from acted in good faith. I thought when the section for the company web site history stayed up for a few days (with edits I may add), I thought there was finally going to be some good faith. I was wrong. Another person who didn't like what my contibution was decided to VANDALISE my hard work through a deletion.

Fourth, again you have shown zero proof the company was founded in 1983. There have been no links or other material that clearly states this.

I strongly encourage you to bring this to the Wiki powers that be. Maybe then they can hear both sides of the story. I am a very inexperienced user or I would have figured out how to contact Wikipedia to flag this article.

As for your bogus arguments, no one could ever say that T-Mobile started in 1495, but an argument can easily be made that the "NEW" AT&T started in 2005 with the merger of SBC and AT&T. Others on this page have also argued that as well, looking at previous comments and votes and merger requests. The bottom line is that there is debate. And since the corporation itself has both told me that they consider their history starting in 1885 and that their website also claims this, I am much more likely to stand by a major corporation than some Wikipedia Elitist Users. Maybe others arguing my points have all left since they were being bullied by you just like you are trying to bully me now. So I say go for it. I will not be intimidated by your threats and will stand by my history website information. So bring your best! VANDALISM is not documented information!


Sounds like arbitration is needed

[edit] AT&T Headquarters

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)

[edit] Fair use rationale for Image:Lockup.gif

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)

[edit] AT&T/SBC histories are still separate. No?

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)
I have removed the entire section earlier today, simply because it was extremely unnecessary. KansasCity 23:43, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Ridiculous. It is now been put back up. This further strengthens my point about Wikipedia elistists that don't value other opinions and have the Soviet-era mentaility of "my way or the highway". You are in violation of Wikipedia Policies. You are vanadlising another person's contribution to the article. A different perspective. This was a section that is related to the current AT&T Company since it is discusses what is on their web site. It is factual and had sources. I will once again ask, is this the DEMOCRATIC encycoldpedia that anyone can edit or are we at the whim of what one or two people want!!!

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)
@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)

BTW, most of you is three people. This is an article about AT&T. Just listen to what you siad. This is an article about AT&T but it is not bound by AT&T's corporate policies. Its people like yourself that give Wikipedia a bad name in academic circles! What you said is just insane. So, we can just post anything we want? It doesn't matter what the company says! The website section is about the company AT&T. "We Wikielitists know more than the company. We wrote the article and we don't care what AT&T says!" The company has a history, the company has a web site verifying that history. Why don't you get that! So I will do my democratic duty and fix the article again. BTW, not one of you has shown any proof that AT&T inc was FOUNDED in 1983. Your one citing (Hoover's Corporate Guide cannot be verified since their web site contradicts your statements!) What are you afraid Wiki users may click on the AT&T Corporate Link and see a story that is different than what you say & beleive???

[edit] Service Provider for Cingular Cell Phones

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)


[edit] AT&T to target pirated content on its network

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)

[edit] Name

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)

You're right... The SBC version of AT&T is at&t. CaribDigita 15:11, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

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