5 ms·

Every thirty years, we have to break up AT&T again.

by hughw 12y ago

JadoJodo 12y ago
The crazy thing is they've re-acquired almost all companies that were broken off. The rest went on to form Verizon.
- deleted 12y ago
  [deleted]
- DannyBee 12y ago
  No, it's crazier than that. One of the broken off companies reacquired them. What is currently AT&T is really SBC. SBC acquired AT&T and adopted the AT&T name.
  - gknoy 12y ago
    Stephen Colbert had a really funny explanation of it. I can't seem to find it on youtube, so apologies for the quality: http://www.ebaumsworld.com/video/watch/955486/ http://www.ebaumsworld.com/video/watch/955486/
  - seanp2k2 12y ago
    Here's a diagram of what happened to each company: http://subjunctive.net/klog/images/2008/Att_history.jpg http://subjunctive.net/klog/images/2008/Att_history.jpg
- jessaustin 12y ago
  The rest went on to form Verizon. Which from a lobbying/public policy perspective, is often indistinguishable from ATT. They certainly don't act like they view each other as competitors.
vertex-four 12y ago
You did it entirely wrong last time - you split it up geographically, but still had the ISPs owning the last mile infrastructure. You only actually have to split it into two companies - one which owns the cables, and the other which runs an ISP. Then you write a charter which requires the company which owns the cables to sell access to any ISP at the same terms and cost. Then you implement a law which says that no ISP may own a last mile, and all last mile infrastructure past and future must be under those terms. That way, you entirely skip the issue of the cable owners having no competition or incentive to expand, and you have competition between ISPs as well, without tying one to the other. ISP implements throttling? You can use another ISP that uses the exact same neutral last mile. This is more-or-less what the UK does, with the addition of the no-ISP-may-own-a-last-mile law, which I strongly believe we should implement.
- wmf 12y ago
  To be fair, last time they did split local and long distance.
- dragonwriter 12y ago
  > You did it entirely wrong last time - you split it up geographically, but still had the ISPs owning the last mile infrastructure. The last time AT&T was split up, there weren't any "ISPs". And at that time AT&T was split into (for the telephone service parts): 1. The reduced AT&T -- long-distance and some other things 2. The "baby bells" -- local service in different geographical regions. > Then you write a charter which requires the company which owns the cables to sell access to any ISP at the same terms and cost. Common carrier rules were applied to AT&T's telephone lines, and DSL was also common carrier, covered under Title II until it was reclassified in 2005 (so much of the Title II hand-wringing over Open Internet rules misses the point that consumer internet in the US grew up when the lines were covered by Title II, and it manifestly did not kill innovation.)
  - vertex-four 12y ago
    > The last time AT&T was split up, there weren't any "ISPs". Indeed, there were phone companies. It seems obvious now that the breakup was done wrong, but with the technology at the time it likely couldn't have been done how I'd like it to be done today. I over-simplified when I said "you did it wrong". > Common carrier rules were applied to AT&T's telephone lines, and DSL was also common carrier But they didn't split last mile cabling from whatever runs on top of it, which is the main issue and the only thing that'd actually work to allow quick reactions to a failure to provide adequate service. Otherwise, you have the ISP giving preferential treatment to itself, even though the law says it really shouldn't be.
    - toast0 12y ago
      > But they didn't split last mile cabling from whatever runs on top of it, which is the main issue and the only thing that'd actually work to allow quick reactions to a failure to provide adequate service. Otherwise, you have the ISP giving preferential treatment to itself, even though the law says it really shouldn't be. The ILECs were permitted to sell to retail customers and required to sell to wholesale customers; and there was preferential treatment (especially around pricing/promotional rates), but it was significantly more competitive than today, and price preferences could have been resolved by narrow regulatory action. Yes, a complete split would be more competitive, but a partial split is probably more likely to go through, and would put us in a much better place.
jrjr 12y ago
AT&T = KiloQuads & Byte Reversals. Same old song. Some day they might realize that faster service leads to empty slots in the mux stream that they can sell. Call in Google, they get it. jr

Every thirty years, we have to break up AT&T again.

by hughw 12y ago

Every thirty years, we have to break up AT&T again.

JadoJodo 12y ago

The crazy thing is they've re-acquired almost all companies that were broken off. The rest went on to form Verizon.

deleted 12y ago
[deleted]
DannyBee 12y ago
No, it's crazier than that. One of the broken off companies reacquired them. What is currently AT&T is really SBC. SBC acquired AT&T and adopted the AT&T name.
- gknoy 12y ago
  Stephen Colbert had a really funny explanation of it. I can't seem to find it on youtube, so apologies for the quality: http://www.ebaumsworld.com/video/watch/955486/ http://www.ebaumsworld.com/video/watch/955486/
- seanp2k2 12y ago
  Here's a diagram of what happened to each company: http://subjunctive.net/klog/images/2008/Att_history.jpg http://subjunctive.net/klog/images/2008/Att_history.jpg
jessaustin 12y ago
The rest went on to form Verizon. Which from a lobbying/public policy perspective, is often indistinguishable from ATT. They certainly don't act like they view each other as competitors.

vertex-four 12y ago

You did it entirely wrong last time - you split it up geographically, but still had the ISPs owning the last mile infrastructure. You only actually have to split it into two companies - one which owns the cables, and the other which runs an ISP. Then you write a charter which requires the company which owns the cables to sell access to any ISP at the same terms and cost. Then you implement a law which says that no ISP may own a last mile, and all last mile infrastructure past and future must be under those terms. That way, you entirely skip the issue of the cable owners having no competition or incentive to expand, and you have competition between ISPs as well, without tying one to the other. ISP implements throttling? You can use another ISP that uses the exact same neutral last mile. This is more-or-less what the UK does, with the addition of the no-ISP-may-own-a-last-mile law, which I strongly believe we should implement.

wmf 12y ago
To be fair, last time they did split local and long distance.
dragonwriter 12y ago
> You did it entirely wrong last time - you split it up geographically, but still had the ISPs owning the last mile infrastructure. The last time AT&T was split up, there weren't any "ISPs". And at that time AT&T was split into (for the telephone service parts): 1. The reduced AT&T -- long-distance and some other things 2. The "baby bells" -- local service in different geographical regions. > Then you write a charter which requires the company which owns the cables to sell access to any ISP at the same terms and cost. Common carrier rules were applied to AT&T's telephone lines, and DSL was also common carrier, covered under Title II until it was reclassified in 2005 (so much of the Title II hand-wringing over Open Internet rules misses the point that consumer internet in the US grew up when the lines were covered by Title II, and it manifestly did not kill innovation.)
- vertex-four 12y ago
  > The last time AT&T was split up, there weren't any "ISPs". Indeed, there were phone companies. It seems obvious now that the breakup was done wrong, but with the technology at the time it likely couldn't have been done how I'd like it to be done today. I over-simplified when I said "you did it wrong". > Common carrier rules were applied to AT&T's telephone lines, and DSL was also common carrier But they didn't split last mile cabling from whatever runs on top of it, which is the main issue and the only thing that'd actually work to allow quick reactions to a failure to provide adequate service. Otherwise, you have the ISP giving preferential treatment to itself, even though the law says it really shouldn't be.
  - toast0 12y ago
    > But they didn't split last mile cabling from whatever runs on top of it, which is the main issue and the only thing that'd actually work to allow quick reactions to a failure to provide adequate service. Otherwise, you have the ISP giving preferential treatment to itself, even though the law says it really shouldn't be. The ILECs were permitted to sell to retail customers and required to sell to wholesale customers; and there was preferential treatment (especially around pricing/promotional rates), but it was significantly more competitive than today, and price preferences could have been resolved by narrow regulatory action. Yes, a complete split would be more competitive, but a partial split is probably more likely to go through, and would put us in a much better place.

jrjr 12y ago

AT&T = KiloQuads & Byte Reversals. Same old song. Some day they might realize that faster service leads to empty slots in the mux stream that they can sell. Call in Google, they get it. jr