Talk:AT&T/Archive 1

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)

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 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!

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)

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?

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)

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)

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)

Summation that may be of interest
I've prepared a summary of what happened to the equity investors in the old AT&amp;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)

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)

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)

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

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)

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)

NSA controversy
There are two paragraphs: Is this a typo or two incidents? Either way it should be clarified. -Harmil 20:26, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
 * 2005 - Phone calls were recorded and sent to the NSA
 * 2006 - Records (not recordings) of calls were sent to the NSA


 * 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

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.

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) '''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)'''
 * 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
 * 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)

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.  Pr oh ib it O ni o n s   (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.'

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)

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

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)

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)

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

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&#39;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&#39;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)

Bell logo.
Does anyone know if AT&T Inc. is allowed to use the bell logo now?
 * AT&T Co. was not allowed to use the bell logo after 1984.


 * 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)

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)

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

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)

Trivia
I just added the commericial song in the background.

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.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:



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)

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)

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. Pro hib it O ni o ns  (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

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)

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 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)

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???

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)

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)

Name
Shouldn't we spell AT&T's name as at&t? After all, it's in their logo. — JuWiki (Talk &lt;&gt; 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)

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)

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

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)

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. Here is AT&T's:


 * AT&T Inc.
 * 175 East Houston Street
 * San Antonio, TX 78205-2255
 * Phone: 210-821-4105
 * Fax: 314-331-9896 Lexlex (talk) 22:36, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

AT&T
AT&T stands for what exactly? nothing listed in the article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.132.245.126 (talk) 17:39, 19 May 2009 (UTC)


 * I think it's "American Telephone and Telegraph Company." Can anybody confirm this with a reference? Kevin chen2003 (talk) 21:17, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

It stands for nothing. "American Telephone & Telegraph Company" refers to the old company. Valcumine (talk) 00:35, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

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

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

"founded in 1983"
AT&T was not founded in 1983. i have added to that, but i am kinda sure that at&t was founded in 1876. badmachine (talk) 18:29, 28 November 2008 (UTC)


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


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


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

A note on the aquisition of the "Old ATT" by SBC; Contrary to the remarks above, the fact is that SBC was able to acquire AT&T, is because of SBCs great success and business innovation, and the combination of incompetent upper management, negligent internal auditing, laughably inane M&Ps, and a total lack of business standards, turned the old AT&T  from what was once a corporate giant, into the biggest cluster _ _ _ _  in all of American industry, and the village idiot and the laughing stock of the telecom industry. The “skin” was taken, only because of its global recognition, and in spite of the fact it had become an industry joke. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 144.160.5.25 (talk) 14:41, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

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

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)
 * 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)
 * There is NO information on either Southwestern Bell or SBC Com. There needs two different pages for both companies (i.e.: SBC page, Southwestern Bell page, at&t page.) —Preceding unsigned comment added by The Navigators (talk • contribs) 21:23, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

This is all total nonsense. SBC changed their name to AT&T, the two companies are one and the same. They are the same corporate entity. I'm setting up a merge request, although it is tempting to go ahead and merge the two pages myself. There would have to be an extremely good reason to have two pages on the same company.

Let's get down to the basics. There are the following companies:


 * Southwestern Bell Telephone Company, the Bell operating company subsidiary, and originally founded much earlier than 1983.
 * AT&T Inc., originally SBC Communications Inc.

See what I mean?!?! The articles AT&T and SBC Communications are about the same corporate entity, with is stupid nonsense. There is no need to have a seperate article for each name that a corporate entity used over the years. [&#124;Retro00064&#124;&#9742;talk&#124;&#x270D;contribs&#124;] 02:28, 5 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Where were you in the roughly month or so when I first pointed out there was no info on SBC and I went and fixed the problem?--The Navigators (talk)-May British Rail Rest in Peace. 05:58, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

NOTICE!
They say be bold on Wikipedia so I'm being bold... I will be removing the redirects for SBC Communications, and redirecting it to a page for SBC. I'll do this in a few days to a week with a page I just started working on, here's your moment to object. --The Navigators (talk)-May British Rail Rest in Peace. 00:27, 16 February 2010 (UTC)
 * You know, it's about time. I'm all for it. 15:17, 17 February 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Lexlex (talk • contribs)

And I'm all against it. [&#124;Retro00064&#124;&#9742;talk&#124;&#x270D;contribs&#124;] 02:29, 5 November 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm going to point out that I had already done that months ago, you should have objected when I was actually doing it. (And I pry should have removed this section once I did it...)--The Navigators (talk)-May British Rail Rest in Peace. 05:53, 18 December 2010 (UTC)
 * I had not been around this article to discover the seperate article until the time taht I proposed the merge. If I had been around when you had proposed the seperate article, then I would have opposed it then. But since I discovered it in more recent months instead, I thus listed it then. [&#124;Retro00064&#124;&#9742;talk&#124;&#x270D;contribs&#124;] 06:02, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

Merge the SBC Communications article into this article
SBC Communications → AT&T

Back in February, some user created the article SBC Communications. This is total nonsense. SBC Communications, Inc. and AT&T, Inc. are exactly the same corporate entity, and there is no reason to have two articles on the same corporation. There is no need to have an article for every name that a corporate entity used over the years. It is total nonsense. So what I am saying is to merge the relevant information in SBC Communications into the History section of this article (AT&T), where it belongs. It would take a really good reason for there to be two seperate articles on the same company, and I do not see any good reason in this case. [&#124;Retro00064&#124;&#9742;talk&#124;&#x270D;contribs&#124;] 02:39, 5 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Agree. I'm not sure why they have two articles as well. You have a careful eye, and I will award you a barnstar. Lucasoutloud (talk) 04:47, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

But Why? The Old Viacom & New Viacom have seperate pages and new viacom doesn't have old viacom's history except for the 2005 split.24.2.210.131 (talk) 00:43, 12 November 2010 (UTC)


 * The old Viacom and the new Viacom are two seperate corporate entities (corporations). Just because the two companies share the same name does not mean they are the same corporate entity. The way it looks now, the current CBS Corporation may be the same legal entity that the old Viacom was. More research would be needed to clarify those things, but if the old Viacom, Inc. and the current CBS Corporation are the same corporate entity, then a merge will probably be due there also. [&#124;Retro00064&#124;&#9742;talk&#124;&#x270D;contribs&#124;] 03:22, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

Merge the articles. There was not a new company created following the merger of SBC and AT&T like there was with Viacom, which saw the creation of a new Viacom. KansasCity (talk) 15:15, 20 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Merge To be honest, I didn't know there were two separate articles. Jgera5 (talk) 00:57, 14 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Do Not Merge Merge The separate article was created due to the fact that there was zero information on SBC at this page originally.--The Navigators (talk)-May British Rail Rest in Peace. 05:50, 18 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment: Just becuase there was no information on SBC in this article in the past, does not mean that that information can not be added/merged into it now. ;-) [&#124;Retro00064&#124;&#9742;talk&#124;&#x270D;contribs&#124;] 05:59, 18 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Check the top of the page.

To-do list for AT&T: --The Navigators (talk)-May British Rail Rest in Peace. 06:04, 18 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Create a separate SBC page explaining the esoterica behind the mergers.Lexlex (talk) 19:40, 26 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Just becuase it is in the todo list, does not mean that it is something that should be done. That was only that one editor's opinion on the matter. He also needs to see this discussion and see why two articles on the same corporate entity (regardless of what names the corporation used in the past) is nonsense. [&#124;Retro00064&#124;&#9742;talk&#124;&#x270D;contribs&#124;] 06:21, 18 December 2010 (UTC)
 * As a side note, around the time that I proposed this merger, I was tempted to remove that entry from the to-do list (e.g. the action had already been done by you). But I did not. [&#124;Retro00064&#124;&#9742;talk&#124;&#x270D;contribs&#124;] 06:22, 18 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Read This http://www.att.com/Common/files/pdf/logo_evolution_factsheet.pdf. It was it's own company.

"AT&T agrees to divest its local phone companies, and Southwestern Bell Corp. (SBC) is incorporated as one of seven regional holding companies in anticipation of the AT&T divestiture and retains the bell in its logo." --The Navigators (talk)-May British Rail Rest in Peace. 02:42, 25 December 2010 (UTC)
 * That quote is about the time when the Bell System broke up. That AT&T was AT&T Corporation (then known as the American Telephone and Telegraph Company). The current AT&T Inc. is actually a renamed SBC. The old AT&T Corporation is currently AT&T Inc.'s subsidiary. One needs to know that the AT&T that formerly owned the Bell System is a seperate company from the current AT&T that operates today,m in order to see sense out of all of this. [&#124;Retro00064&#124;&#9742;talk&#124;&#x270D;contribs&#124;] 03:01, 25 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Okay, do it, please feel free to use the data on the page, sorce are cited.--The Navigators (talk)-May British Rail Rest in Peace. 08:08, 26 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Merging the two should be rather straight-forward, mostly just a simple copy-and-paste of most of what the SBC Communications article contains. However, I am going to wait a little bit longer before doing the merge, to see if any more consensus comes up. It will not be much longer until this merge proposal is two months old. [&#124;Retro00064&#124;&#9742;talk&#124;&#x270D;contribs&#124;] 08:32, 26 December 2010 (UTC)
 * I wish you luck, Retro00064.--The Navigators (talk)-May British Rail Rest in Peace. 07:59, 30 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Do Not Merge The New AT&T is not just the Old SBC, it also includes AT&T Corp & Bell South. AT&T Inc should have a seperate article just like ST&T Corp & Bell South do.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.31.78.134 (talk) 07:26, 23 December 2010 (UTC)
 * The old SBC is the same as the new AT&T. SBC Corp. simply acquired AT&T Corp. in 2005, and changed its name to AT&T Inc. Get it? They are the same corporation, just under different names over the years. The other companies are subsidiaries--seperate corporations under the ownership of the holding company (AT&T Inc.), and thus, since they are corporations of their own, they get their own articles. AT&T Inc. is legally the same corporate entity as SBC, just under a different name. The other companies are seperate corporations and thus get their own articles. [&#124;Retro00064&#124;&#9742;talk&#124;&#x270D;contribs&#124;] 01:19, 25 December 2010 (UTC)

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 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.

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.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)

Apparently, many are of the opinion that AT&T provides poor service. Here's actual proof that AT&T hasn't gotten it right with its customers. Check out this May 2011 Comsumerist.com article, AT&T and Comcast Rank Last in Customer Satisfaction Surveys. Personally, I experienced 6 or more straight months of extreme overcharges on my monthly bill, only to be 'punished' further by having to endure at least 45 minutes a month on the phone with AT&T customer service to rectify the bill. Judjudjud (talk) 21:35, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

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

"Best" is not synonymous with good customer opinions of AT&T service either, of which AT&T ranks last according to this May 2011 article in Consumerist.com -- AT&T and Comcast Rank Last in Customer Satisfaction Surveys Judjudjud (talk) 21:46, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

Dead link
During several automated bot runs the following external link was found to be unavailable. Please check if the link is in fact down and fix or remove it in that case!


 * http://www.dallasnews.com/sharedcontent/dws/bus/stories/DN-att_28bus.ART.State.Edition2.4d5475b.html
 * In Downtown Dallas on 2011-03-17 15:37:28, 404 Not Found
 * In AT&T on 2011-06-20 01:04:38, 404 Not Found

--JeffGBot (talk) 01:05, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

Lobbying and Political Donations
I think it should be noted that AT&T is the 16th top spender out of every industry for lobbying the government from 1998-2011 at $126,449,336 total. http://www.opensecrets.org/lobby/top.php?indexType=s

And I think it should be mentioned that they are the 3rd top spender (total) out of everybody frmo 1989-2010 for political contributions. http://www.opensecrets.org/orgs/list.php?order=A — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.58.125.85 (talk) 16:58, 20 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Why? And is that the new AT&T or AT&T Corp? In short, seems meaningless pot stirring. oknazevad (talk) 03:21, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

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. Pro hib it O ni o ns  (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)


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


 * So, having seen no response to this for over 40 days - can we get on with making one comprehensive AT&T page that incorporates both flavors? Some poor school kid is going to screw a up a term paper because of this. Yes, historically accurate - but don't you agree that this is too granular? I know not everyone agrees, but please humor me for a moment with this question: If we did create one AT&T page that incorporated the history of pre-anti-trust and post anti-trust all in one page, how would/could it be structured so a lay reader could figure it out? For some ideas, see this youtube video. Lexlex (talk) 00:32, 29 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Sorry, Colbert's charter is to entertain, Wikipedia to enlighten. We, as a community are responsible to educate by writing and explaining clearly.  AT&T  (upper case or lower case) was founded in 1877 as stated on their own web page.  Wikipedia should reflect that.  Every time Chrysler corporation changes owners does not give it a new date.  When a woman marries and assumes a new surname it does not change her birth date.OldZeb (talk) 05:24, 1 November 2008 (UTC)


 * OK -- No response on this at *all* for quite a long period of time. When I get around to it, I 'm going to merge AT& together and link to a separate SBC page. Lexlex (talk) 19:38, 26 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Just because SBC wants to thinks it's AT&T does not mean it is AT&T. The thought of merging the two is a horrible idea and is against what Wikipedia is about. Valcumine (talk) 00:53, 20 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Do not merge the two pages! This at&t is not the same as AT&T, Do not merge. Though feel free to create a seperate SBC page, or add some corporate history to this page.--The Navigators (talk)-May British Rail Rest in Peace. 15:45, 27 January 2010 (UTC)


 * The articles should definitely be merged. SBC and AT&T merged and continued under the AT&T name. For Wikipedia to insist on making a distinction that is not made otherwise is definitely original research.Sylvain1972 (talk) 14:47, 7 April 2010 (UTC)


 * They didn't merge, SBC took the AT&T name because 'SBC' already had a bad enough reputation. This is not 'original research', the two companies are still seperate. The old AT&T is now a subsidiary of SBC--er I mean at&t. Valcumine (talk) 18:58, 28 July 2010 (UTC)


 * OK, it's been years and this nonsense of keeping two AT&T pages with hat notes is now esoteric silliness (in my opinion of course). Can we put this up for a vote and get 'er done? Lexlex (talk) 23:15, 30 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Or maybe it's been two years and there's no movement on it because there's no consensus for a merge at all. Obviously, others do not agree that it's essoteric silliness to accurately describe that the current AT&T is actually SBC, and the old company is now a subsidiary. Seems pretty straightforward to me. oknazevad (talk) 23:43, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

Bell Labs
I believe it is necessary to add information pertaining to Bell Labs regarding R&D. Presently, I am having difficulties integrating these details. It would be much appreciated if a more experienced user could assist.

Thanks! Twillisjr (talk) 19:53, 12 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Sometimes it is best not to start with the lead of a generic article but to go to the middle of a more specific article, e.g., Bell Labs. If you want to link your data to the new AT&T, you will need a third-party reliable source that explicitly makes the link to avoid WP:Original research. I and one other editor are suspicious of this link so you have a hard climb. Best wishes! 12.153.112.21 (talk) 20:21, 12 October 2012 (UTC)
 * I'm suspicious because Bell Labs has nothing to do with the modern AT&T other than some shared history. Bell Labs is NOT the r&d branch I the modern AT&T and any edit that implies such is on its face factually incorrect. There's nothing to integrate here, because your edits are based on a fundamentally incorrect assumption. oknazevad (talk) 23:38, 12 October 2012 (UTC)

Incoming links to AT&T
A lot of incoming links to AT&T (AT&T Inc.) actually intend to link to AT&T Corporation. I have begun to resolve these and who knows how long it will take, but there is a whole pile of ambiguity in which references intended for two different articles are thrown together. Ordinarily this is handled by a dab page (e.g. "AT&T") and separate article pages (e.g. "AT&T Inc." and "AT&T Corp.") but I think that is against consensus in this case. It is also probable that new bluelinks to just "AT&T" will be created regularly that intend the other article, continuing the pile-on of ambiguity.

After the AT&T Corp. links are all fixed I would like to go back through and direct the other links to the target AT&T Inc. rather than AT&T. This appears similar to other disambiguation cases where the user is targeted to a redirect rather than the article title and for similar reasons. The benefit is that newly created bluelinks can be easily watched for and pointed to the correct source, either AT&T or AT&T Corporation. Any suggestions would be greatly appreciated. 12.153.112.21 (talk) 17:28, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

On second thought there are over 2000 articles involved. It may be better to go through and dab the Corp. and the Inc. at the same time. If I don't hear back I will proceed. 12.153.112.21 (talk) 20:21, 12 October 2012 (UTC)
 * What you propose amounts to a move of this article to AT&T Inc., which I would oppose as in common usage the "Inc." isn't included except for in some specific mentions. In short, that the old AT&T, now a subsidiary of the modern company that was originally its spinoff, is at AT&T Corporation is sufficient sisal iguanodon for most purposes. Correcting erroneous links may be a good task for an editor with AWB, if we can recruit one. oknazevad (talk) 23:38, 12 October 2012 (UTC)
 * I have no desire to move the article or to amount to a move. I respect the appearance that consensus favors two articles titled "AT&T" and "AT&T Corporation". The problem is that editors who are not aware of that nuance will predictably be constantly inserting new bluelinks to "AT&T" that mean instead "AT&T Corporation", as has already happened hundreds of times. According to dab guidelines, yes, editors are free to form a local consensus that the new AT&T is the primary topic for "AT&T", but in cases where possibly a thousand links, both old and newly anticipated, need repointing to a secondary topic, there is not an easy way to locate and trap new instances and keep the links well-maintained.
 * That is, if I looked at all 2000 links and separated out 1000 Corp links from 1000 AT&T (Inc) links, and in a month there were 5 new links made to AT&T that should have been made to Corp, they will be buried anywhere in the 1000 correct AT&T links. If I copied out a list of the 1000 correct links and compared it by hand every month that would be a very inefficient way to find the new incorrect links. However, if all the correct links were given a redirect to Inc now, it would be a simple matter to look at the newly created links to AT&T to make some of them Corp and some of them Inc, thus clearing out the new links.
 * What this amounts to, rather, is a convention that, because it's highly probable some new editors will link "AT&T" meaning "Corp", and because this will not be findable easily any other way given the consensus about the primary article, we should follow WP:NOTBROKEN and allow links to this article to be written as "AT&T Inc.|AT&T" in general. Since the status quo will not resolve this problem and since the guideline indicates that such redirects should be respected, I don't see a problem with proceeding in the absence of any better proposals. And Google doesn't recognize the term "sisal iguanodon". 12.153.112.21 (talk) 13:45, 15 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment copied from my talk:

Unless you intend to move AT&T to AT&T, Inc. over the redirect, your edit summaries for the last 20+ edits you've made are completely misleading. You're not disambiguating the links, you're doing the opposite. If you are plan to attempt to have AT&T moved to the AT&T, Inc., you should obtain consensus to move the page first, perform the move, and then change the links to the appropriate page to avoid redirects. Altairisfar (talk) 16:57, 15 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Please continue at Talk:AT&T where I have explained the proposal. I apologize if the shorthand misled you, but I am not "doing the opposite" (ambiguating) by any stretch. There are many AT&T links that should properly point to AT&T Corporation, and the best way to find these as they are created is to redirect the others to AT&T instead, and this is allowed per WP:NOTBROKEN. This has nothing to do with moving the page but with disambiguating the incoming and newly created links. 12.153.112.21 (talk) 17:06, 15 October 2012 (UTC)
 * I see that the one Altairisfar objected to was not exactly the same case as the general case but the principle still applies. Since the template itself says "AT&T Inc." in plaintext it should link to "AT&T Inc." not "AT&T". You could say that the special case here is "not broken" and thus I should not point back to "AT&T Inc.", but no other solution for the problem above has been proposed. 12.153.112.21 (talk) 17:10, 15 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Your edit summaries all read "dab at&t", so changing the link from directly linking the article to forcing a user to pass through a redirect page seemed misleading to me. The link to AT&T in the Alabama article, for instance, was meant to point to the current parent company at AT&T, not the long-distance subsidiary at AT&T Corporation.  You changed it from AT&T to AT&T, which forces the user to reach the AT&T page through a redirect.  In reading this thread, I still don't quite understand what you intend to accomplish with doing this, but that doesn't really matter to me personally.  But maybe it would be better if you linked to this thread to explain your future edits of this nature, so that they don't appear to be misleading. Altairisfar (talk) 17:38, 15 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the tips. According to WP:NOTBROKEN, "forcing" the user to reach through a redirect is not counted as any deficit, and need not be reverted. Further, redirecting the links does serve the positive purpose of weeding out those links that do intend to reach AT&T Corp. but don't. I will be happy to link this page in the future. 12.153.112.21 (talk) 02:37, 16 October 2012 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry, but intentionally linking to the redirect (AT&T Inc.), and then piping around it so it appears as the non-redirect version is pointless. Extremely pointless. If a link to this article is to read with this article's exact title, then just link to this article's exact title. Don't pipe around redirects, especially to make the link look like the exact title the redirect points to. If the concern is articles pointing to here when they should be pointing to the article on the historical company that is now a subsidiary (AT&T Corporation), then fix those links. No redirects are not broken, but that linking style is a waste. Links to here that are supposed to point to here are even more so "not broken", and have no need for any such "fix". oknazevad (talk) 13:19, 17 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Here and here are two users who not only get it but agree with using the redirects in the general case also, which does arise on regular occasions across the board. To be able to fix the thousand links that should point to Corp, and those that are likely to arise later, it is indeed helpful to point the other thousand links to Inc (and often in prose also). Further, a person who only knows of Corp will be more helped by seeing the Inc in the "redirected" line than the bare article alone, because the "redirected" line indicates that "Inc" is what functions as the disambiguator. At any rate it's harmless to proceed. 12.153.112.21 (talk) 03:40, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

DABConcept
The AT&Ts are being poorly disambiguated. We currently have AT&T and AT&T Corporation - but both of these are corporations, so these disambiguators are not really helpful. It would make sense to disambiguate both with the year they started using the AT&T name. So, in my view, this page should be moved to AT&T (2005), and the other to AT&T (1885). Meanwhile, at AT&T, we should write a disambiguation concept article explaining the history of these companies and of the name, and how they are all connected. I suggest an article starting with "AT&T is the name of several companies that provide telecommunications services, operating from 1885 to the present." AT&T is the classic case of an ambiguous name that needs more than just a list to disambiguate, but instead, a detailed explanation to disambiguate. Good models for what this type of thing are at Football and particle, two ambiguous terms that can't be disambiguated with a mere list. This would also eliminate the problem with mistargeted links. Thoughts? Ego White Tray (talk) 03:19, 3 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Sounds good to me. A similar idea is currently in use with Norfolk Southern Railway and Norfolk Southern Railway (1942–1982), although in that case, as you can see, the current company's article title has no disambiguation and the old company's article title has the full year range. &mdash;{&#124;Retro00064&#124;&#9742;talk&#124;&#x270D;contribs&#124;} 08:32, 11 November 2012 (UTC).

I've started a draft at Talk:AT&T/sandbox Ego White Tray (talk) 03:01, 12 November 2012 (UTC)
 * I oppose. There's no reason to force a reader to go to another page where the clear current primary topic is the current company, and therefore should have the undisambiguated name without question. Once again, if links are pointing to the wrong page, fix them. Don't break what is not broken! oknazevad (talk) 01:14, 19 November 2012 (UTC)
 * There obviously isn't a clear primary topic. Yes, the 2005 AT&T is the big monstrous phone company, but the 100 years of history is a different one. If the old AT&T went out of business and the name disappeared, it would still be primary topic. If AT&T was a brand new company but still of its size, it would be primary topic. We clearly have two AT&T primary topics here. A large number of links pointing to the wrong page only happens if something is broken. This was the case with Las Vegas when that title was a disambiguation page. Conservative Christianity is a disambiguation page with 40-some links pointing to it because people refuse to let it be a dabconcept. If editors are constantly putting incorrect links to a page, it's because what's at the page isn't what should be. Also, don't assume everyone knows what you do. I expect a huge number of people think that today's AT&T and the historic one are the same. Ego White Tray (talk) 01:30, 19 November 2012 (UTC)


 * Comment. If AT&T 2005 is called "the monstrous phone company" then AT&T 1885 is an even more monstrous phone company, because it includes AT&T 2005 and all of the other baby bells that were split off. I would endorse the name change. Apteva (talk) 23:11, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

Requested move

 * The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section. 

The result of the move request was: page not moved: no consensus after 50 days (27 days after relisting). Anthony Appleyard (talk) 10:47, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

– Rationale is explained in the section above. In short, neither the 1885 or 2005 AT&T can be considered primary topic, as most people view AT&T both as a current gargantuan corporation and as a very old corporation. Yet, disambiguation is a poor solution as well. So, I wrote up a WP:DABCONCEPT article about the various AT&Ts and the complex history and feel that this should be what people see when they visit AT&T. For the individual companies, disambiguation with the year they first used the AT&T name is the best way. Relisted. BDD (talk) 20:28, 13 December 2012 (UTC) Ego White Tray (talk) 04:40, 20 November 2012 (UTC)
 * AT&T → AT&T (2005)
 * AT&T Corporation → AT&T (1885)
 * Talk:AT&T/sandbox → AT&T

Note that the "AT&T → ?" on the first line is there due to technical issues with the template. It can be safely ignored. Ego White Tray (talk) 04:40, 20 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Oppose. No evidence other that the current company isn't the primary topic other than some broken inks than need fixing. Maybe this article could do a better job explaining the relationship between the two, but that doesn't change the primacy of this article.oknazevad (talk) 17:04, 20 November 2012 (UTC)


 * Support Ma Bell (pre breakup) is frequently meant by AT&T, and the post-breakup AT&T is also freuqently meant in the deregulation debates, that was later aquired by a Baby Bell, and current customers mean the current AT&T resulting from the remerger of two of its main elements. -- 70.24.250.26 (talk) 06:47, 26 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Oppose. Much of the proposal makes sense, but forcing readers to click through yet another article to get to modern day AT&T seems wrong. It would be better to have a single article on AT&T which focuses on the current company, and then have a history section which links to daughter article(s) on prior iterations of the company. Majoreditor (talk) 17:40, 26 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Please view the section a couple spots below on the future of my sandbox article if this move fails (which is sounding likely) Ego White Tray (talk) 03:34, 27 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Support. Good way to keep these organized. Apteva (talk) 06:03, 27 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Support. The new overview article is an excellent contribution. It will give many people what they are looking for without needing to go to the detailed articles. That's what main article links are for! So it should go at the undisambiguated name. Andrewa (talk) 17:48, 28 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Oppose I am with Majoreditor on this one. A more appropriate solution is leaving the current AT&T where it is and creating a better organized history section. There is no indication that the content in Talk:AT&T/sandbox is primary topic. There is also no data, search data or otherwise, to indicate that the modern company is not the primary topic.--Labattblueboy (talk) 20:36, 7 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Support: AT&T was a large and historic company. The company branded as AT&T today is something different – and in fact the whole reason Southwestern Bell decided to name itself after the former AT&T was an attempt to acquire the aura and brand name awareness built by that history. Assuming that the company currently branded as AT&T is the primary topic would be suffering from WP:RECENTISM. —BarrelProof (talk) 18:25, 12 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Oppose - Far easier to keep it where it is presently than to deal with the hell of changing all the wikilinks only to change them back when the modern AT&T is determined to be the primary topic. Marcus Qwertyus (talk) 20:52, 25 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Oppose This is a corporation with a long and complicated history. What is needed is a clear structure of the current article, not a break-up of the article into ones that each describe a different incarnation of the company. JanCeuleers (talk) 17:53, 30 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment: May I suggect that we target closing this discussion by mid-January? Majoreditor (talk) 18:09, 2 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Support It's clearer with complicated corporate changes to list the successive parts separately, which is what we do in the analogous case of countries. I agree with those who said that the earlier company might well be the primary topic--it was as a monopoly, it was relatively much more important in the overall structure of US commerce than the more restricted company is now.  DGG ( talk ) 23:03, 5 January 2013 (UTC)
 * An interesting analogy but flawed in the conclusion drawn. Country articles use the undisambiguated name for the current state (ie, Germany is about the present Federal Republic), while covering past iterations in daughter articles usually using the full name or some common academic term for it. That's what these articles already do. There's also the added caveat that the former main company is now a subsidiary of the current main company, and isn't fully defunct unlike the former country analogue. oknazevad (talk) 20:51, 7 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Support Either no primary topic or the old monopoly is the primary topic. This also assists with incoming links from other WP articles such as Texas. --NReTSa (talk) 03:39, 8 January 2013 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

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


 * I would rather see the sandbox article be used as the AT&T article, and rename the current article to AT&T (2005). Apteva (talk) 06:00, 27 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Me too, but from the move discussion above, it doesn't seem likely to happen. So, next best thing, right? Ego White Tray (talk) 13:41, 27 November 2012 (UTC)
 * I have three major problems with a dab page as a main page. First, the above-mentioned issue with primary topic; the current AT&T is the current primary topic for the name. Second, following that, it is reader-unfriendly to for e them to click through a disambiguation page when the clear primary topic is this article. Third, the "(2005)" disambiguator is pretty bad; yes the current AT&T may have only started using the name then, but it implies that's when the company formed, which is factually incorrect. See the above bits about why there's no separate SBC article; if this article is given an incorrect disambiguator it will only confuse the issue of the current company's correct history. oknazevad (talk) 05:01, 28 November 2012 (UTC)
 * There is, though a separate SBC article - Southwestern Bell. Apteva (talk) 05:26, 28 November 2012 (UTC)
 * No that's not the SBC article I'm talking about; I'm talking about the one at SBC Communications, which was merged into this article following the discussion seen above on this page. oknazevad (talk) 22:51, 2 December 2012 (UTC)
 * I'd like to point out that the current state of affairs doesn't disambiguate anything. Right now, the 2005 ATT is at AT&T while the original is at AT&T Corporation - the problem with this is that they are both corporations, so "corporation" disambiguates squat. Disambiguators need to refer to something unique about the entity, which is why I like using the year the company adopted the name. I'm open to other ideas, but let's hold off until the move discussion above is closed. Ego White Tray (talk) 21:17, 3 December 2012 (UTC)
 * That capital "C" indicates clearly that "AT&T Corporation" is a proper noun, not just a mere disambiguator. oknazevad (talk) 20:40, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

No mentioning of Unix at all
It's a keypoint of AT&T. It's a wonder of wonders it has no "Unix" on the whole page. Xcislav (talk) 09:00, 29 April 2015 (UTC)


 * Great point. Please read Talk:AT%26T/Archive_1
 * Please also consider adding material about Unix to the article on AT&T Corporation, an older company that is a subisdiary of the 2005 AT&T.
 * I believe that AT&T gave up / sold control of Unix to X/Open and Novell in the early 1990s, and control of Bell Labs in 1996 (all before 2005) but both Unix and the labs probably deserve a mention in the history section.
 * --Hroðulf (or Hrothulf) (Talk) 11:16, 29 April 2015 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 1 one external link on AT&T. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110830202115/http://www.fi.edu:80/learn/case-files/att/ to http://www.fi.edu/learn/case-files/att/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 10:54, 1 October 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 8 external links on AT&T. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://yahoo.brand.edgar-online.com/EFX_dll/EDGARpro.dll?FetchFilingHTML1%3FSessionID=jaJ3juNdQ_X7dSV&ID=4390374
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120511000739/http://www.alec.org/about-alec/private-enterprise-board/ to http://www.alec.org/about-alec/private-enterprise-board/
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.opensecrets.org/orgs/summary.asp?ID=D000000076&Name=AT&T%20Inc
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://home.bellsouth.net/csbellsouth/s/s.dll?spage=cg%2Flegal%2Fatt.htm&leg=tos
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120102012925/http://www.consumeraffairs.com/news04/2007/10/att_tos.html to http://www.consumeraffairs.com/news04/2007/10/att_tos.html
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=%2Fc%2Fa%2F2006%2F06%2F21%2FBUG9VJHB9C1.DTL&hw=at&sn=002&sc=870
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20111205122946/http://www.teamusa.org/pages/sponsors to http://www.teamusa.org/pages/sponsors
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.fi.edu/learn/case-files/att/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 13:35, 12 May 2017 (UTC)

Date of foundation dispute
I am unclear as to why, in the last couple months, there has been a push to change the date of foundation of AT&T Inc. from 1983 (its incorporation as a Baby Bell) to 1882 (the date of foundation of the telephone company, its subsidiary, known as Southwestern Bell since 1920). Sure, they shared the "Southwestern Bell" name from 1983-1995, but there has always been a clear distinction between the two companies, especially when the name SBC Communications Inc. was adopted in 1995 by the company now known as AT&T Inc. There was a similar dispute 10 years ago to change the foundation date of AT&T Inc. from 1983 to match the foundation date of AT&T Corp., 1885.

We are doing a disservice to claim that AT&T Inc. was founded in 1882 when, in fact, the company that was founded in 1882 continues to exist and has a separate page with history (Southwestern Bell). It also is inaccurate to say that AT&T Inc. was founded in 1882 and used the Southwestern Bell Telephone Company name from 1920-1983 when in fact the name never ceased to exist (except as a brand, in 2003) as it was used during that time (and continues to be used) by the local telephone company. KansasCity (talk) 23:35, 3 September 2017 (UTC)
 * See "Founded" in Alphabet Inc. Federal Chancellor (NightShadow) (talk) 12:05, 7 September 2017 (UTC)
 * The "Founded" date in the infobox of Alphabet Inc. lists 2015, since that was the date of its foundation as a holding company. The same logic applies to the listing of 1983 as the foundation of AT&T Inc., when it was established as a holding company. AT&T Inc. was not established in 1882 nor was the usage of the name "Southwestern Bell Telephone Company" discontinued in 1983, as the company to use that exact name (Southwestern Bell) continues to use it to this day. KansasCity (talk) 17:01, 9 September 2017 (UTC)
 * I partially agree with you. Holding AT&T was founded in 1983. Please do not touch the history of the company. I hope you will be satisfied with the current version. Federal Chancellor (NightShadow) (talk) 17:32, 9 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Thank you for correcting the AT&T Inc. infobox. However, I am unclear about where to find the "consensus" on declaring AT&T Inc.'s history the exact same as that of the Southwestern Bell Telephone Company since 1882, especially since it only has been in the last couple months this occurred. The only "consensus" I am able to find on this article's talk page, referencing a date of foundation (of 1983), is from a suggestion to clean up the opening paragraph to this article by User:MaxEnt on October 24, 2016. Before this, it had been 10 years that the date of foundation was listed as 1983. KansasCity (talk) 18:07, 9 September 2017 (UTC)
 * I was in a blind hurry, with many other balls in the air, when I contributed my bile over the previous lead, such that my five or ten minute involvement has only left a faint trace in my memory. Like it or not, we live in a world where corporations enjoy the legal fiction of personhood, and this includes legal incorporation dates. However, unlike people (as in so many other respects), corporations sometimes behave like holding company Matryoshka dolls, which leads to legal history and narrative history divergence. Of course they want to have it both ways: a fresh Delaware incorporation, and a glowing origin story dating back to the liberation of Excalibur. I chose the verb "traces back" in my sample lead replacement, because "traces back" self-evidently maps onto narrative plurality (as Nabokov once said, if you can only write yourself a single autobiography, you aren't trying very hard). If the infobox presents a single, naked number, I don't see how it can reasonably be other than the most recent Dr Delaware face lift. If Ezri Dax listed a Federation birth year, I'd say the same thing (if she looks young, then she is young).  Anyway, my original dog in this was a poop and run, so take that FWIW. &mdash; MaxEnt 10:15, 10 September 2017 (UTC)

Requested move 2017
AT&T → AT&T (new)

AT&T Corporation → AT&T (old)

AT&T title should be about the brand only.

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

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

Too much penis & weeds in lead paragraph, not enough cogent summary

 * existing horror show

AT&T is the second largest provider of mobile telephone services and the largest provider of fixed telephone services[8] in the United States, and also provides broadband subscription television services through DirecTV. AT&T is the third-largest company in Texas (the largest non-oil company, behind only ExxonMobil and ConocoPhillips, and also the largest Dallas company).[9] As of May 2014, AT&T is the 23rd-largest company in the world as measured by a composite of revenues, profits, assets and market value,[10] and the 16th-largest non-oil company.[11] AT&T is the largest telecommunications company in the world by revenue. As of 2016, it is also the 17th-largest mobile telecom operator in the world, with 130.4 million mobile customers.[12] AT&T was ranked at #6 on the 2015 rankings of the world's most valuable brands published by Millward Brown Optimor.

The reward for making it through all this penis wagging? The reader is plunged straight into a quagmire of fine print:

AT&T Inc. began its existence as Southwestern Bell Corporation, one of seven Regional Bell Operating Companies (RBOC's) created in 1983 in the divestiture of the American Telephone and Telegraph Company (founded 1885, later AT&T Corp.) following the 1982 United States v. AT&T antitrust lawsuit. Southwestern Bell changed its name to SBC Communications Inc. in 1995. In 2005, SBC purchased former parent AT&T Corp. and took on its branding, with the merged entity naming itself AT&T Inc. and using the iconic AT&T Corp. logo and stock-trading symbol.


 * suggested serving

What the first paragraph of the lead should look like, if this were written for the benefit of the harried reader:

AT&T Inc. is an American multinational telecommunications conglomerate, headquartered at Whitacre Tower in downtown Dallas, Texas. Within the United States, AT&T is the the largest provider of fixed telephone services and a leading provider of mobile telephone and broadband subscription television. AT&T Inc. began its existence as Southwestern Bell Corporation, one of seven Regional Bell Operating Companies (RBOC's) created in 1983 in the divestiture of the American Telephone and Telegraph Company.

AT&T can trace its origin back to the original Bell Telephone Company founded by Alexander Graham Bell after his invention of the telephone. In 2005, SBC purchased AT&T for $16 billion. After this purchase, SBC adopted the AT&T name and brand. The original 1885 AT&T still exists as the long-distance phone subsidiary of this company. Although the current AT&T as a corporate structure has only existed since 1983, the company has adopted the original AT&T's history as its own. The current AT&T reconstitutes much of the former Bell System and includes ten of the original 22 Bell Operating Companies, along with the original long distance division.

According to the Center for Responsive Politics, AT&T is the second-largest donor to United States political campaigns, and the top American corporate donor, having contributed more than US$47.7 million since 1990, 56% of which went to Republicans and 44% of which went to Democrats. During the period of 1998 to 2010, the company expended US$130 million on lobbying in the United States. A key political issue for AT&T has been the question of which businesses win the right to profit by providing broadband internet access in the United States.

AT&T finds the continued burden of operating rural landlines really annoying. AT&T stated that it would declare the intentions for its rural landlines on November 7, 2012.

The company maintains a database of call detail records of all telephone calls that have passed through its network since 1987. In 2006, the Electronic Frontier Foundation lodged a class action lawsuit, Hepting v. AT&T, which alleged that AT&T had allowed agents of the National Security Agency (NSA) to monitor phone and Internet communications of AT&T customers without warrants. If true, this would violate the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978 and the First and Fourth Amendments of the U.S. Constitution. AT&T has yet to confirm or deny that monitoring by the NSA is occurring.

In January 2008, the company reported plans to begin filtering all Internet traffic which passes through its network for intellectual property violations.

In June 2010, a hacker group known as Goatse Security discovered a vulnerability within AT&T that could allow anyone to uncover email addresses belonging to customers of AT&T 3G service for the Apple iPad.

In March 2012, the United States federal government announced a lawsuit against AT&T. The specific accusations state that AT&T "violated the False Claims Act by facilitating and seeking federal payment for IP Relay calls by international callers who were ineligible for the service and sought to use it for fraudulent purposes.

In October 2016, AT&T reached a deal to buy Time Warner for over $80 billion. If approved by federal regulators, the merger would bring AT&T's telecommunication holdings under the same umbrella as HBO, Turner Broadcasting System and the Warner Bros. studio.

That from a five-minute cut and paste job, mainly from existing text. I hate this article in its present state too much to touch it. Finally, notice the phrase "declare the intentions", lifted from existing text. A bit of an Orwellian ring there. That's a subtle long distancing word, as in the famous "that woman", is it not? &mdash; MaxEnt 13:56, 24 October 2016 (UTC)


 * I came to the talk page wondering if anyone felt the same way as me about the opening paragraph. It could use some work for sure.  At the moment, it looks like a bullet point list squashed into one tight paragraph:


 * AT&T is . AT&T is .  AT&T was.


 * The first two suggested replacement paragraphs read so much better. PatchWar (talk) 09:57, 30 June 2017 (UTC)

I agree that the two replacement paragraphs are far better. It appears there is consensus, and there having been no objections in the last six months, I have gone ahead and made the change. Kendall-K1 (talk) 01:54, 22 January 2018 (UTC)

Care to discuss? Kendall-K1 (talk) 02:00, 22 January 2018 (UTC)


 * I just couldn't find your comment because it was added to a six month-old section, but I have no immediate objections at this time. Next time, maybe add a note at the bottom, directing editors to the old section. El_C 02:07, 22 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Against. See Apple Inc., Google, Verizon Communications. You removed a lot of important information (for example, the fact that the company began its history as Southwestern Bell Telephone Company). Federal Chancellor (NightShadow) (talk) 19:45, 24 January 2018 (UTC)
 * My opinion is the the new version is a great improvement, and we would do better to add back in what you feel is missing than to revert the whole thing. As a compromise I have removed the worst of the mess while leaving in the part about SBTC. Kendall-K1 (talk) 20:21, 24 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Yes, thank you. Federal Chancellor (NightShadow) (talk) 21:04, 24 January 2018 (UTC)

Edits regarding the Time Warner purchase
As you all know, AT&T now 100% own the company formerly known as Time Warner Inc. (and all it divisions and subsidiaries) as of June 14th, 2018. AT&T page needs a complete makeover plus that chart is outdated. AT&T Media as it informally known until we know the new name also need a total makeover on it page. We can all do this.

Thanks, BBMatBlood. 07:25, 15 June 2018 (UTC)


 * A) do not shout in section headers, nor make them vague. I've changed the header to fix that. B) the purchase is not yet complete, and we don't know the final details. We'll get to it as it becomes clear. You can just slow down and wait like the rest of us. oknazevad (talk) 10:40, 15 June 2018 (UTC)


 * Media seems to be saying they've completed the takeover https://www.bbc.com/news/business-44492201 – numbermaniac  10:42, 15 June 2018 (UTC)
 * I was not aware of that. That said, we still should proceed with care, and not all-caps shouting haste. oknazevad (talk) 10:47, 15 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Agreed, no need to rush and get it wrong in the process. – numbermaniac  11:43, 15 June 2018 (UTC)

First sentence
Hi all, I recently made an edit to the first line of the article:


 * AT&T Inc. is an American multinational conglomerate holding company headquartered at Whitacre Tower in Downtown Dallas, Texas.

however User:General_Ization reverted the edit, stating:

AT&T Inc. is an American multinational conglomerate holding company, as previously stated.

on their 2nd revert, after seeking clarification for the reason why.

Rather than get into an edit war, it would be better to come to consensus amongst the community. I think a more sentence of what the company does would be better. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Angryskies (talk • contribs) 14:00, 17 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Your proposed opening sentence was: "AT&T Inc. is an American telecommunications & media company based in Dallas, Texas." Since this is factually incorrect, your edit was reverted. Also note a) typo and b) WP:AMPERSAND. You're right to bring it here rather than edit war over it, but I'm not sure what there is to discuss.  General Ization  Talk  14:17, 17 September 2018 (UTC)

Old AT&T Corp (American Telephone & Telegraph Co) became New AT&T Inc. (Southwestern Bell/SBC)...
In every sense from owning the former parent, taking it name, logo, stock ticker, and claiming origins going back to 1885 (see Xander page, see 25th Anniversary of AT&T prediction). We could merge or not merge both pages since it will be unprecedentedly long but if CBS Corp. founded in 2006 can trace it history to that of Westinghouse which rename to CBS in 1997 then same thing here or even look at Atari,SA (formerly Infogrammes) and Atari,Inc (originating from Nolan Bushnell original company). with the only exceptions in this type of corporate structure (working on a name for it lol; working title is Old Brand becomes New: Father becomes Son. The tales of AT&T, CBS, Atari, and THQ) are THQ Nordic AB (Nordic Games) and THQ Inc. (formerly Toy Headquarters); Broadcom Inc. (formerly Avago Technologies) and Broadcom Corporation. Thank you.BBMatBlood (talk) 03:53, 7 January 2019 (UTC)
 * I do not agree with merging articles about two distinctly different companies. These articles have remained separate for over 13 years since SBC acquired AT&T Corp. Plenty of citations are made throughout the article detailing the separate identity of AT&T Inc. You have argued in favor of the “merger” of the 2 articles by making the changes and then expecting everyone to go along with it without a discussion. Thank you for finally beginning a discussion; any changes should await whatever consensus may come from it. KansasCityKSMO (talk) 03:36, 11 January 2019 (UTC)
 * I agree with BBMatBlood. Merge articles. No merger. These companies have their own stories (like Alphabet Inc. and Google). Federal Chancellor (NightShadow) (talk) 12:45, 12 January 2019 (UTC)
 * I agree with BBMatBlood. Articles should be merged.Planet Uranuss (talk) Blocked as a sockpuppet. Aoi (青い) (talk) 23:47, 31 January 2019 (UTC)
 * When will there be an official proposal where the AT&T and AT&T Corporation pages are flagged for this proposed merger? Right now, as it stands in this discussion, there is not truly a clear answer as there has not been a banner on each page directing users to discuss the idea. KansasCityKSMO (talk) 08:56, 16 January 2019 (UTC)


 * No merger. The companies had a couple of decades of independent existence. This has been extensively discussed before. Just because someone can't be bothered to understand the difference does not mean that they get to force the article against consensus to their misunderstanding, and that they can propose an previously discussed and rejected merge ad nauseum. Any more of this tedwntious editing will result in a block, so please just drop it BBMatBlood. oknazevad (talk) 12:30, 26 January 2019 (UTC)

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

Telefónica blurb
I have a couple of issues with this blurb:

In 2013, the Spanish Government would have dampened a friendly takeover attempt of AT&T on Telefónica, valued in 122,000 million euros. Such an impediment would be justified in the strategic nature of the company and AT&T would have taken a step backward.[11]


 * 1) I have a hard time parsing this.  What does this mean exactly? Who was to take over whom?
 * 2) It seems highly speculative and vague.  For instance, what does "...would have taken a step backward" refer to?
 * 3) Why is this blurb shown in such a prominent place in the article?   It is, at best, of regional interest, not critical to the (history of the) company as a whole...   Perhaps a separate "subsidiaries" type section would do? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hlorri (talk • contribs) 18:32, 7 May 2014 (UTC)

Acquired by Disney
The Walt Disney Company offers $92 Billion for AT&T starts May 17, 2019. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.94.23.13 (talk) 16:09, 10 May 2019 (UTC)

I have found no news indicating any proposed acquisition of AT&T by the Walt Disney Company. What is your source for this information? superdood (talk) 16:21, 10 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Seems like simple vandalism; AT&T's market cap is 220b. Kuru   (talk)  16:32, 10 May 2019 (UTC)

AT&T revenue: $190 billion (2019), total assets $600 billion (2019) vs Disney $85 billion (2019) and 120 billion (2019). AT&T will be the surviving entity by a huge margin and Disney become a subsidiary likely folded into WarnerMedia which will be anti trust. Never going to happen, plus Disney only just closed its Fox acquisition a month ago. Stop vandalising.84.203.102.83 (talk) 17:17, 10 May 2019 (UTC)

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

I will agree to not change the current picture on the infobox. But can all of you guys allow me to changed the old photo of the AT&T headquarters on the Whitacre Tower page? BigRed606 (talk)

Edit Request: Lead section, Historical financial performance and Criticisms
NOTE: I’m proposing the following edits for FleishmanHillard on behalf of AT&T. I am a paid editor and aware of the COI guidelines. I’m submitting these edits to account for correcting inaccuracies in the lead, historical performance and criticisms sections and have provided related sourcing for review. Please let me know of any questions or comments as you review. Thanks for your time and consideration. Jon Gray (talk) 02:52, 26 March 2021 (UTC)

Lead section


 * In the second sentence of first paragraph in lead section, AT&T is listed as the largest provider of mobile telephone services. it is actually the second largest provider of mobile telephone services. Suggest updating this sentence to read as follows (suggested addition in bold):

It is the world’s largest telecommunications company, the second largest provider of mobile telephone services…


 * In the third sentence of first paragraph, AT&T is listed as the world’s largest media and entertainment company by revenue, but it is now outranked in revenue by Netflix, Walt Disney and Comcast, per source below. Suggest updating this sentence to read as follows for accuracy (suggested addition in bold):

Since June 14, 2018, it is also the parent company of mass media conglomerate WarnerMedia, making it one of the world's largest media and entertainment company in terms of revenue.


 * First sentence of second paragraph: Suggest replacing existing sentence with sentences below (in bold) to add additional historical context on and accuracy to the company’s origin and incorporate related sourcing.

'''AT&T Inc. began its history as the American District Telegraph Company, formed in St. Louis in 1878. After broadening service to Arkansas, Kansas, Oklahoma and Texas, through a series of mergers, it became Southwestern Bell Telephone Company in 1920, which was then a subsidiary of American Telephone and Telegraph Company. The latter was a successor of the original Bell Telephone Company founded by Alexander Graham Bell in 1877. '''


 * Second sentence of second paragraph: Suggest replacing existing sentence with the sentence below for greater clarity on company’s formation (American Telephone and Telegraph Company was formed as a subsidiary of American Bell Telephone Company in 1885, and became the parent company in a corporate reorganization in 1899) and related sourcing. Also provides correction on The American Bell Telephone Company’s name, as well as AT&T Corp. Proposed replacement sentence is as follows (suggested replacement copy for this sentence in bold):

'''The American Bell Telephone Company formed the American Telephone and Telegraph Company (AT&T) subsidiary in 1885. In 1899, AT&T became the parent company after the American Bell Telephone Company sold its assets to its subsidiary. The company was rebranded as AT&T Corp. in 1994.'''


 * Third sentence of second paragraph: proposing the following changes (in bold) for greater clarity on the number Baby Bells, their status as subsidiaries and added sourcing for the formation of the RBOCs, SBC and SBC Communications’ name change in 1995. Updated, the revised sentence would read as follows:

The 1982 United States v. AT&T antitrust lawsuit resulted in the divestiture of AT&T 's ("Ma Bell") local operating subsidiaries which were grouped into seven Regional Bell Operating Companies (RBOCs), commonly referred to as "Baby Bells", resulting in seven independent companies, including Southwestern Bell Corporation (SBC). The latter changed its name to SBC Communications Inc. in 1995.


 * Fourth sentence of second paragraph: Suggest changing “Corporation” to “Corp.” to align with company name introduced in 1994. Also, the logo used by the merged entity was a version of the logo, not the logo itself. As such, recommend updating that portion of the sentence to read “….a version of its iconic logo and stock-trading symbol ” for accuracy.


 * Fifth sentence of second paragraph: Recommend removing the “Regional Bell Operating Company” qualifier for BellSouth and updating BellSouth’s name to read BellSouth Corporation.


 * Final line of lead section: The current line incorrectly asserts that there were 22 Bell Operating Companies and that the current AT&T brought together ten. However, there were seven “Baby Bells,” so recommend correcting the existing line with the following info and sourcing for accuracy. Proposed corrections in bold:

The current AT&T reconstitutes much of the former Bell System, and includes four of the seven “Baby Bells” along with the original AT&T Corp., including the long-distance division.'''

Historical financial performance

Submitting the following to correct inaccurate figures per AT&T’s Form 10-K Annual Reports (2003, 2006, 2011).


 * The correct Revenues figure for 2002 is $43.14. Suggest replacing 42.82 with 43.14 for accuracy.
 * Per the 2021 report, “Net Income” refers to “Net Income Attributable to AT&T”. Suggest updating this row’s title to read as such to ensure accuracy. Also, the following figures on the Net Income row should be corrected per the 2006 and 2011 reports: 2005 should read 4.786 (currently reads 4.768) ; 2009 should read 12.14 (currently reads 12.12) ; 2010 should read 19.86 (currently reads 19.09).

Privacy controversy


 * In what’s currently the last sentence of first paragraph of “Privacy controversy,” suggest correcting the tense of the sentence since the Justice Department’s plans to intervene happened in the past. Updated the sentence would read (revision in bold): The Department of Justice stated it would intervene in this lawsuit by means of State Secrets Privilege.


 * Suggest adding the following sentence as the final sentence in this paragraph to provide additional history and information about Hepting v. AT&T (suggested addition in bold):

'''In June 2009, Hepting v. AT&T was dismissed. Despite an appeal in December 2011, the decision was upheld. In October 2012, the Supreme Court denied a petition to hear the case.'''


 * For final line of this section (“AT&T has received a one star privacy rating…”), suggest updating the sentence with year a parameter so it’s clear when the one star rating was given (2017). Updated, the sentence would read (revisions in bold):

In 2017,  AT&T received a one star privacy rating from the Electronic Frontier Foundation.

Intellectual property filtering


 * Section title: Despite reports of consideration, no filtering system was enacted (more explanation below). Suggest changing the name of this section to “Copyright enforcement” to broaden the scope and allow for an explanation of the program (added below).


 * Suggest revising the first two sentences for tense adjustments and to correct source of reporting (media, not company itself. Proposed revisions in bold (sourcing would be the same is currently used in article):

In January 2008, the company was reported to be considering plans to filter all Internet traffic which passes through its network for intellectual property violations. Commentators in the media speculated that if this plan was implemented, it would lead to a mass exodus of subscribers leaving…


 * To add further clarity and context on AT&T’s actual copyright enforcement program, suggest adding the following as a final paragraph in this section. Suggested addition in bold:

'''Under AT&T’s current copyright enforcement program, content owners may notify AT&T when they allege unlawful sharing of material. The program is based on IP addresses visible to content owners in peer-to-peer networks, not on filtering. AT&T terminated the broadband service of several customers in 2018 when they were accused of copyright infringement. The company said it reached out with copyright education materials and ultimately discontinued service for some who received at least nine warning notifications.'''

Discrimination against local Public-access television channels


 * Recommend adding year and correcting tense in first sentence which refers to accusations from community media groups. Updated, the beginning of the first sentence would read: In 2009, AT&T was accused by….

Accusations of enabling fraud


 * The final sentence of this section (“In September 2020, AT&T and Verizon…”) refers to a different settlement unrelated to the U.S. Government’s lawsuit against AT&T. Propose removing that sentence and replacing with the following for accurate connection to the lawsuit described in this section (suggested addition in bold):

In 2013, AT&T entered into a consent decree with the FCC and paid a total of $21.75 million.

Racism


 * Suggest adding the following sentence at the end of this section to provide finality following the claims outlined by Slator in the article (suggested addition in bold):

The company stood by its decision to terminate Slator.

--


 * Hi Jon, I've worked through these and done most of them per your request. The 'fraud enabling one' requires more careful reading and consideration than I've got time for now - the case cited seems notable even if it's attached to the wrong occasion, so that section might need to be expanded to include both. I (or someone else) will get back to it. Happy to discuss any thoughts you've got on my changes if you can see improvements. AntiVan (talk) 13:37, 5 April 2021 (UTC)


 * Thank you for reviewing! Jon Gray (talk) 00:45, 6 April 2021 (UTC)