Talk:Bell System/Archive 1

Does anyone have more info on the ITT company? From a random google sources it looks like it was mainly in Puerto Rico and Cuba?

The rest of the Caribbean (British West Indies) was actually under the Alexander Graham Bell-Canadian designed system as far as I know.

Examples: Barbados, Trinidad and Tobago. It sounds like ITT only did the long haul connections between the other islands and the US and perhaps operations in Cuba and Puerto Rico? Cable and Wireless global history.

Which could seem possible because in those days it's widely understood that Britain only really allowed their telegraph cables to land on British soil unless under the oceans and seas. CaribDigita 01:51, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

How can it have been considered a "monopoly" pre-divestiture when there were other, non-Bell companies (e.g., GTE, numerous local independent phone companies) providing service?66.215.75.10 02:48, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

Protected
Due to unproductive fighting about the presence of a gallery of unfree images, I have momentarily locked the page so we can do some talking instead of reverting ad nauseum. ★ MESSED ROCKER ★  19:03, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Sounds good to me. From WP:FU: "The amount of copyrighted work used should be as little as possible," and "The material must contribute significantly to the article (e.g. identify the subject of an article, or specifically illustrate relevant points or sections within the text) and must not serve a purely decorative purpose." I could've sworn there was something specific in policy, somewhere, about fair use galleries -- will dig it up, if I can find it. Luna Santin 23:49, 11 December 2006 (UTC)


 * A gallery of images that are unreferenced by the primary article text violates WP:FU and our copyright policies.  ALKIVAR &trade; &#x2622; 11:29, 17 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Um, I agree with these editors. Does anyone care to disagree on the talk page?  If not, can we just unprotect the article, while continuing to exclude the photos? Cool Hand Luke 10:48, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

Is there an error in the sentence near the end of the article that reads: "Since 1995, there have only been 19 Bell Operating Companies, following the mergers of US West's and BellSouth's operating companies." Didn't BellSouth's operating company merge with SBC (now AT&T, Inc.)? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jimrain (talk • contribs) 23:18, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

AT&T History
Thye following is from the AT&T Corporate History page: "Today, AT&T is a global networking leader, focused on delivering IP-based solutions to enterprise and government customers". With this information dates seem unnecessary to include in a link to their corporate history. 69.109.55.248 04:12, 24 July 2007 (UTC)ATT4EVR


 * Old AT&T (where I worked five years 1999-2004) has done that for years. Click on their "new AT&T" link. It does not refer to the post-merger "new AT&T", as one would expect, but of an organizational change the NJ corporation made in 1995! It takes the Long Distance/New Jersey perspective after 1984, and the last note on the timeline is SBC's announcement to buy them. That's where the history ends. We should simply specify that it is the work product of the deceased AT&T corporation. Cool Hand Luke 04:22, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

What is the significance of the text "popopopopopopopop" at the end of the first paragraph in the History section? Is it another nickname like Ma Bell, vandalism, or something else? --anon 68.37.61.81 (talk) 22:43, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Notable researchers
I don't know whether it's in the scope of this article or not to include a list of some of the notable researchers within the AT&T Bell labs. These people were highly influential engineers of the 21st century, e.g. Claude Shannon and Ingrid Daubchenies. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.115.111.37 (talk) 17:18, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Bell Labs is the article for that. Jim.henderson (talk) 15:48, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

This image belongs on uncyclopedia, no?
Just took this out of the article because it's unencyclopedic, but figured I'd let anyone who feels like doing so defend it here...

You are correct. it does not belong on here.--70.146.150.238 (talk) 22:19, 20 July 2008 (UTC)