🚀 go-pugleaf

Geoff Gass <glg@tanzenmb.com> wrote:
>Adam H. Kerman <ahk@chinet.com> wrote:
>>Geoff Gass <glg@tanzenmb.com> wrote:
>>>Geoff Gass <glg@tanzenmb.com> wrote:
>>>>tert in seattle <tert@ftupet.com> wrote:
>>>>>smr wrote:
>>>>>>On 5/30/2013 2:42 PM, Cydrome Leader wrote:

>>>>>>>how often does this happen though (a fed style smackdown)?

>>>>>>Technically daily, because it's only due to the Feds saying so that AT&T 
>>>>>>lets us into their colos, provides last mile at tariff instead of at a 
>>>>>>huge profit for them... we do ask the FCC to intervene if they're being 
>>>>>>dicks a few times a year. It's more of a quiet regulatory enforcement 
>>>>>>thing than it is what I think you're picturing, a huge, "Break up Ma 
>>>>>>Bell!" type of government intervention.

>>>>>did all the exploded pieces of Ma Bell gravitate back together in
>>>>>the end?

>>>>not completely, verizon and centurylink own large pieces of territory and
>>>>there's a couple of smaller ones like fairpoint around as well, but at&t is
>>>>back to pretty damned big.

>>>I forgot a major piece, post breakup, at&t still had the equipment
>>>manufacturing and labs (western electric and bell labs).  that stuff is all
>>>different companies like Alcatel-Lucent and Avaya now.

>>AT&T is SBC renamed. SBC bought what had been AT&T Long Lines.

>so?  I know the lineage, it's not relevant to tert's question.

Well, whatever you happened to know didn't entirely make it into your
followup, like the particularly important bit that today's AT&T itself is a
renamed, partly-merged Baby Bell, and not the successor to the pre-divestiture
corporate conglomerate.

I didn't know you were moderator of the day. Next time I think something
important was missed, I'll make sure to clear it with you to avoid stomping
all over your enormous ego.