🚀 go-pugleaf

Adam H. Kerman <ahk@chinet.com> wrote:
> 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.

did you even read tert's question?

> 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.

why haven't you renamed the thread yet, ayden?