Talk:Breakup of the Bell System

Official Video

I'd like to see a link to the original industrial video about the Ma Bell to Baby Bell divestiture. I believe it was created in '84 or '85. — Preceding unsigned comment added by SystemoftheWorld4 (talk • contribs) 20:15, 4 August 2012 (UTC)

Untitled

I'd like to see a chart somewhere with all of the other divestures and mergers. The Comcast deal, Lucent and all of the other deals that went with it. Anyone know of a good site to track all of that?

Merger

Maybe this page should merge with Regional Bell Operating Company and keep the name Bell System Divesture.--85.130.153.231 05:09, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

FCC regulation of Internet in 1982?

"In 1982 the FCC declared that Internet service providers would be treated as if they were local and would not have to pay these access charges. This led to VoIP service providers arguing that they did not have to pay access charges - resulting in significant savings for VoIP calls."

Is this correct? The date seems way too early. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 74.105.136.180 (talk) 19:04, 4 January 2007 (UTC).

I was about to note the same thing, but I see you beat me to it. Although the Internet (or its precursors) certainly existed then, I don't think there were ISP's per se, and doubt even more that the FCC was giving much thought to regulating them.

The rule in question applied to "enhanced service providers", essentially anyone who provided a service *via* the telephone network, as distinguished from simply providing telephone service, wich included simple resale. It was the Computer II ruling of 1980, and very critical to the ability of the public Internet to exist. The FCC, when asked in 1998, did not decide whether or not VoIP was "enhanced", and in 2011, issued a ruling (part of the Connect America Fund Order) that specifically refused to answer that question, even while setting rules that sort of split the baby. Note that the Computer II ruling was rather sweeping in a number of areas and probably had more impact on the market than the divestiture itself, which was fundamentally a stock transaction. Access charges themselves were a result of the 1981 MTS and WATS ruling, which to be sure was implemented in conjunction with divestiture.Isdnip (talk) 21:07, 13 April 2013 (UTC)

CLECs

The local telecommunications market has remained essentially a monopoly, with the incidental and short lived appearance of competitive telephone companies (CLECs) after the Telecommunications Act of 1996.

Funny, nobody seems to have told Comcast and RCN that. 121a0012 17:13, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

Plain English Please!

I'm not a business major and there are many words here that I don't understand. (I'm assuming, perhaps wrongly, that many others do not.) Would someone consider "dumbing things down" a bit?

Some passages/words that I would like to see a more layman's term for are: divestiture, In this way, the implicit subsidies of Ma Bell became explicit post divestiture, sought to arbitrage the network and avoid these fees, VoIP, largest (nominal) block tradeMoonrythm (talk) 00:41, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Effects section

The Effects section needs some work. I made some corrections to the punctuation (remember the difference between its and it's), but I don't know enough about the subject to make more substantive changes. —Preceding unsigned comment added by MattCox78 (talk • contribs) 03:42, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

external links

Legal Battle with Bell South over Domain Names this link is irrelevant to the article —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.93.62.36 (talk) 06:32, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

Humor?

"Humerous Cartoon" We should remove this cartoon. The "humor" on it is crude and unnecessary to the article. I see it serving no encyclopedic purpose. HawkShark (talk) 13:55, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

I agree. I don't know how to take the image out of the article,otherwise I would do it. The image does not belong in a encyclopedia.--70.146.150.238 (talk) 22:44, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

Deleted. Apparently there only as vandalism. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.225.234.139 (talk) 21:28, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

Updated Map Needed.

Verizon recently exited Maine, New Hampshire & Vermont and sold its facilities to Fairpoint Communications. Verizon's presence in New England now only consists of Massachusetts, Rhode Island and a very small sliver of southern Connecticut.

If an updated map can be located, could it be used to replace the now outdated map that is now being displayed?209.130.177.141 (talk) 18:33, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

2600: A Hacker Odeyssey

The above book has a lot of info on this subject. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tbilltbj1a (talk • contribs) 00:08, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

Ma Bell and the Broadcasting industry...

I've added about two paragraphs of info to this article (under "Effects") regarding the divestiture's effects on the broadcast industry, who heavily relied on Ma Bell's facilities for transmission of their programming to their local stations prior to the mid-70s. Having been a former TV (and currently radio) broadcast employee, most of the info I typed was gleaned from talking to co-workers (and b'cast people on the internet) who were in the industry in the AT&T era, as well as from the little info I can find on the 'net and from books and other publications about b'casting that mention AT&Ts relationship with the broadcasting industry. I hope it's accurate, if not, please feel free to correct it... misternuvistor (talk) 13:20, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

Antitrust Suit

Is the identity of the person(s) that filed suit in 1974 kept confidential or was it made public? Musicwriter (talk) 15:56, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

What happened in 1996?

What was it exactly about the Telecommunications Act of 1996 that invalidated the Memorandum of Final Judgement? The whole point of divestiture was to eliminate the monopoly that Bell held (notwithstanding GTE). But in 1996 they decided it would be okay if over 50% of the country was run by a single RBOC? There is a huge gap in the history here. - 67.168.125.31 (talk) 06:05, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

Legality of subsequent mergers

Given that they'd been explicitly ordered to break up, how did many of the spinoffs manage to merge back together again in recent years? Did they have to get the old court rulings overturned, was legislation passed to make the rulings irrelevant, or did the federal government simply let them know that they weren't going to bother enforcing anything any more, rather like Ronald Reagan letting business know he wouldn't be enforcing employment laws and they could get on with union-busting? How are the new 'remerged' companies not in violation of the rulings given in United States v. AT&T? Beorhtwulf (talk) 17:38, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

The short version is the regulatory regime changed with the Telecommunications Act of 1996, which allowed the Baby Bells to enter the long-distance market and allowed AT&T to re-enter the local phone market. Now that the segregation between business segments was largely erased, some consolidation between Baby Bells and between them and the non-Bell companies was no longer seen as collusive. The fact that Bell Atlantic (having already absorbed NYNEX) first merged with GTE to become Verizon, and then later bought MCI showed that the distinction between ex-Bell and non-Bell was no longer really defining, despite the ex-Bell companies still having certain regulatory restrictions that non-Bell companies do not. (When Berizon transferred their operations in northern New England to a new operating company in anticipation that they would sell that off to FairPoint, the FCC ruled that the new operating company would be regulated as a Bell company despite the fact it was formed 22 years after the end of the Bell System.) oknazevad (talk) 20:54, 25 November 2024 (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: moved —Darkwind (talk) 05:17, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

---

Bell System divestiture → Breakup of AT&T – The word "divestiture" is so technical and restricted to the world of finance, that there is no way it's the common name for a subject that everyone knows about.This proposed title reflects common usage. Ego White Tray (talk) 21:07, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

• Support, but retain a redirect please, it's probably right that the proposed name is the more commonly known term in popular usage. — Cirt (talk) 16:07, 15 December 2012 (UTC)
• Support per Cirt. GregJackP Boomer! 15:40, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

• Reject the use of "Breakup of AT&T", although I would support the use of Breakup of the Bell System. As I recall, the system itself was the Bell System, which AT&T was the head of; thus it would be incorrect to use the term or title Breakup of AT&T. The Bell System and AT&T were not one and the same. Best: HarryZilber (talk) 19:03, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

• Support per Cirt and nomination. W/r/t "...AT&T" vs "...the Bell System," is it really incorrect to say "breakup of X company" rather than "breakup of Y subsidiary" to reference a company's forced divestiture of a substantial portion of a major subsidiary? It seems like the Bell System was a major part of AT&T so forcing the Bell System to divest a significant portion of its business seems like a breakup of AT&T to me. AgnosticAphid talk 00:21, 22 December 2012 (UTC)
  • Comment: to clarify, AT&T (rather its precursor, American Bell) created the Bell System, but did not fully 'own' it. A number of the participating telephone companies had limited shares assigned to AT&T, making it only a minority investor. Retitling the article to 'Breakup of AT&T' would be similar to referring to the U.S. House Speaker John Boehner as the head of the U.S. Government, when in fact he's only the head of its House of Representatives. Looking at AT&T's own history page, the company states "...Divestiture took place on January 1, 1984, and the Bell System was dead. In its place was a new AT&T and seven regional Bell operating companies"; referring to the Bell System, not AT&T, being dead. Best: HarryZilber (talk) 19:17, 23 December 2012 (UTC)
    • But the AT&T page refers to it as "AT&T's Bell System" and says, "The suit began in 1974 and was settled in January 1982 when AT&T agreed to divest itself of the wholly owned Bell operating companies that provided local exchange service. I still feel like it's most accurate to say that AT&T was broken up through its forced divestiture of the wholly owned (components of the?) Bell System. AgnosticAphid talk 23:27, 23 December 2012 (UTC)
      • I agree that "...the wholly owned Bell operating companies (etc)" were divested, but to me it sounds like they helped formed the core of the Bell System which was then 'dead' without them. AT&T continued to exist after the baby Bells were spun off so it would appear inaccurate to say 'Breakup of AT&T', which implies that it ceased to exist after the decree. As clear as mud and perhaps a question of semantics. HarryZilber (talk) 02:52, 24 December 2012 (UTC)
        • I agree with Harry that the metaphor "breakup" is misleading and should not be used. "Divestiture" is accurate but probably less familiar to many readers. That is easily solved by defining "divestiture" in the lede, without changing the title. I did this by removing the word "breakup" (which falsely suggests destruction) and substituting the word "split". Greensburger (talk) 04:51, 24 December 2012 (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.

Possible move?

I’m surprised that this article was moved to "Breakup of AT&T". While I agree that "divestiture" was inappropriate, so is the present title. It should’ve have been titled "Breakup of the Bell System", because it was fundamentally the "system" that was broken-up, and not really the company. 138.16.102.39 (talk) 19:42, 5 April 2013 (UTC)

This was addressed in the discussion above. The Bell companies were entirely owned and controlled by AT&T, so for all practical purpose, there was no difference. The Bell System was AT&T's system, that is, the Bell System WAS AT&T, and AT&T is better known as a name than Bell. Ego White Tray (talk) 02:51, 6 April 2013 (UTC)

That doesn’t make even the slightest sense. Most of the companies that were part of the Bell System continued to exist after the breakup. They were simply no longer connected through the Bell System. As an example, SNET, which AT&T only had a minority share in (and hence did not own), provided local service for most of Connecticut. Through the Bell System, it was able to provide long distance service outside of its own operating area. Especially in this case, it was not the "breakup of AT&T" because the local telephone operating company in question wasn’t even owned by AT&T. All of the little local Bell companies operated on their own, and even though many were owned by AT&T, not all of them were. What was fundamentally broken up here was the "system" by which all these companies were connected, both those owned by AT&T and those not owned by AT&T. As said before, the companies continued to exist, including AT&T. "Break-up" implies AT&T was destroyed through fragmentation, which wasn’t the case…there is just no way that the current title works…it is ambiguous and quite frankly incorrect. 138.16.102.39 (talk) 04:13, 6 April 2013 (UTC)

Oh, and furthermore, your claim that AT&T is a better known name than Bell is incorrect and ambiguous. There are two AT&Ts, old AT&T Corp and new AT&T Inc. (formerly Southwestern Bell, one of the RBOCS). These companies DO NOT have a direct corporate lineage. AT&T might be "better known" for the modern AT&T, but the old AT&T Corp is more often known as "Ma Bell" or "Bell" a derivative of the Bell System. Even if you disregard my arguments above, calling it "Breakup of the Bell System" removes ambiguity and makes it certain that one is referring to the old AT&T, which has absolutely nothing to do with the present company that uses that name. The current title muddles it up terribly. 138.16.101.4 (talk) 21:58, 6 April 2013 (UTC)

Well, I looked it up, and SNET was never considered part of the Bell System despite the marketing, but was instead considered an independent company. This is, of course, because AT&T didn't actually control it. All that said, if you want to start a new move request to Breakup of the Bell System, go ahead - but I will oppose it. I'm just happy that we got the word "divestiture" out of the title. Ego White Tray (talk) 03:11, 7 April 2013 (UTC)

Requested move 2

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 moved.(non-admin closure) RGloucester (talk) 20:44, 14 April 2013 (UTC)

---

Breakup of AT&T → Breakup of the Bell System – Most of the companies that were part of the Bell System continued to exist after the breakup. They were simply no longer connected through the Bell System. As an example, SNET, which AT&T only had a minority share in (and hence did not own), provided local service for most of Connecticut. Through the Bell System, it was able to provide long distance service outside of its own operating area. Especially in this case, it was not the "breakup of AT&T" because the local telephone operating company in question wasn’t even owned by AT&T. All of the little local Bell companies operated on their own, and even though many were owned by AT&T, not all of them were. What was fundamentally broken up here was the "system" by which all these companies were connected, both those owned by AT&T and those not owned by AT&T. As said before, the companies continued to exist, including AT&T. "Break-up" implies AT&T was destroyed through fragmentation, which wasn’t the case…there is just no way that the current title works…it is ambiguous and quite frankly incorrect. Furthermore, the claim that AT&T is a better known name than Bell is incorrect and ambiguous. There are two AT&Ts, old AT&T Corp and new AT&T Inc. (formerly Southwestern Bell, one of the RBOCS). These companies DO NOT have a direct corporate lineage. AT&T might be "better known" for the modern AT&T, but the old AT&T Corp is more often known as "Ma Bell" or "Bell" a derivative of the Bell System. Even if you disregard my arguments above, calling it "Breakup of the Bell System" removes ambiguity and makes it certain that one is referring to the old AT&T, which has absolutely nothing to do with the present company that uses that name. The current title muddles it up terribly. 138.16.102.4 (talk) 15:45, 7 April 2013 (UTC)

Don't move is I stated above. Breakup of AT&T is the common name for what happened, Bell System less so. The fact that AT&T gave a complex structure to their monopoly does not mean it wasn't an AT&T monopoly. Ego White Tray (talk) 22:29, 7 April 2013 (UTC)

I don't understand how breakup of AT&T is the common name. "Bell System" was everywhere. On manhole covers, engraved on the famous Model 500 telephone (they said "Bell System property", not "AT&T property")[1]. No telephone customer was a direct client of AT&T. One was a customer of one of the RBOCS. Most of these were named "So and So Bell", e.g. Wisconsin Bell. On one's phone bill, one would see their local phone company and "Bell System". People knew Bell. AT&T, on the other hand, they did not know. This is shown by the nickname "Ma Bell", which referred to the all the telephone companies in the Bell System, including AT&T. Even if you disregard my other arguments above, there is no way one can say "Breakup of AT&T" is the common name. 128.148.231.12 (talk) 18:47, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

Move as proposed: Wikipedia is supposed to clarify issues and events. AT&T was not destroyed by the divestiture as the current title implies, therefore the article's name should properly reflect what actually occurred: it was the Bell System which was broken up. HarryZilber (talk) 04:33, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

Comment: As far as I see the article addresses both the breakup of the Bell System as well as specifically that of AT&T. So both titles are not wrong per se. Presuming that Breakup of the Bell System is a more encompassing title the proposed move seems advisable. Note that such a move automatically leaves a redirect from Breakup of AT&T to Breakup of the Bell System, so both titles will become valid links. Nageh (talk) 14:51, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

• Support, per HarryZilber. The two titles are both correct, but the proposed form is less confusing. This article is about the divestiture in the 1980s, and the old AT&T was still around until 2005. Kauffner (talk) 11:46, 9 April 2013 (UTC)
• Support. The American Telephone and Telegraph Company wasn't itself broken up so much as forced to divest ownership in subsidiaries, so the current title could be misunderstood. More importantly, the AT&T name wasn't really that widely used at the time; the Bell name was more common, so it is more historically accurate to talk about the Bell System than AT&T. oknazevad (talk) 19:14, 11 April 2013 (UTC)PS, the idea, mentioned in the above section, that SNET wasn't considered part of the Bell System, and therefore there's no difference between (old) AT&T and the Bell System is pretty obviously incorrect when one looks at their old Bell System era logo.
• Support. The company today that "inherited" the AT&T name is not the "AT&T" in this article: Breakup of AT&T. Thus, it should be moved to the clearer title proposed above for clarification purposes. Steel1943 (talk) 01:08, 12 April 2013 (UTC)
• Alternative suggestion: Breakup of the AT&T monopoly? Ego White Tray (talk) 01:22, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

An un-natural title that still doesn’t deal with the nuances of the Bell System, like partially-owned subsidiaries. Furthermore, any title that includes AT&T will still have the issue of ambiguity between the two different AT&Ts, and will fail the common-name of the agency at the time, which was "Bell". In fact, in recorded messages from Time Lady Jane Barbe, she says "the Bell telephone company brings you the correct time", despite the fact that there was no Bell telephone company. Bell was what was used, that’s for certain, and was what people were familiar with. 138.16.102.69 (talk) 15:36, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

• Oppose. It was called AT&T at the time. It would be just as bad to call the article "Breakup of Ma Bell". The article clearly explains what and when. I am certain that everyone who works for the current Southwestern Bell knows that the AT&T that broke up is not the company they work for and they are not about to lose their job. Google books gives 24,900 results for Breakup of the Bell system vs. 131,000 results for Breakup of AT&T. Apteva (talk) 03:00, 13 April 2013 (UTC)

Again, you fail to deal with the fact that the "Bell System" is not just AT&T. It included some companies that AT&T either did not own, or partially owned. It was this "system" that was broken up, not AT&T Corp. the company, which survived as a long distance service. Furthermore, it is not similar to "Ma Bell" which was a nickname and not an official name. "Bell System" was used as an official name, more commonly than AT&T. That’s why the nickname was derived from Bell System and not AT&T. Look at the image I linked above of a model 500 telephone: it says "Bell System property", not "AT&T property". Furthermore, the Time Lady, Jane Barbe, would also use the name "Bell"(listen to the first selection, "Jane Barbe collection" at 10 seconds). The logo of AT&T was a bell until the breakup as well. The name AT&T was not the common name of the entity. Furthermore, that entity isn’t even the same as the Bell System. Look at this manhole cover, that is incredibly common across the country: BELL SYSTEM is engraved[2]. Bell System was EVERYWHERE, even if you don’t agree that the system and AT&T were separate entities.

To address the second half of your argument, you are incorrect, or perhaps confused. Southwestern Bell doesn’t exist with that name anymore. It has become the current AT&T, AT&T Inc., which is not of the same corporate lineage as the original AT&T Corp.. Wikipedia’s job is to avoid confusion. This causes confusion. Furthermore, the new company is usually referred to as AT&T, where as the Bell name was more common for the older company. This provides WP:NATURAL disambiguation, even, again, if you disregard all other arguments here. 138.16.100.48 (talk) 14:55, 13 April 2013 (UTC)

• Another Example - This film was a collaboration between two different Bell System entities, Pennsylvania Bell (Now Verizon) and Southern New England Telephone (SNET, not owned by AT&T). It is labeled a "Bell System film", not an AT&T film, and for good reason. SNET wasn’t owned by AT&T, but was part of the system that was broken up. [3] 138.16.100.48 (talk) 15:15, 13 April 2013 (UTC)

Just to note, that SNET was never considered part of the Bell System, since AT&T never owned it. The Bell System was a monopoly system, pure and simple. Ego White Tray (talk) 15:28, 13 April 2013 (UTC)

Not true at all. I was served by SNET, as I’m originally from Connecticut. Bell System was put on the manhole covers. Bell System was on the bills. On the video above, it is a "Bell System film" produced by two seperate Bell telephone companies, SNET and Penn Bell (it says it right in the title cards, and it is hard to question a film made by the company itself on the matter). Bell. Bell. Bell. If it was not part of the Bell System, SNET could not have provided long distance service. SNET operated the local switchboards in Connecticut, and AT&T routed long distance calls for SNET and through SNET. SNET received phones from Western Electric through the Bell System, and that’s why the phones were clearly labeled "BELL SYSTEM PROPERTY". I don’t know where you are getting your ideas from. 138.16.100.48 (talk) 17:58, 13 April 2013 (UTC)

• Comment: I asked someone knowledgeable about such things and this is what I got. Wwwhatsup (talk) 20:25, 13 April 2013 (UTC)

The most formal term is the "Modification of Final Judgment", I think in the matter of US vs. Western Electric, whose "Final Judgment" was around 1956.

It should not refer to the "Bell System" per se because that was not precisely the same thing as AT&T, though it was pretty close. Technically, IIRC, "Bell System" referred to the set of Bell Operating Companies, who were *licensees*, plus AT&T Long Lines. The BOC licensees included both the AT&T-majority-owned companies and two minority-owned companies. Under the MFJ, the latter two (Cincinnati Bell and SNET) were deemed "independents", not "BOCs", and are still not subject to BOC-specific regulation (such as Section 271). Of course the "Bell System" as such did cease to exist with the divestiture; the trademark "Bell" went to the RBOCs, not the AT&T residuary (which went out of business ca. 2005). But the actual event was indeed the breakup of AT&T into eight companies via the divestiture of the Bell Operating Companies.

Without bothering to question sourcing of the above material, with which I agree on most points, I must point out one simple issue. It has to do with the nature of the word "breakup". Breakup implies that AT&T, the company, ceased to exist after the ruling. That it was split into parts, and that those parts were all that was left of the old AT&T. This is not what happened. AT&T, the company, continued to exist. Its own make-up did not change after the breakup. It remained exactly the same, as a long distance business (which was the only service that AT&T directly provided to the Bell System). The various BOCs were separate companies (some subsidiaries, some not) that provided local telephone service. It was AT&T’s control of these companies which was ceased, but AT&T itself was not "broken-up". The system, whereby the BOCs provided local service and AT&T provided long distance service, was broken up. AT&T continued on. The BOCs became the RBOCs, and continued on separately. Fundamentally, though, the BOCs were ALWAYS separate companies. Even though though most of them were owned by AT&T, they operated separately. There wasn’t just one big "AT&T" which ran the whole show. That’s why there was a Bell System, and not just one American Telephone and Telegraph company that provided every service to everyone. 138.16.100.48 (talk) 22:32, 13 April 2013 (UTC)

So do I read you correctly as saying Divestiture of AT&T is in fact most appropriate? Wwwhatsup (talk) 04:45, 14 April 2013 (UTC)

That title isn’t wrong, but would lead to confusion. Natural disambiguation is required, and to do this, one should use "Breakup of the Bell System". This clearly refers to the old company, and not the new one. It establishes that it was not just AT&T that was affected. It is a more common name, because the old company was rarely referred to by the name as AT&T. AT&T was not broken up. It was the Bell System that was broken. 138.16.100.48 (talk) 05:02, 14 April 2013 (UTC)

But if I understand your earlier argument correctly, the real effect was that AT&T was forced to divest itself of its BOCs? Wwwhatsup (talk) 17:43, 14 April 2013 (UTC)

That was fundamental part of matter, correct. But that wasn't all that happened, and one also has the issues with SNET. The system by which telephone service was provided (the Bell System) was broken up into component parts: RBOCs and AT&T (Long Lines). This is most accurate, succinct, and unambiguous way to title the article, "Breakup of the Bell System". The original title of the article, "Bell System divestiture" was not wrong. It simple was more ambiguous, and also confusing to a layman. What is trying to be done here is to make a title that the reader can understand, which is a common name, which is unambiguous, and which determines the scope of the article. The current title, "Breakup of AT&T", fails on all counts. 128.148.231.12 (talk) 20:30, 14 April 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.

Reflinks

I added some references in my drive to improve the article, yet it seems like reflinks isn't working. I try using it and it says that the "server is too slow" or some such nonsense. Could someone else try it and see if they can finish off the links for me? 128.148.231.12 (talk) 18:33, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

Creation of Bellcore

I am quite surprised to find no mention in this article of Bellcore (now Telcordia.) This was an importatn piece of the breakup, as Bell Labs had long been one of AT&T's major strengths and the baby bells were seriously threatened by separation from it. There is an existing article on Bellcore/Telcordia elsewhere, but I think there sould be a section here on its creation and role in the breakup.

I have enough knowledge on this to make a start at such a section, but I don't know it all, nor where to find references. Anyone else care to take this on? Joe Avins (talk) 14:10, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

I believe it should be included in two places. One, it should be referenced in the "post-breakup structure" section. Then, it should elaborated on in the effects section. 128.148.231.12 (talk) 18:27, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Breakup of the Bell System. 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/20130502012749/http://connectedplanetonline.com/independent/news/Connect-America-Fund-order-details-access-charge-reforms-1208/ to http://connectedplanetonline.com/independent/news/Connect-America-Fund-order-details-access-charge-reforms-1208/

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

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 18:20, 7 November 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Breakup of the Bell System. 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/20141006093659/http://www.celtnet.org.uk/telecos/AT%26T-Bell-4.php to http://www.celtnet.org.uk/telecos/AT%26T-Bell-4.php

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

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 01:16, 25 July 2017 (UTC)

Consequences for High Speed Internet

My dad worked for AT&T and was leading a project to install fiber into every home in america by the year 2000. After the breakup, that project was scrapped because none of the baby bells had the capital or incentive to finish it.

I think this would be an interesting addition to the article but I'm not sure what type of references would be necessary. Can anyone advise on the best way to include this information in the article?

Thanks! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.201.243.34 (talk) 17:40, 12 March 2019 (UTC)

In order to include that information into the article, you need to find a book, or something similar, that mentions the project and its outcome. I'd suggest using a Google Books search for this purpose. RGloucester — ☎ 19:35, 12 March 2019 (UTC)