reply to maikii
Re: fire everyone
said by maikii:Under the terms of the 1984 breakup, AT&T was prohibited from purchasing its former subsidiaries.
Wasn't the breakup of ATT in the 1980s, breaking off the baby bells, supposed to add competition? Why did they allow ATT and one other company, Verizon, to buy those baby bells back up. At one time they introduced competition in local landline service. Why was that stopped?
But AT&T did not buy the Baby Bells. It was actually one of the Baby Bells, SBC, that bought its former parent and adopted the better-known brand name. Similarly, Verizon was also a Baby Bell.
Competition in local phone service was not stopped. For example, Sonic out in the Bay Area is doing exactly what the 1996 Act envisioned CLECs to do. AT&T does not help them, but nor do they hinder them. They give them the access that they are required to do, and no more.
The main problem is that the coax plant is not subject to open-access rules. Once VOIP allowed the cable company to offer triple plays, it was game over for the telephone plant. The cable companies have already rendered the landline divisions of the big telecoms marginally-profitable. How do you expect a small CLEC to compete against the much better-funded cable company?