Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

AT&T may hang up on home phones
Reuters | July 21, 2004

Posted on 07/21/2004 9:29:43 AM PDT by HAL9000

NEW YORK (Reuters) - AT&T Corp.'s board is considering phasing out local and long-distance phone service to U.S. consumers, a potential watershed for a company that until 20 years ago had a virtual monopoly on the country's phone service, according to a newspaper report Wednesday.

AT&T's current management team, led by Chairman and Chief Executive David Dorman, has apparently reached a consensus that the company's future lies entirely with corporate and business customers, the Wall Street Journal said.

The board of directors at AT&T was expected to discuss the possible move at a meeting that began Tuesday night and is to continue Wednesday, the newspaper said, citing unspecified people familiar with the matter.

Any such plan could be modified, or rejected altogether, the Journal said.

AT&T would not cut off its existing 35 million residential customers under such a plan. Instead, it would cease marketing residential phone service to consumers. Without advertising and the barrage of telephone and mail solicitations to consumers, those customers would fall off significantly over time, according to the report.

An AT&T representative could not immediately be reached for comment.

Last month, AT&T said it would stop competing for local and long-distance residential customers in seven states after a court threw out regulations giving it cheap access to the dominant local telephone networks. The company said it would continue to sell those services to business customers and current residential customers.  

Copyright 2004 Reuters All rights reserved.



TOPICS: Business/Economy; News/Current Events; Technical
KEYWORDS: atandt; att; telecom
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-39 next last

1 posted on 07/21/2004 9:29:44 AM PDT by HAL9000
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: HAL9000

Who would ever have thought that this would come to pass?


2 posted on 07/21/2004 9:32:23 AM PDT by Sunshine Sister
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: HAL9000

It's alright with me. I have stopped using AT$T (err I mean AT&T) years ago


3 posted on 07/21/2004 9:33:48 AM PDT by Kaslin
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: HAL9000

Just another example of stupid management at AT&T that has managed to screw up everything they've touched since 1984


4 posted on 07/21/2004 9:34:10 AM PDT by agitator (...And that no man might buy or sell, save he that had the mark)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Sunshine Sister

It's a sorry development, but the Bell monopolies have done everything possible to destroy competition.


5 posted on 07/21/2004 9:35:21 AM PDT by HAL9000
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: HAL9000

Are they still around?


6 posted on 07/21/2004 9:38:28 AM PDT by BluegrassScholar
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: HAL9000

The baby bells have had to subsidize AT&T and other carriers for years. No more. New pricing prevents AT&T from achieving a high rate of return. That is the real reason for the pending "disconnect".


retired SBC Manager


7 posted on 07/21/2004 9:38:53 AM PDT by afnamvet (Where facts are few, experts are many...Donald R. Gannon)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Kaslin
"It's alright with me. I have stopped using AT$T (err I mean AT&T) years ago"

Hmmm... I use AT&T long distance for $25/mo flat rate and unlimited calling. Are there better plans?

8 posted on 07/21/2004 9:42:32 AM PDT by bcoffey (Sen. Kerry: I'm not questioning your service; I'm questioning your sanity!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: HAL9000

I work for a CLEC (competitive local exchange carrier), and not entirely certain how to view this...

Possibly more business for our consumer segment, or a more formidable and profitable competitor to fight on the business side?

In any event, having been in telecom since the divestiture of AT&T it truly is amazing how far things have changed.


9 posted on 07/21/2004 9:44:14 AM PDT by Made In The USA (NO, I don't have to call you the President of Iraq. Now sit down!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Kaslin

Me, too! When Verizon introduced long distance service, I told AT&T goodbye.


10 posted on 07/21/2004 9:45:48 AM PDT by rabidralph (My pit bull drives an SUV.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: afnamvet

"Polyester Ed" Whitacre should be locked up in prison. Or taken out back and horsewhipped. I can't decide.


11 posted on 07/21/2004 9:55:45 AM PDT by HAL9000
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: HAL9000

Good riddance. I don't know of a company that I think less of that AT&T.


12 posted on 07/21/2004 9:59:31 AM PDT by Doohickey ("This is a hard and dirty war, but when it's over, nothing will ever be too difficult again.”)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: agitator; HAL9000

AT&T is not the sharpest tools in the shed. About 3.5 years ago I canceled a AT&T calling card that had a small positive balance of $1.23. They owe me money. I get a statement from them every month stating this fact and the fact that this card is closed. I have moved without giving a change of address, they found out my new address. I have called asking for them to send a check, they said they would, they have not. I now am just going to sit back and see how long they will keep sending these wastes of postage to me.


13 posted on 07/21/2004 10:01:02 AM PDT by TXBSAFH (Power corrupts..... Absolute power can be fun.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: HAL9000
As they should. It's their network paid for by them. Why should the Bell companies' shareholders have to suffer? Today you can use wireless and in some cases MSO networks for voice services. Plus, the Voice over IP lines don't receive the same regulation that the RBOCs do. And, the governments are happy with their supposed monopoly arrangement taking taxes that amount to over 11% of my phone bill.

The telecom act was responsible in part for the sector's rise and crash. Forced unbundling of the network was basically a property grab by the Congress. It allowed a bunch of weak companies who couldn't stand on their own to live off of a competitor.
14 posted on 07/21/2004 10:01:06 AM PDT by misterrob
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: HAL9000

Years ago, I was a direct report to Dave Dorman at a company in Atlanta called Isacomm.....

They are anticipating the pressure of VoIP residential services in the next few years and the squeezed margins for the residential market and have evidently reached the conclusion of "why bother".

NeverGore


15 posted on 07/21/2004 10:01:29 AM PDT by nevergore (β€œIt could be that the purpose of my life is simply to serve as a warning to others.”)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: HAL9000

I'm surprised you would say that.


16 posted on 07/21/2004 10:05:10 AM PDT by unsycophant
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: misterrob
As they should. It's their network paid for by them. Why should the Bell companies' shareholders have to suffer?

My recollection is that AT&T built and paid for most of the Bell network decades ago.

Judge Greene took the network from AT&T and gave it to the Bells - who have basically let it go to rot.

17 posted on 07/21/2004 10:06:11 AM PDT by HAL9000
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: HAL9000
Have they ever gotten a single billing straight? I dropped them after they double billed me some 6 months after the fact. I saw charges in October from April that matched my April bill to the penny. I called them up and they said that they had a "programming error" and I was being billed for the difference. The charges were the same dates and time from April. Billing error my *! I switch services immediately.
18 posted on 07/21/2004 10:08:41 AM PDT by Caipirabob (Democrats.. Socialists..Commies..Traitors...Who can tell the difference?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: HAL9000

They recouped all that on lease charges.


19 posted on 07/21/2004 10:09:30 AM PDT by Old Professer (Interests in common are commonly abused.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: HAL9000

Or taken out back and horsewhipped.

Along with panties on his head. Abu Graib comes to mind.


20 posted on 07/21/2004 10:09:41 AM PDT by afnamvet (Where facts are few, experts are many...Donald R. Gannon)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-39 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson