Talk:AT&T Corporation

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
          This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
WikiProject United States (Rated B-class, Low-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions.
B-Class article B  This article has been rated as B-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Low  This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
 
WikiProject Companies (Rated B-class, High-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Companies, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of companies on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
B-Class article B  This article has been rated as B-Class on the project's quality scale.
 High  This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.
 
WikiProject Telecommunications / Bell System   
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Telecommunications, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Telecommunications on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
 ???  This article has not yet received a rating on the importance scale.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by the Bell System task force.
 

Should there be a logo for this article?[edit]

It would be good to place the current AT&T marble logo into the infobox. Isn't that logo the company's current logo? Fairly OddParents Freak 15:22, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

ImagiNation Network[edit]

you might also want to add something about the ImagiNation Network att owned it from 1994 till 96 when they sold it to AOL but when they it from sierra they made it the first proftiable online game network (to sierra only)

Old page AT and T[edit]

Nice work so far, but take a quick look at ATT. You may want to consider folding the text there into yours, or vice versa, then redirecting one entry to the other. --Paul Drye

Nicknames[edit]

AT&T is also known as the Death Star. This term of reference can be found throughout popular culture. Doonesbury, Bloom County, Bruce Sterling, BSD hackers, and even AT&T employees themselves have popularized the image. Please google and consider adding it. --Viriditas 11:35, 7 Sep 2004 (UTC)

http://www.usatoday.com/money/industries/telecom/2005-10-06-att-usat_x.htm (????)

Alascom[edit]

The articel says that ""The buyout marked the first time that any company with Bell roots would hold operations in the non-contiguous United States.""

yet the article on Bell Canada says "In 1879 Melville Bell sold the rights to National Bell Telephone Company in Boston, Massachusetts and thus officially became one of the first regional operating companies of what was to become the Bell System. The Bell Telephone Company of Canada Ltd. was founded in 1880 and granted a government monopoly on Canadian long distance telephone service. By 1914, the Bell Telephone Company serviced 237,000 subscribers. " This to me certianly says that Bell Canada has "bell Roots""?? cmacd 18:45, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

No, that statement is only referring to operations in the United States. KansasCity 15:03, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

Merge (Feb 2007)[edit]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

Very Strong Emphatic NO. These are two very different companies, different origins, different business focus, one defunct and the other still active. Merging would simply make no sense.

Very Strong Emphatic YES!!! This article should be merged with the other AT&T article, as they have the same name and come from the same bloodline.

While I do realize that the "new AT&T" is a totally different company, I think that when someone types in AT&T, they want all of AT&T. Telepheedian 18:06, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

Please no! They are different. Its very simple, two different companies get two different articles. Imagine trying to explain on the same page how AT&T is defunct and currently running. =0 YaanchSpeak! 20:42, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
Strong No They are very different companies and this would make their respective histories very confusing. Cornell Rockey 19:37, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
NO MERGER! These are 2 diffrent compaines! 2 companies. Mergeing these two pages would be a failure. It would be Penn Central Crisis all over again. (It was a big rail merger that failed a year after merger.)--The Navigators (talk)-May British Rail Rest in Peace. 15:18, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.


Merge II (Mar 2007)[edit]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

I think this article should be merged with AT&T and they are not different companies

-Mrsanitazier Martch 10,2007

Don't Merge - they ARE different companies. It would be possible to merge these two articles but doing so would create one huge bloated article out of two, and wouldn't take into account the unique history of the two companies. TheQuandry 19:38, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
Strong Disagree! They are different companies! Very different. They have different histories and we have already gone over this extensively over time. Dont Merge! YaanchSpeak! 23:56, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
Don't Merge, Do not - they ARE different companies. One was almost Bankrupt in 2004. The other had the cash to buy the remains and took over the name. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.163.237.170 (talk) 12:07, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
Oppose. In the first place, that's patently false. Secondly, even if they were not, it would be useful to conceptually separate the topics. Having different articles for AT&T and SBC during this period is the only logical way to divide them up. One article would be bloated and illogical. Cool Hand Luke 19:13, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
NO MERGE This has already been brought up on BOTH pages and rejected multiple times, these pages are not supposed be merge.--The Navigators (talk)-May British Rail Rest in Peace. 15:32, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.


Requested move 2007[edit]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

This page should be moved to American Telephone & Telegraph. The current title of the article violates Wikipedia naming conventions. Adding "Company" to the article title does not convey any special significance. KansasCity 18:51, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

This page has been moved as the result of an uncontroversial move request. Dekimasuよ! 09:24, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

There was never any such thing as "American Telephone and Telegraph", always had Company appended, so now we're rewriting history to satisfy "Wikipedia conventions"?!?!?!?!?!?!!!!!!!! 24.185.31.111 23:48, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Refer to WP:NAME. KansasCity 00:51, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
Yes, it says LEGAL STATUS. Company in American Telephone and Telegraph Company doesn't refer to Legal Status. IT IS THE NAME OF THE COMPANY. As in "we are a Company that provides Telephone and Telegraph services. Once again, history is being rewritten to conform to arbitrary rules, and once again is the reason Wikipedia is worthless as a research tool. Just another internet toy like the dancing jesus! 24.185.31.111 06:34, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.


Legal Status of AT&T Corp[edit]

Someone has vandalized the site stating AT&T Corp is defunct when it still LEGALLY exists as a subsiary of AT&T, Inc. Problem has been fixed 69.104.165.61 (talk) 05:13, 18 April 2008 (UTC)D2

It is no longer an independently operating entity, however; its operations have been absorbed into those of AT&T Inc., formerly SBC Communications, Inc. If you want to use this as your reasoning for continuing to vandalize this page, then please kindly visit GTE, MCI Inc., Dobson Communications, Pacific Telesis, Ameritech, AT&T Wireless Services, Western Electric, Lucent Technologies (old company), AT&T Broadband, and a bevy of many other companies that have been bought out and kindly try to do perform the same sort of editing. The theory that AT&T Inc. is the same AT&T that was around in 1885 is incorrect. KansasCity (talk) 04:53, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

For a company to be defunct it would no longer exist. AT&T is a LEGAL subsidiary of AT&T, Inc. No Argument was mad they are the same. AT&T corp is like any of the other 22 Operating companies that are under the AT&T unbrealla. You are vandalizing this page by putting proven unthruths basically saying AT&T corp no longer exists. It does exist!69.104.18.21 (talk) 05:35, 23 April 2008 (UTC)D2

You're right, it does exist as a legal entity. So does New World Communications, even though it hasn't operated independently since it was purchased by News Corporation in 1997. Would you please go to that article and change the wording to make it sound like it still exists? After all, that is what should be done to other articles like BellSouth, Ameritech, GTE, MCI Inc., NYNEX, King World, Pacific Telesis, Lucent Technologies (old company), Mark Goodson Productions under your rationale that any company that has been absorbed into another still exists freely to this day. It is different from the Bell Operating Companies because those companies still actively do business within the AT&T structure, or with other telephone companies, albeit they have d/b/a names now. All of the forementioned companies have been dissolved as independent entities and their operations/personnel sent to the owning company, essentially making them nothing more than a defunct holding shell. How come you keep editing the corporate infobox to make no mention of AT&T Corporation having been purchased by SBC Communications? That is why I am suspect of these edits. You tried to vandalize the AT&T within the last year to no avail, so please don't think your tactics will work again. KansasCity (talk) 05:25, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
If it is a legal entity then it is a legal entity. Your argument that other pages on Wikipedia should be changed is not valid at all. First off many of those you mention like BellSouth & Pacific Telesis do not say defunct but say subsidiary of AT&T, Inc, just like this article should say! Obviously there are lots of problems on all of the Bell System pages because people did not do their homework and assumed some of these companies are defunct. The corporate infor box edit CLEARLY states that AT&T Corp is a legal subsidiary of AT&T, Inc. BTW, there is NO SBC Communications (although it is quite obvious that that fact is just killing you!) It is AT&T, Inc. Obviosuly the company though more highly of the name & history as it is so prominently featured on their corporate web site! A defunct holding shell is your OPINION and is not in any way a legal term. Wikipedia is based on facts and not opinions. As for the AT&T page that page has been changed by several people to give much better facts than the very pro-SBC page its was before! Stop using your opinions and stop vandalizing the site. AT&T, Corp exists!! Your tactics and vandalism will not work!!

On Jan. 31, 2005, SBC Communications Inc. ("SBC") announced its historic agreement to acquire AT&T Corp. After the closing of the acquisition, AT&T Corp. became a wholly owned subsidiary of SBC. In recognition of the global importance of the AT&T name, SBC changed its corporate name to AT&T Inc. The acquisition was completed on Nov. 18, 2005. For more information on this please click Source: http://www.att.com/gen/investor-relations?pid=7958 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.105.168.46 (talk) 01:43, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Recently, I have come across a court casing involving AT&T, Inc and AT&T, Corp. The auit clearly states AT&T Corp is a subsidiary of AT&T, Inc. from the suit - "AT&T Corp. and AT&T Inc. are telecommunications carriers, and both offer electronic communications service(s) to the public and remote computing service(s).” FAC 19. Plaintiffs further allege that “[p]rior to the acquisition and merger, AT&T Corp. and SBC [Communications Inc.] both had a significant business presence in California for many years. The new AT&T Inc. and its subsidiary, AT&T Corp., continue to have a significant business presence in California.” FAC 21; see also FAC 48, 49" The entire text can be found at http://www.eff.org/files/filenode/att/ATTInc_MotDismiss.pdf.

Once again, After the SBC-AT&T Merger SBC kept AT&T Corp as a subsidiary and did not dissolve the company, therefore it cannot be defunct. Stop the edit war, you are wrong on this one! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.105.169.232 (talk) 19:02, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

I have already stated that I agree that AT&T Corporation is a company owned by AT&T Inc. The reason it, along with Dobson Communications, BellSouth, GTE, NYNEX, Ameritech, Pacific Telesis, MCI Inc., Nextel Communications, Western Wireless, May Department Stores, and AT&T Broadband, all companies that were acquired and are now owned by their buyer are called defunct is because they no longer function independently. The fact of the matter is that AT&T Corporation existed from 1885-2005 as a lucrative operation, and now it has been acquired and replaced by the image of its buyer, AT&T Inc. KansasCity (talk) 04:24, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

None of those companies you mentioned (except BellSouth) do any type of business. AT&T Corp still sells Internet, Long Distance, and deals with overseas business (as referenced in the article) as a subsidiary of AT&T, Inc. None of those businesses you mentioned above still act as a subsidiary of the company they were bought by. None of those companies are mentioned in press breifs or corporate history. What's even more interesting is that on AT&T's web site, they open by saying we have been in businesss for a century. I think you don't get several valid points: 1) The legal status of AT&T, Corp. You say AT&T didn't dissolve the company but it is defunct (what's the difference!) 2)The history that AT&T uses. Why did they keep the AT&T name over the SBC name..history!! Why does AT&T Corp still do business under the AT&T family....history. 3) AT&T, Inc is a HOLDING COMPANY. It's many subsidiaries (AT&T Corp, and all the d/b/a's are who does the actual business - just like in the old "Ma Bell" days). Get over the fact you are wrong about this one and stop changing the true facts of the compnay. SBC has died...deal with it! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.125.35.179 (talk) 05:15, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

The SBC brand may have died, but the company is still around today as AT&T Inc. KansasCity (talk) 05:39, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

Obviously AT&T doesn't agree with you! I wonder why the att.com web site says, we have been providing service for a century!! When the companies merged SBC died! SBC is gone, someday you will realize this! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.126.113.253 (talk) 01:33, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

I would hope that someday you will realize that the company that has been promoting itself as AT&T Inc. this very day was formerly named SBC Communications, Inc. I cannot understand why this underlying historical fact is some basis for you to accuse someone of having an agenda to keep an old name alive. AT&T Inc. says it has been around for 100+ years because it seems that some people may not be able to tell a difference. I feel I have been very civil about discussing this matter, and all I have seen you do is nothing but attempt to belittle and disgrace anyone who gets in the way of what you want to see on a Wikipedia page, as witnessed also with a Little League article that has now been deleted. Several users have shown their frustration with your disruptive edits even to the point of page protection on the Verizon Communications page. I will say it again - AT&T Corporation is considered defunct in the infobox just like all of the other major defunct companies I mentioned earlier because it is no longer an independent freely running organization. It is subject to the current AT&T Inc. in all it does and in that regard is pretty much defunct in what it as a company wants to do, since its management has been replaced by AT&T Inc. That is why the other companies aforementioned, at least from what I have read and come to understand, are also called defunct. KansasCity (talk) 05:03, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

You have hardly been civil or wanting to discuss issues. Your take is that any IP user must also be a vandal. You are the one belittling people. You show very little respect for other's work if it doesn't match YOUR interpretation of reality. That is quite evident with your comment about the Little League page. A page that several people created but we were told that the info was not relevant enough. Our only questions was why and we attempted to surce out the info. So, is that all you do here is look up people who you don't agree with's history on Wikipedia? So your whole game plan is to block other's work (even when it is SOURCED) because it doesn't fit into what you think is reality! What is reality? SBC merged AT&T into its company in 2005. It diddn't just change its name. The company changed, they now have all of the assests of the old company. All of these compnaies have ties to the original company. You are just hung up on the fact that in 1983, AT&T corp formed 7 holding companies (in Delaware) and divested in 1984. You dismiss relevant facts with statements like "shell of a company" oe it seems "people can't tell the difference". Trust me if AT&T wanted them to know the difference, they would clearly spell it out. But in reality AT&T considers its company stretching back to the glory years of the start of the telephone!! You fail to address facts. Every thing posted by myslef or other has been backed up by a source. But I guess you feel since you a a "registered" user and you know all the little odds and ends about wikipedia that your contributions are better than others! Well, I guess I will have to get registered because I TRULY beleive the information that was posted was correct and have the evidence to back it up!!!! Why don't you truly discuss the issue instead of running aroiund trying to gets people's info blocked! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.105.59.100 (talk) 18:44, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

I don't see how this is a defunct company. It seems that plenty of evidence has been present that the company still does business as a subsidiary. Let's try this https://www.sos.mo.gov/BusinessEntity/soskb/Corp.asp?458695

States a company in good standing as of 2008. 'Nuff Said!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tymur3 (talkcontribs) 21:03, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

SBC is very much alive, and it is now called ATT. There are INTERNAL and EXTERNAL definitions here. Here is the deal. The "OLD ATT" no longer exists and does not operate as a separate company, not in long distence, not in mobilty,not in wireline, not in data, and not in network. INTERNALLY however, there are departments still known as "affiliates" or as "legacy T" which ONLY because of the fact that common systems have not yet been established, operate as separate entities WITHIN the new ATT. This is also the case with bell south and even with companies SBC acquired much earlier, "Ameritech advanced date services" for example, still exists on paper, and Ameritech was acquired by SBC over 10 years ago. Remnants of the old ATT’s primary function has been relegated to the integration of their old customers and some products into the new companies metric. There is a lot of proprietary controversy and some internal strif that I will not go into, but suffice to say that there are individuals and groups within the ranks of the "OLD ATT" who have yet to come to terms with the fact their fledgling company was “rescued” by SBC, and are still struggling with then transition. The Bottom line, ATT inc is rebranded SBC, period. Cosand (talk) 18:02, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

wp:copyvio[edit]

Removed copyright violation.

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=American_Telephone_%26_Telegraph&diff=225537432&oldid=225537200

Text was taken direct from the linked press release. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.238.174.69 (talk) 05:27, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

Long Distance[edit]

AT&T Corp DOES NOT provide long distance service. See AT&T Communications for the former subsidiary of AT&T Corp that did. Now they are a subsidiary company of AT&T Inc. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.238.174.69 (talk) 05:35, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

I am reading my phone bill right now. "Our records indicate that you have selected AT&T California or a company that resells their services as your promary local toll carrier and AT&T Corp or a company that resells their services as your primary long distance carrier". Second https://www.sos.mo.gov/BusinessEntity/soskb/Corp.asp?458695 is the official Missouri Secretary of State Corporate Business web site. It clearly states the company is still in good standing as of 5/5/2008. Carefully look at the founding dates, etc. Don't know what more proof you need! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.104.78.183 (talk) 00:23, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

  • Please refer to the Compaq page for yet another instance of a corporation getting acquired, then read this [1] to know that "AT&T Corp.", or "AT&T", is a d/b/a name by the operating companies of AT&T Communications, which is the long distance provider that has not gone defunct. It is clear that your edits have become very disruptive to many Wikipedia users. KansasCity (talk) 02:54, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
  • Another example, Omnipoint Communications was purchased by VoiceStream Wireless which was later purchased by T-Mobile. Neither Omnipoint or VoiceStream still conduct business but Omnipoint is listed as owning many telephone exchanges [[2]] and they are still listed as a an LLC in "good standing" as of 2008! [[3]]. FWIW I am reading my bill and it says "Local service provided by AT&T Florida" & "Our records indicate that you have selected AT&T or a company that resells their services as your primary local toll carrier and AT&T Long Distance Service" 74.163.246.28 (talk)
To clarify, "AT&T Florida" is a fictitious d/b/a name for BellSouth Telecommunications, while "AT&T Long Distance Service" is a fictitious name for BellSouth Long Distance, 2 separate companies of AT&T Communications. KansasCity (talk) 05:39, 26 July 2008 (UTC)


Maybe Omnipoint is also a subsidiary. I know that AT&T Corp is a subsidiary of AT&T, Inc. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.104.164.214 (talk) 06:06, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

ATT Corp for all intents and puposes, no longer exists — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cosand (talkcontribs) 18:19, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

Stop Edit warring[edit]

It has been documented (in the article itself there is a press release from the company) that AT&T Corp exists a a wholly-owned subsidiary of AT&T, Inc. I am not really sure how else to explain it, but putting defunct is not accurate. Please see http://www.att.com/gen/press-room?pid=4800&cdvn=news&newsarticleid=24633 for info 68.125.216.191 (talk) 03:28, 19 August 2008 (UTC)R3—Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.125.216.191 (talk) 03:26, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

I Surrender! You were totally right all along. I guess I can be a real dunce sometimes, so I've made some changes on the page to improve on your version. Now the only thing left to do is to convince Speer320 that he is not correct. Regards. Retro00064 (talk) 05:54, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Network Operations Center in Bedminster, New Jersey[edit]

http://controlrooms.christiedigital.com/Installations/Telecommunications/control_room_installations_ATT.htm - Bedminister, NJ is the location of AT&T Global Network Center. As a subsidiary of AT&T, Inc, AT&T Corp would also have to have HQ in Dallas, TX. Here is a second article http://broadcastengineering.com/news/att_upgrades_global_network/. They are all over the web!! 69.105.171.165 (talk)D2 —Preceding undated comment was added at 21:41, 13 September 2008 (UTC).

They are still based in Bedminster, NJ See [4] and [5] —Preceding unsigned comment added by Speer320 (talkcontribs) 22:39, 13 September 2008 (UTC)
Both of those links are from pre-2005 merger. How does a subsidiary have its own HQ? Here is another linki showing Bedminister is the Global Newtwork Operations Center http://www.corp.att.com/history/milestone_2002.html However, if someone has other proof that they are in Bedminster than I am good with that but those two links are old. Secondly, the logo should be the new AT&T logo as the old logo is no longer used.68.126.114.182 (talk) 04:30, 15 September 2008 (UTC)D2
Please, lets try not to get into a whole new edit war over a simple company headquarters. This website: https://www.sos.mo.gov/BusinessEntity/soskb/Corp.asp?458695 is the offical Missouri Secretary of State website page on AT&T Corp. If you click on the Filed Documents link and then click on the AT&T Corp. annual report from 5/5/2008, it says they're still headquartered in Bedminister, New Jersey. I'm don't mind the post-2005 AT&T logo on the page, but stating that they are headquartered in Dallas, is false. Annual reports don't lie. [|Retro00064 | (talk/contribs) |] 06:15, 15 September 2008 (UTC)
Okay I can agree with that we should keep the new AT&T logo and keep Bedminister until someone investiagtes further. I still don't entirely trust that Missouri SOS website over AT&T's corporate website. Maybe some info is also needed on the GNOC69.105.23.201 (talk) 05:59, 16 September 2008 (UTC)D2
Why on earth are you not trusting a LEGAL authority regarding this? For God's sake, that website has legal documents which are first initiated by the company. The state doesn't make up something on the fly to say that AT&T Corporation has its primary headquarters in New Jersey. A legal document is just that, legal, and no company's website can disprove a legal document without further legal documentation. Second, the old AT&T logo should be on this page because of what we see with Pacific Telesis, and if you have a contention with that, then there shoudn't even be a logo in the infobox, per Southwestern Bell, Pacific Bell, and all the other BOCs that AT&T owns. Why we are trying to make this page custom to what you want is beyond me. 69.150.147.142 (talk) 15:43, 17 September 2008 (UTC)
Any subsidiary of the AT&T, Inc should have the company's current logo. Who said the state makes up something on the fly? How do we know it's not outdated material? Like I said more investigation is needed, I am shocked that someone would dismiss investigating something further or getting mutliple sources. The overall tone of your comment seems like you have some sort of personal issue, which wikipedia is not the place for that!69.105.168.168 (talk) 03:16, 18 September 2008 (UTC)D2
Settle down, you guys. Let's please note that the annual report on the Missouri Secretary of State website was made by The Very Company (AT&T Corporation) That We are talking about! Again, this annual report was not made by the MSoS website, but by AT&T Corporation. As said above in my last post, annual reports don't lie. [|Retro00064 | (talk/contribs) |] 11:49, 18 September 2008 (UTC)
I agree. We should go with the annual report. Let's just be sure its 100% verifiable and that there aren't other sources to dispute the HQ location. However, let's check the status of the Global Network Operations Center in Bedminster, NJ. It is a fact the GNOC is currently located there and AT&T Corp was HQ'd there prior to the merger and it appears that AT&T, inc also has the AT&T Corp subsidiary located there as well - I just want to check more info, let's make sure its 100% right. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.123.207.118 (talk) 01:18, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

Logo inside infobox[edit]

Could we please resolve the issue on the logo within the company infobox? Having the current logo would create confusion in a reader's mind that AT&T Corporation and AT&T Inc. are the exact same company, no difference between the two. Having the old logo would create an accurate, visible differentiation between the two, and you could also remove it altogether, as brought up by another user earlier, as is done in some articles on the Bell Operating Companies. I personally don't think that the logo of AT&T Inc. should be used since that would confuse readers. KansasCity (talk) 05:56, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

I vote For the old logo. Other Articles that are subsidies of AT&T Inc have there old logo such as Pacific Telesis BellSouth Speer320 (talk) 06:20, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

Hmm, it does make sense that having the new logo in the infobox could confuse readers. If I had to make a choice, I'd go for the old logo. [|Retro00064 | (talk/contribs) |] 08:00, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

I disagree that the reader would be confused. I mean it clearly says subsidiary on the first line. Plus HQ, and teh article itself. Also, the old AT&T logo is in the artcile and says 1984-2005. As for other AT&T companies not having the new logo it is very mixed. There a lots of pages of former Bell companies that have the new AT&T or Verizon logos. AT&T Corp is a subsidiary of AT&T, Inc, and AT&T, Inc uses the new logo for everything. The infobox should stay as is, there is no confusion. 68.125.216.228 (talk) 05:09, 22 September 2008 (UTC)RL3

Keep the new logo. It doesn't make any sense that readers would be confused. One is the company and one is a subsidiary. Its very clear in the info box and article.Tymur3 (talk) 00:11, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

The old logo needs top be put in the article somewher then Speer320 (talk) 00:14, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

It is. I say we keep the old logo. A lot of people are unaware that the companies are indeed separate companies with separate histories. The vote currently is 3 to 2 in favor of not having the new logo in the infobox. KansasCity (talk) 21:02, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

Keep the new logo in the info box and maybe move the old logo up higher into the article. I Don't agree that they are separate companies or have really had separate histories. First of all, a subsidiary and parent company are the same company. AT&T Corp does not have a different CEO than AT&T, Inc. It's all part of the same company. Second, from whenever each company was orginally founded until 1984 they did have the same history, they were all Ma Bell. We are failing to realize that AT&T, Inc is actually 5 of the 8 companies that were split in 1984. Third, their histories 1984-2005 are clearly stated in each article, I also don't see how a reader can be confused?? Down2000 (talk) 04:42, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

Use the old logo. The whole point of this article is to describe AT&T Corp. and we should do everything possible to avoid reader confusion. Incidentally, I trust that everyone here is familiar with Wikipedia's policies including WP:SOCK. Cool Hand Luke 01:47, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

Why doesn't someone just find out what the official logo is? If AT&T uses different logos for different companies they own then we should use those logos. If AT&T uses one logo for all of its companies then we should use that logo? Shouldn't accuracy be the most important thing for a web site? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.123.205.155 (talk) 03:54, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

Due to more than a week of discussion, and since the majority of discussion has been that the old logo should be used, that is what shall be used. KansasCity (talk) 21:19, 28 September 2008 (UTC)
Doesn't seem like anything was resolved or that the majority of the discussion favored the old logo. I agree with the person who said to find out the official logo per AT&T. Converting back to the new logo until the issue has been resolved. Tymur3 (talk) 05:35, 29 September 2008 (UTC)
From what I see the majority of people that did vote are in favor of the old logo Speer320 (talk) 06:17, 29 September 2008 (UTC)
No, I think the majority is in favor of the old logo—this is an article about the old corporation, not the current vestigial arm under AT&T Inc.
But on the other hand, Wikipedia is not a vote. If you want to argue about the tally, then I want a RFCU on the accounts who favor the new logo. The IPs resolve to similar areas in California, and the signed-in users are virtual SPAs about this issue. Cool Hand Luke 14:26, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

Well This needs to be fiquered out cause I don't want to get in a edit war Speer320 (talk) 00:19, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

I agree, so lets look at the facts. The article is about AT&T Corporation. What is AT&T Corporation? Well, it has been established that AT&T Corp is a subsidiary of AT&T, Inc. (although people argued against that for months to no avail and they were proven wrong). So does the subsidiary have a different logo than the parent company? I would say it does not and someone should have to PROVE that the subsidiary has a different logo than the parent company. Otherwise the logo should stand as is!! The parts of the article that discuss the "old" corporation do have the old logos from 1885 to 2005. The info box however deals with the CURRENT company. This article was fine for about a month (August) until people wanted to come in and start edit warring! Look at the facts and stop edit warring!69.104.19.31 (talk) 00:23, 1 October 2008 (UTC)
Well All the Other at&t, Inc subsidiaries have Their old respective logos. So why should this be any different? Speer320 (talk) 00:35, 1 October 2008 (UTC)
The article is about a corporation with a structure that no longer exists. It's about the AT&T Corp. that was an independent and publicly-held corporation until 2005. There is almost no coverage of the wholly-owned subsidiary because it's uninteresting. It's a legal vestige of the takeover. The article isn't about the subsidiary, and the box should not be about a different subject than the article. Also, from my perspective, it seems likely that only one person is actually edit warring about this: you. Cool Hand Luke 15:12, 1 October 2008 (UTC)
The legal vestige article has been made before and rebuffed. Again, that is your opinion and Wikipedia is not about opinions but rather facts. Fact: AT&T Corporation is a subsidiary of AT&T, Inc. Fact: AT&T, Inc uses the "new" logo for all of their operating companies and subsidiaries. Your above statement makes my whole point. Yes, the article deals a great deal with the history of AT&T. That's why any older logos SHOULD be in the article itself. However, the infobox does (and should) give current information about the company. The opening paragraph as well as the infobox are about the current corporation. The only person throwing around accusations about users and edit warring is: you. 69.104.65.110 (talk) 05:37, 3 October 2008 (UTC)
I'm not the only established user to war against WP:SPA accounts on this issue. This article is almost entirely about the old corporation. It's titled "American Telephone & Telegraph," which is a name shared by no subsidiary of AT&T Inc. It's a name referencing the old AT&T Corp. AT&T Corporation was a subsidiary because that's how companies are acquired. The assets aren't purchased, but rather the controlling shares are, so that the target company becomes a wholly-owned part of the acquiring company. The assets become managed by the acquiring company because of the redundancy of a subsidiary board, so the target company's incorporation becomes insignificant on the merged entity's operations. Here's a list of AT&T Inc subsidiaries from America's Corporate Finance Directory:
SUBSIDIARIES:
  • ACC Business
  • AT&T
  • AT&T Advanced Solutions, Inc.
  • AT&T Business
  • AT&T California
  • AT&T Capital Services
  • AT&T Communications Corp
  • AT&T Government Solutions
  • AT&T Inc. (Formerly: Pacific Bell Telephone Company)
  • AT&T Local Service
  • AT&T Messaging
  • AT&T Mobility LLC (Formerly: Cingular Wireless LLC)
  • AT&T Pioneers
  • AT&T Public Communications
  • AT&T Services Inc
  • AT&T Southeast (Formerly: BellSouth Corporation)
  • AT&T Teleholdings, Inc (d/b/a AT&T Midwest)
  • AT&T West
  • Callisma Inc.
  • Dobson Communications Corporation
  • Pacific Bell
  • Southern New England Telecommunications Corporation (d/b/a AT&T East)
  • Southwestern Bell Telephone Co.
  • Southwestern Bell Telephone L.P. (d/b/a AT&T Southwest)
  • Sterling Commerce, Inc.
  • USinternetworking, Inc.
  • YELLOWPAGES.com LLC
I believe this directory only lists subsidiaries actually conducting business. AT&T Corp. is currently a paper tiger. This is not just my opinion, and you have no references showing otherwise.
By the way, as a lot of others have pointed out, a lot of companies are now subsidiaries of AT&T Inc. Pac Bell, SNET, ect. You don't seem to have a problem with their articles showing their historical logos. The root of your dispute seems to be your belief that AT&T Inc. is the same company as AT&T Corp. You're just flat wrong. AT&T Inc. was founded in 1984 by the divestiture consent decree. Period. Cool Hand Luke 14:07, 3 October 2008 (UTC)
Look at this. Just look at all this arguing over somthing as simple as the company logo in the infobox. This is such a large amount of arguing that its size in bytes is probably larger than a readme file for a computer program! And it was all started by one IP user who acts like he is the owner of this page. There was a time long ago when there was peace on this page, no edit wars, then this IP user started arguing about whether AT&T corp still exists. It did turn out that he proved to us that AT&T corp did still exist. Then came a little while of peace. Then he started arguing about the headquarters of the company. That dispute was resolved. And then he started arguing about the logo to display in the infobox, which turned into a massive dispute that has shattered all the peace on this page. What? Do we have to block this IP user's sock-puppet account Tymur3 and then protect this article just to bring some peace??? [|Retro00064 | (talk/contribs) |] 23:36, 4 October 2008 (UTC)
Amen to that idea. It has already been protected once for the same reason. Who knows what could be asked for next. KansasCity (talk) 05:14, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

Well, I noticed that Pac Bell, SNET, and the others actually have no logo at all in their boxes. I hope that user accepts that as a reasonable state of affairs for all of these subsidiaries. Cool Hand Luke 20:54, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

The old logo would be best for the article because it represents AT&T before 2005. New logo, confusing. No logo, the reader has to read a little bit to know they're on the right article. Old logo, it represents the Pre-2005 AT&T, but if no logo at all will keep the peace, then I'm just as happy there. [|Retro00064 | (talk/contribs) |] 21:30, 27 February 2009 (UTC)
Old Logo, put one of the old 1984-1999 logo, in fact I'm changing it. As pointed out above, all other former at&t compaines still have there old logo in the info box, everyone all ready thinks the two companies are the same this may be reinforcing it.--The Navigators (talk)-May British Rail Rest in Peace. 15:23, 28 January 2010 (UTC)
With regards to this, I personally believe AT&T's post-2005 logo best illustrates the company's current branding and subsidiary status. Why not place them on all AT&T local co. infoboxes just like for Verizon (see AT&T Communications)... Fairly OddParents Freak (Fairlyoddparents1234) Megaphone-Vector.svg 14:42, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

Requested move 2011[edit]

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. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: article moved to AT&T Corporation. Dabomb87 (talk) 23:48, 30 March 2011 (UTC)



American Telephone & TelegraphAT&T Corp.KansasCity (talk) 12:12, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

Request moved from article to talk page. Vegaswikian (talk) 20:47, 22 February 2011 (UTC)
  • Comment this is a different company from AT&T Inc.. 65.93.15.125 (talk) 23:39, 22 February 2011 (UTC)
  • Move to AT&T Corporation instead per Wikipedia:Article titles#Article title format. I do not see any problem with moving the article to "AT&T Corporation", as that was the last name used by the company before the acquisition (if not even to-day), but unless the subject is almost exclusively referred to by its abbreviation, we should use the full, expanded form. [|Retro00064|☎talk|✍contribs|] 04:39, 23 February 2011 (UTC)
  • Oppose: This merge request was previously rejected three times in 2007, as shown above. My understanding is that the two companies are legally distinct. They definitely have long separate histories. AT&T Inc. bought out AT&T Corp. (the subject of this article), and did not functionally merge with them. Name similarities aside, the companies currently have separate functions and should therefore be left as separate articles. Just because AT&T Corp. was spawned from the Bell Telephone Company, it doesn't mean that the Bell Telephone Company article should be moved into this article, and ditto for moving this article into AT&T Inc. HarryZilber (talk) 16:38, 23 February 2011 (UTC)
    • Comment: My understanding is that this request is to move this article from "American Telephone & Telegraph" to "AT&T Corp.", not a merge request with AT&T. Look again at the above detail: "American Telephone & TelegraphAT&T Corp.". My comment is to support such a move, as this company was last (and apparently still is) called AT&T Corporation before the acqusition by SBC, but to move to the non-abbreviated form per the guideline that I linked to above. [|Retro00064|☎talk|✍contribs|] 23:16, 23 February 2011 (UTC)
    • I agree with Retro here. Read the request again. Powers T 14:21, 24 February 2011 (UTC)
  • Support move to AT&T Corporation per Retro00064. Powers T 14:21, 24 February 2011 (UTC)
    • Comment Moving this page to AT&T Corporation would technically not be according to the name used by this company; technically it is legally named AT&T Corp. Here is the link to a legal filing in the Missouri state business entity database: http://www.sos.mo.gov/kbimaging/6017512.pdf and a link from the Pennsylvania business entity database: https://www.corporations.state.pa.us/corp/soskb/Corp.asp?13585. That is why I proposed a name change to AT&T Corp., since AT&T Corporation technically doesn't belong to any company currently in existence, except for an unknown usage of the full word "corporation" by those who aren't aware of the way they legally use "corp." In this case, I think Wikipedia:Article titles#Article title format does not apply because the legal name of AT&T Corp. is indeed an abbreviation. KansasCity (talk) 23:27, 24 February 2011 (UTC)
      • Your first link doesn't work. As for the PA database, I'd need some evidence that they never abbreviate in other cases before I considered it evidence in favor of your statement. Powers T 01:40, 25 February 2011 (UTC)
        • Here is a press release linked from the American Telephone & Telegraph article in which AT&T officially refers to AT&T Corp. as such: http://www.att.com/gen/press-room?pid=4800&cdvn=news&newsarticleid=24633 and here is a legal court filing http://www.ll.georgetown.edu/federal/judicial/fed/opinions/98opinions/98-1338.html KansasCity (talk) 02:57, 25 February 2011 (UTC)
          • Both of which liberally abbreviate other terms including "Incorporated". Powers T 13:10, 25 February 2011 (UTC)
            • KansasCity might actually have a point. I tried looking up the company on the Ney York State Department of State website, the New Jersey Secretary of State, and the Texas Secretary of State Web sites yesterday. One of them I do not think that I could search for company names on, if I remember correctly. The other two liosted the company as AT&T Corp., including the N. Y. S. D. O. S., which listed only two names for AT&T Corp. on its page: the American Telephone & Telegraph Company, which was used originally from the 1880s (from what I remember) to 1994, when it was changed to AT&T Corp., the latest name. I also looked up the company's later trademark registrations from the circa 2005-2006 period, and the company was listed as AT&T Corp. (along with the address being 32 Avenue of the Americas, New York, NY :-o). There is a definite possibility that this company could be using "AT&T Corp." as the official name, when there are companies that use the full "Incorporated", instead of "Inc." ;-) [|Retro00064|☎talk|✍contribs|] 21:56, 25 February 2011 (UTC)
  • Support move to AT&T Corporation, with AT&T Corp. as an acceptable alternative but AT&T Corporation preferred. Carefully note the topic, which is distinct from both AT&T (aka AT&T Inc.) and AT&T Communications which are related entities. Google [6] [7] [8] [9] clearly supports AT&T but doesn't help with whether to abbreviate Corporation, I'd just avoid the special character when other things are equal (and noting that the official standing of the abbreviation is irrelevant, see WP:AT and WP:SOAP and read carefully). Consistency within Wikipedia is not the most important criterion but in this case also supports the move. Note also the high importance of this article (and IMO it should be promoted to top but high is enough); It's worth taking some extra trouble to get it right. Andrewa (talk) 15:38, 25 March 2011 (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. No further edits should be made to this section.

Dead link[edit]

During several automated bot runs the following external link was found to be unavailable. Please check if the link is in fact down and fix or remove it in that case!

--JeffGBot (talk) 01:05, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

The confusing history of AT&T[edit]

AT&T is a company (or maybe two or more) with a history that is confusing to non-experts - especially since a company split off from AT&T later bought the old AT&T and took its name. A have a proposal to address this at Talk:AT&T#DABConcept. Please comment. Ego White Tray (talk) 13:43, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

Move discussion in progress[edit]

There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:AT&T which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RMCD bot 01:59, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

Introduction needs rework[edit]

The introduction to this article as written gives the impression that this is the current AT&T company. Isn't this one just a small subsidiary of the big guy (AT&T)? The lede should be written to say it's merely a subsidiary. Ego White Tray (talk) 03:44, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

Where's the 90's lawsuit that forced AT&T Broadband to be sold off?[edit]

There seems to be a big gap in the history of the article between the 80s breakup of the baby bells and the purchase of AT&T by SBC. Shouldn't there be a section about spinning off Lucent, AT&T Broadband, etc? And the lawsuits they faced then? 174.62.69.11 (talk) 19:12, 15 April 2013 (UTC)