Has Ma Bell been reunited after 20 years? In 1983, anti-trust action required the breakup of AT&T (Ma Bell)into regional entities. Now it seems that almost everything that was Ma Bell, except BellSouth, is together again under the SBC umbrella. Only this time SBC has added mobile phone (Cingular, AT&T Wireless)and internet service. I know that BellSouth also offers its customers satellite TV bundled services. I am sure SBC does the same. How soon before we reach the level of a resurrected Ma Bell monopoly?
Don't mention the name "Bell" in front of an SBC executive. It seems as though SBC, ever since dropping the names of the Baby Bells they own, has done all they can to sweep any "Bell" mention under the rug.
There are way too many logos at the top of the page. 03:09, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
So, some of our editors have been reverting each other over whether there should be a SBC article after the company took over AT&T and its name. I lean to the side of letting history live in the backwaters of Wikipedia, but can't this particular bit of history live just as well by adding a section to the Southwestern Bell article? Jim.henderson 22:52, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
- No, there should not be an SBC history article attached to the Southwestern Bell page, which describes the Bell Operating Company. The lines of distinction would then be blurred between the RBOCs and the Bell Operating Companies. Under this logic, why not add a history section of Pacific Telesis to Pacific Bell? SBC's history from its founding in 1983 to present is covered in the AT&T article, because today's AT&T is technically SBC Communications renamed. That is why it would be inappropriate to have the SBC article redirect to Southwestern Bell. KansasCity 14:53, 13 August 2007 (UTC)