On Sat, 10 May 2008 14:31:43 -0500, Janet Wilder
<kelliepoodle@yahoo.com> wrote:

>Todd Allcock wrote:
>> At 10 May 2008 08:22:45 -0400 Pangloss wrote:
>>
>>>> *Sigh* AT&T did NOT "buy out" Cingular. Cingular's parent company, SBC
>>>> (Southwestern Bell) bought (what was left of) AT&T,and renamed
>> themselves
>>>> and their "Cingular" wireless divison, to "AT&T" for the name-brand
>>>> recognition.
>>> Actually they bought BellSouth which owned Cingular...
>>
>> Almost- SBC (now AT&T) bought BellSouth who owned 40% of Cingular (SBC
>> owned the other 60%.)
>>
>> I skipped that part for simplicity (and irrelevance.) Cingular was always
>> a joint-venture between SBC and BS. After absorbing both AT&T and BS, SBC
>> was free to rename Cingular to AT&T.
>>
>>
>What ever happened to the laws that were supposedly violated causing the
>breakup of the Bell system in the 80's?? All the "Baby Bells" seem to
>be getting back together again. Were the laws repealed (never mind that
>was rhetorical)

One big difference is the Baby Bell companies now face serious
competition in all areas of their operations. That wasn't the case at
the time of the United States vs. AT&T anti-trust suit.