A fact from this article was featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the On this day section on March 3, 2014. |
This article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
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)
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)
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
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 (????)
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)
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.
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)
I think this article should be merged with AT&T and they are not different companies
-Mrsanitazier Martch 10,2007
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)
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)
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
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
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)
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)
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)
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 ( talk • contribs) 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)
Removed copyright violation.
http://en.wikipedia.org/?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)
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)
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 ( talk • contribs) 18:19, 10 February 2012 (UTC)
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)
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).
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)
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)
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)
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 result of the move request was: article moved to AT&T Corporation. Dabomb87 ( talk) 23:48, 30 March 2011 (UTC)
American Telephone & Telegraph →
AT&T Corp. —
KansasCity (
talk) 12:12, 22 February 2011 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
There ought to be some mention of UNIX and definitely Bell Labs. A great deal of telecommunications and computer technologies comes directly from Bell Labs. There ought to also be a mention of some of the excellent quality standards AT&T adhered to before the break up, if reliable sources can be found (e.g. Five Nines Reliability). W. M. Martínez ( talk) 19:38, 27 October 2016 (UTC)
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:
Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. — Community Tech bot ( talk) 17:58, 11 December 2020 (UTC)
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:
Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. — Community Tech bot ( talk) 04:37, 9 August 2021 (UTC)
There was employees that were part of AT&T Corp. prior to 2005 (SBC) that had significance. Some were part of Western Electric and some part of AT&T subsidiaries (Bell Laboratories, Information Systems, Network Systems, Consumer Products, Microelectronics, or Technology Systems) Setup a section for notable employees in the history of AT&T not Western Electric nor AT&T Bell Laboratories.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Antonio cruz wiki ( talk • contribs) 21:06, March 1, 2022 (UTC)
The lead starts out with "AT&T Corporation, originally the American Telephone and Telegraph Company, ..."
The long version of the name using "and" instead of "&" is also used in the body of the article at times. Unfortunately, none of the mentions have citations that support this.
A Google image search for "American Telephone and Telegraph Company" shows support for both the "&" and "and" in the results. I could not detect a pattern though it appears they were using "and" on stock certificates in the early 1970s though mainly used "&" -- Marc Kupper| talk 19:46, 8 November 2022 (UTC)
Shouldn't the old logo from before 2007 and not the new logo be there? they're different things pls change 2601:1C0:5380:55E0:4046:B9B2:2601:193A ( talk) 21:24, 7 March 2024 (UTC)
Despite the 2005 merger with SBC, AT&T Inc. has been including "AT&T Corp." in its assets lists until at least 2021, which implies the company is still operating and is not yet defunct, or at least became defunct years after 2005. 2A01:119F:23A:6400:5094:6EFA:F723:73DF ( talk) 19:16, 2 April 2024 (UTC)
There seems to be controversy regarding the founding date of AT&T Corp. It is no secret that this entity was incorporated in 1885 as the long distance subsidiary of the Bell Telephone Company that eventually acquired its parent in 1899. This page has always stated AT&T Corp’s foundation date as 1885 until the last couple days, when a user has changed it to 1877 out of the belief that AT&T Corp. was founded as Bell Telephone Company in 1877. While corporate lineage could be traced to 1877, there is already a page for Bell Telephone Company which describes that company prior to its 1899 acquisition by its subsidiary. AT&T Corp.’s history is quite distinct from that of the Bell companies that eventually spun off, and of course post-divestiture AT&T was forbidden from using the Bell name (sans Bell Labs) and logo. Just wanting to get some different perspectives on this as there has been no controversy prior to this week regarding this company’s founding date listed as its incorporation in 1885. KansasCityKSMO ( talk) 06:26, 8 May 2024 (UTC)
I'm pulling the plug on this RFC. It's malformed. Nemov ( talk) 13:11, 10 May 2024 (UTC)
This Rfc comes to resolve a dispute regarding when AT&T Corporation was founded. Should the founding date be listed as (A) 1877: the date when Bell Telephone Company was originally founded or (B) 1885: when AT&T was originally created as a subsidiary of Bell Telephone Company? Emiya1980 ( talk) 22:23, 16 May 2024 (UTC)
B That's when it was founded - irrespective of subsequent events. Lukewarmbeer ( talk) 09:36, 19 May 2024 (UTC)
The defunct date should be 2005 as other companies used their buy out date as defunct dates? For example MCI they own several exchanges in my area? Are they independent? No they're just Verizon Their intercepts are from MCI most likely see where their network problems on what network and easily look up Tandem ID 2601:1C0:5380:55E0:B417:C794:200:786D ( talk) 07:09, 17 May 2024 (UTC)
A fact from this article was featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the On this day section on March 3, 2014. |
This article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
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)
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)
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
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 (????)
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)
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.
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)
I think this article should be merged with AT&T and they are not different companies
-Mrsanitazier Martch 10,2007
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)
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)
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
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
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)
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)
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)
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 ( talk • contribs) 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)
Removed copyright violation.
http://en.wikipedia.org/?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)
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)
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 ( talk • contribs) 18:19, 10 February 2012 (UTC)
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)
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).
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)
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)
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)
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 result of the move request was: article moved to AT&T Corporation. Dabomb87 ( talk) 23:48, 30 March 2011 (UTC)
American Telephone & Telegraph →
AT&T Corp. —
KansasCity (
talk) 12:12, 22 February 2011 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
There ought to be some mention of UNIX and definitely Bell Labs. A great deal of telecommunications and computer technologies comes directly from Bell Labs. There ought to also be a mention of some of the excellent quality standards AT&T adhered to before the break up, if reliable sources can be found (e.g. Five Nines Reliability). W. M. Martínez ( talk) 19:38, 27 October 2016 (UTC)
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:
Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. — Community Tech bot ( talk) 17:58, 11 December 2020 (UTC)
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:
Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. — Community Tech bot ( talk) 04:37, 9 August 2021 (UTC)
There was employees that were part of AT&T Corp. prior to 2005 (SBC) that had significance. Some were part of Western Electric and some part of AT&T subsidiaries (Bell Laboratories, Information Systems, Network Systems, Consumer Products, Microelectronics, or Technology Systems) Setup a section for notable employees in the history of AT&T not Western Electric nor AT&T Bell Laboratories.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Antonio cruz wiki ( talk • contribs) 21:06, March 1, 2022 (UTC)
The lead starts out with "AT&T Corporation, originally the American Telephone and Telegraph Company, ..."
The long version of the name using "and" instead of "&" is also used in the body of the article at times. Unfortunately, none of the mentions have citations that support this.
A Google image search for "American Telephone and Telegraph Company" shows support for both the "&" and "and" in the results. I could not detect a pattern though it appears they were using "and" on stock certificates in the early 1970s though mainly used "&" -- Marc Kupper| talk 19:46, 8 November 2022 (UTC)
Shouldn't the old logo from before 2007 and not the new logo be there? they're different things pls change 2601:1C0:5380:55E0:4046:B9B2:2601:193A ( talk) 21:24, 7 March 2024 (UTC)
Despite the 2005 merger with SBC, AT&T Inc. has been including "AT&T Corp." in its assets lists until at least 2021, which implies the company is still operating and is not yet defunct, or at least became defunct years after 2005. 2A01:119F:23A:6400:5094:6EFA:F723:73DF ( talk) 19:16, 2 April 2024 (UTC)
There seems to be controversy regarding the founding date of AT&T Corp. It is no secret that this entity was incorporated in 1885 as the long distance subsidiary of the Bell Telephone Company that eventually acquired its parent in 1899. This page has always stated AT&T Corp’s foundation date as 1885 until the last couple days, when a user has changed it to 1877 out of the belief that AT&T Corp. was founded as Bell Telephone Company in 1877. While corporate lineage could be traced to 1877, there is already a page for Bell Telephone Company which describes that company prior to its 1899 acquisition by its subsidiary. AT&T Corp.’s history is quite distinct from that of the Bell companies that eventually spun off, and of course post-divestiture AT&T was forbidden from using the Bell name (sans Bell Labs) and logo. Just wanting to get some different perspectives on this as there has been no controversy prior to this week regarding this company’s founding date listed as its incorporation in 1885. KansasCityKSMO ( talk) 06:26, 8 May 2024 (UTC)
I'm pulling the plug on this RFC. It's malformed. Nemov ( talk) 13:11, 10 May 2024 (UTC)
This Rfc comes to resolve a dispute regarding when AT&T Corporation was founded. Should the founding date be listed as (A) 1877: the date when Bell Telephone Company was originally founded or (B) 1885: when AT&T was originally created as a subsidiary of Bell Telephone Company? Emiya1980 ( talk) 22:23, 16 May 2024 (UTC)
B That's when it was founded - irrespective of subsequent events. Lukewarmbeer ( talk) 09:36, 19 May 2024 (UTC)
The defunct date should be 2005 as other companies used their buy out date as defunct dates? For example MCI they own several exchanges in my area? Are they independent? No they're just Verizon Their intercepts are from MCI most likely see where their network problems on what network and easily look up Tandem ID 2601:1C0:5380:55E0:B417:C794:200:786D ( talk) 07:09, 17 May 2024 (UTC)