It's not T's front page to control, to start off with. It's ATHM's, a quasi-subsidiary...
Good point, and I agree. What I was trying to say back there is that there's little sign they want to get the kind of control they don't have now.
On the general issue of T's "loyalty" to ATHM, I wonder if it's worthwhile at all to think of ATHM as a kind of latter-day Western Electric. There are many differences -- including the ownership structure -- between T and Western, but I believe I see what is probably a thin common thread in the history of the relationship:
For decades, the old AT&T fought valiantly to maintain its ties with Western Electric, going so far as to give up the local end of the Bell System in order to keep Western Electric. But when the business of both T itself and the manufacturing parts of it had changed enough, T and what was Western Electric (and is now Lucent) agreed to an amicable divorce, each going its separate way.
Right now, ATHM seems like the kind of important subsidiary that Western Electric was in the old days (even if AT&T doesn't control it to the extent they controlled WE). It's something AT&T is willing to fight for. The open-access battle in the short run is important to both T and ATHM. For now, AT&T seems willing to fight the open access battle that is in the interest of both. But you seem to have suggested that it won't always be in the interest of T to continue on that road.
Perhaps I'm reading too much into it, but my guess (and it's nothing more) is that AT&T has learned enough from their WE/Lucent history to divest their interest in a subsidiary when the interests of the two companies cease to compliment one another.
Like I said, "a thin thread". Perhaps it's not even worth pursuing the analogy. |
