Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Technology Stocks : America On-Line (AOL) -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Joe S Pack who wrote (14409)	5/3/1999 2:34:00 PM
From: PDL	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 41369

Nat: The case against AT&T had its origins in the MCI-AT&T anti-trust case in the late '70's. MCI brought charges about being denied access to the local net, AT&T refusing to interconnect MCI nodes, etc. etc. MCI ultimately won a $600K judgement (trebled to $1.8 billion) in 1978 (I believe). Those damages were later challenged by AT&T and I think they ultimately settled for something significantly less but AT&T was forced to open up to competition. All of that discovery, however, led to efforts on the part of the Justice Department (which was looking at both AT&T and IBM at the time). MCI's work also provided a great body of evidence of T's restricting "Special Common Carriers" (like MCI) from being able to compete -- this became the basis for the Justice Department's case and the ruling (I believe it was in late 1982 or very early in 1983) by Judge Harold Greene that became the "Consent Decree." The break-up of AT&T took place on Jan. 1, 1984 (under the oversight by Judge Greene). So, although it took place during the Reagan Administration, the origin was pre-Reagan. AT&T's misdeeds went back to around 1974-5 when MCI was just completing some of its original city networks (MCI went public in June 1972) when AT&T (and it's local Bell Operating Companies) decided they weren't going to connect MCI into the local loop (or let MCI buy the business lines it needed to provide its long distance service). AT&T's monopolistic tendencies have deep and probably ever-lasting roots. I may have a few dates wrong here, but I think this is reasonably on target... but take it for what it's worth! -- Pete PS: Full disclosure... I'm way long WCOM, MSFT (since 1988) and AOL (since 1994) so I do have an agenda!