[KeepingItReal]

This should clear everything up, been a while since Cingular was around but it's funny.

Colbert's take on ATT - Video

[l2ridehd]

I for one am happy with AT&T service. They are the only one who's mobile service works anywhere in the world. They were the first to allow multi tasking on a smart phone. I am glad to see this merger. Maybe with this combination I can finally dump Comcast and get good TV, internet and phone service and not have to deal with Comcast, the worst customer service company that has won that distinction for many years. And I bought their stock at $5.06 and had the reverse split which is now at $35 and has consistently paid a 6% dividend.

[buzzy]

Originally Posted by KeepingItReal

Lucent is not ATT.

Lucent is and was a totally different stock from ATT. When Lucent was divested from ATT everyone thought it was going to be the best place to be but it soon came crashing down. A lot of employees that chose to go with Lucent lost almost their entire retirement as it was all invested in Lucent stock because it was doing so great. Lucent merged or was bought by Alcatel around 2006.

Keep in mind the ORIGINAL AT&T owned Bell Labs, Western Electric, and all the Bell Operating Companies. After divestiture South Western Bell later came around and bought the old AT&T and then changed their name to AT&T since the name was so valuable. The new AT&T bought Cingular Wireless, others, and then BellSouth in 2007 which was the old South Central Bell and Southern Bell before divestiture which had joined back together to create BellSouth.

History of AT&T

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yvTki2nGkHs

Thanks for the clarification on the Bell System history. As an employee you would know more than a typical shareholder. I never meant that Lucent was the same as AT&T. Only mentioned it's role in the concern over tech company evaluations back then. BTW - I lost a 24 year aerospace job back in 1992, and had to relocate and change fields.

[JMEZARIC3]

Originally Posted by l2ridehd

I for one am happy with AT&T service. They are the only one who's mobile service works anywhere in the world. They were the first to allow multi tasking on a smart phone. I am glad to see this merger. Maybe with this combination I can finally dump Comcast and get good TV, internet and phone service and not have to deal with Comcast, the worst customer service company that has won that distinction for many years. And I bought their stock at $5.06 and had the reverse split which is now at $35 and has consistently paid a 6% dividend.

Let's hope Directv/AT&T will offer a fast and fairly priced internet service to all Directv customers.They can provide the connection on the cell tower system or perhaps thru the Directv system.If they can,the mega cable companies will have a real rival for TV and internet service.

[tcxr750]

AT&T uses fiber for U-Verse which provides TV and internet. As far as I know Satellite based TV (Dish or Direct TV) needs a separate line for internet.
I admit AT&T customer service from out of country call centers is poor. If it's not on the flip chart they are clueless. You used to be able to ask for service from someone in the US. When Whitacre left AT&T it was all down hill.

[rde3036]

Originally Posted by buzzy

It was leading up to the burst of the tech bubble. The stock price actually peaked around $57 a couple of times during 1999. By March 2003 it bottomed out at $5 and had a reverse 5 to one split. Today's charts do not show the reverse split.

I believe that "patient zero" was Lucent, which dropped 40% in a few months. It eventually went all the way from $82 to 2 bucks.

The price of AT&T has not fallen below 20 since 1995.

[KeepingItReal]

Originally Posted by tcxr750

AT&T uses fiber for U-Verse which provides TV and internet. As far as I know Satellite based TV (Dish or Direct TV) needs a separate line for internet.
I admit AT&T customer service from out of country call centers is poor. If it's not on the flip chart they are clueless. You used to be able to ask for service from someone in the US. When Whitacre left AT&T it was all down hill.

Fiber is first choice but bonded pair technology on copper is also an option for AT&T U Verse service. Requires special conditioning of cable pairs to remove bridge tap etc. but it has been in use for a few years now.

[buzzy]

Originally Posted by rde3036

The price of AT&T has not fallen below 20 since 1995.

From a CNET news story published Aug 10, 2002

"AT&T plans to offer a 1-for-5 reverse stock split following its proposed merger with Comcast, the company revealed in a regulatory filing Wednesday.

The statement, filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission, details issues that will be voted on at the next shareholder meeting, including specifics on a new business structure and further details on the Comcast merger. The meeting has not yet been scheduled but is expected to take place sometime this year.

AT&T proposed the reverse split to "adjust the trading prices of AT&T common stock following the various transactions to effect AT&T's restructuring plan, including the AT&T Comcast transaction," the company said in the SEC document.

Both companies recommend that shareholders vote in favor of the proposed merger of AT&T Broadband, AT&T's cable arm, and Comcast. The new company, to be called AT&T Comcast Corporation, may encounter regulatory difficulties. The merger would create a cable giant with over 21 million subscribers, which has caught the eyes of antitrust regulators .

Reverse stock splits have been typically used to pump up the value of stocks that are in danger of falling below the $1 limit necessary for listing on the Nasdaq. But AT&T's shares currently trade at around $14.47 a share. The reason the company opted for the 1-to-5 reverse split, according to analysts, was that once the AT&T-Comcast deal is complete, the remaining value of AT&T shares are only expected to be around $4.50."

Boldface by me for emphasis. I repeat, the reverse split does not show up in any historical stock price chart, probably because technically it never happened. Sure, the day after the split the shares were once again over $20, but I had 200 shares instead of 1000 shares.

[KeepingItReal]

Originally Posted by buzzy

By March 2003 it bottomed out at $5 and had a reverse 5 to one split. Today's charts do not show the reverse split.

Originally Posted by buzzy

From a CNET news story published Aug 10, 2002
I repeat, the reverse split does not show up in any historical stock price chart, probably because technically it never happened.

Those were turbulent times for the old AT&T. The AT&T then was totally different from the one now that resulted from SBC buying AT&T around 2005 and then changing it's name to AT&T.

http://www.nytimes.com/2005/01/31/bu...6-billion.html

[dotti105]

Gosh, I really like AT&T.

We only use them for our iPhones. But have a great rate plan and very good customer service. We have had them for 10 years now and have not 1 complaint.

We have Direct TV, which we love and Centurylink for internet.

Centurylink seems to be a seriously mismanaged company from our dealings with them. Never had them until we moved here. Love the FiberOptic internet, but not a fan of Centurylink.

We will never have a home phone again. Tried Vonage for a few years, nice and cheap. Then moved to Magic Jack. Even cheaper and great service. But we don't consider a home phone important any longer.

Most of the calls we received were robo calls anyway. Forget that!!

[shawano1]

Originally Posted by buzzy

The last time AT&T tried to diversify, their stock went from $65 to $5 and had a reverse split. That was supposed to be my retirement savings.

Same stupid management decision now.

Oh, let me know if I sound bitter.

AT&T is not the same company that I retired from 15 years ago, but if you are going to disparage someone, do it factually.

The AT&T of today is actually a result ,of SBC purchasing AT&T at the end of 2005, but changing the corporation's name to AT&T. The price of the new AT&T stock was just under $25/share. Since then, the stock has never been below $23.50/share, even after the 2008/09 Market crash, and is trading at $34.75/share today.

Prior to the SBC/AT&T merger, AT&T's lowest price was $10+ in Aug 2002 (post 9/11 market correction). SBC's lowest was $20.10 in Oct 2002.

The AT&T company (post 1984 Divestiture) that you might be thinking of is Lucent Technologies, an AT&T spinoff which sold for over $73/share in Dec 1999, only to be a victim of the .com/technology crash of 2000, eventually falling to its low of $.76/share in Oct 2002 (after 9/11 correction). Lucent was bought by Alcatel in Jan 2007, but it, too, never experienced a reverse split.

So, with all that said, its still no excuse for poor customer service.

I stand partially corrected. The (pre-SBC ) AT&T did have a 1:5 reverse split after its Comcast purchase on 11/18/2002, however , the price of the stock more than doubled, but you only had 1/5th as many shares. The AT&T company of today, is really SBC, which never had a reverse split.

[KeepingItReal]

Originally Posted by shawano1

AT&T is not the same company that I retired from 15 years ago, but if you are going to disparage someone, do it factually.

The AT&T of today is actually a result ,of SBC purchasing AT&T at the end of 2005, but changing the corporation's name to AT&T. The price of the new AT&T stock was just under $25/share. Since then, the stock has never been below $23.50/share, even after the 2008/09 Market crash, and is trading at $34.75/share today.

Prior to the SBC/AT&T merger, AT&T's lowest price was $10+ in Aug 2002 (post 9/11 market correction). SBC's lowest was $20.10 in Oct 2002.

The AT&T company (post 1984 Divestiture) that you might be thinking of is Lucent Technologies, an AT&T spinoff which sold for over $73/share in Dec 1999, only to be a victim of the .com/technology crash of 2000, eventually falling to its low of $.76/share in Oct 2002 (after 9/11 correction). Lucent was bought by Alcatel in Jan 2007, but it, too, never experienced a reverse split.

So, with all that said, its still no excuse for poor customer service.

I stand partially corrected. The (pre-SBC ) AT&T did have a 1:5 reverse split

after its Comcast purchase on 11/18/2002,

however , the price of the stock more than doubled, but you only had 1/5th as many shares. The AT&T company of today, is really SBC, which never had a reverse split.

Uuuuhh, I think I read a lot of this previously in this thread.. Guess a repeat is OK.......

Actually AT&T did not but Comcast, Comcast bought AT&T Braoadband in 2002 .

AT&T Broadband is the name of AT&T's cable operations, which were composed of the assets of TCI and MediaOne, Prime Cable, as well as two Comcast cable systems (Sacramento, California and northern DeKalb County, Georgia) AT&T acquired later in a system swap. Formed in 1999, AT&T Broadband was the largest provider of cable television services. Media and online services for AT&T Broadband customers were originally provided by either RoadRunner or Excite@Home. In late 2000, AT&T Broadband acquired several Paragon Cable assets in Oregon and Texas during its merger with Time Warner. AT&T spent over $105 billion to form the cable unit, agreed to sell to Comcast initially for $72 billion, but settled at $47.5 billion due to the declining market.

AT&T went through a corporate restructuring process in 2002, which called for AT&T Wireless, AT&T Business, AT&T Consumer, and AT&T Broadband all to become separate companies. Only AT&T Wireless was spun off (although repurchased later by AT&T), and AT&T Broadband was purchased by Comcast in 2003.

In Deal of the Year, Comcast buys AT&T Broadband - Denver Business Journal


SBC to buy AT&T, but analysts question value of the deal - Jan. 31, 2005

Baby Bell buying Ma Bell
SBC to buy former parent AT&T despite drop in long-distance business; analysts question $16B deal.
January 31, 2005: 11:13 AM EST

NEW YORK (CNN/Money) - After 128 years as an independent company, since just after the invention of the telephone that's the centerpiece of its business, AT&T will be absorbed into its offspring SBC Communications in a stock-and-cash deal valued at $16 billion.
SBC also will be assuming about $6 billion in AT&T's net debt, bringing the total value of the deal to $22 billion.
SBC (Research), announcing the deal Monday, said it could find value in AT&T (Research) even with the decline in its traditional long distance business. Shares of AT&T fell about 5.6 percent in early trading Monday morning while shares of SBC were down slightly.
The deal marks the end of several eras, one that started with company founder Alexander Graham Bell, and another that began when a federal judge split the original company into eight separate entities in 1984.
In the more than 20 years of telephone deregulation that followed, the offspring such as SBC moved into dominant positions in the growth areas of telecommunications, including wireless and Internet connections.
AT&T tried to change, as it entered fields such as cable television and wireless phone service itself. But its efforts generally met with business disappointment, and it soon left both those fields. SBC is already in the process of integrating the former AT&T Wireless unit it bought last year.
Still, AT&T chairman and CEO David Dorman said during a conference call with analysts Monday morning that he did not view the acquisition as an end to AT&T. "We don't view it that way and nothing could be further from the truth," he said.
SBC chairman and CEO Edward E. Whitacre Jr. added during the call that SBC was still contemplating whether or not it would continue to use the AT&T brand name once the deal was completed. "Obviously AT&T is a great name, a strong worldwide brand, and that will factor into our decision," Whitacre said.