?

Log in

No account? Create an account
~生まれた町で夢見てきた...~
"In the city of my birth, I had a dream..."
It gets me thinking... 
24th-Jan-2007 02:35 pm
Winter
I'll bet a lot of you have already seen Colbert on AT&T, but in case you haven't--this is GOLD:


It really does get me thinking, though. Has anyone else noticed that the sudden spread and growth of many of the great telecommunications advancements of the 20th century (a.k.a. cell phones, internet) occurred during the 90's--that short period when AT&T offspring were competing most fiercely with each other and others for market share?
Comments 
24th-Jan-2007 08:06 pm (UTC)
You know... I worked for AT&T during college (well, kind of), and then when I got a cell phone I went with AT&T Wireless.. Then I bought some Bell South stock in their reinvestment plan...

Cingular bought AT&T Wireless, then Bell South bought Cingular.. Then AT&T bought Bell South..

So, I worked for AT&T, my cell phone is AT&T, and now I even own AT&T stock......... It's the company I CAN'T GET AWAY FROM!! Of course, I also remember the old days before the company was broken up, and their corporate Christmas parties were fabulous ^__^
24th-Jan-2007 08:14 pm (UTC)
Well, we use Verizon, and they used to be AT&T, too (via Bell Atlantic). Hell, my father even used to use Verizon Wireless when our entire property was a dead zone.

My contract when them ends this March. I'm trying to decide whether I want to defect to Sprint or not...
24th-Jan-2007 09:36 pm (UTC)
I don't know if this has anything to do with anything, but when I was at Disney in November, I got fantastic reception on my Cingular cell phone.. This time, my AT&T phone was barely picking up a cell signal >_< I'm hoping that's just a coincidence.....

Heh, our local phone service also just went from Bell South to AT&T, to match the cell phone and the long distance service ^^;
24th-Jan-2007 10:48 pm (UTC)
Was it a different phone?
24th-Jan-2007 11:11 pm (UTC)
Same phone... I'm just wondering if they had to give up any towers or anything to get the deal passed ^^;
25th-Jan-2007 01:19 am (UTC)
That doesn't make sense. Who would they give the towers to? The different companies use different standards. (I thought, anyway...)
25th-Jan-2007 01:27 am (UTC)
Sometimes weird things happen with mergers, like the government will require a company to give up some number or customers to try to keep the market competitive.. But it's more likely if AT&T had it's own cell phone network before, which I don't think they did...

*shrugs*

Just trying to figure out why every single bar on the phone was constantly lit up last time, while this time it was 0-3.. One time I had to wait for a signal to send a text message ^^;
25th-Jan-2007 02:58 pm (UTC)
:o...
I read in a paper somewhere (can't remember where)
When the www first started, owning the networks (phone lines, fiber optic cables) literally meant physically owning the net.
Building/Owning a highway means that you can set what kind of toll price for the people using it.
Hence the phone companies were competing with each other for market share and rights for the cables. And laying cables for development just about everywhere...
It's kind of a chicken egg situation.... without cables, no net, and vice versa.
I recall something about because all the companies managed to uhhh over invest? over expand? they laid too many cables and then lost a lot of money that they weren't able to recover. This is one of the causes when the dot com bubble went burst or something can't remember....
25th-Jan-2007 10:45 pm (UTC)
I recall something about because all the companies managed to uhhh over invest? over expand? they laid too many cables and then lost a lot of money that they weren't able to recover. This is one of the causes when the dot com bubble went burst or something can't remember....

I would've thought it would've been the opposite. Tons of internet companies like Pets.com (the iconic dot.com bubble company) were developing web presence, but there wasn't the "real-world" infrastructure to connect enough people to their business and/or support their business ambitions. But that's not something I followed back in the day, so I'm just guessing. ^^;;
26th-Jan-2007 03:15 am (UTC)
In addition to that too. That's the main reason of course. ^^

It's just another area where there was overinvestment in the market etc. The phone companies needed money to pay for the cable and the digging and the workers.. And it wasn't long before they realised they had spent too much and had to withdraw their funding from other things or risk going bankrupt.
In the end they found out that they had laid so much fiber optics cable everywhere and the consumer market hadn't caught up yet for them to make enough profit. Hence the losses. And all their cable pretty much ended up useless then.

Now is different of course. Broadband/cable internet has now spead etc... So I guess it's not so bad?
26th-Jan-2007 06:01 am (UTC)
In the end they found out that they had laid so much fiber optics cable everywhere and the consumer market hadn't caught up yet for them to make enough profit.

Is this other countries that you're talking about, or the US? 'Cause, if anything, there wasn't that much Internet penetration for a long time because phone companies weren't willing to put down high speed wires at all. The cable television companies then stepped in and kind of pulled the rug out from under them, and only in the past couple of years have the phone companies caught up. For instance, Verizon's fiber optic network JUST went online this year. (We got notification of it a few weeks ago.)
26th-Jan-2007 06:52 am (UTC)
Guhhh.. zzz well I can't remember now. It's too old and my memory sucks. In the US though. People were saying that construction of the cables were halted at just the last two miles or something.

Think there was this article... Can't find it now though...
Yochi Dreazen, “Behind the Fiber Glut – Telecom Carriers Were Driven By Wildly Optimistic Data on Internet’s
Growth Rate,” The Wall Street Journal, 9/26/2002, Vol. 240 Issue 62, pg. B1.

Abstract:
Reports that the telecom industry during the 1990s was driven by falsely optimistic data about the growth rate of the Internet. Mistaken belief that Internet traffic doubled every three months; Implications for the construction of networks by companies; Belief that Internet traffic actually grew at 100 per cent annually; Per cent of installed fiber-optic lines in the U.S. that are used; Decrease in bandwidth prices; Bankruptcy filings by data-transmission companies; Financial troubles at WorldCom Inc., Level 3 Communications and others.
26th-Jan-2007 07:33 am (UTC)
http://news.zdnet.com/2100-9595_22-530088.html?legacy=zdnn
Ah... here's an article of one of the things that happened then perhaps.
http://news.com.com/2100-1034_3-999695.html

hum.. ah well.
26th-Jan-2007 11:35 am (UTC)
Ah, that's what I had originally said; the dot com bubble and what you're talking about aren't the same thing: "Level 3's troubles represent an even bigger threat to the economy than the first round of the dot-com meltdown because the telecom companies involved are so much bigger."

And there's this: "In retrospect, the executives--and Wall Street--made some major miscalculations. Too many companies focused on the easy part of building a network: the long-distance loops that cut mostly through rural areas. Too little money went into widening the pipes that run into homes and offices, an extremely expensive undertaking complicated by the fact that the Baby Bells already own such "last-mile" connections. With high-speed access slow to reach businesses and consumers, development of the sort of "killer applications" that might spur new usage dwindled." Yep, that sounds like what I originally said about how "Tons of internet companies like Pets.com (the iconic dot.com bubble company) were developing web presence, but there wasn't the "real-world" infrastructure to connect enough people to their business and/or support their business ambitions." Because the phone companies didn't think they could make it lucrative enough.
26th-Jan-2007 12:59 pm (UTC)
Ah, that's what I had originally said; the dot com bubble and what you're talking about aren't the same thing:
o_O uh huh?
In addition to that too. That's the main reason of course. ^^ <- I did say it was different too. ^^;

It's just another area where there was overinvestment during the dot com period... Wherein the consumer market hasn't caught up for them to make much profit?

If you're talking about the reluctance for telcos to launch cable broadband services between 90's- till say.. 02?
The Dot.com bubble burst would be point 1 and then the telecom industry depression caused by overlaying of cables would be point 2.
Then as time went by the cable tv people steps in like you said and then market picks up again etc.
This page was loaded Apr 27th 2018, 6:20 am GMT.