Talk:American Telephone & Telegraph Company

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

	American Telephone & Telegraph Company is within the scope of the Bell System WikiProject, a collaborative effort to improve Wikipedia's coverage of the former Bell System. If you would like to participate, you can visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks.
B	This article has been rated as B-Class on the assessment scale.

	To-do list for American Telephone & Telegraph Company:	edit  · history  · watch  · refresh
Here are some tasks you can do:

[edit] Alascom

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)

No, that statement is only referring to operations in the United States. KansasCity 15:03, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Merge

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)

Please no! They are different. Its very simple, two different companies get two different articles. Imagine trying to explain on the same page how AT&T is defunct and currently running. =0 Yaanch^Speak! 20:42, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

Strong No They are very different companies and this would make their respective histories very confusing. Cornell Rockey 19:37, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Merge II

I think this article should be merged with AT&T and they are not different companies

-Mrsanitazier Martch 10,2007

Don't Merge - they ARE different companies. It would be possible to merge these two articles but doing so would create one huge bloated article out of two, and wouldn't take into account the unique history of the two companies. TheQuandry 19:38, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Strong Disagree! They are different companies! Very different. They have different histories and we have already gone over this extensively over time. Dont Merge! Yaanch^Speak! 23:56, 22 March 2007 (UTC)