Talk:AT&T

Edit Request

NOTE: I’m proposing the following edits for FleishmanHillard on behalf of AT&T. I am a paid editor and aware of the COI guidelines. Please let me know of any questions or comments as you review. Thanks for your time and consideration. Jon Gray (talk) 17:44, 8 October 2021 (UTC)

Recommend adding the following sentence (in bold, below) to the tail end of the existing section re: AT&T/One America News Network to account for the fact that AT&T refuted the claims made:

AT&T denied the allegations, claiming that the company does not have a financial interest in OAN.

References

@Jon Gray: I have added the the first part of the quote unbolded. If you want to discuss the changes or make further changes, you can do so by replying below. Pabsoluterince (talk) 05:29, 30 November 2021 (UTC)

@Pabsoluterince: Thank you! Jon Gray (talk) 17:08, 3 December 2021 (UTC)

Edit Request – Lead Section Corrections

NOTE: I’m proposing the following edits for FleishmanHillard on behalf of AT&T. I am a paid editor and aware of the COI guidelines. A few pieces of information in the lead section are now outdated, so I’m proposing the following edits for accuracy. Please let me know of any questions or comments as you review. Thanks for your time and consideration. Jon Gray (talk) 21:31, 2 August 2022 (UTC)

 Done. Note: I didn't use the alltopeverything.com citation for the world's largest telco by revenue addition. I've instead linked to List of largest companies by revenue article page, where one can see that is the case (and it carries a citation there). See Ptrnext (talk) 03:55, 3 August 2022 (UTC)

Thank you! Jon Gray (talk) 13:10, 3 August 2022 (UTC)

---

Lead Section

• Second sentence: Propose adding clarity that “world’s largest telecommunications company” is a measure by revenue. Also, AT&T is no longer the world’s largest provider of mobile telephone services in the U.S. – the company is now third.With proposed revisions, the second sentence would read as follows:

It is the world’s largest telecommunications company by revenue and the 3rd largest provider of mobile telephone services in the U.S.

• Third sentence: AT&T’s ranking on the Fortune 500 dropped from 9th (2020) to 13th, and revenue numbers have decreased as well. To reflect accurate info, propose changing the third sentence to read as follows:

As of 2022, AT&T was ranked 13th on the Fortune 500 rankings of the largest United States corporations, with revenues of $168.8 billion.

References

Wiki Education assignment: NAS 348 Global Climate Change

This article is currently the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 5 September 2024 and 4 December 2024. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): NAS348-1-WIKI (article contribs).

— Assignment last updated by AmmanAlSalt123 (talk) 13:46, 25 September 2024 (UTC)

Merge proposal

I am proposing to merge AT&T Corporation into AT&T. Yes, the legal entity 'AT&T Corporation' ceased to exist a few months ago, but practically it's just a continuation of AT&T with the same people, buildings and customers. Both articles include a history that goes back to the 19th century. PhotographyEdits (talk) 13:17, 7 October 2024 (UTC)

Support Makes no sense to keep them separate, they are essentially the same company and now AT&T Corp. has been merged into AT&T Inc. Completely Random Guy (talk) 12:22, 8 October 2024 (UTC)

Strongly Oppose The AT&T Corporation article is about the company which was colloquially known as “Ma Bell” until broken up in 1984. The AT&T article discusses the current company which was originally Baby Bell SBC that bought its former parent in 2005 and renamed itself AT&T Inc. The 2 companies are entirely separate and it would not be beneficial to merge the 2. AT&T Corporation’s history particularly after the breakup as a long distance carrier which briefly diversified into cable television is very different from that of ILEC Southwestern Bell Corporation/SBC before its 2005 buyout of AT&T Corp. Although the entity AT&T Corporation is technically defunct, that does suddenly change the history of AT&T Inc., formerly SBC, to be one in the same with AT&T Corporation.

KansasCityKSMO (talk) 04:24, 8 October 2024 (UTC)

Then why does the current AT&T article start the history section with Alexander Graham Bell? PhotographyEdits (talk) 08:09, 8 October 2024 (UTC)

Because the former SBC Corp also has roots dating back to Bell and the subsequent Bell System. That still doesn't diminish the fact that there was a 20 year period where they were completely separate companies, which would be lost in the merger. As such I too oppose. oknazevad (talk) 11:06, 8 October 2024 (UTC)

> Because the former SBC Corp also has roots dating back to Bell and the subsequent Bell System.

I don't think it has a history separate from AT&T pre-1983. PhotographyEdits (talk) 12:41, 8 October 2024 (UTC)

But it does have a distinct history as a incumbent local exchange carrier company. The way the old Bell System was structured was specifically designed that each of the majority-owned (but not wholly owned) subsidiaries had some level of independence for the purpose of dealing with separate state and local regulators. The separate article exist to reflect the reality of separate companies. oknazevad (talk) 13:52, 8 October 2024 (UTC)

The RBOC articles start their history at the time of the breakup in the 1980s, look at Ameritech and BellSouth for example. PhotographyEdits (talk) 14:21, 8 October 2024 (UTC)

PS, by the logic of the proposal, companies such as BellSouth, PacBell, and Ameritech should also be merged, and likewise NYNEX and GTE into Verizon. All of those are bad ideas, and so is this proposal. oknazevad (talk) 11:08, 8 October 2024 (UTC)

We also have separate articles for AT&T Technologies and Lucent Technologies which are legally the same entity. I would suggest making an SBC article documenting the 1983-2005 period. The remaining period should be in AT&T. PhotographyEdits (talk) 12:47, 8 October 2024 (UTC)

AT&T Technologies was an AT&T Corp subsidiary. Lucent Technologies was an independent company spun off with its own separate stock shares. They were legally distinct entities.

The fact that the former subsidiary grew large enough to acquire its former parent and take its name is a distinctive element of the history of the current AT&T. It's also speaks to the decline of the original company. Let's not confuse those facts with poor article organization. oknazevad (talk) 14:01, 8 October 2024 (UTC)

> AT&T Technologies was an AT&T Corp subsidiary. Lucent Technologies was an independent company spun off with its own separate stock shares. They were legally distinct entities.

That does not make it a distinct entity. It was the same entity, with or without parent. PhotographyEdits (talk) 14:05, 8 October 2024 (UTC)

Comment something I just noticed: we have History of AT&T, but that does refer to AT&T Corporation and not AT&T, so there is some title confusion at least then. PhotographyEdits (talk) 14:25, 8 October 2024 (UTC)

Comment I change my vote to strong support, I hear everyone's points, but I simply can't justify keeping them separate. AT&T Corp. became AT&T Inc, for example we don't have a separate article for Bell Atlantic which became Verizon, we go into the history of Bell Atlantic in the Verizon Wikipage. We should do the same here. Another point is that AT&T Corp. and AT&T Inc. share the same name unlike Bell Atlantic and Verizon. I just cant agree with them being separate. when they were separate entities sure, but now that AT&T Corp. was merged into AT&T Inc. it makes no sense to keep them separate.Completely Random Guy (talk) 12:19, 9 October 2024 (UTC)

What is your view on creating an article about SBC Communications documenting the 1983-2005 period? PhotographyEdits (talk) 14:25, 9 October 2024 (UTC)

It sounds good! Completely Random Guy (talk) 01:54, 10 October 2024 (UTC)

But that's the point. AT&T Corporation did not become AT&T Inc. That's a plainly non-factually statement. The entire purpose of not merging the articles is to disabuse readers of that bluntly incorrect conception.

The analogy to Verizon actually speaks against the merger. The reason we don't have separate Bell Atlantic and Verizon articles is because it is the same company, just one that changed its name after acquiring GTE. That's also why we don't have separate SBC Corp and AT&T Inc articles, as it is the same company, albeit one that changed its name after acquiring AT&T Corporation. The only difference is that SBC took the name of the acquired company, instead of coming an all-new one. A merger would be based on a wrong understanding of the facts. oknazevad (talk) 18:01, 9 October 2024 (UTC)

I understand and thank you for highlighting the differences. Once again I will change my vote to soft support, I still think the articles should probably be merged, but I am okay with any outcome of this merger discussion! Completely Random Guy (talk) 01:55, 10 October 2024 (UTC)