My wife worked for AT&T (Michigan Bell) during the time of the break-up.
We attended one of the meetings in which the company explained why
they wanted to break-up.  They were burdened by the low profit
regulated services (such as local information service). They wanted to
provide the lucrative local phone service.

The local phone service companies have yet to deliver on  the promise
given to allow easy access by the national providers.

Meanwhile long distance costs have gone down.



John Clogg <[log in to unmask]> wrote in article
<[log in to unmask]>...
> Apart from the Mirosoft debate, some clarification on the breakup of AT&T
> <snip>
> any given location.)  The only thing that kept prices from going through
the
> roof, and service levels from going down the tubes was oversight by local
> Public Utilities Commissions.
>
> This is still largely true today.  There are some new companies starting
to
> sell local phone service, but they don't have the infrastructure to be
major
> players yet.  It appears the breakup of AT&T hasn't hurt consumers, but I
><snip>
 -----Original Message-----
> From: John Lee [mailto:[log in to unmask]]
> Sent: Monday, November 08, 1999 12:22 PM
> To: [log in to unmask]
> Subject: Re: OT: RE: U.S. Judge Finds Microsoft Holds Monopoly Power
>
>
> At 11:49 AM 11/8/1999 -0800, you wrote:
> >To what Denys said:
> >
> >Nonsense. The sun came up around here on Saturday. From Microsoft's
> >standpoint, the worst thing that could happen would be for it to be
broken
> >up into separate, competing companies, much as with Ma Bell. But how
does
><snip>
> John Lee
>
>