In a message dated Sat, 2 Apr 2005 07:14:02 UTC, tls@panix.com (Thor
Lancelot Simon) writes:
> In article <telecom24.141.7@telecom-digest.org>, T. Sean Weintz
> <strap@hanh-ct.org> wrote:
>> SBC bought out SNET a few years back, and has done NOTHING for us but
>> take what WAS good service and make it lousy, while raising prices and
>> laying off workers. Back in the monolithic BELL ATT days, things were
>> MUCH more reliable than they are now. I'm talking REAL sloppy stuff --
>> botched record keeping, service suddenly shifted to a different set of
>> pairs on the underground feed for no apparent reasons, etc. etc.
> I'm not sure what the "monolithic BELL ATT days" might have been, but
> I would just like to point out that Southern New England Telephone
> (SNET) was never part of AT&T; it was not a wholly-owned subsidiary
> like most other regional operating companies and it was not directly
> controlled by AT&T in the same way in which the others were. SNET had
> a separate ownership structure and was allowed to use the Bell logo,
> but remain at least partially outside the control of the Bell System,
> because of some very savvy dealmaking by its founders early on; Bell
> needed them more than they needed Bell, and so things were always done
> a little bit differently -- just a little bit, but still differently
> -- in SNET territory than in the "monolith".
I worked for Southwestern Bell for 32 years before I retired. What
does this have to do with SNET? Well, one of the things that they did
was send SWBT folks to AT&T headquarters for a month to see how it
worked there.
The AT&T folks, not knowing exactly what to do with you, often gave
you tasks like calling the operating companies and telling them about
some new procedure or something they should do or something AT&T was
doing that might affect the BOCs.
Most of the companies would listen more or less attentively, although
the companies were less monolithic in their operations than many
think. Even in the five SWBT states, there were some state
organizations more independent than others.
Anyway, in doing these calls to other Bell companies, it was very
noticeable when you called SNET that they were very well aware that
they were not controlled by AT&T. They might thank you for calling,
to be polite, but clearly they understood that they would do what SNET
wanted to do.
Same thing was true with Cincinnati & Suburban Bell Telephone Company
(the full name of the company then), although not quite so overtly.
Then there was Bell Canada, of which AT&T then owned only something
like 2%. (Actually, they were pretty agreeable to work with, although
not accepting instructions for AT&T as anything other than just
informational.)
Wes Leatherock
wesrock@aol.com
Wesrock@aol.com