TELECOM Digest OnLine - Sorted: Re: Cingular - AT&T ?

Re: Cingular - AT&T ?

John Levine (
13 May 2007 02:37:55 -0000

> From what I remember Cinci Bell was never a Bell company, much like one
> on the East Coast now owned by at&t.

Cinci Bell, like SNET in Connecticut, was an AT&T affiliate rather
than a subsidiary like the other operating companies. In practical
terms it made little difference, since they had licensing agreements
for the Bell trademarks and patents, bought their equipment from
Western Electric, and otherwise operated just like all the other
operating companies. Both were minority owned by AT&T with the rest
of their stock listed on the NYSE, and were boring utility stocks you
bought if you wanted a reliable dividend.

At the time of the Bell breakup, AT&T sold off their holdings in both
and cut them loose. SNET was later bought by SBC, which is kind of
odd since it is a fairly small telco surrounded by then Bell Atlantic
now Verizon.

Cinci Bell is still independent. It makes sense that nobody bought
Cinci since they made themselves financially unattractive during their
Broadwing phase. Now that they've straightened themselves out I
expect that sooner or later at&t will buy them since they're
surrounded by at&t territory and their wireless is GSM which would be
straightforward to integrate into Cingular's GSM network.


Post Followup Article Use your browser's quoting feature to quote article into reply
Go to Next message: "Re: Last Laugh! Racism and All That Rot"
Go to Previous message: John Mayson: "Re: Welsh Operators Keep it English"
May be in reply to: "Cingular - AT&T ?"
Next in thread: John Levine: "Re: Cingular - AT&T ?"
TELECOM Digest: Home Page