Originally posted by: daveshel
When AT&T was broken up in 1982, Judge Greene's analysis was long on free market dynamics. The lynchpin was that the breakup was necessary then to create a level playing field on which more players could compete and the result would be more technolgy cheaper for consumers. Which is what we have today. But Judge Greene does not think that market conditions have changed enough since then to allow this recombination.
Link
Actually, Judge Green is not currently thinking anything, since he's dead now!
As a person who has a close association with the outcome of this merger, here's my two cents:
The link referenced above was about ten years ago. Ten years is a long time, especially when talking about technology. It can be said that more competition in the local market has come, mainly from cable, cell compaines (especially since local number portability), and even from VOIP and municipal wi-fi. AT&T is no where put back together again, it's lost all of it's manufacturing arm, and long distance is so cheap it's usually thown in a part of a bundle package. Local access lines have been steadily dwindling over the years as people migrate to cell and VOIP.
No, the real battle is between cable (or other high-speed access that is not DSL) and the phone companies. The phone companies still have lots of copper out ther to either replace or upgrade, and so they see their main competition as cable. Everybody is looking for the magic 'bundling' solution, one company to deliver your phone (cell and wireline), high-speed access, television (especially HDTV, IPTV and on-demand video access), and do it for one price. Cable compainies are trying to convince you that they are a good phone company, and the phone company is trying to convince you they are a good cable company.
Therefore, it all boils down to whether you believe the new AT&T is still dominant in some sector of it's market. We'll just have to wait and see.