View Single Post
Posts: 670 | Thanked: 747 times | Joined on Aug 2009 @ Kansas City, Missouri, USA
#76
Originally Posted by AgentZ View Post
Almost correct,Southwestern Bell/SBC bought ATT not the other way around, ATT was a failing long distance company with some very lucrative government contracts. The powers that be figured the att brand was internationally known brand so they kept it.
Correct. Southwestern Bell was one of the 'Baby Bells' formed when the AT&T monopoly was broken up. Later on the withered remains of AT&T was really struggling and bought by SBC mainly for the brand recognition. SBC wanted to shed the regional implications of 'Southwestern Bell' for a nationally-known name. I remember a lot of people at the time thought SBC was wasting their money. Goes to show the power a brand can have.
__________________
Registered Linux user #266531.

Last edited by Crashdamage; 2011-03-30 at 18:51.
 

The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to Crashdamage For This Useful Post: