Bruno Wolff III wrote: >>> I think just plain split up is a better description. I think history has >>> shown that the split wasn't done "sensibly" and unfortunately we aren't >>> going to get a do over any time soon. >> >> You haven't noticed the dismembered Bell's crawling back together to >> resurrect the monster? Plus of, course devouring Cingular. (I'm not a >> big fan of huge corporations...). > > And part of the reason for that is the split was done incorrectly. It > should have been split so the local loops and the CO's were owned by > regulated monopolies (in each region) and those companies prohibited from > providing services over the copper (or fiber). Then the incumbents > wouldn't be able to eliminate competition by sabotaging it. Was the split-up good? As a complete outsider, it doesn't seem to me to have had a great effect, good or bad. What I found, and find, rather puzzling was the anti-trust ruling that did not allow AT&T to compete in software, or IBM in telephony. On the face of it, this seemed to preserve monopolies rather than the opposite. To me, the saddest thing about the whole story was the demise of Bell Labs, at least as it used to be. A bit like the end of the Venetian republic. -- fedora-list mailing list fedora-list@xxxxxxxxxx To unsubscribe: https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-list
