The one that really puzzles me is SBC/ATT. Back in '84, Congress broke up AT&T into the "baby Bells" via divestiture. Every RBOC (regional Bell operating company) was a separate entity, with its territory established by the divestiture order.There are laws preventing companies from dominating one area (monopolies), but conglomerates are the way around these laws. While companies no longer try to dominate one area (like Standard Oil or U.S. Steel), they now try to purchase as many different companies as possible.
Look at it today: SBC, over the last 15 years, bought several RBOCs while allowing them to keep the original name. That was really before the cell phone industry had permanently exploded. Now, SBC bought AT&T (who was struggling anyway, if not totally defunct) and has taken the AT&T name to slap on previosly SBC-branded products.
Of course AT&T had zero competition in 1984, and so the anti-monopoly thing makes complete sense there. Today, even though SBC owns several former RBOCS as well as broadband and cell service, there is still plenty of competition. The main thing in 1984 was the monopoly over local phone service, deemed to be an essential part of daily living. That part is still regulated at the state level today. Now we have many choices for local and long distance service.
I suppose my point is it's really ironic SBC bought ATT, after having been spun off from ATT via divestiture in '84.
At some point it will all be wireless. Copper and fiber are expensive to buy, install, and maintain. The cell industry has the key, with the proliferation of cell towers everywhere. All that's required is a little better coverage and more bandwidth.
