Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!rpi!batcomputer!caen!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!cis.ohio-state.edu!pacific.mps.ohio-state.edu!linac!att!cbnewsh!wcs From: wcs@cbnewsh.cb.att.com (Bill Stewart 908-949-0705 erebus.att.com!wcs) Newsgroups: comp.org.eff.talk Subject: Re: Len Rose sentenced to Prison Term Message-ID: <1991Jun28.202738.19208@cbnewsh.cb.att.com> Date: 28 Jun 91 20:27:38 GMT References: <9272@hsv3.UUCP> <1991Jun27.160030.8689@cbnewsh.cb.att.com> <1991Jun28.124441.4768@midway.uchicago.edu> Distribution: usa Organization: Your typical phone company involved in your typical daydream Lines: 52 In article <1991Jun28.124441.4768@midway.uchicago.edu> learn@piroska.uchicago.edu (William Vajk (igloo)) writes: & >Back in the robber-baron days at the turn of the century, the Bell & >telephone companies made a deal with the government that they could & >have monopoly powers in return for government regulation of our & >finances, pricing, services, and corporate structure, and even & >though AT&T isn't a monopoly any more, the regulators haven't left. & AT&T isn't a legal monopoly any longer. There's a difference. Of course not. But the context of my statement was the suggestion that someone ought to tell the tax auditors how much we said login.c was worth, and I was saying that we still have such large herds of government bean-counters around that they wouldn't have missed counting anything taxable. & >All in all, I think it was a bad deal, aside from the obviously & >bogus ethics involved in any monopoly, and it's helped set the precedent for & >government regulation of broadcast radio and TV, and for monopolies & >and regulation in even such areas as cable tv which have NO & >conceivable public-utility legitimacy. & This is really funny, Bill, for a number of reasons. & In spite of internal rumors, AT&T did not invent 'monopoly.' Either one. & Your founders worked quite hard to achieve the status. Of course not - the idea's as old as monarchy, though they did invent some new forms of accounting to support it. But by accepting and promoting monopoly and regulation in the telephone industry, they strengthened the trend, and strengthened the government bureaucracy and its ability to get away with regulating other things. & I'll just understand that it is politically correct inside the AT&T family & to decry government "interference" of business these days. I though I put an adequate disclaimer on my article - I'm speaking strictly my own opinions here, though as a stockholder owning N of the ~ 1 billion shares of AT&T stock, that makes it N*10**-9 of the company's opinion. In particular, you'll note that my comments about Theodore Vail and the robber baron movement are hardly the party line. As with any large company, there's a general tendency to support regulating our competitors and oppose being regulated ourselves. I suspect most of management would prefer to keep the Baby Bells regulated - I'd prefer they totally stopped regulating us instead. I'll give some of my opinions on your Len Rose related comments in a separate posting. -- Pray for peace; Bill # Bill Stewart 908-949-0705 erebus.att.com!wcs AT&T Bell Labs 4M-312 Holmdel NJ # No, that's covered by the Drug Exception to the Fourth Amendment. # You can read it here in the fine print.