On Sat, 30 Dec 2006 23:36:15 -0500, "rjdriver" <rjdriversNOSPAM@cox.net>
wrote:
: "Robert Coe" <bob@1776.COM> wrote in message
: news:ur6ep295m3ikjhgs3cnfspv3pgtodfqolh@4ax.com...
: > On Sat, 30 Dec 2006 17:03:13 -0600, karlkrandall@sbcglobal.net wrote:
: > : On Sat, 30 Dec 2006 14:19:23 -0600, decaturtxcowboy
: > : <nope_none_@nowayspam.com> wrote:
: > :
: > : >Industry trade journals say the global name recognition of AT&T is
: > worth
: > : >the change.
: > :
: > :
: > : 99% of Cingular's business is stateside.
: >
: > "Cingular" was a sappy name from the beginning. But amongst those of a
: > certain
: > age, the name "AT&T" conjures up dark memories of the hated "Ma Bell".
: > It's as
: > though George W. Bush tried to refurbish his reputation by calling himself
: > "Richard Milhous Cheney".
: >
: > Anyway, the natural progression from "Cingular", now that they've
: > swallowed
: > another company, would be "Doubular".
: >
: > Bob
:
:
: >> But amongst those of a certain age, the name "AT&T" conjures up dark
: >> memories of the hated "Ma Bell". <<
:
: Hated "Ma Bell"? What would that certain age be that hated "Ma Bell"?

In my case, 69. But you could be a lot younger. It was sometime in the 1970s
before a customer in the U.S. was explicitly allowed to attach his own phone
to the public network. Lots of us did it, of course, but we could have lost
our phone service if The Phone Company found out.

See if you can find the movie "The President's Analyst". It offers some
additional perspective. ;^)

Bob