A side note. I saved from the dumpster a plan for AT&T self divestiture composed internally so that they could do computers (they invented a PC in 1969) and breakup logically. If it was accepted over FIGHT, FIGHT, we would be 30 years ahead and still have the old Bell Labs.https://twitter.com/BrianRoemmele/status/1187099651993825280 …
-
-
Replying to @BrianRoemmele
So where is the opportunity since it is a virtual certainty that none of these companies are going to divest voluntarily?
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @MagisterIR
Thanks for asking. You have it precisely. They will not listen to me or you but lawyers who will earn great income on a “plan”. It will not go well and folks will ask, “why did we not know”. Thusly I try to offer pre advice and hope someone wakes up.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @BrianRoemmele
But, for example, where were the opportunities in the AT& breakup that a savvy investor/entrepreneur could have taken advantage of? That's already happened so perhaps you can give some details on that of where you think opportunities were.
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @MagisterIR @BrianRoemmele
In other words, if you had that $100 mil you should have been given already by one or more VCs, how would you have deployed, or tried to, during the AT&T breakup?
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @MagisterIR
Wow this is a very interesting situation. I would have answered the demands of the anti-trust before they came knocking. AT&T vs MCI caused this to happen. The correct path was to open the long distance and local to anyone in return be allowed to compete with computers.
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @BrianRoemmele @MagisterIR
This would have stopped the anti-trust path and allow AT&T to transition out of a public utility and monopoly, a place they did not want to be but formed by corrupt political elements of the 1930s-1950s. No money really was needed, put that in the bank—they just needed to listen.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @BrianRoemmele
But at that time, computers were still a relatively small, seemingly speculative market. You would have been going up against a deeply entrenched power structure. What I am asking is what were the opportunities that their intransigence create once the breakup was imposed?
2 replies 0 retweets 1 like
Indeed, great point. The video phone for example failed not because of technology but because of the legal grounds of the PUC laws. We had that in the early 1960s and could not be subsidized like an iPhone is today. The innovation was massive at the company they were barred.
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.