Sat, 06 May 2006 16:07:55 -0700 P. J. Alling wrote:
> Intrusive tracking, impeded advertisements, and last but not least > being part of SBC, (who've changed their name to AT&T, of all things, > because their reputation for service is so bad). While I am not trying to defend Yahoo, I do not believe a part of your reasoning is correct here. First of all, Yahoo is independent from SBC (aka AT&T). I don't even see AT&T in the list of major stock holders: http://finance.yahoo.com/q/mh?s=YHOO Yes, Yahoo is reselling internet services for SBC/AT&T, but it is a business aliance only. (The same way Earthlink is reselling DSL and cable-modem connections from other providers). Second, I don't believe that the main reason of changing the name for SBC to AT&T is the bad reputation. Instead, it is a merger of the SBC (one of the baby-Bell) with the AT&T. - This is a part of reunification of the baby-Bell's. Of all those, very few (I think 3-4) are left: AT&T, BellSouth, Verizon, and I don't remember if Qwest is related to the old AT&T/Bell. Why did they choose AT&T and not SBC? AT&T is an older name, with long-term reputation (here is the only place where reputation of SBC might be contributing). Best, Igor
