I'm amazed at the shallowness of some of the comments on this board. How 'bout some facts instead of the "my teams better than your team, neener, neener, neener" stuff.
I'm more interested in hearing why AT&T is going up or down, rather than vague comparisons with flash in the pan companies like Netscape.
I find it actually quite amazing what little credit AT&T is given considering that they've managed to survive for a mere 100 years or so although, granted, most of which was a monopolistic era. However I do think it's unfair to compare them to the likes of virtual start-ups like Worldcom.
I agree that AT&T is usually behind the times, but they also have the luxury to do so because they have the Cash to buy in later. It's actually no different than what Microsoft's been doing for years: Let small start-ups come up with the innovative ideas and then move in and either buy them outright, or else develop a similar product and run them in the ground.
Personally, I'm bullish on AT&T for, if nothing else, the fact that Bob Allen is gone. "HE" was the one who waited too long on getting into Cellular, even though AT&T was the one who invented the Technology. Thus he ended up paying a major premium for McCaw. He can also be credited with turning a profitable company (NCR) unprofitable. But his biggest flaw may have been that he was too reluctant to blow smoke up the analysts' asses, which needs to be done from time to time, if for no other reason, to give them something to write about. Instead it was constantly construed that AT&T had no direction.
At least now, Mr. Armstrong appears to have a plan (cutting Universal Card, reducing costs, working on a merger, etc.) so at least there appears to be direction.
Oh well, that's my 2 cents, and again let's try to exchange reasons along with our specs.