Att Swot
ATT SWOT Analysis
Eddie Granados
Professor Dhaliwal
Business 115
12 June 2008
ATT SWOT Analysis By much research, ATT has had opposition in the past which at times would end up in merger with another company. Many times small phone companies can not compete with ATT and thus kneel to them and soon become a part of the family of the biggest telecommunications giant this world has ever seen. We can see by the current merger of SBC and the Global name of ATT has given the public a misconception that ATT was bought out yet in all fairness it seems that ATT had the upper hand due to it’s strong name known all around the world. This was considered a weakness in my review. But this weakness can actually be strength due to the bonding and assets of two companies that really once was the same ATT we seen fifteen years ago when the Telecommunications act in 1996 prevented ATT from being a world conglomerate (Sirota 1999). Another weakness that can be said of ATT is their lack of Voice over Internet Protocol. Many companies have gone and used the internet to give people the chance it’s full potential and incur long distance charges. This has left ATT astounded due to the fact a missed opportunity went below the radar (Dinan 2008).
What needs improving you may ask. The customer service that was built for the Iphone build and DSL support was dismal (Hunter 2007). ATT was able to change their philosophy on local customer service as opposed to off-shore help from other countries that could barely speak English. Some people would think that is just a simple requirement that was really over looked when compared to the cost ATT saved at that moment.
Current opportunities with ATT have made segway with current advances in IP services. With ATT’s backbone and infrastructure it is well capable of fueling the internet and expanding its new acquisition of the Iphone, which could provide additional IP addresses for its online capability (Masud 2002). Having
Eddie Granados
Professor Dhaliwal
Business 115
12 June 2008
ATT SWOT Analysis By much research, ATT has had opposition in the past which at times would end up in merger with another company. Many times small phone companies can not compete with ATT and thus kneel to them and soon become a part of the family of the biggest telecommunications giant this world has ever seen. We can see by the current merger of SBC and the Global name of ATT has given the public a misconception that ATT was bought out yet in all fairness it seems that ATT had the upper hand due to it’s strong name known all around the world. This was considered a weakness in my review. But this weakness can actually be strength due to the bonding and assets of two companies that really once was the same ATT we seen fifteen years ago when the Telecommunications act in 1996 prevented ATT from being a world conglomerate (Sirota 1999). Another weakness that can be said of ATT is their lack of Voice over Internet Protocol. Many companies have gone and used the internet to give people the chance it’s full potential and incur long distance charges. This has left ATT astounded due to the fact a missed opportunity went below the radar (Dinan 2008).
What needs improving you may ask. The customer service that was built for the Iphone build and DSL support was dismal (Hunter 2007). ATT was able to change their philosophy on local customer service as opposed to off-shore help from other countries that could barely speak English. Some people would think that is just a simple requirement that was really over looked when compared to the cost ATT saved at that moment.
Current opportunities with ATT have made segway with current advances in IP services. With ATT’s backbone and infrastructure it is well capable of fueling the internet and expanding its new acquisition of the Iphone, which could provide additional IP addresses for its online capability (Masud 2002). Having
Cited: Sirota, William. "The Telecommunications Act of 1996: A Commentary on What Is Really Going on Here." 31 Oct. 1999. Accessed 09 June 2008 <http://www.watpa.org/telcom.html >.