Talk:US West

This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Telecommunications: Bell System

	Telecommunication portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Telecommunications, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Telecommunications on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.TelecommunicationsWikipedia:WikiProject TelecommunicationsTemplate:WikiProject TelecommunicationsTelecommunications articles
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by the Bell System task force.

United States Low‑importance

	United States portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions. Template Usage Articles Requested! Become a Member Project Talk Alerts United StatesWikipedia:WikiProject United StatesTemplate:WikiProject United StatesUnited States articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article has been automatically rated by a bot or other tool because one or more other projects use this class. Please ensure the assessment is correct before removing the `\|auto=` parameter.

Significant Contributions

I lived in Denver from 1981 until 2000 and twice in my time there, worked for either US West as a small business sales consultant and for US West Cellular as a technician. If anyone notices or cares, I've added a significant amount of content that I learned both from personal experience and from keeping an extremely (almost neurotic)eye on the company throughout its sometimes tumultuous history. I also added a lot of it because I felt that some of the information was either inaccurate or extremely vague. For example, US West was hostiley taken over by Qwest even though Qwest now denies this. [1]. Also Qwest had been having SIGNIFICANT problems obtaining cooperation from U S West in various enter-to-market business dealings and Qwest and other carries complained loudly during much of hte late 1990s about this to the FCC and in the press. There was definitely a lot of corporate mudslinging that went on afterwards and questionable professionalism when the change-over happened. I am open to responding to anything I've written in this talk page.

Also, I think this page should be moved to US West Communications

It has been 5 years since I wrote this article and now after having been involved in the wiki community for as long as I have; I acknowledge this article is horribly written and not at all up to wiki standards. Julienpdx (talk) 22:46, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

From Someone else

I corrected the text on USW's all electronic switching network. The last analog switch (a 1AESS) was cutover in Lewiston, ID in 2001 or 2002. The 1990 date must refer to replacement of mechanical switching systems ("Project Avalanche" in PNB area), which were SXS (No. 355 CDOs or like).
Criticisms section could use fleshing out, particularly on "Reengineering" and its internal & external problems (the customer service & state issues mentioned), USW's Great Leap Forward (with all the success of the original) to change many aspects of itself, including consolidation of support services to "Megacenters", computerization of records, changing how work was done, and reducing staffing levels, all at the same time.
After the split of MediaOne and USWC, USW dropped "Communications" from its name and branded itself as US West.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was move. —Nightst a llion (?) 08:57, 2 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

name

Why is this page US West (phone company) not US West? I can't think of any reason that it needs (phone company) in the title, especially since the exact name (US West) redirects here. Cacophony 18:17, 28 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This is a standard reflexive redirect that needs to be fixed by an admin. Since this is a non-controversial move, I am not creating a voting section - if anyone opposes, please discuss first! --Lox (t,c) 21:48, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

I realy don't appreciate these commands from people using wiki codes to make them sound so official. This article needs to stay where it is, redirecting it to Qwest is misleading and inapprporiate. I did not spend hours writing this article to have people continue to change its direction. At the top of this article, it says the new company is Qwest and it says so even in the body of the article. YOU please do not modify!--Julien Deveraux 05:06, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move

The following is a closed discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the proposal was no move performed, consensus. Teke^(talk) 05:54, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

US West → U S West — The correct legal name of the company was U S West, not US West as the title of the article implies. This article already exists; however, it redirects to the US West article; however, all content on that article should be moved to U S West. KansasCity 05:41, 25 February 2007 (UTC) copied from WP:RM Bobblehead 06:27, 25 February 2007 (UTC) [reply]

Survey

Add # '''Support''' or # '''Oppose''' on a new line in the appropriate section followed by a brief explanation, then sign your opinion using ~~~~. Please remember that this survey is not a vote, and please provide an explanation for your recommendation.

Survey - in support of the move

Survey - in opposition to the move

Oppose - U S West may be the legal name (Actually, it's U S West Inc), but the common name for the company was US West. --Bobblehead 06:30, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - smells awfully like a "stylized typography" to me. Chris cheese whine 00:21, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - US west is what the majority of English speakers would most easily recognize.

Discussion

Add any additional comments:

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Serious problems

This article has some serious issues that need work. Among them I see:

Copyediting, especially for diction consistant with the tone, diction, and structure of encyclopedic articles
- Their lead in this push became one that many other Regional Bell Operating Companies had to scramble to keep up with.
Grammar and punctuation errors.
Original research
- Much of US West's success in this endeavor was for multiple reasons
- Courts were slow to do much about this because at the time, the full "letter of the law" of the 1996 Act had no precedence.
Unattributed statements of questionable accuracy
- While the company often cited that subscriber demands were oftentimes greater than their abilities to fulfill orders, many critics pointed to their high profit margins, spending on bring-to-market technology and lackluster investment in customer support as evidence to the contrary and accused the company of monopoly-like practices.
- (They were the first communications provider to use this strategy now called beta-testing).
Not adhering to neutral point of view
- As a result of its rapid "bring-to-market" abilities and continued success in the advances in technology
- In business-to-business matters, US West also had a rather sullied reputation shortly before its demise.

Now, of course, the examples given certainly aren't the only instances of each problem (just examples). I'll try to help when I can. /Blaxthos 03:40, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Qwest/U. S. West Merger

In a recent edit, an editor made the statement "U S WEST was never renamed Qwest; it was legally absorbed into Qwest". At the time of the Qwest Communications International Inc./US West, Inc. merger, the surviving legal entity was US West, Inc. Qwest Communications International Inc. was dissolved as a legal entity, then US West, Inc. immediately filed documents with the Delaware Corporation Commission to change its name to Qwest Communications International, Inc. Pre merger, Qwest was traded on the NASDAQ and USW was traded on the NYSE. By keeping USW as the surviving legal entity, the merged company could keep its NYSE listing. (In addition to changing its name, USW changed it's NYSE stock ticker to "Q", something it couldn't have done if QCII had survived as a legal entity because all NASDAQ tickers are four characters.) If the editor's statement quoted above were true (that "USW was legally absorbed into Qwest") then the merged company would have had to keep pre-merger Qwest's NASDAQ listing and its NASDAQ stock ticker of QWST. If U S West, Inc. had legally ceased to exist, the NYSE listing would have gone away with it. Ch Th Jo (talk) 19:32, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Global Crossing

There is no article on the effort to merge Global Crossing with USWest.

That effort was even more scandalous in hindsight than the loaning of money to Qwest to "merge" with USWest.

The stock valuation history tells part of the story.

One party has since endeavoured to be indentified as a philanthropist using monies gained through the "merger" which left stockholders empty-handed.

156.57.115.173 (talk) 23:07, 23 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]