An article at Geek News Central comments on the possible Bell re-merger. The article notes the ironic fact that breaking up AT&T and the Bells actually resulted in a stronger AT&T. I'm not sure why this is surprising, unless you fall for the "anyone who has a majority of the market is a monopoly" definition.
In a free market, monopolies only exist when they are established and supported legally ... in other words, they need government help to be viable. They need this help, typically, because they are not competitive. If you force them to compete, they grow stronger (as we all learned in elementary school lessons in evolution.)
If you supported breaking up the Bells in '82 ... you didn't have to break them up. All you had to do was remove the protection. You forced them to compete. Why complain now about the inevitable consequences?
You want to be worried about something? The author specifically mentions his time selling MCI. MCI used to be a service to allow trucks to communicate. Some guy had the bright, but extremely risky idea of converting that to a long-distance service. In order to finance such a risky venture, one extremely creative financier came up with a new financial tool. His reward? Rudy Guiliani manipulated him into prison. Guiliani's reward was to be voted mayor of New York City. What do you think that did for competition?
Give me all the "monopolies" you want. Protect me from overzealous politicians with broadly-reaching laws and a culture that thinks that Capitalism is intrinsically evil.
As for AT&T ... their re-merger will either result in better products or a weaker company, provided they are not granted government protection in the market. Either way, I win, so what's the big deal?