When I got to GM they were using a matrix method of management which means everybody has more than one boss. I first heard about that system many years ago. It's supposed to help with collaboration, but my assessment is that it's pretty hard to get geared for action that way.

I was brought in by the White House as GM's chairman in 2009, around the time of the bankruptcy, and became CEO later that year. As a company, we were grateful for the government's support. But as GM's financial health began to improve, I could detect no real sense of urgency, or even interest, on the part of the government to relinquish control.

No partnership between two independent companies, no matter how well run, can match the speed, effectiveness, responsiveness and efficiency of a solely owned company.

We commend the commission, under the leadership of Chairman Martin, for recognizing the reality of today's communications marketplace and for fostering an environment where there will be greater choice in communications services and providers.

At AT&T, I learned an awful lot about people, and how important it is to have the right people in the right jobs. And when I say 'right people,' I'm not talking about their college degree or work history; I'm talking about things like bearing - How does this person interact with other people? Can he or she talk to you and not tick you off?

If someone wants to transmit a high-quality service with no interruptions and 'guaranteed this, guaranteed that,' they should be willing to pay for that.

I started at GM knowing very little about that particular business. Not being an expert means you have to learn everything, starting from the basics.