Slashdot Mirror


40 Years After Carterphone Ended AT&T Equipment Monopoly

fm6 writes "Wednesday was the 40th anniversary of the Carterfone Decision which brought to an end AT&T's monopoly on telephone terminal equipment. Ars Technica has an opinionated but informative backgrounder on this landmark, which pretty much created the telecommunications world as we currently know it."

18 of 132 comments (clear)

  1. we're the phone company by jacquesm · · Score: 5, Insightful

    We don't care. We don't have to...

    Now if only they would get rid of all those dial up lines for internet access in rural areas.

    It's really amazing that phone companies still don't have mandatory minimal access levels for net access outside major metropolitan areas.

    It's getting better, but oh so slow. And in those areas where there is little or no competition 28.8 is still the standard.

    1. Re:we're the phone company by Yez70 · · Score: 5, Interesting

      They should establish basic service for everyone. You or I consider broadband as basic service and we all pay the Universal Service Fee on our bills. That money is meant to provide basic service to everyone, particularly in the rural areas. We paid for those lines to be built and we are still paying to keep them maintained. The phone companies, on the other hand, are doing their absolute best to NOT spend the money as they are supposed to spend it. Instead they quote numbers like it costs us $13,000 per phone line per year to get service to people who live in the woods. I don't know about you, but if I was being given $13 grand a year per household to get people phone service, I'd happily erect a cellular tower to cover 50 people and give them wireless broadband. It's time we abandon wireline service, especially in rural areas and force the telcos to refocus their efforts on updated technologies.

    2. Re:we're the phone company by 54mc · · Score: 5, Funny

      And if you want to eat the bread made from the wheat grown in my fields, you'll run an OC 12 line to my farmhouse.

      --
      Joy! Beautiful spark of the gods!
  2. Why? by msauve · · Score: 5, Funny

    You don't know how to sign you name?

    --
    "National Security is the chief cause of national insecurity." - Celine's First Law
  3. From AT&T to at&t (Colbert explains) by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

    Colbert explains how the old AT&T re-grouped/formed.

    (Is it really that bad? All Baby Bells are back together?)

  4. how carter won by trb · · Score: 5, Informative
    If I recall, this is how Carter won that suit. AT&T always claimed that they were concerned that if competitors connected their hardware to the AT&T network that they might damage the network with badly coupled electrical loads, see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ringer_equivalence_number

    Carterphone had a device where the handset sat in the cradle of their device, it worked in a similar manner to the later acoustically coupled modems, see: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Acoustic_coupler

    So there was no electrical connection (coupling) between the Carter device and the phone. The device had a cradle that the handset sat in, coupling the mic and the speaker. The AT&T lawyers said, well, your device is touching our handset. So Carter lifted the handset an inch out of the coupler, and said, is this too close? The AT&T lawyer said yes. So Carter carried his device across the room and said is this too close? The lawyer said no. Then Carter moved closer and closer, and AT&T's defense crumbled.

    1. Re:how carter won by Free+the+Cowards · · Score: 4, Informative

      Everybody seems to be confused about what this decision was. This was not the decision that broke up AT&T. This was the decision that allowed people to purchase telephones from companies other than AT&T. Note, not telephone service, juts plain telephones. Before this decision, you had to buy (or more likely, rent) all of your telephone equipment from the phone company.

      As for the rest, what are you smoking? I can get a phone line for under $20/month, and that's 2008 money. Try doing that before the breakup. I can get plans for under $50/month that give me unlimited calling anywhere in the country. Try that before the breakup.

      --
      If you mod me Overrated, you are admitting that you have no penis.
    2. Re:how carter won by wljones · · Score: 5, Interesting

      The Carterphone case was covered in my college telecommunications course. Dr. Baker made two points not mentioned in Slashdot. First, Tom Carter knew he did not have the resources to fight Ma Bell (AT&T for the nickname challenged). He asked the oil drilling industry for help, and received all he needed. The Carterphone was critical to the drilling business. Second, Dr. Baker stated that AT&T had a history of fighting the wrong lawsuits for the wrong reasons. Had they simply allowed acoustic coupling with no electronic attachment, the Carterphone would have satisfied customer needs, and the attached equipment monopoly would still exist. AT&T fought it, lost heavily, made unwelcome enemies, and left themselves open to the later lawsuit which destroyed their communications monopoly.

  5. Re:It's a good thing... by jcr · · Score: 5, Insightful

    The breakup was wrong and politically motivated.

    Politically motivated perhaps, but it was still the right thing to do. One has only to look at costs before and after the monopoly to realize that AT&T was one more example of a state-granted monopoly that charged its customers far more than they would have paid in a free market.

    -jcr

    --
    The only title of honor that a tyrant can grant is "Enemy of the State."
  6. Phone cops by michaelmalak · · Score: 5, Interesting
    I was going to post a link to a YouTube where Johnny Fever jumped behind a sofa to hide from the Phone Cops -- to illustrate to the youngun's how it was once illegal to have personally-owned phones that weren't leased from AT&T. It was to illustrate how society had changed.

    But the YouTube link I found on Google says "This video is no longer available due to a copyright claim by Twentieth Century Fox Film Corporation". So now we have Video Cops instead of Phone Cops.

    We can't even talk about monopolies of the past due to monopolies of the present.

  7. "Political" Nonsense by fm6 · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Your history is a little off. First off, AT&T did step out of line, and repeatedly. RTFA.

    Second, AT&T chose to break up. OK, technically, they were being litigated by the anti-trust cops, but they'd managed to drag it out for 8 years. At which time, the White House was inhabited by Ronald Reagan, not exactly a fiend for fighting big business.

    But AT&T's management decided that a breakup, if done on their terms, would turn into a bonanza. The anti-trust people wanted them to get out of the hardware business. Instead, they got to keep their hardware business and spin off their local operating companies instead. This voided the 1956 consent decreee (imposed on them by another anti-business radical, Eisenhower) that limited their businesses to "common carrier" stuff. This allowed them to launch a number of initiatives based on all that technology they were now free to apply commercially. A prime example: UNIX.

    Alas they never managed to make much money off of UNIX, or any of the other enterprises they started. Technology isn't worth much if you have no business sense.

    One more quibble, this time with your definition of "politically motivated". The breakup was driven by justice department civil servants, and actually happened under a pro-business administration. If there was politics involved it was the make the breakup more like the one AT&T wanted.

    1. Re:"Political" Nonsense by fm6 · · Score: 4, Informative

      As I recall, Lucent wasn't called Lucent until AT&T spun it off. And that business wasn't profitable until AT&T got rid of it. People who were competing with AT&T weren't interested in buying hardware from AT&T. At least, that was the reason they gave when they spun it off. Possibly Lucent just needed to get out from under AT&T's inept management.

      Another detail: however much money has been made putting Unix into phone switches is a tiny fraction of what AT&T hoped to make when they were allowed to turn Unix into a commercial product. AT&T spent something like a billion dollars having a company I worked for build 68010-based Unix systems that were designed to compete directly against IBM-compatibles. Never sold a one. Actually, according to one of my sources, they never even tried: their strategy changed and they abandoned the product.

      They must have made some money licensing Unix to companies like Sun and IBM. But not a fraction of what they hoped when they decided to give up being a common carrier.

      Coincidentally, some 15 years later I briefly worked for Microport, which was a major vendor of UnixWare, the pathetic little descendent of AT&T's big plans for Unix (by then owned by SCO). What percentage of UnixWare buyers were telcos? 100%, or something like it.

  8. AT&T/Bell Labs: the rest of the story by tverbeek · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Some key implications of the Carterfone decision on Bell Labs were overlooked by this article. As it mentioned, the same consent degree that previously granted AT&T its network monopoly also prevented it from commercializing its other activities. It was largely because of this limitation that a certain operating system developed at AT&T's Bell Labs in those days was not exploited commercially, but was instead openly passed around academia like a joint at a pot party. Only some time after Carterfone, as AT&T started to shake off that consent decree and start commercializing the work of Bell Labs, did it start to exercise its copyrights to that OS, and by that time the Berkeley distro had already been hatched, and unix was out of the barn. In other words: *BSD, Linux, and OS X ironically owe their existence to the pre-Carterfone AT&T monopoly. They probably would not have come into being if that decision had been made earlier, because Unix would have been treated as something to be commercialized (or at least denied to the public) from the beginning.

    --
    http://alternatives.rzero.com/
  9. The monopoly breakup history is very simple... by VValdo · · Score: 4, Informative

    You of course already know how a monopoly is broken because it happens so frequently. Y'know, cuz like... it's always in the news that our government breaks monothic companies like Microsoft or Halliburton into pieces to foster competition, create free markets, and promote options for the consumer.

    Regardless, here is a handy chart to illustrate how Ma Bell was broken up in '84 and what has happened since. Stephen Colbert broke it down nicely here, although that link has been removed do to copyright claims by Viacom, one of our six global media conglomerates.

    Thank goodness you can still watch it in Canada.

    Of all the AT&T derivatives... we know Qwest didn't spy on us. So that's one.

    W

    --
    -------------------
    This is my SIG. There are many like it, but this one is mine.
  10. Re:Everyone should have an old touch tone phone by EdIII · · Score: 4, Interesting

    I had heard that plenty of cell towers were still active during Katrina for 48+ hours afterwards. I dunno what percentage of cell towers have battery backed up UPS power supplies, but to my knowledge they are pretty common now. I've personally seen a couple of towers here locally, and they all had battery back up for at least 24 hours and one tower had a hook up to a generator.

    Personally, if I ever had a large-scale emergency I would just run down to my data center. It has a very well equipped security force, unlimited diesel fuel contract providing emergency power, redundant internet, redundant air condition, and UPS redundant power circuits to every cage. I'm pretty sure that I would be able to communicate from there. If I couldn't do that, I would think that the emergency might be REALLY big.

  11. Actually no by tkrotchko · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Telecommunications under the old AT&T was such a primitive set of technologies that it hadn't changed appreciably from a consumer viewpoint in 80 years.

    Yes, it was reliable, yes, the service guy came out when he said he would, but we were paying $20/month plus we paid for each extension, plus we couldn't have our own phone, so we paid $1/month for a 2nd phone. For 20 years. This is in 1960 dollars. That's like paying $100 per month for a phone today.

    Oh, and long distance was dollars per minutes, lousy quality. It was so expensive, that you played games with "person to person" long distance when you wanted to let people know you'd arrived. "I'll call and if I ask for 'Thelma', everything is fine, if I ask for 'Louise', it means the car broke down and you should accept the call".

    Since the breakup, phone costs went down, the internet was allowed to get started because nobody could charge you $400/month for a modem line. All kinds of innovative devices are available, and now I have fiber to my house. The communications world is infinitely better off from the consumer's viewpoint than it was 20-30 years ago. I mean, it isn't even close. From all your comments, I have to assume that you worked for the old phone company? I can appreciate that it was a great place to work, but it came at a very high cost to society.

    --
    You were mistaken. Which is odd, since memory shouldn't be a problem for you
  12. Re:It's a good thing... by khallow · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Sorry, *no one* can convince me otherwise, ever.

    Welp. All I can say, is if you can look at the diseased state of the old AT&T monopoly and think it's better than the amazing things that have happened due to that breakup with both the telecommunications industry and the internet, then you are stupid. As they say, you can't fix stupid.

    Here's how I see it, my brother has been employed most of his adult life by Spectralink, a company that makes communication systems for workplaces at the building and campus-level. That job and that business only existed because AT&T's monopoly had been taken apart. My family uses cell phones talk to each other any time and any place civilized. The end of the AT&T monopoly (and the corresponding destruction of the state monopolies in Europe) paved the way for this technology to exist. I connect now to the internet through services that wouldn't have existed in an AT&T monopoly. That's the bald truth. AT&T held us back. It along with the rest of the telecommunication industry helps us now.

    Maybe you were an employee. All I can say is that it's not fair to impose a monopoly on everyone else just so AT&T employees can be well paid.

  13. "Carterfone", not Carterphone" by 1u3hr · · Score: 4, Insightful
    Headline is "40 Years After Carterphone Ended..."

    TFA (corerctly" has "Wednesday was the 40th anniversary of the Carterfone Decision..."

    Well done Timothy. All you had to do was cut and paste, but you had to try to type.