Any lawful device: Revisiting Carterfone [telecom]

Any lawful device: Revisiting Carterfone on the eve of the Net Neutrality vote

From the archives: An old FCC decision provides perspective for what

the Commission is doing now.

By Matthew Lasar

Nearly 50 years ago, the Federal Communications Commission issued one of the most important Orders in its history, a ruling that went unnoticed by most news sources at the time. It involved an application manufactured and distributed by one Mr. Thomas Carter of Texas. The "Carterfone" allowed users to attach a two-way radio transmitter/ receiver to their telephone, extending its reach across sprawling Texas oil fields where managers and supervisors needed to stay in touch. Between 1955 and 1966, Carter's company sold about 3,500 of these apps around the United States and well beyond.

In the end, however, Carterfone's significance extends far beyond the convenience that Thomas Carter's machine provided its users over a decade. It is no exaggeration to say that the world that Ars Technica writes about was created, in good part, by the legal battle between Carter, AT&T, and the FCC's resolution of that fight - its Carterfone decision. The Carterfone saga starts as the appealing tale of one developer's willingness to stick to his guns. But it is really about the victory of two indispensable values: creativity and sharing.

formatting link

Reply to
Bill Horne
Loading thread data ...

This is only half the story. Here is the other half:

Until Carterphone, federal and state regulators _deliberately_ created various telephone company policies to serve the social interest. Specifically, everyone agreed that universal service-- providing very low cost telephone service so it was affordable by many people--was a desirable social goal. However, to widely offer service at $3/month (which included a durable telephone set and all wiring and set maintenance) required a subsidy. That subsidy came--deliberately--from pricing other telephone services at a high profit.

When the telephone companies (both Bell and independent) recognized the world was changing, they prepared to change their world, too. For instance, in the 1970s, Bell planned to eliminate flat rate pricing for all plans. Western Electric developed new CAMA technology to track local calls on step-by-step offices*. However, beyond a few trial places, this policy was not implemented.

One policy that was widely implemented was changing for Directory Assistance calls.

This is covered in detail in the good book, "Heritage and Destiny: Reflections on the Bell System in Transition" by Alvin Von Auw.

  • A description of the new CAMA equipment may be found in:

formatting link

P.S. The Bell System did allow certain customer owned equipment to be connected to its network. This included public address systems connected to the switchboard and dial controlled dictation machines.

Reply to
HAncock4

This article makes the statement, "AT&T should never have been allowed to own Western Electric in the first place", and that is incorrect.

In the past, many companies were vertically integrated, that is, they owned the manufacturing, sales, and service divisions. So, it was not unusual that AT&T owned Western Electric.

Further, Western Electric was more than just manufacturing. AT&T delegated procurement and installation to W/E as well, functions that other companies did in-house. W/E saved money by utilizing substantial economies of scale in both manufacturing and procurement.

In my personal opinion, Western Electric equipment was superior to that of other telephone manufacturers, such as Automatic Electric, Kellogg, and Stromberg Carlson.

There is one other key issue: government policy dictated that the Bell System depreciate its equipment over a long period of time. Accordingly, Bell built its equipment to last for a long period of time. We can see that by the following Bell advertising, one from 1948, one from 1966: (This was a frequent theme).

(LIFE 12/6/1948 "We expected this")

formatting link

(LIFE 7/22/1966) "You don't have to worry about a Bell Telephone"

formatting link

This business model worked well for Bell and its customers for decades. However, by the late 1960s onward, society was rapidly changing, and consumers were no longer satisfied with the status-quo. They were tired of the same old black rotary dial set (and plenty of the older 302 sets remained in service in the 1960s). Most significantly, people didn't mind spending $10 for a cheap poor quality telephone--even if it only lasted a year or so (which was often the case), they still felt they were ahead of the game over paying $1/month forever to rent a boring black W/E set.

Likewise, the business community wanted more sophistication in its telephone systems. The Bell Labs history admits development lagged behind foreign competition. Bell had several electronic PBX systems for business (800 series, Dimension), but apparently many business customers wanted more "glitz" (whether that glitz actually served their needs is another story.)

Had there not been a Divestiture, changing market forces and consumer desires would have resulted in a very different AT&T today. As von Auw's book explains, AT&T recognized in the 1970s that renting a telephone set--and providing full maintenance for it and the associated wiring--was no longer economical.

A key question never answered was if government regulation would've allowed the Bell System to compete on a level playing field against the newcomers. That is, for Bell to charge market rates for its services rather than rates designed for cross-subsidy or universal service.

Reply to
HAncock4

Cabling-Design.com Forums website is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.