5 ms·

How an early telephone silencer took on AT&T

62 points by tintinnabula 10y ago

gcb0 10y ago
this is exactly the business model for Apple or Sony and nobody seems to care. and treat people that boycott such companies as crazy.
- delinka 10y ago
  Neither Apple nor Sony have monopolies. Their respective offerings have plenty of competition. This is why "nobody seems to care." Don't like Apple's walled garden? Go elsewhere.
  - gcb0 10y ago
    they "aim" for monopoly. They lock you in at every step they can. In hopes to archive monopoly, or quasi monopoly market cornering. ever since the walkman, sony tries to have a monopoly on media production. from betamax to memory stick cards to mini cd to blueray. oh, wait, they got it. what is the alternative to blueray when dvd goes away? Apple tried to do that with custom ports and data formats and now found the sweet spot with apps and media. Adobe also tried that with formats a while ago but is giving up.
alister 10y ago
> A modern analogy would be if AT&T was somehow able to ban putting protective cases on smartphones A couple decades ago, one of the telephone companies in Canada sued a business that was giving away free protective vinyl covers for printed telephone directories. The vinyl covers were plastered with ads[1], so the telephone company argued that it was theft from their business or an infringement. I don't recall how the case turned out. [1] Example: http://www.westsky.com/phbkcvr1.jpg http://www.westsky.com/phbkcvr1.jpg
userbinator 10y ago
No equipment, apparatus, circuit or device not furnished by the telephone company shall be attached to or connected with the facilities furnished by the telephone company, whether physically, by induction or otherwise That begs the question of whether, in some interpretation, the human holding it might also be considered a "device not furnished by the telephone company"...
- rzzzt 10y ago
  There is an acoustic coupler involved that converts the signal into electromagnetic waves.
tsomctl 10y ago
Interesting how it was used in Washington, DC (especially Congress) and New York, yet when it was banned by the FCC, Congress wasn't able to make it legal.
chiph 10y ago
Despite this ruling, for years the only way to get online was via an acoustic coupler (I used one to connect to CompuServe via Tymnet). In searching for images of them, I came across this set of someone connecting to a pay phone out of their van. I can't imagine how many quarters it took to get their email... Reposted on imgur to avoid hug-of-death: http://imgur.com/a/n4PMb http://imgur.com/a/n4PMb Original site: http://wrybread.com/WryRoad/gadgets/coupler.htm http://wrybread.com/WryRoad/gadgets/coupler.htm
- kalleboo 10y ago
  It sounds like preceding the Hush-A-Phone decision, even an acoustic coupler would have been against the terms of service
kalleboo 10y ago
And I always thought the landmark telephony "net neutrality" decision was Carterfone https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carterfone https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carterfone

62 points by tintinnabula 10y ago

gcb0 10y ago

this is exactly the business model for Apple or Sony and nobody seems to care. and treat people that boycott such companies as crazy.

delinka 10y ago
Neither Apple nor Sony have monopolies. Their respective offerings have plenty of competition. This is why "nobody seems to care." Don't like Apple's walled garden? Go elsewhere.
- gcb0 10y ago
  they "aim" for monopoly. They lock you in at every step they can. In hopes to archive monopoly, or quasi monopoly market cornering. ever since the walkman, sony tries to have a monopoly on media production. from betamax to memory stick cards to mini cd to blueray. oh, wait, they got it. what is the alternative to blueray when dvd goes away? Apple tried to do that with custom ports and data formats and now found the sweet spot with apps and media. Adobe also tried that with formats a while ago but is giving up.

alister 10y ago

> A modern analogy would be if AT&T was somehow able to ban putting protective cases on smartphones A couple decades ago, one of the telephone companies in Canada sued a business that was giving away free protective vinyl covers for printed telephone directories. The vinyl covers were plastered with ads[1], so the telephone company argued that it was theft from their business or an infringement. I don't recall how the case turned out. [1] Example: http://www.westsky.com/phbkcvr1.jpg http://www.westsky.com/phbkcvr1.jpg

userbinator 10y ago

No equipment, apparatus, circuit or device not furnished by the telephone company shall be attached to or connected with the facilities furnished by the telephone company, whether physically, by induction or otherwise That begs the question of whether, in some interpretation, the human holding it might also be considered a "device not furnished by the telephone company"...

rzzzt 10y ago
There is an acoustic coupler involved that converts the signal into electromagnetic waves.

tsomctl 10y ago

Interesting how it was used in Washington, DC (especially Congress) and New York, yet when it was banned by the FCC, Congress wasn't able to make it legal.

chiph 10y ago

Despite this ruling, for years the only way to get online was via an acoustic coupler (I used one to connect to CompuServe via Tymnet). In searching for images of them, I came across this set of someone connecting to a pay phone out of their van. I can't imagine how many quarters it took to get their email... Reposted on imgur to avoid hug-of-death: http://imgur.com/a/n4PMb http://imgur.com/a/n4PMb Original site: http://wrybread.com/WryRoad/gadgets/coupler.htm http://wrybread.com/WryRoad/gadgets/coupler.htm

kalleboo 10y ago
It sounds like preceding the Hush-A-Phone decision, even an acoustic coupler would have been against the terms of service

kalleboo 10y ago

And I always thought the landmark telephony "net neutrality" decision was Carterfone https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carterfone https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carterfone