3 ms·

"when AT&T was broken up in 1984, a torrent of new products came on the market, everything from the first answering machines to early ISPs." Since the RBOCs we

"when AT&T was broken up in 1984, a torrent of new products came on the market, everything from the first answering machines to early ISPs." Since the RBOCs were local monopolies, it wasn't the breakup which resulted in the opening of the network. They didn't have competition until 1996, when the local loop was unbundled, allowing CLECs to appear. The tradeoff was that if they could demonstrate local competition, they were allowed to enter the long distance market. It was FCC regulation which allowed interconnection of non-approved devices [1]. "In the 1960s and 1970s, the FCC gradually relaxed regulation of telephone terminal equipment (e.g., telephone handsets, private branch exchanges), known as customer premises equipment (CPE)." [1] https://www.nap.edu/read/10235/chapter/11#298 https://www.nap.edu/read/10235/chapter/11#298 [2] http://bpastudio.csudh.edu/fac/lpress/471/hout/telecomHistory/ http://bpastudio.csudh.edu/fac/lpress/471/hout/telecomHistor... [3] https://www.mackinac.org/6033 https://www.mackinac.org/6033

pitaj 8y ago
At&T was also a monopoly created by the government. It was in no way spontaneous.
dbt00 8y ago
I think the post you're responding to is thinking of the unleashing of non-Bell-owned equipment on AT&T lines. This was prohibited by AT&T until the FCC forced them to drop this provision. Commonly known as the Carterphone decision, this happened in 1968. Fax machines, modems, answering machines and other devices were mostly only possible after this change.
- jpollock 8y ago
  Correct, that is what they are referring to. However, they are directly linking it to the 1984 breakup, which was not what allowed it. Thanks for the name of the decision [1], I had a hard time finding a reference. :) So, yes, it's an argument for regulation, but not for breaking up a monopoly. :) There are many good reasons to break up monopolies, but their thesis is that the 1984 breakup led to the development of ISPs because people were all of a sudden allowed to plug random things into the network. [1] Carterfone Decision: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carterfone#Landmark_regulatory_decision https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carterfone#Landmark_regulatory...
  - graybored 8y ago
    case by case, maybe one is not directly linked to the other. however in the mindset of ATT and telco management, all these things are linked. It's like when Microsoft supported Apple or soft pedalled some of it's legal case against linux in the late 90s and early 2000s - it wasn't directly linked to the government suing them for bundling a web browser circa late 90s, but in the management of Microsoft, they had to gauge their decisions against whether the government might object to their behavior, essentially whether their "brand" with the government regulators would be damaged if they, say, systematically obliterated linux the way they did Dr Dos in the late 80s/early 90s.
extra88 8y ago
They had competition for long distance service from MCI and the like after the 1984 breakup.
- jpollock 8y ago
  Yes, but that's not the paragraph in the article. If they had talked about cost reduction and competition in long-distance, then sure. However, that wouldn't support their thesis. Their thesis is that looking at consumer cost reductions is the _wrong_ way to look at monopolies.

pitaj 8y ago

At&T was also a monopoly created by the government. It was in no way spontaneous.

dbt00 8y ago

I think the post you're responding to is thinking of the unleashing of non-Bell-owned equipment on AT&T lines. This was prohibited by AT&T until the FCC forced them to drop this provision. Commonly known as the Carterphone decision, this happened in 1968. Fax machines, modems, answering machines and other devices were mostly only possible after this change.

jpollock 8y ago
Correct, that is what they are referring to. However, they are directly linking it to the 1984 breakup, which was not what allowed it. Thanks for the name of the decision [1], I had a hard time finding a reference. :) So, yes, it's an argument for regulation, but not for breaking up a monopoly. :) There are many good reasons to break up monopolies, but their thesis is that the 1984 breakup led to the development of ISPs because people were all of a sudden allowed to plug random things into the network. [1] Carterfone Decision: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carterfone#Landmark_regulatory_decision https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carterfone#Landmark_regulatory...
- graybored 8y ago
  case by case, maybe one is not directly linked to the other. however in the mindset of ATT and telco management, all these things are linked. It's like when Microsoft supported Apple or soft pedalled some of it's legal case against linux in the late 90s and early 2000s - it wasn't directly linked to the government suing them for bundling a web browser circa late 90s, but in the management of Microsoft, they had to gauge their decisions against whether the government might object to their behavior, essentially whether their "brand" with the government regulators would be damaged if they, say, systematically obliterated linux the way they did Dr Dos in the late 80s/early 90s.

extra88 8y ago

They had competition for long distance service from MCI and the like after the 1984 breakup.

jpollock 8y ago
Yes, but that's not the paragraph in the article. If they had talked about cost reduction and competition in long-distance, then sure. However, that wouldn't support their thesis. Their thesis is that looking at consumer cost reductions is the _wrong_ way to look at monopolies.