4 ms·

No, GP is not saying 'down with capitalism.' They're saying 'down with restrictive terms of service similar in scope to the prevention of the Hush-A-Phone from

No, GP is not saying 'down with capitalism.' They're saying 'down with restrictive terms of service similar in scope to the prevention of the Hush-A-Phone from being used on the Bell System in the 1950s.' Which, well, is pretty much the opposite of 'down with capitalism:' The restriction from connecting your own devices to the Bell System forestalled the production, sale, and invention of devices such as the answering machine (Bell invented one in 1930, along with magnetic storage - but scrapped the project because they thought it would cause people to use the phone less), fax machine, and so on and so forth. The 1956 ruling against Bell in favor of Hush-A-Phone effectively allowed the invention, sale, and use of foreign attachments to the Bell System. The restriction of doing what you want with your own console/computer is essentially the same damn thing. We've already fought this war against monopolists in technology; it's sad that we have to do it all over again. Further reading: Hush-A-Phone vs. United States (Hush-A-Phone appeal to an FCC ruling): http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hush-A-Phone_v._United_States http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hush-A-Phone_v._United_States The Master Switch (Tim Wu): http://www.amazon.com/Master-Switch-Information-Empires-Borzoi/dp/0307269930 http://www.amazon.com/Master-Switch-Information-Empires-Borz...

dhimes 15y ago
OT, but: As I recall, it was the breakup of the Bell monopoly which ushered in the new devices. Until then, I don't think you could even own a phone. You had to lease. I was pretty young then, but I do remember that after the breakup the market saw a rush of new phone devices.
- wrs 15y ago
  It's true. In fact, some people still rent their phones. http://blogs.computerworld.com/node/3538 http://blogs.computerworld.com/node/3538 I still have the first phone I ever bought, in 1985 right after the rules changed. (And because it was made by Western Electric in the good old days, it still works!)
- jonprins 15y ago
  Not really. The breakup of the Bell monopoly helped, but Hush-a-Phone vs. US helped set the stage for competing long distance carriers like MCI. It set the stage for devices like the Carterfone ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carterfone http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carterfone ). Things really didn't take off much until the breakup, because of the monopolistic practices of Ma Bell; even though interconnect was legal, they brought insane market pressure to bear.
  - dhimes 15y ago
    I agree with your last sentence.

dhimes 15y ago

OT, but: As I recall, it was the breakup of the Bell monopoly which ushered in the new devices. Until then, I don't think you could even own a phone. You had to lease. I was pretty young then, but I do remember that after the breakup the market saw a rush of new phone devices.

wrs 15y ago
It's true. In fact, some people still rent their phones. http://blogs.computerworld.com/node/3538 http://blogs.computerworld.com/node/3538 I still have the first phone I ever bought, in 1985 right after the rules changed. (And because it was made by Western Electric in the good old days, it still works!)
jonprins 15y ago
Not really. The breakup of the Bell monopoly helped, but Hush-a-Phone vs. US helped set the stage for competing long distance carriers like MCI. It set the stage for devices like the Carterfone ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carterfone http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carterfone ). Things really didn't take off much until the breakup, because of the monopolistic practices of Ma Bell; even though interconnect was legal, they brought insane market pressure to bear.
- dhimes 15y ago
  I agree with your last sentence.