Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/18/84; site brl-tgr.ARPA Path: utzoo!linus!philabs!cmcl2!seismo!brl-tgr!ron From: ron@brl-tgr.ARPA (Ron Natalie) Newsgroups: net.consumers Subject: Re: Telephone Rate Hike - Pacific Bell (recording conversations) Message-ID: <581@brl-tgr.ARPA> Date: Fri, 9-Aug-85 14:43:52 EDT Article-I.D.: brl-tgr.581 Posted: Fri Aug 9 14:43:52 1985 Date-Received: Mon, 12-Aug-85 20:42:50 EDT References: <1845@amdahl.UUCP> <69600027@hp-pcd.UUCP> <10892@rochester.UUCP> <308@tove.UUCP> <647@ttidcc.UUCP> Organization: Ballistic Research Lab Lines: 15 > The question about acoustic vs. electrical connection comes from a landmark > court case some years ago known as the Carterphone Decision. This involved > a telephone answering machine that was acoustically connected to the > telephone. Basically, this was the first non-AT&T manufactured equipment > that could be legally connected to the telephone network and was the > entering wedge for 3rd-party telephone equipment suppliers. They got away > with it by not being electrically connected to the network, thus posing no > shock hazard to AT&T maintenance workers (AT&T's main excuse for > prohibiting 3rd party suppliers). Later AT&T had to publish electrical > standards for connection for use by third-party suppliers. > Carterfone was not an answering machine but an accoustic coupler for making radio phonepatches. -Ron