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