As I sit here, writing this blog on my laptop, I can't help but fathom the ingenuity that has brought us from writing with quill and paper to posting a message like this on the internet for hundreds of thousands, no millions of people to see. Over the 150 or so years that it took to span that technological gap, inventors were continuously building new devices and modifying old ones, turning “the cycle” that, as Eugene Wu describes in his book The Master Switch, governs the life of all innovations. The cycle, Wu says, is founded on the principle that every so often, a new piece of equipment will come around, rendering its predecessor obsolete. This new, “disruptive” innovation will then go on to function until it too is replaced by something even better. So, on and on the cycle turns, knocking out a dated technology, and sometimes even a company, with each revolution. Over time, however, corporations, obviously wanting to stay in business, did their best to block out the competition and any new innovations that threatened their market. The result was a monopoly that prevented few, if any, innovators from producing their ideas.
Since its founding in 1885, AT&T maintained a monopoly over the phone service industry until its split in the mid 1980’s. During its golden years, however, AT&T, as part of an agreement with the government, used a rule to prevent inventors from modifying the telephone. Specifically, the rule required that “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” (Wu 102). Yet several small businesses tried their luck against AT&T with little avail. The exception, Hush-A-Phone Incorporated, was a two-man team that marketed a small, rubber cup that fit over the mouth piece of a phone. According to the company motto, Hush-A-Phone was designed to “‘[Make] your phone as private as a booth’” (Wu 101). Yet even though Henry Tuttle, president of Hush-A-Phone Inc., meant no threat to the telephone company, he had still broken federal law, and was now involved in a lawsuit against the Bell affiliate.
So why was AT&T determined to squish its competitor in such a virulent attack? As the key player in the phone service industry, AT&T focused on Hush-A-Phone Inc. because it represented a threat to the industry, an industry that according to Wu was going to be pushed into the future by AT&T and AT&T alone. In fact, AT&T was so determined to keep this industry alive that it even kept its own researchers from innovating something that might make the telephone obsolete.
After losing the first case and having the ruling appealed, Hush-A-Phone was cleared of all charges after Judge Bazelon declared that “‘[the subscriber has the] right reasonably to use his telephone in ways which are privately beneficial without being publicly detrimental’” (Wu 113). So what does this simple court case prove? By winning such a “modest” victory as Wu describes it, the door was left open to all secondary inventors in the late twentieth century who wanted to make money off of improved devices, and eventually lead to the collapse of Bell (Wu 113).
Works Cited:
Works Cited:
- Wu, Tim. The Master Switch: The Rise and Fall of Information Empires. New York: Knopf, 2010. Print.
The severity of AT&T's battle against Tuttle surprised me. It makes a sort of sense, however; if a monopoly lets one small device from a third party maker attach to its product, then the door opens for millions.
ReplyDeleteOf course, not all monopolies work that way. The brilliance of Microsoft, a company that has rarely been an innovator itself, was to establish a standard and let the innovators write code for its operating system. As we'll see, however, the Internet--ironically!--was a technology disruptive to MS' model of desktop computing with purchased software.
Back to Tuttle for a second: I will REALLY love the film Brazil even more...see Wu for the reference to Tuttle in the film. He meets a fate in that movie that makes sense to me, now that I've read Wu's account of AT&T burying him in legal paper.
This was a very though-provoking post. I think you'll enjoy this photo:
Red Phone
It's not my red phone from 1981, but it is a Creative-Commons licensed photo from Flickr of a user's phone. Like her phone, mine still works like a charm, it it worked even when the power went out for nearly 12 days in my neighborhood in 2003, after Hurricane Isabel.
It is an engineering marvel from AT&T, but it had not changed in more than 30 years, save for the RJ-45 wall jack mandated, as Wu points out, by the FCC so peripherals could be attached to phones and the jack itself: fax machines, answering machines and, hey, those little computer machines :)