Hush-A-Phone v. United States
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
| Hush-A-Phone Corp. v. United States | |||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
 |
|||||||||
| Argued October 4, 1956 Decided November 8, 1956 |
|||||||||
|
|||||||||
| Holding | |||||||||
| Tariffs on Hush-A-Phone device were unwarranted interference with telephone subscriber's right reasonably to use his telephone in ways which are privately beneficial without being publicly detrimental. FCC order set aside and proceedings remanded. | |||||||||
| Chief Judge Henry White Edgerton; Circuit Judges Wilbur Kingsbury Miller, David L. Bazelon | |||||||||
| Case opinions | |||||||||
| Majority by: Bazelon Joined by: Edgerton, Miller |
|||||||||
| Laws applied | |||||||||
| Communications Act of 1934 | |||||||||
Hush-a-Phone v. United States, 238 F.2d 266 (D.C. Cir. 1956) was a seminal ruling in United States telecommunications law decided by the DC Circuit Court of Appeals. Hush-a-Phone Corporation marketed a small, cup-like device which mounted on the speaking party's phone, reducing the risk of conversations being overheard and increasing sound fidelity for the listening party. AT&T, citing the Communications Act of 1934, which stated in part that the company had the right to make charges and dictate "the classifications, practices, and regulations affecting such charges," claimed the right to "forbid attachment to the telephone of any device 'not furnished by the telephone company'". It is worth noting that during this era, the phones were leased from the phone company, not owned by the consumer.
Initially, the FCC found that the device was a "foreign attachment" subject to AT&T control and that unrestricted use of the device could, in the commission's opinion, result in a general deterioration of the quality of telephone service.[1]
The court's decision, which exonerated Hush-a-Phone Co. and prohibited further interference by AT&T toward Hush-a-Phone users, stated that AT&T's prohibition of the device was not "just, fair, and reasonable", as required under the Communications Act of 1934, as the device "does not physically impair any of the facilities of the telephone companies", nor did it "affect more than the conversation of the user".
This victory for Hush-a-Phone is widely considered a watershed moment in the development of a secondary market for terminal equipment.
[edit] See also
[edit] References
- ^ "Phone Company Upheld in Ban on Hush-a-Phone," The New York Times, February 17, 1951, p. 29
[edit] External links
- Cybertelecom :: Customer Premise Equipment - FCC Regulations concerning attachment and marketing of CPE
