[ih] AT&T, carterfone, the 103, and why didnt BBSs start earlier?

[Vint Cerf]

i was probably thinking about the 303's that produced 50 Kb/s

v

On Aug 14, 2009, at 7:21 PM, David Mills wrote:

> Vint,
>
> I recall that 103s were $25 per month; that's when a POTS line was  
> $7.50. I used an accoustic coupler anyway. After the FCC Carterfone  
> decision AT&T began offering Data Access Arrangements and offbrand  
> 103s became available. I had the first DAA installation in Michigan.  
> Ma Bell sent literally a fleet of cars, trucks and installers to  
> light up the thing. The installers ignored my ham radio phone patch,  
> which technically was illegal, but the installers didn't care. Upon  
> returning to the US in 1972 I called to order a DAA and the operator  
> asked what color I wanted. True story.
>
> Dave
>
> Vint Cerf wrote:
>
>> I thought the bell modems were pretty expensive for residential  
>> users?
>>
>> v
>>
>> On Aug 13, 2009, at 3:08 PM, Johnny RYAN wrote:
>>
>>> Hello all,
>>>
>>> This is my first posting to this list. It's a question about the  
>>> Bell
>>> 103 modem in 1962 and Carterfone
>>>
>>> If AT&T sold modems commercially since 1962 (the 103 modem), why was
>>> the carterfone decision so important? I understand that the
>>> introduction of the Hayes modem prompted Christensen to write XMODEM
>>> and set the scene for the BBSs - but does anybody recall why these
>>> things could not have happened with the Bell 103 from1962 on? Was  
>>> the
>>> 103 just intended for subscribers of expensive leased lines such as
>>> corporations or universities?
>>>
>>> Best wishes to you all,
>>>
>>> Johnny
>>>
>>>
>>> -- 
>>> My Next Book... http://johnnyryan.wordpress.com/books/net-  
>>> history-2010/
>>
>>
>