Do you have a source for that? My understanding was that AT&T was the one doing the banning, by preventing consumers from connecting unapproved telephones (and other telecommunications equipment) to its lines.
That’s also true, but why would that have any effect on your belief about whether the government banned AT&T from selling unrelated products?
I was just quoting wikipedia, but googling “at&t 1956” brings up this:
1956: AT&T agreed to a consent decree that ends the [1949] lawsuit. The company agrees to confine its activities to common-carrier communication services and government projects. It promises to only manufacture products needed by the Bell system and agrees to make its existing patents available to anyone without charge.
In 1956, AT&T signed a consent decree with the federal government that allowed it to keep its structure under which it sold both phone service and telephones themselves. In exchange, AT&T promised to stay out of other businesses and license its patents freely. AT&T’s equipment arm, Western Electric, had to withdraw from selling sound equipment for film producers and movie theaters—giving up experience in a competitive market that would have proved useful later.
Do you have a source for that? My understanding was that AT&T was the one doing the banning, by preventing consumers from connecting unapproved telephones (and other telecommunications equipment) to its lines.
That’s also true, but why would that have any effect on your belief about whether the government banned AT&T from selling unrelated products?
I was just quoting wikipedia, but googling “at&t 1956” brings up this:
or, if you don’t like pdfs, how about the wsj: