Hush-A-Phone: Difference between revisions

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Browse history interactively
← Previous editNext edit →
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
m date formats per MOS:DATEFORMAT by script; formatting: 4x whitespace, 3x HTML entity (using Advisor.js); merging duplicate references, using title case, etc.
Line 1: Line 1:
{{Use mdy dates|date=January 2015}}
[[File:Hush-a-phone pedestal model.jpg|thumb|Hush-A-Phone attached to a [[candlestick telephone]] on display at [[Museum of Communications]] in [[Seattle]]]]
[[File:Hush-a-phone pedestal model.jpg|thumb|Hush-A-Phone attached to a [[candlestick telephone]] on display at [[Museum of Communications]] in [[Seattle]]]]
The '''Hush-A-Phone''' was a device designed to attach to the receiver of a [[telephone]] to reduce [[noise pollution]] and increase privacy. Sold by the Hush-A-Phone company, the device was frequently described in its commercial advertisements as "a voice silencer designed for confidential conversation, clear transmission and office quiet. Not a permanent attachment. Slips right on and off the mouthpiece of any phone".
The '''Hush-A-Phone''' was a device designed to attach to the receiver of a [[telephone]] to reduce [[noise pollution]] and increase privacy. Sold by the Hush-A-Phone company, the device was frequently described in its commercial advertisements as "a voice silencer designed for confidential conversation, clear transmission and office quiet. Not a permanent attachment. Slips right on and off the mouthpiece of any phone".


The device was the topic of a landmark court case, ''[[Hush-A-Phone v. United States]]''. The Hush-A-Phone was regularly referred to in telecommunications policy analysis in the 1980s,<ref>{{cite journal|last1=Wilsford|first1=David|title=Exit and Voice: Strategies for Change in Bureaucratic-Legislative Policymaking|journal=Policy Studies Journal|date=1984|volume=12|issue=3|page=435}}</ref><ref>{{cite journal|last1=Vietor|first1=Richard|last2=Davidson|first2=Dekkers|title=Economics and Politics of Deregulation: The Issue of Telephone Access Charges|journal=Journal of Policy Analysis and Management|date=1985|volume=5|issue=3|pages=3–23}}</ref><ref>{{cite journal|last1=Bernard|first1=Keith E.|title=Regulatory Development in the U.S.|journal=Journal of the American Society for Information Science|date=1986|volume=37|issue=6|pages=409–414}}</ref><ref>{{cite journal|last1=Melody|first1=William|title=Efficiency and Social Policy in Telecommunication: Lessons from the U. S. Experience|journal=Journal of Economic Issues|date=1989|volume=23|issue=3|pages=657–689}}</ref> attracting renewed interest in the 2000s as a symbol of a small company fighting against a [[monopoly]], especially in the context of [[net neutrality]].<ref>{{cite web|last1=Crawford|first1=Susan|title=Hush-A-Phone|url=http://scrawford.net/hush-a-phone/|accessdate=29 December 2014}}</ref><ref>{{cite book|last1=Wu|first1=Tim|title=The Master Switch|date=2010|publisher=Knopf|isbn=9780307269935}}</ref> Indeed, because Hush-A-Phone eventually won its case against the phone company, the [[Hush-A-Phone v. United States|final legal proceedings]] involving the Hush-A-Phone turned out to be relevant to the eventual [[Breakup of the Bell System|breakup of the Bell system]].
The device was the topic of a landmark court case, ''[[Hush-A-Phone v. United States]]''. The Hush-A-Phone was regularly referred to in telecommunications policy analysis in the 1980s,<ref>{{cite journal|last1=Wilsford|first1=David|title=Exit and Voice: Strategies for Change in Bureaucratic-Legislative Policymaking|journal=Policy Studies Journal|date=March 1984|volume=12|issue=3|page=435}}</ref><ref>{{cite journal|last1=Vietor|first1=Richard|last2=Davidson|first2=Dekkers|title=Economics and Politics of Deregulation: The Issue of Telephone Access Charges|journal=Journal of Policy Analysis and Management|date=Fall 1985|volume=5|issue=3|pages=3–23}}</ref><ref>{{cite journal|last1=Bernard|first1=Keith E.|title=Regulatory Development in the U.S.|journal=Journal of the American Society for Information Science|date=November 1986|volume=37|issue=6|pages=409–414}}</ref><ref>{{cite journal|last1=Melody|first1=William|title=Efficiency and Social Policy in Telecommunication: Lessons from the U. S. Experience|journal=Journal of Economic Issues|date=September 1989|volume=23|issue=3|pages=657–689}}</ref> attracting renewed interest in the 2000s as a symbol of a small company fighting against a [[monopoly]], especially in the context of [[net neutrality]].<ref>{{cite web|last1=Crawford|first1=Susan|title=Hush-A-Phone|url=http://scrawford.net/hush-a-phone/|accessdate=December 29, 2014}}</ref><ref>{{cite book|last1=Wu|first1=Tim|title=The Master Switch: The Rise and Fall of Information Empires|date=2010|publisher=Alfred A. Knopf|location=New York|isbn=0307594653}}{{page needed|date=January 2015}}</ref> Indeed, because Hush-A-Phone eventually won its case against the phone company, the [[Hush-A-Phone v. United States|final legal proceedings]] involving the Hush-A-Phone turned out to be relevant to the eventual [[Breakup of the Bell System|breakup of the Bell system]].


Advertisements for the Hush-A-Phone not only argued for its importance as an aid to privacy,<ref>{{cite news|title=Display Ad 194|work=New York Times|date=23 June 1922|pages=36}}</ref> but also noted the device improved clarity of sound,<ref>{{cite news|title=Display Ad 27|work=New York Times|date=26 June 1922|pages=4}}</ref> which [[AT&T]] would directly argue against.
Advertisements for the Hush-A-Phone not only argued for its importance as an aid to privacy,<ref>{{cite news|title=Display Ad 194|work=The New York Times|date=June 23, 1922|pages=36}}</ref> but also noted the device improved clarity of sound,<ref>{{cite news|title=Display Ad 27|work=The New York Times|date=June 26, 1922|pages=4}}</ref> which [[AT&T]] would directly argue against.


==History==
==History==


===1920&ndash;1948: early years===
===1920–1948: early years===
The manufacture of Hush-A-Phones began in 1921,<ref>{{cite journal|last1=Gordon|first1=J.|title=The death of a monopoly|journal=American Heritage|volume=48|issue=2|page=16}}</ref> although the Hush-A-Phone company was first mentioned in ''[[The New York Times]]'' in a 1922 classified advertisement for a "typist-dictaphone operator".<ref>{{cite news|title=Classified Ad 207|work=New York Times|date=26 Feb 1922|page=116}}</ref> At this time, Hush-A-Phone was located in New York's [[Flatiron District]], at 41 Union Square. Only a month later, the company advertised for a salesman, noting that 500 Hush-A-Phones were sold in one week at a business show.<ref>{{cite news|title=Classified Ad 229|work=New York Times|date=19 Mar 1922|page=142}}</ref>
The manufacture of Hush-A-Phones began in 1921,<ref>{{cite journal|last1=Gordon|first1=J.|date=April 1997|title=The Death of a Monopoly|journal=American Heritage|volume=48|issue=2|page=16}}</ref> although the Hush-A-Phone company was first mentioned in ''[[The New York Times]]'' in a 1922 classified advertisement for a "typist-dictaphone operator".<ref>{{cite news|title=Classified Ad 207|work=The New York Times|date=February 26, 1922|page=116}}</ref> At this time, Hush-A-Phone was located in New York's [[Flatiron District]], at 41 Union Square. Only a month later, the company advertised for a salesman, noting that 500 Hush-A-Phones were sold in one week at a business show.<ref>{{cite news|title=Classified Ad 229|work=The New York Times|date=March 19, 1922|page=142}}</ref>


The company was still seeking a salesman in April 1922, but stopped posting dedicated sales openings until January 1923, this time noting several thousand Hush-A-Phones had already sold in New York.<ref>{{cite news|title=Classified Ad 42|work=New York Times|date=5 Apr 1922|page=39}}</ref><ref>{{cite news|title=Classified Ad 4|work=New York Times|date=16 Jan 1923|pages=43}}</ref> The company's first classified advertisement for the product appeared June 7, 1922, pricing the product at $10 and offering a free 5-day trial offer. Between the end of June 1922 and January 16, 1923, the company moved eleven blocks closer to the Empire State Building, to 1182 Broadway, and the "free trial" changed to "free demonstration offer".<ref>{{cite news|title=Display Ad 15|work=New York Times|date=16 Jan 1923|pages=14}}</ref> A capital increase to the "Hush-A-Phone Sales Corp." company was announced on December 22, 1922, from $250,000 to $500,000,<ref>{{cite news|title=NEW INCORPORATIONS|work=New York Times|date=23 Dec 1922|page=12}}</ref> and in March 1923, the company's name changed from Hush-A-Phone Sales Corp., Manhattan, to Hush-A-Phone Corp.<ref>{{cite news|last1=Stock Quote 15|work=New York Times|date=6 Mar 1923|page=38}}</ref>
The company was still seeking a salesman in April 1922, but stopped posting dedicated sales openings until January 1923, this time noting several thousand Hush-A-Phones had already sold in New York.<ref>{{cite news|title=Classified Ad 42|work=The New York Times|date=April 5, 1922|page=39}}</ref><ref>{{cite news|title=Classified Ad 4|work=The New York Times|date=January 16, 1923|pages=43}}</ref> The company's first classified advertisement for the product appeared June 7, 1922, pricing the product at $10 and offering a free 5-day trial offer. Between the end of June 1922 and January 16, 1923, the company moved eleven blocks closer to the Empire State Building, to 1182 Broadway, and the "free trial" changed to "free demonstration offer".<ref>{{cite news|title=Display Ad 15|work=The New York Times|date=January 16, 1923|pages=14}}</ref> A capital increase to the "Hush-A-Phone Sales Corp." company was announced on December 22, 1922, from $250,000 to $500,000,<ref>{{cite news|title=New Incorporations|work=The New York Times|date=December 23, 1922|page=12}}</ref> and in March 1923, the company's name changed from Hush-A-Phone Sales Corp., Manhattan, to Hush-A-Phone Corp.<ref>{{cite news|last1=Stock Quote 15|work=The New York Times|date=March 6, 1923|page=38}}</ref>


Some time between May 30, 1923, and October 18, 1923, Hush-A-Phone moved halfway back toward its original Union Square location, to 10 Madison Avenue,<ref>{{cite news|title=Classified Ad 4|work=New York Times|date=30 May 1923|page=29}}</ref><ref>{{cite news|title=Display Ad 11|work=New York Times|date=18 Oct 1923|page=11}}</ref> and by May 1924, the company had started suggesting that potential customers outside of New York wanting a demonstration would instead be sent a booklet.<ref>{{cite news|last1=Display Ad 59|work=New York Times|date=11 May 1924|page=SM12}}</ref>
Some time between May 30, 1923, and October 18, 1923, Hush-A-Phone moved halfway back toward its original Union Square location, to 10 Madison Avenue,<ref>{{cite news|title=Classified Ad 4|work=The New York Times|date=May 30, 1923|page=29}}</ref><ref>{{cite news|title=Display Ad 11|work=The New York Times|date=October 18, 1923|page=11}}</ref> and by May 1924, the company had started suggesting that potential customers outside of New York wanting a demonstration would instead be sent a booklet.<ref>{{cite news|last1=Display Ad 59|work=The New York Times|date=May 11, 1924|page=SM12}}</ref>


The [[Wall Street Crash of 1929]] brought trouble to many companies. On October 20, 1929, Hush-A-Phone was advertised along with several other companies on the first page of ''The New York Times'' as part of the "National Business Show" being held in Grand Central Palace from October 21 to 24. The company was showing its handset model for the first time. The ad noted that Mr. H. C. Tuttle, President of the Hush-A-Phone Corporation, had just returned from a European tour of ten countries where the product would be distributed. The product was described as being "beautiful," made of bakelite, and "embellished with a work of art in bas-relief. It appears as a handsome desk clock, nine inches high, concealing its function as a Hush-A-Phone".<ref>{{cite news|title=Classified Ad 15|work=New York Times|date=20 Oct 1929|page=N6}}</ref>
The [[Wall Street Crash of 1929]] brought trouble to many companies. On October 20, 1929, Hush-A-Phone was advertised along with several other companies on the first page of ''The New York Times'' as part of the "National Business Show" being held in Grand Central Palace from October 21 to 24. The company was showing its handset model for the first time. The ad noted that Mr. H. C. Tuttle, President of the Hush-A-Phone Corporation, had just returned from a European tour of ten countries where the product would be distributed. The product was described as being "beautiful," made of bakelite, and "embellished with a work of art in bas-relief. It appears as a handsome desk clock, nine inches high, concealing its function as a Hush-A-Phone".<ref>{{cite news|title=Classified Ad 15|work=The New York Times|date=October 20, 1929|page=N6}}</ref>


Some time between October 1927 and December 1929, Hush-A-Phone moved from its Madison Avenue location to about seven blocks southwest to 43 W. 16th Street.<ref>{{cite news|title=Display Ad 52|work=New York Times|date=13 Oct 1927|page=52}}</ref><ref>{{cite news|title=Display Ad 135|work=New York Times|date=8 Dec 1929|page=N10}}</ref> Although one more advertisement appeared in 1929 (December 8, just in time for the holidays), Hush-A-Phone was absent from the ''Times'' until July 1934, when a four-line, text-only advertisement appeared.<ref>{{cite news|title=Classified Ad 1|work=New York Times|date=12 July 1934|page=3}}</ref> Advertisements in 1936 noted a new model "for French phone" was out,<ref>{{cite news|title=Display Ad 31|work=New York Times|date=11 May 1936|page=38}}</ref> and in October 1937 the Hush-A-Phone company was exhibiting again, this time showing a 200-foot elastic telephone wire at the National Business Show.<ref>{{cite news|title=NEW MODELS LEAD AT BUSINESS SHOW: Improvements of Office Devices Featured in Exhibits of 100 Producers ATTENDANCE 'GRATIFYING' But Effect of Decline in Stocks Is Detected at Some Booths in Lower Sales Security Law Devices Attract Types in Reverse|work=New York Times|date=19 Oct 1937|page=45}}</ref> However, the four-line classified advertisements continued to be the company's public appearances after the show, appearing between ads for cigars and baldness cures, until 1942, when their product appeared in photographs in a few ads run by houseware store Lewis & Conger.<ref>{{cite news|title=Display Ad 21|work=New York Times|date=29 Nov 1942|page=47}}</ref><ref>{{cite news|title=Display Ad 24|work=New York Times|date=6 Dec 1944|page=24}}</ref> In 1944 the company noted "Models for E-1 and F-1 Handset Phone; Pedestal Phone; Switchboard and Dictating Machines".<ref>{{cite news|title=Display Ad 39|work=New York Times|date=7 Dec 1944|page=40}}</ref>
Some time between October 1927 and December 1929, Hush-A-Phone moved from its Madison Avenue location to about seven blocks southwest to 43 W. 16th Street.<ref>{{cite news|title=Display Ad 52|work=The New York Times|date=October 13, 1927|page=52}}</ref><ref>{{cite news|title=Display Ad 135|work=The New York Times|date=December 8, 1929|page=N10}}</ref> Although one more advertisement appeared in 1929 (December 8, just in time for the holidays), Hush-A-Phone was absent from the ''Times'' until July 1934, when a four-line, text-only advertisement appeared.<ref>{{cite news|title=Classified Ad 1|work=The New York Times|date=July 12, 1934|page=3}}</ref> Advertisements in 1936 noted a new model "for French phone" was out,<ref>{{cite news|title=Display Ad 31|work=The New York Times|date=May 11, 1936|page=38}}</ref> and in October 1937 the Hush-A-Phone company was exhibiting again, this time showing a 200-foot elastic telephone wire at the National Business Show.<ref>{{cite news|title=New Models Lead At Business Show: Improvements of Office Devices Featured in Exhibits of 100 Producers Attendance 'Gratifying' But Effect of Decline in Stocks Is Detected at Some Booths in Lower Sales Security Law Devices Attract Types in Reverse|work=The New York Times|date=October 19, 1937|page=45}}</ref> However, the four-line classified advertisements continued to be the company's public appearances after the show, appearing between ads for cigars and baldness cures, until 1942, when their product appeared in photographs in a few ads run by houseware store Lewis & Conger.<ref>{{cite news|title=Display Ad 21|work=The New York Times|date=November 29, 1942|page=47}}</ref><ref>{{cite news|title=Display Ad 24|work=The New York Times|date=December 6, 1944|page=24}}</ref> In 1944 the company noted "Models for E-1 and F-1 Handset Phone; Pedestal Phone; Switchboard and Dictating Machines".<ref>{{cite news|title=Display Ad 39|work=The New York Times|date=December 7, 1944|page=40}}</ref>


In 1945, Hush-A-Phone ads began appearing in ''The Washington Post'',<ref>{{cite news|title=Display Ad 1|work=Washington Post|date=3 Apr 1945|page=2}}</ref> and Hush-A-Phone consulted with acoustics expert [[Leo Beranek]] at [[Massachusetts Institute of Technology|MIT]], who began work to design an improved silencer. Beranek would later bring in [[J. C. R. Licklider]] to help demonstrate the Hush-A-Phone retained clarity of sound.<ref>{{cite book|last1=Wu|first1=Tim|title=The Master Switch|date=2010|publisher=Knopf|pages=103, 120}}</ref>
In 1945, Hush-A-Phone ads began appearing in ''The Washington Post'',<ref>{{cite news|title=Display Ad 1|work=Washington Post|date=April 3, 1945|page=2}}</ref> and Hush-A-Phone consulted with acoustics expert [[Leo Beranek]] at [[Massachusetts Institute of Technology|MIT]], who began work to design an improved silencer. Beranek would later bring in [[J. C. R. Licklider]] to help demonstrate the Hush-A-Phone retained clarity of sound.<ref>{{cite book|last1=Wu|first1=Tim|title=The Master Switch: The Rise and Fall of Information Empires|date=2010|publisher=Alfred A. Knopf|location=New York|isbn=0307594653|pages=103, 120}}</ref>


Between 1922 and 1949, 125,796 Hush-A-Phone sets were sold.<ref>{{cite news|title=HUSH-A-PHONE HITS BACK AT A.T. &. T.: Corporation Files Answer to F.C.C.'s Decision Sustaining Prohibition of Device|work=New York Times|date=24 Mar 1951|page=25}}</ref>
Between 1922 and 1949, 125,796 Hush-A-Phone sets were sold.<ref name=hitsback>{{cite news|title=Hush-A-Phone Hits Back at A.T.&T.: Corporation Files Answer to F.C.C.'s Decision Sustaining Prohibition of Device|work=The New York Times|date=March 24, 1951|page=25}}</ref>


===1948&ndash;1957: legal battles with the telephone company===
===1948–1957: legal battles with the telephone company===
During the 1940s, telephone service was seen as a "[[natural monopoly]]", and [[AT&T]] was the sole provider of all aspects of telephone service in the U.S., including [[telephone]] equipment. In the late 1940s, phone company repairmen began warning customers that using devices like the Hush-A-Phone could result in termination of phone service.<ref>{{cite book|last1=Wu|first1=Tim|title=The Master Switch: The Rise and Fall of Information Empires|date=2010|publisher=Alfred A. Knopf|location=New York|isbn=0307594653|pages=101-102|edition=1st}}</ref>
During the 1940s, telephone service was seen as a "[[natural monopoly]]", and [[AT&T]] was the sole provider of all aspects of telephone service in the U.S., including [[telephone]] equipment. In the late 1940s, phone company repairmen began warning customers that using devices like the Hush-A-Phone could result in termination of phone service.<ref>{{cite book|last1=Wu|first1=Tim|title=The Master Switch: The Rise and Fall of Information Empires|date=2010|publisher=Alfred A. Knopf|location=New York|isbn=0307594653|pages=101-102}}</ref>


On December 22, 1948, Hush-A-Phone and Harry C. Tuttle, its president, protested to the [[Federal Communications Commission]] (FCC), asking them to order the phone company to authorize use of the device.<ref>{{cite news|title=Phone Company Upheld In Ban on Hush-a-Phone|work=New York Times|date=17 Feb 1951|page=29}}</ref> The hearing occurred in 1950, but the original hearing examiner involved died, delaying the initial recommendation.<ref>{{cite news|title=PHONE DEVICE BAN BY A.T.&T. UPHELD: F. C. C. Rules Company Can Bar Use of Attachments Made by Others|work=New York Times|date=24 Dec 1955|page=20}}</ref>
On December 22, 1948, Hush-A-Phone and Harry C. Tuttle, its president, protested to the [[Federal Communications Commission]] (FCC), asking them to order the phone company to authorize use of the device.<ref>{{cite news|title=Phone Company Upheld in Ban on Hush-a-Phone|work=The New York Times|date=February 17, 1951|page=29}}</ref> The hearing occurred in 1950, but the original hearing examiner involved died, delaying the initial recommendation.<ref name="phonedeviceban">{{cite news|title=Phone Device Ban by A.T.&T. Upheld: F. C. C. Rules Company Can Bar Use of Attachments Made by Others|work=The New York Times|date=December 24, 1955|page=20}}</ref>


Some time between May 3 and May 12, 1949, the company moved a few doors down, to 65 Madison Ave.,<ref>{{cite news|title=Display Ad 2|work=New York Times|date=3 May 1949|page=3}}</ref><ref>{{cite news|title=Display Ad 2|work=New York Times|date=12 May 1949|page=2}}</ref> and occasionally advertisements exceeded the four-line standard, in Oct 1949 offering free tickets to the "Business Show."<ref>{{cite news|title=Display Ad 34|work=New York Times|date=24 Oct 1949|page=40}}</ref>
Some time between May 3 and 12, 1949, the company moved a few doors down, to 65 Madison Ave.,<ref>{{cite news|title=Display Ad 2|work=The New York Times|date=May 3, 1949|page=3}}</ref><ref>{{cite news|title=Display Ad 2|work=The New York Times|date=May 12, 1949|page=2}}</ref> and occasionally advertisements exceeded the four-line standard, in Oct 1949 offering free tickets to the "Business Show."<ref>{{cite news|title=Display Ad 34|work=The New York Times|date=October 24, 1949|page=40}}</ref>


In February 1951, the FCC decided Hush-A-Phone's complaint should be dismissed, but held the case open for the next seven years, permitting further pleadings and reconsideration.<ref>{{cite news|title=PHONE DEVICE BAN BY A.T.&T. UPHELD: F. C. C. Rules Company Can Bar Use of Attachments Made by Others|work=New York Times|date=24 Dec 1955|page=20}}</ref> A letter to the editor of ''The Washington Post'' by John P. Roberts, a communications engineer, described the FCC decision "an invasion of the rights of the individual", adding "even if this quality deterioration had been satisfactorily demonstrated, it is hard to understand why the FCC should have the power to forbid my use of the Hush-A-Phone if I choose to accept the deterioration in quality for the sake of increased privacy".<ref>{{cite news|last1=Roberts|first1=John|title=Hush-A-Phone|work=The Washington Post|date=26 Feb 1951|page=6}}</ref> On March 23, 1951, Hush-A-Phone and Harry C. Tuttle submitted filings to the FCC reporting scientific tests proving that the Hush-A-Phone "actually causes a net increase in 'transmission efficiency of the telephone circuit" and that AT&T and affiliates were "public utility monopolies unlawfully interfering with the natural and inherent rights of a subscriber". FCC official Jack Werner's suggestion was that the telephone company should suspend service to any consumer failing to comply with the regulation prohibiting foreign attachments.<ref>{{cite news|title=HUSH-A-PHONE HITS BACK AT A.T. &. T.: Corporation Files Answer to F.C.C.'s Decision Sustaining Prohibition of Device|work=New York Times|date=24 Mar 1951|page=25}}</ref>
In February 1951, the FCC decided Hush-A-Phone's complaint should be dismissed, but held the case open for the next seven years, permitting further pleadings and reconsideration.<ref name="phonedeviceban"/> A letter to the editor of ''The Washington Post'' by John P. Roberts, a communications engineer, described the FCC decision "an invasion of the rights of the individual", adding "even if this quality deterioration had been satisfactorily demonstrated, it is hard to understand why the FCC should have the power to forbid my use of the Hush-A-Phone if I choose to accept the deterioration in quality for the sake of increased privacy".<ref>{{cite news|last1=Roberts|first1=John|title=Hush-A-Phone|work=The Washington Post|date=February 26, 1951|page=6}}</ref> On March 23, 1951, Hush-A-Phone and Harry C. Tuttle submitted filings to the FCC reporting scientific tests proving that the Hush-A-Phone "actually causes a net increase in 'transmission efficiency of the telephone circuit" and that AT&T and affiliates were "public utility monopolies unlawfully interfering with the natural and inherent rights of a subscriber". FCC official Jack Werner's suggestion was that the telephone company should suspend service to any consumer failing to comply with the regulation prohibiting foreign attachments.<ref name=hitsback/>


The FCC's final decision was issued on December 23, 1955, and stated "The unrestricted use of the 'Hush-A-Phone' could result in a general deterioration of the quality of interstate and foreign telephone service. Accordingly, it is not an unjust and unreasonable practice upon the part of the defendants to prohibit its use in connection with their telephone services."<ref>{{cite news|title=PHONE DEVICE BAN|work=New York Times|date=24 Dec 1955|page=20}}</ref> While the commission agreed that the Hush-A-Phone did provide protection against eavesdroppers and noise from telephone circuits, "the device sometimes results in loss of voice intelligibility and also has an adverse affect on voice recognition and naturalness."<ref>{{cite news|title=PHONE DEVICE BAN|work=New York Times|date=24 Dec 1955|page=20}}</ref>
The FCC's final decision was issued on December 23, 1955, and stated "The unrestricted use of the 'Hush-A-Phone' could result in a general deterioration of the quality of interstate and foreign telephone service. Accordingly, it is not an unjust and unreasonable practice upon the part of the defendants to prohibit its use in connection with their telephone services."<ref name="phonedeviceban"/> While the commission agreed that the Hush-A-Phone did provide protection against eavesdroppers and noise from telephone circuits, "the device sometimes results in loss of voice intelligibility and also has an adverse affect on voice recognition and naturalness."<ref name="phonedeviceban"/>


The FCC's 1955 decision was rejected by the U.S. Court of Appeals on November 8, 1956, in the landmark case ''[[Hush-A-Phone v. United States]]'', with the decision stating it was an "unwarranted interference with the telephone subscriber's right reasonably to use his telephone in ways which are privately beneficial without becoming publicly detrimental".<ref>{{cite news|title=Court Removes Ban Against Phone Device|work=New York Times|date=9 Nov 1956|page=25}}</ref> The FCC followed up on February 6, 1957 to officially direct AT&T and Bell System subsidiaries to permit subscribers to use the Hush-A-Phone and similar devices.<ref>{{cite news|title=HUSH-A-PHONE BACKED: F.C.C. Directs Bell System to Permit 'Privacy' Device|work=New York Times|date=7 Feb 1957|page=21}}</ref> Advertisements proudly noted "Use of the Hush-A-Phone on telephone is permitted by Federal Appellate Court ruling" beginning in March 1957,<ref>{{cite news|last1=Display Ad 114|work=New York Times|date=4 Mar 1957|page=48}}</ref> and by July were stating "Bell System Approves Use of Hush-A-Phone by tariffs Effective May 16, 1957".<ref>{{cite news|title=Display Ad 124|work=New York Times|date=8 July 1957|page=34}}</ref>
The FCC's 1955 decision was rejected by the U.S. Court of Appeals on November 8, 1956, in the landmark case ''[[Hush-A-Phone v. United States]]'', with the decision stating it was an "unwarranted interference with the telephone subscriber's right reasonably to use his telephone in ways which are privately beneficial without becoming publicly detrimental".<ref>{{cite news|title=Court Removes Ban Against Phone Device|work=The New York Times|date=November 9, 1956|page=25}}</ref> The FCC followed up on February 6, 1957 to officially direct AT&T and Bell System subsidiaries to permit subscribers to use the Hush-A-Phone and similar devices.<ref>{{cite news|title=Hush-A-Phone Backed: F.C.C. Directs Bell System to Permit 'Privacy' Device|work=The New York Times|date=February 7, 1957|page=21}}</ref> Advertisements proudly noted "Use of the Hush-A-Phone on telephone is permitted by Federal Appellate Court ruling" beginning in March 1957,<ref>{{cite news|last1=Display Ad 114|work=The New York Times|date=March 4, 1957|page=48}}</ref> and by July were stating "Bell System Approves Use of Hush-A-Phone by tariffs Effective May 16, 1957".<ref>{{cite news|title=Display Ad 124|work=The New York Times|date=July 8, 1957|page=34}}</ref>


===1958&ndash;present===
===1958–present===
Hush-A-Phone was still featured in advertisements by the company during the early 1960s in ''[[The New York Times]]'', but their last direct ad seems to have been on March 13, 1962,<ref>{{cite news|title=Display Ad 256|work=New York Times|date=13 Mar 1962|page=72}}</ref> after which the product was featured in catalog-type ads posted by stationer's store Goldsmith Brothers through 1970.<ref>{{cite news|title=Display Ad 326|work=New York Times|date=23 Sep 1962|page=124}}</ref><ref>{{cite news|title=Display Ad 110|work=New York Times|date=4 Oct 1970|page=47}}</ref> In 1972, the last classified ad for Hush-A-Phone was listed by Harrison-Hoge Industries, Inc. for $13.95 in black and $15.95 in green, ivory, or beige.<ref>{{cite news|title=Display Ad 164|work=The New York Times|date=27 August 1972|page=S28}}</ref> Hush-A-Phone appears to no longer be for sale except as a collector's item.
Hush-A-Phone was still featured in advertisements by the company during the early 1960s in ''[[The New York Times]]'', but their last direct ad seems to have been on March 13, 1962,<ref>{{cite news|title=Display Ad 256|work=The New York Times|date=March 13, 1962|page=72}}</ref> after which the product was featured in catalog-type ads posted by stationer's store Goldsmith Brothers through 1970.<ref>{{cite news|title=Display Ad 326|work=The New York Times|date=September 23, 1962|page=124}}</ref><ref>{{cite news|title=Display Ad 110|work=The New York Times|date=October 4, 1970|page=47}}</ref> In 1972, the last classified ad for Hush-A-Phone was listed by Harrison-Hoge Industries, Inc. for $13.95 in black and $15.95 in green, ivory, or beige.<ref>{{cite news|title=Display Ad 164|work=The New York Times|date=August 27, 1972|page=S28}}</ref> Hush-A-Phone appears to no longer be for sale except as a collector's item.


==See also==
==See also==

Revision as of 09:39, 15 January 2015

Hush-A-Phone attached to a candlestick telephone on display at Museum of Communications in Seattle

The Hush-A-Phone was a device designed to attach to the receiver of a telephone to reduce noise pollution and increase privacy. Sold by the Hush-A-Phone company, the device was frequently described in its commercial advertisements as "a voice silencer designed for confidential conversation, clear transmission and office quiet. Not a permanent attachment. Slips right on and off the mouthpiece of any phone".

The device was the topic of a landmark court case, Hush-A-Phone v. United States. The Hush-A-Phone was regularly referred to in telecommunications policy analysis in the 1980s,[1][2][3][4] attracting renewed interest in the 2000s as a symbol of a small company fighting against a monopoly, especially in the context of net neutrality.[5][6] Indeed, because Hush-A-Phone eventually won its case against the phone company, the final legal proceedings involving the Hush-A-Phone turned out to be relevant to the eventual breakup of the Bell system.

Advertisements for the Hush-A-Phone not only argued for its importance as an aid to privacy,[7] but also noted the device improved clarity of sound,[8] which AT&T would directly argue against.

History

1920–1948: early years

The manufacture of Hush-A-Phones began in 1921,[9] although the Hush-A-Phone company was first mentioned in The New York Times in a 1922 classified advertisement for a "typist-dictaphone operator".[10] At this time, Hush-A-Phone was located in New York's Flatiron District, at 41 Union Square. Only a month later, the company advertised for a salesman, noting that 500 Hush-A-Phones were sold in one week at a business show.[11]

The company was still seeking a salesman in April 1922, but stopped posting dedicated sales openings until January 1923, this time noting several thousand Hush-A-Phones had already sold in New York.[12][13] The company's first classified advertisement for the product appeared June 7, 1922, pricing the product at $10 and offering a free 5-day trial offer. Between the end of June 1922 and January 16, 1923, the company moved eleven blocks closer to the Empire State Building, to 1182 Broadway, and the "free trial" changed to "free demonstration offer".[14] A capital increase to the "Hush-A-Phone Sales Corp." company was announced on December 22, 1922, from $250,000 to $500,000,[15] and in March 1923, the company's name changed from Hush-A-Phone Sales Corp., Manhattan, to Hush-A-Phone Corp.[16]

Some time between May 30, 1923, and October 18, 1923, Hush-A-Phone moved halfway back toward its original Union Square location, to 10 Madison Avenue,[17][18] and by May 1924, the company had started suggesting that potential customers outside of New York wanting a demonstration would instead be sent a booklet.[19]

The Wall Street Crash of 1929 brought trouble to many companies. On October 20, 1929, Hush-A-Phone was advertised along with several other companies on the first page of The New York Times as part of the "National Business Show" being held in Grand Central Palace from October 21 to 24. The company was showing its handset model for the first time. The ad noted that Mr. H. C. Tuttle, President of the Hush-A-Phone Corporation, had just returned from a European tour of ten countries where the product would be distributed. The product was described as being "beautiful," made of bakelite, and "embellished with a work of art in bas-relief. It appears as a handsome desk clock, nine inches high, concealing its function as a Hush-A-Phone".[20]

Some time between October 1927 and December 1929, Hush-A-Phone moved from its Madison Avenue location to about seven blocks southwest to 43 W. 16th Street.[21][22] Although one more advertisement appeared in 1929 (December 8, just in time for the holidays), Hush-A-Phone was absent from the Times until July 1934, when a four-line, text-only advertisement appeared.[23] Advertisements in 1936 noted a new model "for French phone" was out,[24] and in October 1937 the Hush-A-Phone company was exhibiting again, this time showing a 200-foot elastic telephone wire at the National Business Show.[25] However, the four-line classified advertisements continued to be the company's public appearances after the show, appearing between ads for cigars and baldness cures, until 1942, when their product appeared in photographs in a few ads run by houseware store Lewis & Conger.[26][27] In 1944 the company noted "Models for E-1 and F-1 Handset Phone; Pedestal Phone; Switchboard and Dictating Machines".[28]

In 1945, Hush-A-Phone ads began appearing in The Washington Post,[29] and Hush-A-Phone consulted with acoustics expert Leo Beranek at MIT, who began work to design an improved silencer. Beranek would later bring in J. C. R. Licklider to help demonstrate the Hush-A-Phone retained clarity of sound.[30]

Between 1922 and 1949, 125,796 Hush-A-Phone sets were sold.[31]

1948–1957: legal battles with the telephone company

During the 1940s, telephone service was seen as a "natural monopoly", and AT&T was the sole provider of all aspects of telephone service in the U.S., including telephone equipment. In the late 1940s, phone company repairmen began warning customers that using devices like the Hush-A-Phone could result in termination of phone service.[32]

On December 22, 1948, Hush-A-Phone and Harry C. Tuttle, its president, protested to the Federal Communications Commission (FCC), asking them to order the phone company to authorize use of the device.[33] The hearing occurred in 1950, but the original hearing examiner involved died, delaying the initial recommendation.[34]

Some time between May 3 and 12, 1949, the company moved a few doors down, to 65 Madison Ave.,[35][36] and occasionally advertisements exceeded the four-line standard, in Oct 1949 offering free tickets to the "Business Show."[37]

In February 1951, the FCC decided Hush-A-Phone's complaint should be dismissed, but held the case open for the next seven years, permitting further pleadings and reconsideration.[34] A letter to the editor of The Washington Post by John P. Roberts, a communications engineer, described the FCC decision "an invasion of the rights of the individual", adding "even if this quality deterioration had been satisfactorily demonstrated, it is hard to understand why the FCC should have the power to forbid my use of the Hush-A-Phone if I choose to accept the deterioration in quality for the sake of increased privacy".[38] On March 23, 1951, Hush-A-Phone and Harry C. Tuttle submitted filings to the FCC reporting scientific tests proving that the Hush-A-Phone "actually causes a net increase in 'transmission efficiency of the telephone circuit" and that AT&T and affiliates were "public utility monopolies unlawfully interfering with the natural and inherent rights of a subscriber". FCC official Jack Werner's suggestion was that the telephone company should suspend service to any consumer failing to comply with the regulation prohibiting foreign attachments.[31]

The FCC's final decision was issued on December 23, 1955, and stated "The unrestricted use of the 'Hush-A-Phone' could result in a general deterioration of the quality of interstate and foreign telephone service. Accordingly, it is not an unjust and unreasonable practice upon the part of the defendants to prohibit its use in connection with their telephone services."[34] While the commission agreed that the Hush-A-Phone did provide protection against eavesdroppers and noise from telephone circuits, "the device sometimes results in loss of voice intelligibility and also has an adverse affect on voice recognition and naturalness."[34]

The FCC's 1955 decision was rejected by the U.S. Court of Appeals on November 8, 1956, in the landmark case Hush-A-Phone v. United States, with the decision stating it was an "unwarranted interference with the telephone subscriber's right reasonably to use his telephone in ways which are privately beneficial without becoming publicly detrimental".[39] The FCC followed up on February 6, 1957 to officially direct AT&T and Bell System subsidiaries to permit subscribers to use the Hush-A-Phone and similar devices.[40] Advertisements proudly noted "Use of the Hush-A-Phone on telephone is permitted by Federal Appellate Court ruling" beginning in March 1957,[41] and by July were stating "Bell System Approves Use of Hush-A-Phone by tariffs Effective May 16, 1957".[42]

1958–present

Hush-A-Phone was still featured in advertisements by the company during the early 1960s in The New York Times, but their last direct ad seems to have been on March 13, 1962,[43] after which the product was featured in catalog-type ads posted by stationer's store Goldsmith Brothers through 1970.[44][45] In 1972, the last classified ad for Hush-A-Phone was listed by Harrison-Hoge Industries, Inc. for $13.95 in black and $15.95 in green, ivory, or beige.[46] Hush-A-Phone appears to no longer be for sale except as a collector's item.

See also

References

  1. ^ Wilsford, David (March 1984). "Exit and Voice: Strategies for Change in Bureaucratic-Legislative Policymaking". Policy Studies Journal. 12 (3): 435.
  2. ^ Vietor, Richard; Davidson, Dekkers (Fall 1985). "Economics and Politics of Deregulation: The Issue of Telephone Access Charges". Journal of Policy Analysis and Management. 5 (3): 3–23.
  3. ^ Bernard, Keith E. (November 1986). "Regulatory Development in the U.S.". Journal of the American Society for Information Science. 37 (6): 409–414.
  4. ^ Melody, William (September 1989). "Efficiency and Social Policy in Telecommunication: Lessons from the U. S. Experience". Journal of Economic Issues. 23 (3): 657–689.
  5. ^ Crawford, Susan. "Hush-A-Phone". Retrieved December 29, 2014.
  6. ^ Wu, Tim (2010). The Master Switch: The Rise and Fall of Information Empires. New York: Alfred A. Knopf. ISBN 0307594653.[page needed]
  7. ^ "Display Ad 194". The New York Times. June 23, 1922. p. 36.
  8. ^ "Display Ad 27". The New York Times. June 26, 1922. p. 4.
  9. ^ Gordon, J. (April 1997). "The Death of a Monopoly". American Heritage. 48 (2): 16.
  10. ^ "Classified Ad 207". The New York Times. February 26, 1922. p. 116.
  11. ^ "Classified Ad 229". The New York Times. March 19, 1922. p. 142.
  12. ^ "Classified Ad 42". The New York Times. April 5, 1922. p. 39.
  13. ^ "Classified Ad 4". The New York Times. January 16, 1923. p. 43.
  14. ^ "Display Ad 15". The New York Times. January 16, 1923. p. 14.
  15. ^ "New Incorporations". The New York Times. December 23, 1922. p. 12.
  16. ^ Stock Quote 15 (March 6, 1923). The New York Times. p. 38. {{cite news}}: Missing or empty |title= (help)CS1 maint: numeric names: authors list (link)
  17. ^ "Classified Ad 4". The New York Times. May 30, 1923. p. 29.
  18. ^ "Display Ad 11". The New York Times. October 18, 1923. p. 11.
  19. ^ Display Ad 59 (May 11, 1924). The New York Times. p. SM12. {{cite news}}: Missing or empty |title= (help)CS1 maint: numeric names: authors list (link)
  20. ^ "Classified Ad 15". The New York Times. October 20, 1929. p. N6.
  21. ^ "Display Ad 52". The New York Times. October 13, 1927. p. 52.
  22. ^ "Display Ad 135". The New York Times. December 8, 1929. p. N10.
  23. ^ "Classified Ad 1". The New York Times. July 12, 1934. p. 3.
  24. ^ "Display Ad 31". The New York Times. May 11, 1936. p. 38.
  25. ^ "New Models Lead At Business Show: Improvements of Office Devices Featured in Exhibits of 100 Producers Attendance 'Gratifying' But Effect of Decline in Stocks Is Detected at Some Booths in Lower Sales Security Law Devices Attract Types in Reverse". The New York Times. October 19, 1937. p. 45.
  26. ^ "Display Ad 21". The New York Times. November 29, 1942. p. 47.
  27. ^ "Display Ad 24". The New York Times. December 6, 1944. p. 24.
  28. ^ "Display Ad 39". The New York Times. December 7, 1944. p. 40.
  29. ^ "Display Ad 1". Washington Post. April 3, 1945. p. 2.
  30. ^ Wu, Tim (2010). The Master Switch: The Rise and Fall of Information Empires. New York: Alfred A. Knopf. pp. 103, 120. ISBN 0307594653.
  31. ^ a b "Hush-A-Phone Hits Back at A.T.&T.: Corporation Files Answer to F.C.C.'s Decision Sustaining Prohibition of Device". The New York Times. March 24, 1951. p. 25.
  32. ^ Wu, Tim (2010). The Master Switch: The Rise and Fall of Information Empires. New York: Alfred A. Knopf. pp. 101–102. ISBN 0307594653.
  33. ^ "Phone Company Upheld in Ban on Hush-a-Phone". The New York Times. February 17, 1951. p. 29.
  34. ^ a b c d "Phone Device Ban by A.T.&T. Upheld: F. C. C. Rules Company Can Bar Use of Attachments Made by Others". The New York Times. December 24, 1955. p. 20.
  35. ^ "Display Ad 2". The New York Times. May 3, 1949. p. 3.
  36. ^ "Display Ad 2". The New York Times. May 12, 1949. p. 2.
  37. ^ "Display Ad 34". The New York Times. October 24, 1949. p. 40.
  38. ^ Roberts, John (February 26, 1951). "Hush-A-Phone". The Washington Post. p. 6.
  39. ^ "Court Removes Ban Against Phone Device". The New York Times. November 9, 1956. p. 25.
  40. ^ "Hush-A-Phone Backed: F.C.C. Directs Bell System to Permit 'Privacy' Device". The New York Times. February 7, 1957. p. 21.
  41. ^ Display Ad 114 (March 4, 1957). The New York Times. p. 48. {{cite news}}: Missing or empty |title= (help)CS1 maint: numeric names: authors list (link)
  42. ^ "Display Ad 124". The New York Times. July 8, 1957. p. 34.
  43. ^ "Display Ad 256". The New York Times. March 13, 1962. p. 72.
  44. ^ "Display Ad 326". The New York Times. September 23, 1962. p. 124.
  45. ^ "Display Ad 110". The New York Times. October 4, 1970. p. 47.
  46. ^ "Display Ad 164". The New York Times. August 27, 1972. p. S28.

External links

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Hush-A-Phone&oldid=642583255"