Terminal monopoly
A terminal monopoly is a situation in which terminals for telecommunications can only be obtained from a single provider. The monopoly can arise through legal regulations or also through economic or technical facts (if, for example, all end devices are fixed and sealed ). The terminal monopoly is part of the telecommunications monopoly (alongside the service monopoly and the network monopoly).
history
The terminal monopoly was abolished earlier in most states than the service monopoly and the network monopoly. The reason for this is that the network monopoly, in contrast to the terminal monopoly, is a natural monopoly . In the USA , AT&T had had the telecommunications monopoly since 1899.
United States
In a widely recognized judgment in 1956 , AT&T was banned from hindering the use of Hush-A-Phone . This was a mouthpiece attachment that improved audio quality and avoided listening in by bystanders. For the first time, the rented telephones from AT&T could be mechanically supplemented by third-party devices. With a further decision in connection with the Caterfone , the FCC also allowed the direct connection of devices to the telephone network in 1968. This ended the terminal monopoly in the USA and indirectly led to innovations in the area of “ Customer Premises Equipment ” (CPE) such as faxes , answering machines and modems .
The network monopoly in the USA then fell in 1984.
West Germany
In West Germany in the 1970s criticism was only raised in certain areas (such as the modem monopoly of the Deutsche Bundespost, which is laid down in the direct call ordinance ). Criticism grew louder in the 1980s. With the liberalization of the terminal equipment market on July 1, 1989, the terminal monopoly ended due to the Post Structure Act of June 8, 1989. Section 1, Paragraph 2 (3) of the Telecommunications Systems Act now read: “Permitted terminal equipment can be used by anyone within the framework of the conditions laid down to ensure proper telecommunications build and operate ". Every telecommunication device required approval from the Central Telecommunications Office in Darmstadt .
Norway
In Norway, the Telegrafverket lost its terminal monopoly in 1988.
Reasons for device monopolies
The monopolies are established by states in cooperation with the network operators for various reasons:
- Technical security: Terminal devices are connected to the switching systems of the telecommunications provider. Technical defects (e.g. short circuits) can impair the function of the switching systems or even damage them. This especially in connection with the electromechanical switching technology . With digital switching technology , this no longer plays a role due to automatic shutdown.
- Quality: “Cheap” end devices can malfunction (such as poor voice quality); this is to be avoided by the monopoly - paired with a high quality standard of the devices offered by the monopoly.
- Economic interest: The monopoly (often state monopoly ) means income for the telecommunications provider. These benefit the state budget or indirectly state tasks. For example, in Germany the postal service of the Federal Post Office was cross-subsidized with income from the telephone business for a long time .
Exceptions in Germany
In the case of private telephone systems, only the respective central unit had to meet the relevant specifications, but it could certainly be obtained directly from the manufacturer. The specification avoided impairment of the public switching facilities; In return, any end device (with the exception of additional devices for the transmission of data) could be connected. These private telephone systems came from DeTeWe , SEL , Siemens and others. a. These manufacturers were considered to be purveyors to the Bundespost.
Bypassing
End devices have always been connected "black" by tech-savvy consumers. These come from different sources:
- Devices originally manufactured for private telephone systems and e.g. B. used in the trade.
- Foreign devices that were freely available in the respective countries. The rule here was that the possession of such devices was generally permitted, only connection to the public network was prohibited. Therefore the private "import" of such devices could not be prevented.
- Self-built devices that were made for experimental purposes or for specific comfort features.
Legally, such "black installations" represented a violation of the Telecommunications Systems Act and could be punished with high penalties. The original purpose of these was to punish illegal wiretapping.
In practice, however, it usually had no consequences: If the "black" installed devices impaired the switching systems, the connection was simply automatically switched off in practice and worked again automatically after the "repairs" by the "perpetrator".
Remote data transmission
The economic importance of remote data transmission was already growing in the 1980s . The technique developed very quickly; new devices were often outdated after months.
This development practically did not take place in Germany: when analog modems had long been the standard in countries with more liberal terminal device regulations , acoustic couplers were still used in Germany . The modems rented by the Deutsche Bundespost were - due to the long and bureaucratic certification process - often out of date when they were released. In addition, they often did not adhere to international standards (such as the Hayes modem language ) and the rental prices were quite high.
Political and economic dangers
Against this background, industry associations and interest groups referred to the threat of Germany becoming decoupled from the EDI revolution. At the same time, a political climate developed in which national solo efforts in the approval of IT hardware were seen as protectionism; one result was the EU approval of telephone terminals.
literature
- Annegret Groebel: Problem areas of the new European legal framework for regulation , p. 12 (available from google books ).
- Hans-Heinrich Trute, Wolfgang Spoerr, Wolfgang Bosch: Telekommunikationsgesetz mit FTEG: Commentary , p. 4 (available from google books ).
Individual evidence
- ^ A b Ranjana S. Sarkar: Actors, interests and technologies of telecommunications: USA and Germany in comparison. 2001, ISBN 3593367491 , page 232 online
- ↑ Critical study on the innovation deficit in telecommunications: Federal Post Office to give up dial-up modem monopoly. In: computerwoche.de. September 9, 1977. Retrieved February 18, 2018 .
- ↑ End of post-omnipotence? In: Zeit Online. August 1, 1980. Retrieved February 18, 2018 .
- ↑ BGBl. 1989 I p. 1026 Article 3, PostStruktG
- ↑ Section 8, Paragraph 4, Clause 2 of the Telecommunications Regulations