AMERICAN TELEPHONE AND TELEGRAPH COMPANY

195 Broanoway. NEw YORK. N.Y. 10007

AREA CODE 212 393-4383

K.P. WOOD

ASSISTANT VICE PRESIDENT

August 15, 1968

Professor Joshua Lederberg

Department of Genetics

Stanford University School of Medicine
Stanford Medical Center

Palo Alto, California 94304

Dear Sir:

Mr. Romnes has asked me to reply to your recent letter,
And, before answering your questions, let me congratulate you--
ten years after the fact--for your research in genetics leading
to the Nobel Prize,

With respect to your inquiry about a "technical brief"
detailing our "concerns about the unrestrained connection of
customer-owned apparatus to the telephone system," I have at-
tached the testimony of Mr. Williamson in the Carterfone case
before the Federal Communications Commission. That is the case
referred to in the Wall Street Journal article you sent.

Only the Carterfone device was at issue.

Our Petition for Reconsideration, also attached,
makes clear that the evidence of record was limited to the
issues of Carterfone (see page 10ff).

The kinds of problems we see in the FCC's Carterfone
decision are sketched in the Petition, Mr, Williamson's
testimony describes something of the complex interrelationship
required of the 58 *ephone system. His testimony, particularly
pages 26-27 and 33-3 » recognizes the sensitiveness of customers
to less than good quality long distance service. And I regret
the quality of the calls to which you referred. I suggest,
however, as do the testimony and Petition, that verifiable com-

plaints with responsibility assigned would become more difficult
to determine under an "unrestrained connection of customer
apparatus." We believe there is no satisfactory method in
which tariffs could detail all the requirements to ensure good
service, and we see no practical means of ensuring that enumerated
specifications would be carried out.

We intend to give good service to all telephone
customers, We have that responsibility. Our belief that we
would be weakened in our ability to carry out that responsi-
bility is the reason for our Petition for Reconsideration.

wm This reply may represent more "paper" than you
(2) anticipated, but I thought such text might be more useful,

Sincerely,

ool

Attachments

Aa
Varrery Capea of Merman Spr munnceatnn and Uror are 2 le “f
ahs aX Hive AMAAAME LATO
» es peyote f jutele Led pect veus 5

Cortine Mee A SD gaps sie
7 . “ . : ae
cpm nA chet eed Anne reaction ( Dee rut ve as gator ) &

ma Mant an Trey Leetlie etre yly Arete fie~ pets
aco Dat Reermenrd Her Ay Core tv Ck,
bz hat
WRaH wd 8 gk tA Dane aioe (ee peak vs 8
ab if gon AA wet OD 2h Se. “yew ony CA

@ Tl yet Lact 10 gee 0 rou Aetee, in Brceahy ae Bred —14,