Re: Acoustic couplers (was: WCIT outcome?)
John C Klensin <john-ietf@jck.com> Thu, 03 January 2013 13:47 UTC
Return-Path: <john-ietf@jck.com>
X-Original-To: ietf@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ietf@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4BA0321E8054 for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 3 Jan 2013 05:47:54 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -102.599
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.000, BAYES_00=-2.599, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id tp6fFTCQIaze for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 3 Jan 2013 05:47:53 -0800 (PST)
Received: from bsa2.jck.com (ns.jck.com [70.88.254.51]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 33BB621E8050 for <ietf@ietf.org>; Thu, 3 Jan 2013 05:47:52 -0800 (PST)
Received: from [198.252.137.115] (helo=JcK-HP8200.jck.com) by bsa2.jck.com with esmtp (Exim 4.71 (FreeBSD)) (envelope-from <john-ietf@jck.com>) id 1Tql9B-000IFP-PE; Thu, 03 Jan 2013 08:47:49 -0500
Date: Thu, 03 Jan 2013 08:47:44 -0500
From: John C Klensin <john-ietf@jck.com>
To: ned+ietf@mauve.mrochek.com, jnc@mercury.lcs.mit.edu
Subject: Re: Acoustic couplers (was: WCIT outcome?)
Message-ID: <9FDEEFFEF5F2A03DF5798648@JcK-HP8200.jck.com>
In-Reply-To: <01OOIM6DH1HW00008S@mauve.mrochek.com>
References: <20130102175839.2DDAE18C0BB@mercury.lcs.mit.edu> <01OOIM6DH1HW00008S@mauve.mrochek.com>
X-Mailer: Mulberry/4.0.8 (Win32)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Disposition: inline
Cc: ietf@ietf.org
X-BeenThere: ietf@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: IETF-Discussion <ietf.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/ietf>, <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ietf>
List-Post: <mailto:ietf@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf>, <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 03 Jan 2013 13:47:54 -0000
--On Wednesday, January 02, 2013 13:34 -0800 ned+ietf@mauve.mrochek.com wrote: >> > From: John Day <jeanjour@comcast.net> > >> > I remember when a modem came with an 'acoustic coupler' >> > because connecting it directly to the phone line was >> > illegal. No, there was nothing illegal about it. The >> > reason for acoustic couplers was that the RJ-11 had >> > been invented yet and it was a pain to unscrew the box >> > on the wall and re-wire every time you wanted to >> > connect. >> > ... >> > It may have been illegal in some countries but >> > certainly not in the US. > >> Huh? Remember the Carterphone decision? > > Absolutely. Too bad the FCC didn't see fit to extend it to > wireless. >... > At one point there was something that said one phone in each > home had to be directly wired without a plug. I don't know if > this was a regulation, a phone company rule, or just a > suggestion, but it also fell by the wayside after Carterphone. IIR regulation, in many states even for a while post-Carterphone, and justified, again IIR -- as many things have been justified in more recent years-- on the grounds of emergency services applications. After all, if there were an emergency, you wouldn't want to go hunting for an unplugged phone or, especially, to get something working that required external (to the phone system) power. And, while my memory of the period is a little vague at this point, I'm pretty sure that the four-pin jack (and a few other proprietary terminal-device connectors) showed up pre-Carterphone, when AT&T/WE was (i) trying to sell alternate phones (notably the early "Princess") to prove that what became Carterphone wasn't necessary because they could meet the relevant market demands and (ii) arguing that, if one wanted to connect third-party equipment, they could supply a network protection device into which the third-party stuff could plug. RJ11 and friends came along when the FCC finally got rid of the protective device/coupler nonsense in the mid-70s, long after Carterphone (1968) and, in a series of steps that weren't complete until the last half of the 90s, regulated/required first the jacks then the wiring pinouts. > I certainly saw acoustic coupled equipment in use long after > Carterphone, but in my experience it was because of general > intertia/unwillingness to do the necessary engineering, not > because of the lack of connectors. My recollection is that acoustic couplers started out as an attempt to get around the protective device rules, not the "no interconnection" one. It that is correct, it would provide an additional explanation for their being around into at least the mid-70s. I think part of what killed them was the growth of different handset shapes along with multiple manufacturers of telephones. Those different shapes meant that one could no longer design a recessed-cup device with fixed spread between the two cups that would form a tight seal with all relevant handset shapes. I do have an acoustic coupling device from the mid-90s that had an adjustable distance between the receiving and sending attachments and a strap to attach it to the phone -- worked pretty well when one wanted to attach a modem in, e.g., a hotel with hardwired connections between phone and wall and setups that made pulling off the terminal cover and attaching alligator clips impractical but it is clearly an exception to Ned's suggestion that failure to make the transition was at least partially due to unwillingness to do new engineering/ design work. The situation in other countries was, of course, different. Especially in places where the telephone carrier was effectively its own regulator or managed to convince the regulators that content mattered as much or more than physical connections, there was a requirement for different jacks (usually at a higher monthly rate) for modems and fax machines than was used for voice. I believe that particular approach survived and may have been reinforced by efforts to promote deregulation within ITU because the relevant carriers argued that the early deregulation efforts applied only to POTS service and not to "data" ones. That approach and position was contemporaneous with national regulations in many countries that one could run all of the TCP/IP services one wanted as long as they were run over the national X.25 profile and sometimes as long as one claimed they were "transitional" until OSI Connection-mode stabilized. There might be a useful lesson or two in that bit of history. john
- Re: WCIT outcome? Masataka Ohta
- Re: WCIT outcome? Jorge Amodio
- WCIT outcome? Phillip Hallam-Baker
- Re: WCIT outcome? Phillip Hallam-Baker
- Re: WCIT outcome? Patrik Fältström
- Re: WCIT outcome? SM
- Re: WCIT outcome? Phillip Hallam-Baker
- Re: WCIT outcome? Masataka Ohta
- Re: WCIT outcome? John Day
- Re: WCIT outcome? Phillip Hallam-Baker
- Re: WCIT outcome? John Day
- Re: WCIT outcome? Brian E Carpenter
- Re: WCIT outcome? John Day
- Re: WCIT outcome? Alessandro Vesely
- Re: WCIT outcome? Dave Crocker
- Re: WCIT outcome? John Day
- Re: WCIT outcome? Dave Crocker
- Re: WCIT outcome? Jaap Akkerhuis
- Re: WCIT outcome? Phillip Hallam-Baker
- Re: WCIT outcome? John Day
- Re: WCIT outcome? Fred Baker (fred)
- Re: WCIT outcome? Randy Bush
- Re: WCIT outcome? Victor Ndonnang
- Re: WCIT outcome? Brian E Carpenter
- Re: WCIT outcome? SM
- Re: WCIT outcome? John Day
- Re: WCIT outcome? John Day
- Re: WCIT outcome? Carlos M. Martinez
- Re: WCIT outcome? Phillip Hallam-Baker
- Re: WCIT outcome? Stewart Bryant
- Re: WCIT outcome? John Day
- Re: WCIT outcome? Phillip Hallam-Baker
- Re: WCIT outcome? Dmitry Burkov
- RE: WCIT outcome? Dearlove, Christopher (UK)
- Re: WCIT outcome? Noel Chiappa
- Re: WCIT outcome? Dale R. Worley
- Re: WCIT outcome? ned+ietf
- Re: WCIT outcome? Dave Crocker
- Re: WCIT outcome? David Morris
- Re: [IETF] WCIT outcome? Warren Kumari
- Re: WCIT outcome? SM
- Acoustic couplers (was: Re: WCIT outcome?) ned+ietf
- Re: [IETF] WCIT outcome? Patrik Fältström
- Re: WCIT outcome? Masataka Ohta
- Re: WCIT outcome? t.p.
- RE: WCIT outcome? Dearlove, Christopher (UK)
- Re: WCIT outcome? Masataka Ohta
- Re: WCIT outcome? Carlos M. Martinez
- RE: WCIT outcome? Dearlove, Christopher (UK)
- RE: WCIT outcome? Dearlove, Christopher (UK)
- Re: WCIT outcome? Masataka Ohta
- Re: Acoustic couplers (was: WCIT outcome?) John C Klensin
- Re: WCIT outcome? Carlos M. Martinez
- Re: WCIT outcome? Phillip Hallam-Baker
- Re: Acoustic couplers Dave Crocker
- Re: WCIT outcome? Masataka Ohta
- Re: Acoustic couplers Steve Crocker
- Re: Acoustic couplers (was: WCIT outcome?) Janet P Gunn
- Re: Acoustic couplers John C Klensin
- Re: Acoustic couplers John C Klensin
- Re: Acoustic couplers Steve Crocker
- Re: WCIT outcome? Dale R. Worley
- RE: WCIT outcome? Dearlove, Christopher (UK)
- RE: WCIT outcome? Tony Hain
- Re: WCIT outcome? Ted Hardie
- Re: WCIT outcome? Patrik Fältström
- RE: WCIT outcome? Tony Hain
- RE: WCIT outcome? SM
- Re: WCIT outcome? Ted Hardie
- Re: Acoustic couplers Dale R. Worley
- Re: WCIT outcome? Randy Bush
- Re: WCIT outcome? Eliot Lear