IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: WCIT outcome?

David Morris <dwm@xpasc.com> Wed, 02 January 2013 22:16 UTC

Return-Path: <dwm@xpasc.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 962CB21F86A9 for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 2 Jan 2013 14:16:33 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -3.071
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.071 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-1.764, BAYES_00=-2.599, MISSING_HEADERS=1.292]
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 P+aLOxRzJVEX for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 2 Jan 2013 14:16:33 -0800 (PST)
Received: from c2w3p-2.abacamail.com (c2w3p-2.abacamail.com [209.133.53.32]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3786D21F8481 for <ietf@ietf.org>; Wed, 2 Jan 2013 14:16:33 -0800 (PST)
Received: from xpasc.com (unknown [68.164.244.188]) by c2w3p-2.abacamail.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id ACC643FCFD for <ietf@ietf.org>; Wed, 2 Jan 2013 22:16:32 +0000 (UTC)
Received: from egate.xpasc.com (egate.xpasc.com [10.1.2.49]) by xpasc.com (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id r02MGWwm026982 for <ietf@ietf.org>; Wed, 2 Jan 2013 14:16:32 -0800
Date: Wed, 02 Jan 2013 14:16:32 -0800
From: David Morris <dwm@xpasc.com>
cc: ietf@ietf.org
Subject: Re: WCIT outcome?
In-Reply-To: <01OOIM6DH1HW00008S@mauve.mrochek.com>
Message-ID: <alpine.LRH.2.01.1301021406190.26011@egate.xpasc.com>
References: <20130102175839.2DDAE18C0BB@mercury.lcs.mit.edu> <01OOIM6DH1HW00008S@mauve.mrochek.com>
User-Agent: Alpine 2.01 (LRH 1266 2009-07-14)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset="US-ASCII"
X-Milter-Version: master.1+13-gbab1945
X-AV-Type: clean
X-AV-Accuracy: exact
X-BeenThere: ietf@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
Reply-To: ietf@ietf.org
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: Wed, 02 Jan 2013 22:16:33 -0000

On Wed, 2 Jan 2013, ned+ietf@mauve.mrochek.com wrote:

> 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.

May have varied by baby bell, but in Michigan, you could have as many 
jacks as you wished, but you had to lease them all from the telco. There
may have been a rule about having at least one hard wired phone, I don't
recall. In those days, the telco owned and was responsible for all inside
wiring.

> 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.

Probably more to do with portability of accoustic couplers and the lack of
provisioning in motels, etc. for jacks.

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email