IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: WCIT outcome?

jnc@mercury.lcs.mit.edu (Noel Chiappa) Wed, 02 January 2013 17:58 UTC

Return-Path: <jnc@mercury.lcs.mit.edu>
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 7074A21F874B for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 2 Jan 2013 09:58:40 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -6.28
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.28 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.318, BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4]
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 R6vBVwXgd47A for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 2 Jan 2013 09:58:40 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mercury.lcs.mit.edu (mercury.lcs.mit.edu [18.26.0.122]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id EEB9921F8745 for <ietf@ietf.org>; Wed, 2 Jan 2013 09:58:39 -0800 (PST)
Received: by mercury.lcs.mit.edu (Postfix, from userid 11178) id 2DDAE18C0BB; Wed, 2 Jan 2013 12:58:39 -0500 (EST)
To: ietf@ietf.org
Subject: Re: WCIT outcome?
Message-Id: <20130102175839.2DDAE18C0BB@mercury.lcs.mit.edu>
Date: Wed, 02 Jan 2013 12:58:39 -0500
From: jnc@mercury.lcs.mit.edu
Cc: jnc@mercury.lcs.mit.edu
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: Wed, 02 Jan 2013 17:58:40 -0000

    > 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?

The one that overturned FCC Tariff Number 132: "No equipment, apparatus,
circuit or device not furnished by the telephone company shall be attached to
or connected with the facilities furnished by the telephone company, whether
physically, by induction or otherwise." 

Now, your point about rewiring the jack may in fact be the reason for
_post-Carterphone_ acoustic couplers, but it was indeed at one time illegal
to connect directly (other than AT+T/WE supplied equipment).

	Noel

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email