IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: WCIT outcome?

worley@alum.mit.edu (Dale R. Worley) Wed, 02 January 2013 19:51 UTC

Return-Path: <worley@shell01.TheWorld.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 926F121F8831 for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 2 Jan 2013 11:51:06 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -100.437
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-100.437 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, FH_RELAY_NODNS=1.451, HELO_MISMATCH_NET=0.611, RDNS_NONE=0.1, 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 j8RjJJ0VhAFX for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 2 Jan 2013 11:51:06 -0800 (PST)
Received: from TheWorld.com (pcls2.std.com [192.74.137.142]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 192E921F8797 for <ietf@ietf.org>; Wed, 2 Jan 2013 11:51:06 -0800 (PST)
Received: from shell.TheWorld.com (root@shell01.theworld.com [192.74.137.71]) by TheWorld.com (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id r02JoJug014423 for <ietf@ietf.org>; Wed, 2 Jan 2013 14:50:21 -0500
Received: from shell01.TheWorld.com (localhost.theworld.com [127.0.0.1]) by shell.TheWorld.com (8.13.6/8.12.8) with ESMTP id r02JoITM4365470 for <ietf@ietf.org>; Wed, 2 Jan 2013 14:50:18 -0500 (EST)
Received: (from worley@localhost) by shell01.TheWorld.com (8.13.6/8.13.6/Submit) id r02JoIB64379575; Wed, 2 Jan 2013 14:50:18 -0500 (EST)
Date: Wed, 02 Jan 2013 14:50:18 -0500
Message-Id: <201301021950.r02JoIB64379575@shell01.TheWorld.com>
From: worley@alum.mit.edu
Sender: worley@alum.mit.edu
To: ietf@ietf.org
In-reply-to: <a06240834cd09f3ec48a7@[10.0.1.3]> (jeanjour@comcast.net)
Subject: Re: WCIT outcome?
References: <CAMm+Lwh2cHRY+Dk2_SDtZZmUbPcgRpP89u3DHUcniJDrKrX_pw@mail.gmail.com> <CAMzo+1a0-90dnjnvs48a9DcNN9DY_edF5hH0__4XRuCaLHtL6Q@mail.gmail.com> <CAMm+LwjzjLc2-=4EdxwHOi21B3dOBUohYc5hhXZHL_Pk+iBBmQ@mail.gmail.com> <6.2.5.6.2.20121229192941.0aae33e8@resistor.net> <CAMm+LwiC0xtJU4vnGFPvAG4VKZdj7Tf3LfW0+pzwxKWTegRREw@mail.gmail.com> <a06240800cd074efd45b8@10.0.1.3> <CAMm+Lwiq+DCzXw572wKs78DG+XzYsJtwCVSPvNuVHSrT=Cr2nA@mail.gmail.com> <a06240809cd0799fee029@10.0.1.3> <6.2.5.6.2.20130102023406.0b4b7d68@resistor.net> <CAMm+LwgsgaV7L-FY4MnM2Einaapo-BdiddBU+nYzTS6DMPXzQw@mail.gmail.com> <a06240834cd09f3ec48a7@[10.0.1.3]>
X-Mailman-Approved-At: Thu, 03 Jan 2013 09:01:17 -0800
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 19:51:06 -0000

> From: John Day <jeanjour@comcast.net>
> 
> 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.

In the 1970s, in the US, and for inter-state use, you either had to
rent the modem from the phone company, or rent a "data-access
arrangement" device to connect your modem to the network.  The DAA
cost about as much as the modem, so there was little in the way of
independent modems.  Acoustic couplers got around that rule.

Also, in those days, there was a large four-pronged plug that could be
used for phones.  It was sometimes used when people wanted to move
phones around.  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:4prongplug.JPG

Dale

v2.38.3 | Report a Bug | By Email | System Status