Acoustic couplers (was: Re: WCIT outcome?)
ned+ietf@mauve.mrochek.com Thu, 03 January 2013 03:34 UTC
Return-Path: <ned+ietf@mauve.mrochek.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 7E2D721F8881 for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 2 Jan 2013 19:34:51 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.599
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599]
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 wNpqiC9x+-4g for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 2 Jan 2013 19:34:51 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mauve.mrochek.com (mauve.mrochek.com [66.59.230.40]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id EEDB321F86BE for <ietf@ietf.org>; Wed, 2 Jan 2013 19:34:50 -0800 (PST)
Received: from dkim-sign.mauve.mrochek.com by mauve.mrochek.com (PMDF V6.1-1 #35243) id <01OOIXYVLORK003QL0@mauve.mrochek.com> for ietf@ietf.org; Wed, 2 Jan 2013 19:29:46 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mauve.mrochek.com by mauve.mrochek.com (PMDF V6.1-1 #35243) id <01OOHIFJWMKW00008S@mauve.mrochek.com> (original mail from NED@mauve.mrochek.com) for ietf@ietf.org; Wed, 2 Jan 2013 19:29:40 -0800 (PST)
From: ned+ietf@mauve.mrochek.com
Message-id: <01OOIXYRHRN000008S@mauve.mrochek.com>
Date: Wed, 02 Jan 2013 19:08:17 -0800
Subject: Acoustic couplers (was: Re: WCIT outcome?)
In-reply-to: "Your message dated Wed, 02 Jan 2013 14:07:43 -0800" <50E4AFAF.4000506@dcrocker.net>
MIME-version: 1.0
Content-type: TEXT/PLAIN; format="flowed"
References: <20130102175839.2DDAE18C0BB@mercury.lcs.mit.edu> <01OOIM6DH1HW00008S@mauve.mrochek.com> <50E4AFAF.4000506@dcrocker.net>
To: Dave Crocker <dhc@dcrocker.net>
Cc: ned+ietf@mauve.mrochek.com, jnc@mercury.lcs.mit.edu, 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 03:34:51 -0000
> On 1/2/2013 1:34 PM, ned+ietf@mauve.mrochek.com wrote: > >> 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). > > > > I'm skeptical about this last part. Prior to the advent of RJ-11 Bell System > > line cords used a large polarized four pin jack. After Carterphone all sorts of > > stuff started to appear to accomodate these, including extension cords, > > plug-jack passthroughs, and even "cube taps". > Acoustic couplers date back farther than the 4-pin plugs. Of course. However, we're talking about post-Carterphone here. Carterphone was 1968, and I'm sure four pin plugs were in use by then. Also keep in mind that AT&T fought the Carterphone decision for many years. They got some state regulators to issue their own restrictions, but the FCC nixed them all. Then they said a special protection device had to be used. The FCC shot that down too. They also tried fees, but for that to work people had to tell AT&T to charge them, which of course didn't happen. > ... > > 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. > It was usually enforced rigorously. A given field tech might choose to > overlook a local mod, but they were authorized to remove such things. > So in my apartment, I installed a shutoff switch to the line, to be able > to sleep through attempts by my boss to call me in to work an additional > shift as a computer operator, at UCLA, around 1970 -- if I answered, I > was required to come in. Remember there was no caller ID in those days. > The tech who needed to work on my phone service was very clear that he > was supposed to remove it. After checking that I had handled the wiring > acceptably, he looked at me and said "so if I remove this, you'll > probably just reinstall it, right?" He then left it in place. A line mod was probably against the rules irrespective of Carterphone in those days. But had you bought your own phone with a ringer switch and hooked that up, that absolutely would have been covered by Carterphone. Of course you would then have had to convince AT&T of that - see above. Ned
- 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