Re: WCIT outcome?

[[e-mail]]

>     > From: John Day <[e-mail]>

>     > 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.

> 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).

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".

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.

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.

				Ned