TELECOM Digest OnLine - Sorted: Re: Last Laugh! Western Union's Comment About Useless Phones

Re: Last Laugh! Western Union's Comment About Useless Phones

Jim Haynes (haynes@alumni.uark.edu)
Thu, 14 Jul 2005 22:30:33 GMT

In article <telecom24.321.10@telecom-digest.org>,
Eric Bohlman <ebohlman@omsdev.com> wrote:

> Joe Morris <jcmorris@mitre.org> wrote in news:telecom24.312.11@telecom-
> digest.org:

>> neither at the time nor in retrospect can I find any justification for
>> the DAA other than protecting AT&T's revenue stream.

> But the DAA requirement was dropped as a result of FCC action in the
> late 1970s (the enactment of the Part 68 regulations). It had nothing
> to do with the breakup.

And the DAA, while no doubt helping to protect the revenue stream, was
arguably necessary until a process was developed for certifying
devices to be attached to the network. Although it was hypocritical
to require it for the switched network and not for private lines; but
then private lines are relatively rare and can be marked as such. I
can imagine fly-by-night modem makers turning out products that would
put excessive levels into the line (causing crosstalk), unbalanced to
ground (causing hum, noise, and crosstalk), leaking power line AC to
the phone line (causing shocks to the telephone repair people), having
DC leakage on the line (causing false trouble reports and tripping
ringing falsely), and on and on. Some devices might not have these
troubles to begin with but would develop them when there were
lightning strikes around telephone lines.

jhhaynes at earthlink dot net

Post Followup Article Use your browser's quoting feature to quote article into reply
Go to Next message: Angus TeleManagement Group: "Telecom Update #489, July 15, 2005"
Go to Previous message: hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com: "Re: Enterprise Numbers Still in Use?"
May be in reply to: Jim Haynes: "Last Laugh! Western Union's Comment About Useless Phones"
TELECOM Digest: Home Page