I find this a very interesting debate but for those that don't after this response you should contact me off line. I do want to make it clear that I certainly don't have the magic answer and one should decide for themselves - just don't follow along simply because somebody wrote an ill conceived paragraph - you've all ready many of mine. Bad policy needlessly wastes millions of dollars and doesn't address any sort of problem. The ill conceived idea in this case is the ".... indirectly no matter how remotely....' phrase. Interestingly enough, some have made the argument that my PC and speaker system doesn't count because it can't plug into an RJ-11 connector. According to the standard that doesn't matter "..... indirectly nor matter how remotely...' The next argument is that it could incorrectly be connected to a similar connector. The RTT&E addresses this with markings - as do the safety standards that address the more appropriate - again my classification - ITE equipment. One commenter also noted that in Europe the RJ-45 would plug into an RJ-31. That causes a moment of reflection but still covered by the less obtrusive safety and EMC standards, and its a short term misuse of the product. I say short term because it will quickly become apparent that it isn't functioning and would be removed. I plug both a vacuum and a floor buffer into the same outlet, but I can't the dog hair out of the carpet no matter how hard I try. Finally, I would argue that the IP phone may resemble a phone, (and a Volkswagen kind of resembles a Porsche - doors wheels, a steering wheel etc) but that's where the similarity stops. It more resembles a microphone or more like a wireless headset, because it does send and receive what is heard at the far end as a human voice. But like the IP phone it doesn't connect to the POTS lines. It can't ring a phone, it doesn't use the same voltage levels as a phone, it doesn't dial like a phone - it has more "doesn't" than "does". If a standard doesn't make sense - fix it. For you standards writers out there, I don't envy your jobs its tough for a host of reasons, and good standards are really crucial, but occasionally they have huge problems that need to be addressed. For those I've made mad, my apologies not for doing the arguing but for elevating your blood pressure, for those that have made some good arguments I appreciate the input. I'm going to spend the rest of the day listening to one of my favorite American Bands - Rage Against the Machine. Gary
All - One point that seems to be missing from this discussion is that an IP telephone looks like a telephone, acts like a telephone and for all intents and purposes *is* a telephone, irrespective of how *telecommunication* is transformed, transmitted, protocol converted, stapled, spindled folded or mutilated. I wish luck to those who don't believe the RTTE Dir. applies in convincing customs officials that it doesn't. ------------------------------------------- This message is from the IEEE EMC Society Product Safety Technical Committee emc-pstc discussion list. Visit our web site at: http://www.ewh.ieee.org/soc/emcs/pstc/ To cancel your subscription, send mail to: majord...@ieee.org with the single line: unsubscribe emc-pstc For help, send mail to the list administrators: Ron Pickard: emc-p...@hypercom.com Dave Heald: davehe...@attbi.com For policy questions, send mail to: Richard Nute: ri...@ieee.org Jim Bacher: j.bac...@ieee.org All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at: http://ieeepstc.mindcruiser.com/ Click on "browse" and then "emc-pstc mailing list"