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:
[email protected]
with the single line:
unsubscribe emc-pstc
For help, send mail to the list administrators:
Ron Pickard: [email protected]
Dave Heald: [email protected]
For policy questions, send mail to:
Richard Nute: [email protected]
Jim Bacher: [email protected]
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"
