Peter, Your regulatory "prowess" is to great to wager a beer (I'm gluten intolerant anyway...so it would have to be wine)...anyway
It was explained to me that the fines were for restoration time...as in, if the fault wasn't repaired in a certain amount of time; then fines were levied. I believe that there are also overall reliability fines...as in the network has to be available 99.xxx percent of the time or a fine is levied. You also (correctly) point out that revenue and good old customer satisfaction drive a lot of the phone companies' efforts for fault tolerance. When they have an OC48 trunk go down, it's like a hose spilling money all over the place. As a matter of fact, disasters are probably one of their best money makers...what with everybody trying to call friends and relatives to see if their alright. My take on the original question is: I don't think that there is a requirement that a phone (or end user type of product) needs to work in a power outage; but the phone companies by both regulation and supply/demand do their best to ensure that the network will be available in an outage. I also stand by the recommendation to check not just federal codes; but state and local as well. Best regards. Chris Maxwell From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Peter L. Tarver Sent: Tuesday, November 23, 2004 4:43 PM To: [email protected] Subject: RE: Should telephones still work during power loss? Hi, Chris. The question then becomes, fines for what? My proposition is that network reliability is not specifically legislated or regulated by the FCC or in California, with some exceptions applied to 911 services. Perhaps the Politburo in Albany has taken a different tack. The fines might be levied for inadequate, incomplete, improper (whatever that might mean) reporting of outages (or not reporting at all) and not planning for providing plans to ameliorate similar outages, but not for the outage itself, save possibly for blatant negligence or fraud. The thing of it is, that Ma Bell had internal reliability requirements, long before divestiture and before the levels of regulation in place today occurred. It's always best to take everything a salesman tells you with a healthy dose of skepticism. The truth can get stretched to near transparency for the sake of a commission on multimillion dollar contracts. I still say money is king and that is what drives most of the reliability concerns for carriers. Regards, Peter L. Tarver, PE Product Safety Manager Homologation Services Sanmina-SCI Corp. 2000 Ringwood Ave. San Jose, CA 95131-1749 V: 408-904-2081 F: 408-904-2095 M: 408-234-3529 [email protected] > -----Original Message----- > From: Chris Maxwell [mailto:[email protected]] > Sent: Tuesday, November 23, 2004 12:54 PM > > > I clipped a little segment from Peter's email below > > > ////////////////// SNIP /////////////////////////////// > So this whole reliability thingy is primarily aimed at > making certain communications systems are up for emergency > service providers, especially government entities, with at > least some nodding to e911. Nearly everywhere is > that word, > "voluntary." > /////////////// END SNIP ///////////////////////////////// > > Voluntary; but backed by stiff fines in some cases. > > There are fines levied against phone companies > for outages. Our > salespeople have become very artful at using > these fines as leverage to > sell our equipment (which detects breaks and faults) > > The FCC regulations (CFR 47) may not be the only > place to look for such > fines. You may also have to look at state and > local regulations. Even > though the phone (and utility) companies are > "deregulated" many states > have "authorities" and other bureaucratic > entities to "oversee" (notice > I didn't use "regulate") these "deregulated" industries. > > One response in this thread mentioned the > regulatory heaven called "The > People's Republik of Kalifornia" Let me tell you > something brother... > (or should I say Comrade?) Kalifornia has > nothing on the great > bureaucratic machine in Albany, NY. > > Without going into the merits (or demerits) of > our various state > legislatures; I think that it's safe to say that > many of them have taken > a look at the telecom industry and drafted > various plans to penalize > (read "tax") various aspects of it. It would > surprise me if network > reliability was overlooked as a revenue source. > > If you really want to know what fines are levied > against phone companies > for outages...talk to a salesperson from a > company that sells network > monitoring and repair equipment :-) Sadly, I'm > not a salesman...so I > can't offer any more advice > > Chris Maxwell > Design Engineer (not a salesman) > Nettest > This message is from the IEEE Product Safety Engineering Society emc-pstc discussion list. Website: http://www.ieee-pses.org/ To post a message to the list, send your e-mail to [email protected] Instructions: http://listserv.ieee.org/listserv/request/user-guide.html List rules: http://www.ieee-pses.org/listrules.html For help, send mail to the list administrators: Ron Pickard: [email protected] Scott Douglas [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://www.ieeecommunities.org/emc-pstc This message is from the IEEE Product Safety Engineering Society emc-pstc discussion list. Website: http://www.ieee-pses.org/ To post a message to the list, send your e-mail to [email protected] Instructions: http://listserv.ieee.org/listserv/request/user-guide.html List rules: http://www.ieee-pses.org/listrules.html For help, send mail to the list administrators: Ron Pickard: [email protected] Scott Douglas [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://www.ieeecommunities.org/emc-pstc
