In message <006601c62865$79471f70$6b01a8c0@HP29375324311>, dated Thu, 2 Feb 2006, Rich Nute <jan...@fastwave.net> writes >> >For some products the Post Office has additional requirements. >> >> Bullet-proofing? (;-) > >No. Protecting the turf! > >Remember the old days of British Telecom? They had their own safety >standards, one for the equipment they bought, and another for the >equipment they bought for connection to the phone lines, and yet >another for the equipment a subscriber bought and connected to the >phone lines (which rarely gained approval because they really didn't >want you to use equipment other than BT). > >They totally ignored compliance with any IEC or EN standard.
This was a hangover from the old GPO monopoly. Yes, they fought very hard against the 'Ringing the Changes' liberalization. Their proposed BSI 'liberalized' standard for a simple home telephone ran to 400 pages, I believe. -- OOO - Own Opinions Only. Try www.jmwa.demon.co.uk and www.isce.org.uk 2006 is YMMVI- Your mileage may vary immoderately. John Woodgate - 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 emc-p...@ieee.org Instructions: http://listserv.ieee.org/request/user-guide.html List rules: http://www.ieee-pses.org/listrules.html For help, send mail to the list administrators: Scott Douglas emcp...@ptcnh.net Mike Cantwell mcantw...@ieee.org For policy questions, send mail to: Jim Bacher: j.bac...@ieee.org David Heald: emc-p...@daveheald.com All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at: http://www.ieeecommunities.org/emc-pstc
