RE: CE for IP Phone - one last time and for those still interested or still steamed lets go off line.

2002-12-06 Thread Gary McInturff
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

RE: CE for IP Phone

2002-12-06 Thread Peter Merguerian
-5339019 Mobile: + 972-(0)54-838175 http://www.itl.co.il http://www.i-spec.com -Original Message- From: Peter L. Tarver [mailto:peter.tar...@sanmina-sci.com] Sent: Thursday, December 05, 2002 11:36 PM To: emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org Subject: RE: CE for IP Phone All - One point that seems

RE: CE for IP Phone

2002-12-06 Thread Robert Johnson
Which brings us to the odd conclusion that the only people who really care what approvals apply are the customs officials. We should probably be asking them what they expect since they appear pretty autonomous. Bob Johnson ITE Safety -Original Message- From: Peter L. Tarver One point

RE: CE for IP Phone

2002-12-05 Thread Peter L. Tarver
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

RE: CE for IP Phone

2002-12-05 Thread Gary McInturff
Subject: RE: CE for IP Phone Alan, If the device looks like a telephone and can easily be connected to the POTS (e.g. RJ-11 or RJ-45), you can assume someone will try to connect it to the telephone network. So due diligence means RTTE testing and marking, if only to warn via the 'alert' symbol

RE: CE for IP Phone

2002-12-05 Thread David_Sterner
Hughes [mailto:rehug...@nortelnetworks.com] Sent: Thursday, December 05, 2002 7:45 AM To: 'alan.hud...@amsjv.com'; emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org Subject: RE: CE for IP Phone Alan, _IF_ your product is covered by the RTTED _THEN_ there is no lower voltage limit for safety (or anything else

RE: CE for IP Phone

2002-12-05 Thread Richard Hughes
Subject: Re: CE for IP Phone Importance: High Richard Hughes said: ++ Moreover, since the said telephone is connected only to an SELV Circuit then ++ it falls below the lower voltage limits of the LVD (50 Vac, 75 Vdc) and so ++ the LVD does not apply. I thought the RTTED referral to the LVD

Re: CE for IP Phone

2002-12-05 Thread alan . hudson
Richard Hughes said: ++ Moreover, since the said telephone is connected only to an SELV Circuit then ++ it falls below the lower voltage limits of the LVD (50 Vac, 75 Vdc) and so ++ the LVD does not apply. I thought the RTTED referral to the LVD removed the voltage limits of the latter?

RE: CE for IP Phone

2002-12-05 Thread Richard Hughes
-Original Message- From: Peter L. Tarver [mailto:peter.tar...@sanmina-sci.com] Sent: 04 December 2002 16:26 To: emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org Subject: RE: CE for IP Phone All - My reading of the RTTE indicates that it does indeed apply to an IP telephone. Please refer to the below, paying

RE: CE for IP Phone

2002-12-04 Thread Gary McInturff
: Wednesday, December 04, 2002 10:50 AM To: 'Ilan Cohen'; 'emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org' Subject: RE: CE for IP Phone ***NEWSFLASH*** - KTL Launch New Website!! - Visit us at http://www.ktl.com I think a Voice over IP is within the scope of the RTTE due to the following definition in the RTTED

RE: CE for IP Phone

2002-12-04 Thread Mark Render
) 1482 801806 -Original Message- From: Ilan Cohen [mailto:ico...@itl.co.il] Sent: 04 December 2002 06:16 To: 'John Woodgate'; emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org Cc: Peter Merguerian Subject: RE: CE for IP Phone I do not think that IP phone is under the RTTE directive. For a simple reason, voltage

RE: CE for IP Phone

2002-12-04 Thread Peter L. Tarver
All - My reading of the RTTE indicates that it does indeed apply to an IP telephone. Please refer to the below, paying particular attention to the use of ...indirectly by any means whatsoever... Article 2 Definitions or the purpose of this Directive the following definitions shall apply:

RE: CE for IP Phone

2002-12-04 Thread Gary McInturff
- From: Ilan Cohen [mailto:ico...@itl.co.il] Sent: Tuesday, December 03, 2002 10:16 PM To: 'John Woodgate'; emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org Cc: Peter Merguerian Subject: RE: CE for IP Phone I do not think that IP phone is under the RTTE directive. For a simple reason, voltage is limited to 48 V (SELV

RE: CE for IP Phone

2002-12-04 Thread Ilan Cohen
972-3-5339019 ico...@itl.co.il, website: http://www.itl.co.il -Original Message- From: John Woodgate [mailto:j...@jmwa.demon.co.uk] Sent: Tuesday, December 03, 2002 1:12 PM To: emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org Subject: Re: CE for IP Phone

Re: CE for IP Phone

2002-12-03 Thread John Woodgate
I read in !emc-pstc that Peter Merguerian pmerguer...@itl.co.il wrote (in 2D1037012914D4118DB8204C4F4F50203DDE91@ITLLTD01) about 'CE for IP Phone' on Tue, 3 Dec 2002: For Europe, does an IP telephone (all SELV) having no connection to the telecom network fall under the RTTE Directive or just