From: "Richard Payne" <[email protected]>
It appears that a key point in this discussion of use of the negated connection symbol (crossed out hockey sticks) is what constitutes "capable" of being connected, but is unintended for connection. One view is that it is capable if it is physically possible, ie. it uses Telecom industry standard or compatible hardware for connection. The opposing view would seem to be that it is only capable if it meets all the "non-interference" and other requirements for terminal equipment that is intended to be connected. If I have a product that meets all the non-interference and other requirements, why would I want to call it not intended for connection ? Why would a company spend the money to design such a thing and not utilize the capabilities ? I would tend to default back to the "physically capable" view point as a conservative position because I can not see where the dividing line would otherwise be. Another question to consider, why would the Directive give any consideration to a product that meets all the requirements for terminal equipment and connection regardless of whether or not the manufacturer intended it to do so ? Isn't the Directive looking at equipment which might interfere and therefore does not meet all the non-interference requirements in spite of its use of compatible hardware ? I think this is a good point of discussion and would welcome other comments in this area, especially if someone has some input from a Notified Body and how they are making this distinction. Richard Payne Tektronix, Inc. [email protected]
