> > >>Richard Payne"<< wrote: > > 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 ? Richard, This is meant for products designed to be used behind PBXs, Keysystems and such, where the system provides some of the protection arrangements, rather than the individual terminal. Ergo, the product could conceivably work when connected to a PSTN, but does not meet all the requirements imposed on direct connect equipment. It can be as simple as saving the cost of a device that lets you survive the electrrical strength tests to more complex things. Some of these manufacurers are in it just for the bucks, unlike us consultants who do it for the love of the art. Ciao, Vic
