An RJ-45 connector used by an IP phone does not plug into an RJ-11 POTS
line. So it can't be simple plug into the pots lines. It would take conscious
intent and electrical knowledge to make it fit, beside being an illegal
modification of the product. The proper standard for an ITE device is EN60950
(and EN55024)and it addresses the connection of the RJ-11 into the RJ-45
connection which will work through markings similar to what you suggest below
from the RTT&E.
No RTT&E required or the extra time and expense, and the vacuous no matter
how indirectly needs to be re-written or just plain struck out of the standard.
Gary
[Gary McInturff]
-----Original Message-----
From: david_ster...@ademco.com [mailto:david_ster...@ademco.com]
Sent: Thursday, December 05, 2002 7:09 AM
To: rehug...@nortelnetworks.com; alan.hud...@amsjv.com;
emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org
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 R&TTE testing and marking, if only
to warn via the 'alert' symbol that the device does not comply.
Re: Walkman-type headphones and PC microphones.
Direct wiring to POTS requires electrical expertise, and a conscious intent to
make an illegal connection. Manufacturer's liability for an illegal connection
is quite low in this case.
David Sterner
-----Original Message-----
From: Richard 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 R&TTED _THEN_ there is no lower voltage
limit for safety (or anything else). In fact, this is also true for the upper
voltage limits. Therefore, the R&TTED applies to mobile 'phones even though
they are powered from 3V batteries. If you invented some equipment covered by
the R&TTED that was powered directly off a 60 kV MV line then that would be
covered too.
However,
If your product IS NOT covered by the R&TTED THEN the existing voltage limits
continue to apply when considering the LVD. There are therefore many examples
of network infrastructure equipment which are not covered by either the R&TTED
or the LVD, typically they are CE marked to show compliance with the EMC
Directive.
I know that some people have the mistaken belief that the R&TTED somehow
modified the voltage limits of the LVD. This is not so, the R&TTED did not
modify the LVD.
Certainly, the European Commission are considering revising the LVD and one of
the things they are looking at is the removal of the lower voltage limits (they
are presently not suggesting the removal of the upper voltage limits).
However, these discussions are still in the early stages - so it wouldn't be
too good an idea to start making changes to your compliance strategy on the
basis of possibilities.
Hope all is now clear.
Richard Hughes
-----Original Message-----
From: alan.hud...@amsjv.com [ mailto:alan.hud...@amsjv.com]
Sent: 05 December 2002 10:56
To: emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org
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 removed the voltage limits of
the latter? That is, under the RTTED even battery-operated portable
equipment then came under its LVD requirements.
I'm quite happy to be proven wrong of course, as I'm no expert on either
Directive.
Regards,
Alan
EMC Consultant
Alenia Marconi Systems
Scotland
