To emphasis Tania's comments about the telco not providing the hardware, its conceivable that this message got to you without using telco equipment, at least in the traditional sense. It use to be that digital signals were sent over voice lines. Now voice is sent over digital lines and can be done completely without the teleco's involved. We're doing right here, in Spokane Wa. on a metropolitan are for the school district and we and other are doing it elsewhere. The school district is saving $500,000 to $800,000 a year (I listened and believed one of our marketing guys - forgive me the sin if the numbers aren't quite right) in telephone costs. The district staff doesn't know the difference, nor do they even realize that they are doing interesting high tech stuff when they pick up the phone and order video on demand and get it down the same pipe they just spoke through. Sorry, this wasn't meant to be an ad - just a solid reinforcement of Tania's remarks on who makes the equipment. The need for dancing solely to the telco's music is changing. Simply because they don't want the standards harmonized is no longer sufficient to halt it. Just as office equipment and computer equipment became indistinguishable from one another, the evolution between telco equipment and digital transmission such as Ethernet, sonnet and ATM is becoming indistinguishable and should drive the harmonizing of standards. There are two critical points in this tread safety and reliability. I would support the Teleco's absolute adherence to reliability. When all else fails in an emergency, pick up the phone. I'm betting you have a dial tone. What I don't see is how the harmonizing of standards to that used for this equipment throughout the world, computers and Ethernet, but outside of the telco's direct ability to control would reduce that reliability. In point of fact they have a whole additional layer of tests in the NEBS series that insure that reliability. The comment about reduced spacings and relying on dielectric tests instead. Isn't that still an option in 1950? Gary Obviously, these are my opinions and not necessarily that of my employer who may or may not smote me about the head and shoulders for making them. Hmmm, my phone line just mysteriously went dead! -----Original Message----- From: Grant, Tania (Tania) [SMTP:tgr...@lucent.com] Sent: Tuesday, March 23, 1999 8:32 PM To: emc-pstc; 'TREG'; NEBS FORUM; 'JIM WIESE' Cc: Ron Bernot; Randy Ivans; Mark Vlanich; Jim Brunssen; Tom Burke; Kevin Ravo; 'MARK WALKER'; Bob Burek; Tom_Amatulli; Frank Terlato; Bob Raskey; harry.vanza...@telops.gte.com; chuck_gr...@smtp.nynex.com; tto...@uswest.com; jmla...@uswest.com; mben...@uswest.com; sbi...@hotmail.com; Larry Todd; Keith Kuhn Subject: RE: Network Equipment and UL 1459/1950
Jim, Thank you for giving us an opportunity to respond. It would have been very helpful if the telco providers referenced in your e-mail were more specific as to why they cannot "harmonize" with UL1950 requirements. By specific, I mean paragraph by paragraph. But let me guess from the few statements that you have made. They cite cost and the added requirement of measuring creepage and clearance rather than just performing the dielectric strength tests. I have a response to that. The telco providers to the public are no longer providing the hardware; they are purchasing it from other hardware companies that are not providing telco connections to the public. These hardware providers are providing equipment to world-wide customers. These customers are requiring IEC950 derivative standards. Those of us selling internationally are designing and meeting UL1950/IEC950 requirements. To us, the increased cost to design to two different standards and/or to submit equipment twice for testing to two different standards is an undue and unnecessary burden. Whose cost is greater, can be debated, but I don't think that would resolve anything. I think, however, that it should be stated that in either case, there is cost involved to both parties. Thus, we are adamantly opposed to UL's proposal (your 4th paragraph) that UL1459 be "revived" for network equipment only. UL should realize that the traditional "telco providers" are not at the forefront of industry technology;-- the future is sophisticated PC applications and servers interconnecting the world utilizing voice, Internet, Ethernet, and fast data links. This is indeed "information technology equipment", whether it be located in a central office telephone switch room or in a hospital, bank, or university. The location no longer should matter;-- safety of the equipment does matter. And safety should not be relative to geography (humidity excepted!) To alleviate the burden of increased costs for those few hardware providers who are not selling to the international market, I offer the following recommendations: * Extend or retain UL1459 for the domestic U.S. market only, provided the UL1950/IEC950 harmonized requirements remain an option to those of us who wish to ship internationally. It should be noted that Canada (unless they change their minds dramatically) has harmonized with IEC950 earlier than UL and, I don't believe, would consider going back to C22.2, No.220. or * Add another Appendix to UL1950, similar to NAE, that would list UL1459 only options in lieu of the stated UL1950/IEC950 requirements. During UL product evaluation, a statement could be added under Engineering Considerations that this product meets only U.S. requirements. Under those circumstances, obviously, UL would never consider providing a CB Scheme Report and Certificate. The rest of us will happily take UL1950 and the CB Scheme Report. I believe that by considering either of the above two options, UL can make both parties happy. But please, do not "revive" UL1459 for telephone equipment and punish the rest of us. Tania Grant, Lucent Technologies, Octel Messaging Division tgr...@lucent.com ---------- From: JIM WIESE[SMTP:jim.wi...@adtran.com] Reply To: JIM WIESE Sent: Monday, March 22, 1999 4:06 PM To: emc-pstc; 'TREG'; NEBS FORUM Cc: Ron Bernot; Randy Ivans; Mark Vlanich; Jim Brunssen; Tom Burke; Kevin Ravo; 'MARK WALKER'; Bob Burek; Tom_Amatulli; Frank Terlato; Bob Raskey; harry.vanza...@telops.gte.com; chuck_gr...@smtp.nynex.com; tto...@uswest.com; jmla...@uswest.com; mben...@uswest.com; sbi...@hotmail.com; Larry Todd; Keith Kuhn Subject: Network Equipment and UL 1459/1950 TIA 41.7 and Underwriters Laboratories are interested in obtaining information and input relating to concerns, complaints and problems with the cutover from UL 1459 to UL 1950 3rd Edition for equipment designed to be owned, installed and maintained by a telecommunications provider. This is equipment and installations that are traditionally exempt from the NEC, but could make up the demarcation point. The cutover is scheduled for March 15th, 2000. Interest in telco providers having "safety listings" on new products they purchase has grown rapidly in the last few years. Equipment installed by the telco providers has traditionally been built utilizing design guidelines based on Bellcore standards (such as GR-1089-CORE), and/or UL 1459. As many of you know, UL 1950 3rd edition is based upon spacings called creepage and clearance. Traditional telco installations are deficient with regard to creepage and clearance, but will meet the dielectric tests called out in UL 1459. There are also substantial differences between GR-1089-CORE, UL 1459 and UL 1950 3rd with regard to voltage limits. In discussions with various telco providers over the past month, there has been a consensus that there is not a perception of safety problems and there is some concern that the ramifications of eliminating UL 1459 could have an undesired impact. They have stressed that harmonization is not a factor as the infrastructure used in North America is unique. They also stressed that they have 3 basic concerns with regard to safety listings; no increased cost to the product, can utilize existing shelves, housing, channel banks and infrastructure, the listing is to a standard that is acceptable into to foreseeable future. UL 1950 3rd Edition without some substantial deviations will not meet the needs of the telco providers. Work is currently ongoing at UL to determine if UL 1459 needs to be revived for network equipment, reissued under a new standard number with a revised scope for network equipment only, or develop deviations in UL 1950 3rd edition. As such, if you have any input, concerns or issues with the above mentioned topic, TIA 41.7.1 and UL would be very interested in your comments. They are trying to determine if there is industry support to look further into these issues. Please forward this E-mail to anybody you know that might be outside this mailing list that also might be interested. Please send comments, complaints, problems etc. to: 1.) Randy Ivans (chairman of TIA 41.7.1) iva...@ul.com 516-271-6200 ext. 22269 2.) Mark Vlanich (UL Engineering Team Leader) vlani...@ul.com 919-549-1647 3.) Jim Brunssen (Telcordia formerly Bellcore) jbrun...@notes.cc.bellcore.com 973-829-2977 4.) Or simply respond to me and I will present it to TIA in May Thanks, Jim Jim Wiese Compliance Engineer ADTRAN, INC. 901 Explorer Blvd. P.O. Box 140000 Huntsville, AL 35814-4000 256-963-8431 256-963-8250 fax jim.wi...@adtran.com --------- This message is coming from the emc-pstc discussion list. To cancel your subscription, send mail to majord...@ieee.org with the single line: "unsubscribe emc-pstc" (without the quotes). For help, send mail to ed.pr...@cubic.com, j...@gwmail.monarch.com, ri...@sdd.hp.com, or roger.volgst...@compaq.com (the list administrators). --------- This message is coming from the emc-pstc discussion list. To cancel your subscription, send mail to majord...@ieee.org with the single line: "unsubscribe emc-pstc" (without the quotes). For help, send mail to ed.pr...@cubic.com, j...@gwmail.monarch.com, ri...@sdd.hp.com, or roger.volgst...@compaq.com (the list administrators).