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).
