On Wed, 25 Feb 2004, Chris Day wrote:

> >> Er, why would a Telepermit on the phone make this a Telecom problem ?
>
> Er - because Telecom sets the standards that all importers who sell
> devices that connect to Telecom lines must comply with - following this
> logic, should the standards not take into account inter-product
> operability / compatibility? If not, why set standards in the first
> place? Or is this a case where "standards" means something other than
> the namesake implies?
>
> But now were deviating from the list topic which means we are likely to
> get kicked off...

And talking about a Panasonic phone is on topic ?

>From the telepermit site, it appears to be clear that a telepermit is
issued to show that the device being telepermited is ok to connect to the
telecom network.

There is no guarentee that this device will work as intended, simply that
it can connect to the network. (Thats something the customer and supplier
sort out under the CGA)

Further down the page there is a section that deals with compliance of
devices to international standards. This would mean that the panasonic
phone, when plugged into the telecom network will work as intended and
comply with international standards for transmission preformance,
signalling parameters, electrical safety and avoiding nuisance to other
customers.

The filters also comply with international standards and are shown not to
break the telecom network etc etc.

Using both of these in combination is really outside the spec of the
telepermit process - or for a device to get telepermitting would it have
to have every possible configuration tested and for these to be matched
against international standards ? not only would this add to the time to
telepermit a device, but also to the end cost.

The answer is quite simple really

Telepermit = Device is ok to connect to the telecom network and will not
destroy anything, and in normal configuration will work quite happily
according to international standards

Panasonic Phone + Filter = Defective and appears to show a degraded
preformance from other branded phones and the same filter combination

Panasonic should be held liable for either replacing the phone, fixing the
fault or having unhappy customers.

It appears that they have opted for the third solution.

Answer : get a new phone and if you feel strongly enough about using a
vendor that employs these tactics then boycott panasonic.

The "Standards" are set so that when joe customer wanders off to buy a
phone, plugs it into the phone lines and blows up a bazillion dollar
exchange that telecom have someone that can be held liable, either
themselves (bugger, we screwed up and it blew our exchange) or the
customer (wtf ? why did you plug something into our exchange that we didnt
authorise for use ?)

-- 
Steve. 
-- 
This message is part of the NZ ADSL mailing list. 
see http://unixathome.org/adsl/ for archives, FAQ, 
and various documents. 
To unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@lists.unixathome.org 
with "unsubscribe adsl" in the body of the message