Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Technology Stocks : LAST MILE TECHNOLOGIES - Let's Discuss Them Here -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Frank A. Coluccio who wrote (3405)	4/17/1999 7:38:00 PM
From: Kenneth E. Phillipps	Respond to of 12823

Thanks Frank - I feel enlightened. Ken

To: Frank A. Coluccio who wrote (3405)	4/17/1999 8:04:00 PM
From: WTC	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 12823

Frank, I think you were a bit too flippant with NEBS question, to the point that you missed highlighting the reason any new carrier would care about NEBS. < NEBS compliance is often required by telecommunications service providers such as RBOCs and Interexchange Carriers for equipment installed in their switching facilities. > If we dropped the "often", that is an accurate statement. Your next comment was the problem: < It's a kind of assurance standard that says if you meet it, you can drop something from twelve feet off the ground and sprinkle it with water in an oven rated at 500 degrees C, and it will still work. And then some.> That is the Level 2 and Level 3 NEBS standards you allude to here (generally -- these parts deal with reliability), and no new carrier really cares about that anymore via NEBS. Since the FCC ruled that the ILECs can only hold CLECs to NEBS Level 1 testing and certification, don't expect the NEBS labs in the US to do much extra business anymore with CLEC gear in the NEBS 2/3 test suites. Level 1 basically involves a suite of tests that provide broad assurance that a piece of telecom equipment, whether functioning properly or malfunctioning in certain predictable ways, will not cause a smoke, heat, fire, or RF emission problem to the other equipment in the same building space. There are limits on the heat load per rack, tests of susceptibility to fire, tests of RF emission levels with the cabinet doors open and closed, etc. As far as NEBS in the news, the FCC decision last month basically said that the ILECs may no longer make it a condition for collocation that CLEC equipment meet any standards of performance or reliability -- the ILECs can only require certification that it won't start a fire or emit a lot of radiation that could muck up other equipment performance. Frank, I know you know all of this, but the issue and the currency of NEBS in the news seemed to make question worthy of a fuller answer.