Info and News

NEBS Fire Testing, GR-63, T1-319, and the Telephone Companies

Fire spread testing is an important part of the NEBS requirements imposed by the RBOCs (Regional Bell Operating Companies) and AT&T.  There are two main sources for these requirements—GR-63-CORE, Sections 4.2 and 5.2, and ANSI T1-319:2002, “Equipment Assemblies—Fire Propagation Risk Assessment Criteria.”  Different RBOCs impose different requirements, with some requiring GR-63 style tests, and others requiring the ANSI test.  

Here’s a quick summary of what these companies require in the area of fire testing:

Verizon’s position is the most complex.  The modifications it makes to each of the standards yield an overall common test, but one that is different than those required by the other RBOCs.  Recently Verizon announced its detailed position on acceptance of T1-319 tests (see the link http://www.verizonnebs.com/ansi_policy.pdf ).  The highpoints of this 8-page point-by-point analysis are:

1. All enclosures need to be evaluated for fire testing in an actual fire test.  Verizon will not accept the exceptions from testing provided in the T1.319 standard.
2. Fans need to be sourced power in a normal manor consistent with a normally operating chassis whenever possible.
3. If adaptive fans are being used the controlling circuitry should be active during fire testing.
4. If the fans are so powerful as to blow out the flame, then the test will be conducted with fans un-powered.  Note that Verizon’s position here is much stricter than SBC’s, which follows T1-319 – if the fans keep the flame from being established, T1-319 says the test need not be performed.
5. When Circuit Card placement is 1”or greater the card will be left in during fire testing.

The upshot of these differing requirements is that whether one or two fire tests will be required to qualify a product depends on which combination of companies a vendor wishes to sell to.  This can be a significant issue, as the real cost of fire testing involves not only the testing fees, but also the cost of destroying expensive and often rare prototypes of the equipment under test. 

With Verizon’s announcement on its acceptance of a modified, extended T1-319 test, it is possible to satisfy both Verizon’s and SBC’s requirements with a single test.  It is also possible to simultaneously satisfy Verizon and the other companies that use a GR-63 based approach.  However, it may prove difficult to meet SBC’s requirements for a straight T1-319 test and those of AT&T, Qwest, and Bellsouth, which are GR-63 based.  In creating their test plans, manufacturers should check this carefully with their planned customers and test laboratories, because procurement requirements are always changing and subject to negotiation.

Another factor that may affect fire testing in coming years is a planned update to GR-63-CORE.  The current version is Issue 2, dated October 2002.  Plans to commence work on Issue 3 this year have been announced by Telecordia.  Work is expected to address issues in the sections covering altitude, heat dissipation, acoustic, and fire spread performance.  It remains to be seen whether the new standard will satisfy all industry participants and re-unify their currently divergent fire spread requirements.

New NEBS Standard for Outdoor Electronics On the Way

An important new NEBS standard for outdoor electronics is coming.  GR-3108, Generic Requirements for Network Equipment in the Outside Plant has been drafted.  The draft should be released soon, probably by the time this gets to press.

The importance of this standard is based on the announced plans of Verizon and SBC to upgrade the network to have a more distributed architecture, with more equipment installed as “outside plant” rather than in the Central Office. 

At the present time, such equipment is given customized procurement requirements which mix the requirements for indoor equipment, such as those found in GR-1089 (EMC) and GR-63 (Environmental) with those of GR-487, which is an outdoor cabinet-specific set of requirements.  This results in a lack of true standardization for outdoor electronics.  The new GR-3108 has been drafted to remedy this problem.

• GR-3108 will reportedly draw many of its requirements from well-known industry standards:

• GR-63 for Earthquake, Altitude, Hygroscopic Dust and Mixed-Flow Gas Corrosion Resistance

• EN300-019 for Vibration and Cold Start requirements.  EN 300-019 is the European harmonized version of an ETSI  (European Telecommunications Standards Institute) telecom environmental standard, which has much commonality with GR-630CORE

• ANSI T1.319-2002 and T1-307 for fire evaluation

• GR-487 for Salt Fog resistance

• GR-1089 for Lighting and Power Surge

There is a wide variation in the characteristics of outdoor environments.  Consequently, GR-3108 will provide three classes of environment.  Here are their main characteristics and some typical applications:

Class 1 Equipment will be designed to operate between +5 and +40 degrees C and a relative humidity (RH) of 5 to 85%.  A class 1 environment would have active environmental control, and might be Controlled Environmental Hut or an air-conditioned GR-487 compliant cabinet.

Class 2 Equipment would operate in a “partially controlled” environment.  Possibly some form of heat dissipation would be included to limit temperature.  Class 2 equipment should be able to operate in the range of –40 to +65 degrees C.  Cold start requirements will be included.

Class 3 Equipment is exposed to the harshest conditions.  Its environment is not controlled.  Equipment in this classification should operate over the extended temperature range of –40 to +85 degrees C, and over a humidity range of 5 to 95% RH.  Some possible applications would be outdoor above ground equipment pedestals, or customer premise equipment located in such hostile locations as a boiler room or furnace area.

FCC Gets Howard Stern the Hook:

There have been several recent FCC actions against broadcasters accused of airing indecent material between the hours of 6 AM and 10 PM, defined as “graphic and explicit material designed to Pander to, titillate, and shock” listeners.  Some of these enforcement actions have achieved national attention in the press. 

Probably the two most highly publicized actions involve shock jock Howard Stern and singer Bono’s remarks at the Golden Globe Awards ceremony.  The Howard Stern case involves large fines to the Clear Channel Group and will likely result in the removal or curtailment of his show; the Golden Globe indecency issue is more technical, requiring a decision on what indecent should mean in the context of broadcast enforcement.

On April 8, 2004, the FCC hit Clear Channel with a proposed fine of $495,000 for broadcasting what it considered offensive material from the Howard Stern show on six channels.   The fine was calculated by multiplying the maximum per incident fine of $27,500 by eighteen incidents – three at each station.  What was new here was that the FCC instituted a stricter policy of fining for each incident—even if multiple incidents occurred within the same program.  This was pointed out and applauded by Commissioner Michael Copps in his separate statement.  Commissioner Copps has taken a hard stance in his comments on recent broadcast obscenity and indecency actions.

Fines have been hitting Clear Channel pretty hard of late.  It’s not just Howard Stern, although cumulatively he’s racked up close to $2 million in fines for his broadcasters over the years.  A few weeks previously, on March 8, the Commission issued a fine of $247,500 for indecency violations for broadcasts of the “Elliott in the Morning” program.  The problem is becoming bigger than a rising “cost of business” issue.  There have been rumblings at the Commission, and Clear Channel itself has expressed worries, that its broadcast licenses might be placed in jeopardy.  Consequently, Clear Channel announced that it would discontinue Howard’s show. 

Not everyone is unhappy with Howard, however.  He’s still strong in his hometown of New York.   One rumor that was floated was that Mr. Stern might move to a satellite radio network such as XM Satellite.  

In another high profile action, the FCC objected to singer Bono’s (of U2 fame) use of “the f-word” at the 2003 Golden Globe Awards ceremony, finding it indecent and profane.  The FCC acted after it received a couple of hundred complaints.  Interestingly, the FCC’s action was controversial—many objected on free speech grounds, and on the grounds that, as the Wall Street Journal put it, the question was whether “Bono’s blurt was a verb or a modifier?” 

Regardless of the details of these two incidents, it is clear that both the FCC and Congress are upset over what they perceive as an ever-declining level of decency in the media.  A proposal is afoot in Congress to sharply increase fines for broadcast indecency and set up a mechanism for revoking the license of repeat offenders.  Under House and Senate versions of the bills, broadcasters who repeatedly violate the rules could be charged the rather breathtaking amount of up to $500,000 per incident.  While it is not clear in what form the bill will pass, or if it will pass, the House approved an initial version by the lopsided vote of 391 – 22.

From Outside the Lab:  Card Sharps and the Courts:

Here’s an item that’s a break from the usual lab fare:  Federal prosecutors broke up a 17-man crew of card sharps who had cheated casinos in Las Vegas, Atlantic City, and Lake Tahoe out of approximately $4 million.  They got their conviction, but an appeals court shaved a few months off of the chief cheat’s sentence because it didn’t involve a “special skill.”

At the center of the controversy was Jing Bing Liang, who provided the special expertise that made the enterprise possible.  Liang was gifted with extraordinary eyesight, which allowed him to see cards as they were dealt in certain games.  The ring also employed other methods, such as marking cards, but it was Liang’s special gift that was at issue.  The Feds successfully charged him with cheating, but piled on an enhancement to his sentence by arguing that his special eyesight and card skills constituted an extraordinary skill.

Liang’s lawyer appealed to the Ninth District Court, which agreed, although the decision only shaved several months from the sentence.  The court stated that for a special skill to qualify as an aggravating factor, it would have to be one that would ordinarily be “legitimate and important…and have the potential to be abused”, such as medical or legal training.  Intrinsic physical attributes such as acute eyesight, or intrinsically illegal skills such as card-cheating finesse, should not be counted as special skills.

When questioned about the outcome, Liang’s lawyer acknowledged that he hadn’t saved his client much time in jail, but stated that “an important legal principle” had been decided.  At least someone was happy.

Info and News brought to you by Curtis-Straus LLC 527 Great Road Littleton MA 01460
Phone 978.486.8880 Fax 978.486.8828

To see all previous news letters click here

To unsubscribe to this email click here