Thread Links Date Links
Thread Prev Thread Next Thread Index Date Prev Date Next Date Index

Re: [802.3_4PPOE] SPI Public Input

Dear Fred,

Thank you so much for the clarification and thoughtful response.  I'm pleased to hear that SPI has taken our feedback to heart and taken the initiative to submit comments to remove most (if not, all) of the PoE references.

Looking forward to seeing you in Bonita Springs - Val

Valerie Maguire, BSEE
Global Sales Engineer
602-228-7943 mobile

From:        Fred Dawson <fred.c.dawson@xxxxxxxxx>
To:        STDS-802-3-4PPOE@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx,
Date:        08/26/2015 11:31 AM
Subject:        Re: [802.3_4PPOE] SPI Public Input

Hi Val,

I understand your concerns regarding the focus on "PoE" in the substantiation given by Code Making Panel 16 (CMP 16). This concern was also expressed at the IEEE meeting in Hawaii.

Fortunately the substantiation does not become part of the NEC. What does become part of the NEC (unless changed during the comment process) is the language in the box, and it makes no reference to PoE.

It was never our (SPI's) intent to single out IEEE PoE when submitting SPI's PI's to NFPA. It was used as an example because it is by far the best known remote powering method.

Based on the concerns expressed in Hawaii we (SPI) have drafted a number of comments specifically to remove the term PoE in most, if not all places where it is referenced in the First Draft text. I encourage others to do the same so that this concern is addressed.


On Wed, Aug 26, 2015 at 8:28 AM, <Valerie_Maguire@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Thanks, Fred.  This is helpful for us to study.  

From my perspective, I believe that the CMP-16 text is too focused on "PoE" as the example powering system.  While it may be the most ubiquitous, the PoE systems that are on the market are extremely safe (including accommodating extra precautions such as  device detection and classification prior to voltage delivery) and the cause for concern with PoE is significantly overstated.  Furthermore, singling out PoE as the one example makes it appear to the reader that this is the powering system to be concerned about when, in fact, there are other powering systems (such as direct injectors) that are much more likely to cause safety problems.

Hopefully, this is something that the 802.3bt Task Force can consider further in Bonita Springs.

All the best - Val

Valerie Maguire, BSEE

Global Sales Engineer

602-228-7943 mobile

Fred Dawson <fred.c.dawson@xxxxxxxxx>
08/25/2015 03:56 PM
[802.3_4PPOE] SPI Public Input


This is the main other SPI public input that expands the scope and coverage of Article 840 to match the new title “Premises-Powered Broadband Communications Systems”. 

The remaining PI's submitted by SPI make similar changes to the attached one. i.e. they expand sections of article 840 to include all types of communications systems rather than just optical ones.

I don't plan to send more of these as I don't believe they add to the discussion.

If anyone wants the other proposed language changes please let me know and I will try to extract them.


[attachment "840 1 FR-4582.pdf" deleted by Valerie Maguire/The Siemon Company]