Path: utzoo!attcan!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!rutgers!sun-barr!texsun!texbell!vector!telecom-gateway From: OLE@csli.stanford.edu (Ole J. Jacobsen) Newsgroups: comp.dcom.telecom Subject: RJ21X and regulations Message-ID: Date: 18 May 89 04:31:54 GMT Sender: news@vector.Dallas.TX.US Lines: 26 Approved: telecom-request@vector.dallas.tx.us X-Submissions-To: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu X-Administrivia-To: telecom-request@vector.dallas.tx.us X-TELECOM-Digest: volume 9, issue 168, message 8 of 8 Pacific Bell has quite a different idea about what an RJ21X should look like. As the person responsible for our company's phone system, I was recently served with a "Violation Notice" and given two weeks to wire our lines to the 66 block VIA the amphenol connector. The straight "them on one side --- us on the other" with bridging clips in between is NOT ALLOWED here. I was told that if I did not correct the problem, service would be terminated. If you receive service by means of an RJ21X, the phone company wants to have the ability to disconnect all of your lines with one simple yank of the amphenol plug, wonderful. More recently I ordered yet another line (for a credit card verification frob), and the installer wanted to put up a standard network interface box (like the ones they use outside new residences) rather than put the line next to the existing ones. (The RX21X is inside a phone closet in the building). The reason is apparently that you are not supposed to have lines with different "class of service" on the same 66 block. When I explained that we already had a mixture of stuff on the 66 block; 12 CO lines in hunt, 2 fax lines, and 2 modem lines, he agreed to punch the new line down with the rest, mumbling about how the PUC makes them do all these silly things. The guy that goes around snooping in everyone's phone closet to look for this kind of stuff must have a fun job.....maybe I should apply :-) Ole