Do I need RJ31X jack?
HK
why I need this jack. My telco lines come into punch down blocks where I do
the connection to my premise phones. Why can I just connect the panel in
the same fashion?
Can I just connect the red & green from my box directly to my telco wires
and yellow and black from the box to my premise phones? In this scenario
what's the purpose of the jack? What am I missing here?
NBFAA
to be able to disconnect any electronic device that may interfere with
communications. It's primary purpose is to allow the occupant access to the
phone line by simply disconnecting the jack. Most codes require that these
jacks be mounted on the outside of any electornic device. I would urge you to
utilize the jack. It's very cheap and very conveinant.
Rodney
Jim Rojas
runaway signals, at least you will be able to unplug it to give you your
phones back. Most cities require that the jack must be installed by code.
Jim Rojas
HK <henr...@homeDELETETHIS.com> wrote in message
news:JQRw4.118732$45.60...@news2.rdc1.on.home.com...
BHNjr
to skim to save $5.00?
HK
of this thing. I finally talked to a telco engineer who gave me a product
code. I now have to special order the thing from my network/electrical
dealear.
----------
In article <20000306162933...@ng-co1.aol.com>, bh...@aol.com
NBFAA
ROdney
Robert L Bass
HK <henr...@home.com> wrote in message
news:dRWw4.119697$45.60...@news2.rdc1.on.home.com...
: It's not the $5.00, it's the availability. It seems that no one has heard
AZALRM
because of federal legislation mandated and backed by communication providers
such as USWEST. This disconnect means is for the primary benefit of a public
utility that wishes to quickly determine the side of any communications fault.
Its a good Idea, however many companies don't follow the FCC requirement.
The public utility has the authority to refuse service to anyone who fails to
properly hookup devices that are not isolated in this manner.
I had one such incident in Washington State. I learned the hard way about this
issue. I was more embarrased than anything else.
Its a good practice that is not enforced, Most phone companies don't force the
issue,
RB
Andy Bowman
NBFAA <nb...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20000306132538...@ng-ca1.aol.com...
>It's primary purpose is to allow the occupant access to the
> phone line by simply disconnecting the jack. Most codes require that
these
> jacks be mounted on the outside of any electornic device. I would urge
you to
> utilize the jack.
Although generally true, I'd say it's primary purpose is to provide line
seizure. To answer the fellows question, the RJ31X allows the panel to take
control of the phone lines in the event of an alarm. This prevents a would
be burglar from breaking thru the front door and running to the first phone
and taking it off the hook thereby preventing the alarm from dialing out.
It's probably a rare occurrence, but possible.
Andy
jim
<abo...@tls.netnospam> writes:
>
>Although generally true, I'd say it's primary purpose is to provide line
>seizure. To answer the fellows question, the RJ31X allows the panel to take
>control of the phone lines in the event of an alarm. This prevents a would
>be burglar from breaking thru the front door and running to the first phone
>and taking it off the hook thereby preventing the alarm from dialing out.
>It's probably a rare occurrence, but possible.
>
>Andy
>
I have to disagree with that Andy. I'm sure you realize that you can provide
line seizure without the RJ31X by just cutting the alarm system into the
telephone feed in front of all of the house phones and splicing into the line.
Line seizure is just a * method* of connecting the alarm to the phone lines.
Other then it being required, the main purpose of the Jack, is so that the
alarm system can be disconnected from the telephone line with out interrupting
telephone service.
:::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::
Remove theQzapp from my address to E-Mail
Ejad ..Jim
................................................................
VSS DOUG
>Although generally true, I'd say it's primary purpose is to provide line
>seizure. To answer the fellows question, the RJ31X allows the panel to take
>control of the phone lines in the event of an alarm.
Not really Andy, the control panel itself provides for line seizure, the
purpose of the RJ31X is to allow a device to be easily disconnected from the
phone line.
Doug L
Mark Leuck
Andy Bowman <abo...@tls.netnospam> wrote in message
news:%h%w4.3074$yV1.7...@tw11.nn.bcandid.com...
>
> NBFAA <nb...@aol.com> wrote in message
> news:20000306132538...@ng-ca1.aol.com...
> >It's primary purpose is to allow the occupant access to the
> > phone line by simply disconnecting the jack. Most codes require that
> these
> > jacks be mounted on the outside of any electornic device. I would urge
> you to
> > utilize the jack.
>
> seizure. To answer the fellows question, the RJ31X allows the panel to
take
> be burglar from breaking thru the front door and running to the first
phone
> and taking it off the hook thereby preventing the alarm from dialing out.
> It's probably a rare occurrence, but possible.
But Andy, the panel does that, not the RJ31X, the purpose of the RJ is to
allow the customer or phone tech to remove the panel from the existing phone
system
Only problem is if you get some cheap RJ blocks they can corrode and by
unplugging the RJ cord you can KILL the phone lines...exact opposite
HK
the same thing with my BIX punchdown blocks. I would just label the alarm
lines and in the event of a malfunction, simply pull them off the blocks.
I'll have to phone around and find one.
HK
I'm in Toronto. If I can't find one here this week, I'll give you a call.
Thanks,
Henry
Robert L Bass <alar...@home.com> wrote in message
news:%wXw4.23939$hT2.1...@news1.rdc1.ct.home.com...
ccccxcccxccc
AZALRM <aza...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20000306221926...@ng-bh1.aol.com...
The Telcos only provide service to the Net. Interface box. It is the
owners
responsibility for all the wiring beyond the Interface. The service techs
just plug into the RJ jack and if the line works there, this is where they
stop. The RJ31x is just a convenience.
Cliff s
VSS DOUG
>But the people in the US think that it is useful to be able to have the
>customer unplug the panel - their choice I guess.
It has its pro's & con's like anything else, it can be very useful to have the
customer unplug the RJ if the panel won't release the line or is on "runaway",
it can reduce the urgency of the service call to repair the alarm, if the panel
is causing problems with the phone line especially in a single line business or
residence then the customer will wan't it fixed immediately or sooner, if they
can unplug the jack and resume normal business they will probably be willing to
wait for the service call. It can also help with troubleshooting a problem
with a phone line, alarm systems sometimes get incorrectly blamed for faults on
the phone line, if the customer can unplug the RJ and the fault clears then its
reasonable to assume that the problem is the alarm, if the fault doesn't clear
then you can probably rule out the alarm as the problem. Having said all that,
in 12 years I can't recall ever having to ask a customer to unplug the RJ.
Doug L
holger
lines THROUGH the alarm so it disconnects the house phones while it dials out or
if someone should pick up the phone before it does without an RJ31X, the call
may not get out! Remember, this is security.
Your system is a chain and vunerable from the weakest link.
<H>
VSS DOUG
>Because the alarm should have control over the house phones. You wire the
>telco
>lines THROUGH the alarm so it disconnects the house phones while it dials out
>or
Unless I'm mistaken, the orignal poster was talking about hard wiring through
the panel and still providing line seizure, he was asking why, if he wires it
this way does he still require the RJ31X.
Doug L
Mark Leuck
Jim Rojas <jro...@tech-man.com> wrote in message
news:QYjx4.10009$VM.5...@typhoon.tampabay.rr.com...
> I find it strange but not surprising that a telco will still remove our
line
> seizure connection from the demarc, without first asking the customer to
> unplug the alarm to see if it is the alarm panel causing the interference.
> They always assume that the alarm is causing the problems.
>
> I was at a few service calls where the demarc itself was at fault. The
newer
> style demarc uses a short flat cord and a RJ11 plug, and a clip that holds
> it in place. Many times I have seen where the plug is corroded and I point
> this out to the customer. At times I will even swap it for the customer if
> extras are installed. God forbid if the telcos did their job right the
first
> time... :)
You mean it got that far where a phone tech actually came out?
Here is a sample of a conversation I had with Southwestern Bell
Me: "Hi I'm having a problem with my phone line"
SB: "Do you have an alarm system?"
Me: "Yes"
SB: "Thats the problem"
Needless to say the problem (if she would have let me explain) was that I
could plainly hear someone talking in the background while I was on the
phone, in fact it was going on while I was speaking to the SB lady :)
Jonathan Sadler
Over here (in New Zealand) we almost always wire like you do - we don't use
a jack.
I've seen 2 of these things installed in my life. I've never needed to
install one.
The disadvantages that I see with them is that it would be easy for a
customer (or burglar) to accidentally (or intentionally) remove the panel.
This is of course assuming that the jack is somewhere accessible - this
wouldn't happen if locked inside the panel cam.
But the people in the US think that it is useful to be able to have the
customer unplug the panel - their choice I guess.
Cheers.
--
Jonathan Sadler
jsa...@ihug.co.nz
ICQ: 596471
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
HK <henr...@deletetaylorkim.com> wrote in message
news:rN6x4.122323$45.62...@news2.rdc1.on.home.com...
> Okay, okay, I'll install one. But, I still maintain that I could
accomplish
> the same thing with my BIX punchdown blocks. I would just label the alarm
> lines and in the event of a malfunction, simply pull them off the blocks.
>
> I'll have to phone around and find one.
>
>
> HK <henr...@homeDELETETHIS.com> wrote in message
> news:JQRw4.118732$45.60...@news2.rdc1.on.home.com...
Thomas Gerchak
Actually, it is required for Part 68 of Federal Communications Commission rules.
The alarm equipment only meets the requirement to be installed to a public
telephone network when it is connected with a RJ38X or RJ31X jack.
Jonathan would not necessarily have to comply with our FCC rules. Wonder what
requirement Canadians have to abide by?
Respectfully,
thomas
Robert L Bass wrote:
> Jonathan Sadler wrote :
> : But the people in the US think that it is useful to be able to
> : have the customer unplug the panel - their choice I guess.
>
> Actually, it's a phone company tariff that requires it in the States. We have
> to do it anywhere outside the Tundra. The jack should always be in a protected
> location. I prefer to mount it inside the locked control panel box.
>
> --
>
> Regards,
> Robert L Bass
>
> ==========================>
> Bass Home Electronics
> The Online DIY Alarm Store
> http://www.Bass-Home.com
> 80 Bentwood Road
> West Hartford, CT 06107
> 860-561-9542 voice
> 860-561-5210 fax
> alar...@home.com
> ==========================>
Irv Fisher
seen them sold commercially. You wont find them at Canadian Tire or
the Home Depot.
If you're really thirsting for one and Keele/Hwy 7 isn't too far for
you, drop me an email. I'll arrange to have one at the front desk for
you.
We don't ship.
On Tue, 07 Mar 2000 12:41:18 GMT, "HK" <henr...@deletetaylorkim.com>
wrote:
Irv Fisher
Canada Thomas.
But there's a twist...
With the phone companies moving away from the 'intra' environment by
making their demarcs outside the premise, there's even less
enforcement than before.
As far as the telco is concerned, (from an operational point of view),
they dont care much what you do inside as long as it doesn't affect
the network, (like sucking too much juice out of the phone line).
If there's an issue up here now, the telco guy pops the pair off at
the demarc and if it tests good - he's gone. It's the
homeowner/buseinsssman's problem at that point.
The old days of chastising customers for jerry rigging alarm (among
others) connections will soon become a faded memory.
On Wed, 08 Mar 2000 01:39:28 GMT, Thomas Gerchak <tger...@pdq.net>
wrote:
Jim Rojas
seizure connection from the demarc, without first asking the customer to
unplug the alarm to see if it is the alarm panel causing the interference.
They always assume that the alarm is causing the problems.
I was at a few service calls where the demarc itself was at fault. The newer
style demarc uses a short flat cord and a RJ11 plug, and a clip that holds
it in place. Many times I have seen where the plug is corroded and I point
this out to the customer. At times I will even swap it for the customer if
extras are installed. God forbid if the telcos did their job right the first
time... :)
Jim Rojas
Irv Fisher <ifi...@apialarm.com> wrote in message
news:u7zFODVRxKEaL87Dee3o67=4K...@4ax.com...
Thomas Gerchak
'mandates' you to install such a jack, given that the US FCC is a Federal entity given
authority under United States Federal law?
Does Canada have a counterpart, or did your country adopt the FCC as law? Part 68 in
particular?
My point being that it is certainly is not a phone company tariff. The phone company
gets no additional money from the sale of RJ jacks. RLB can call it a tariff, but
calling it such is absurd.
Respectfully,
thomas
Irv Fisher
statement. I think the new name is DOC (Department of Communications)
-I'll humbly accept correction if it's different.
Our standards have always been close to FCC and with NAFTA, they are
supposed to be 'harmonized' whatever that means. To ULC it means CUL.
To companies like DSC, it means you go overboard to make sure all
standards are met.
But you're right.
The jack itself is 'tariffed' up here for purposes of charging for it
but its use is 'network wide' which requires a higher authority than
the local telco.
On Wed, 08 Mar 2000 03:58:51 GMT, Thomas Gerchak <tger...@pdq.net>
Mark Leuck
Thomas Gerchak <tger...@pdq.net> wrote in message
news:38C70214...@pdq.net...
> Mark, your line sounds crossed to another one. They can do a metalic test
and
> usually figure this out. I can't believe you had such a problem. Did the
> tester refuse to test the line?
Hell they didn't even admit to the problem until I talked to the other lady
on the line while speaking to the phone lady, it took me about 4 tries to
get them to admit it was even happening
> If you still have this problem, please let me know as I have vested
interest in
> the company.
This was about 3 years ago :)
> Did they just say it was your alarm and hang up? Did you utilize your
amazing
> powers of persuasion to convince them it was a line problem? Did you get
a name
> or number to repoirt the incident? I find this attitude from the SWBell
rep
> disheartening.. Say it ain't so.
They didn't hang up but it took them forever to figure out it wasn't the
panel, I've also heard other complaints from others with other phone
companies
Thomas Gerchak
usually figure this out. I can't believe you had such a problem. Did the
tester refuse to test the line?
If you still have this problem, please let me know as I have vested interest in
the company.
Did they just say it was your alarm and hang up? Did you utilize your amazing
powers of persuasion to convince them it was a line problem? Did you get a name
or number to repoirt the incident? I find this attitude from the SWBell rep
disheartening.. Say it ain't so.
Respectfully,
thomas
Mark Leuck wrote:
> Jim Rojas <jro...@tech-man.com> wrote in message
> news:QYjx4.10009$VM.5...@typhoon.tampabay.rr.com...
> > I find it strange but not surprising that a telco will still remove our
> line
> > seizure connection from the demarc, without first asking the customer to
> > unplug the alarm to see if it is the alarm panel causing the interference.
> > They always assume that the alarm is causing the problems.
> >
> > I was at a few service calls where the demarc itself was at fault. The
> newer
> > style demarc uses a short flat cord and a RJ11 plug, and a clip that holds
> > it in place. Many times I have seen where the plug is corroded and I point
> > this out to the customer. At times I will even swap it for the customer if
> > extras are installed. God forbid if the telcos did their job right the
> first
> > time... :)
>
Thomas Gerchak
Irv Fisher wrote:
> The jack itself is 'tariffed' up here for purposes of charging for it
> but its use is 'network wide' which requires a higher authority than
> the local telco.
>
Forgive me, but you say "tariffed" as in there is a "tariff" on the RJ31X jack and where
does the money go to?
We may figure the answer out in a few more posts. The FCC, a US entity, mandates the use
of the RJ here in the States. There must be a Canadian entity mandating the requirement.
I am bamboozled as far as if NZ is required to install an RJ. I have a strong feeling
they have no such requirement.
Respectfully,
thomas
Irv Fisher
called it a coupler.
Our use of the word tariff means that Bell has applied for and
received permission to sell a service.
Technically non billable items may be tariffed but I cant think of any
off the top of my head.
The higher authority is the Cdn version of the FCC, referred to as the
DOC.
It used to be mandated. Probably still is.
On Thu, 09 Mar 2000 02:09:43 GMT, Thomas Gerchak <tger...@pdq.net>
wrote:
>
>
Robert L Bass
telco's do are called "tariffs." The term is used loosely.
Irv Fisher <ifi...@apialarm.com> wrote in message
news:4TPHODnYEPK2X6...@4ax.com...
:
Jeff
install in put the jack inside the alarm can. This probably against code but my
argument is that somone working in the business could disconnect it on purpose.
Mark Leuck
Jeff <jmo...@apex.net> wrote in message news:38C85092...@apex.net...
> I agree with the installation of the RJ31X jack....however on most
commercial
> install in put the jack inside the alarm can. This probably against code
but my
> argument is that somone working in the business could disconnect it on
purpose.
>
True but it also prevents people from getting into the box to disconnect it,
especially when some companies like locking the panels and taking the keys
Also try talking an 80 year old lady on finding a screwdriver to open the
can, Residential or Commercial its much easier in the end to access it which
is why its there in the first place
Adenco
>my
>argument is that somone working in the business could disconnect it on
>purpose.
>
it is against code one way to deal with it in a business or anywhere is to
tamper the rj jack with a resistor on a spare pair of wires in the rj so if it
gets unplugged a zone will violate on the keypad and keep the end user from
arming the system until the problem is corrected (the rj cord is plugged back
in)
james barnes
denco security
Robert L Bass
client the keys and instruct them as part of the user training how to disconnect
the RJ-31X if they need to.
--
Regards,
Robert L Bass
==========================>
Bass Home Electronics
The Online DIY Alarm Store
http://www.Bass-Home.com
80 Bentwood Road
West Hartford, CT 06107
860-561-9542 voice
860-561-5210 fax
alar...@home.com
==========================>
Jeff <jmo...@apex.net> wrote in message news:38C85092...@apex.net...
: I agree with the installation of the RJ31X jack....however on most commercial
: install in put the jack inside the alarm can. This probably against code but
my
: argument is that somone working in the business could disconnect it on
purpose.
:
:
NBFAA
codes. You hypocrite
Rodney
>Robert L Bass wrote
Mark Leuck
> This coming from a man that reports others on a belief that they are
breaking
> codes. You hypocrite
>
> Rodney
This coming from someone who invents happy clients on his web site? You
hypocrite :)
DR
across auxiliary pins to create a closed circuit and use this as a zone that
will alert the client that the jack (on his totally inadequate alarm system)
has been disconnected.
DR
Jeff <jmo...@apex.net> wrote in message news:38C85092...@apex.net...
> I agree with the installation of the RJ31X jack....however on most
commercial
> install in put the jack inside the alarm can. This probably against code
but my
> argument is that somone working in the business could disconnect it on
purpose.
>
> Mark Leuck wrote:
>
> > Andy Bowman <abo...@tls.netnospam> wrote in message
> > news:%h%w4.3074$yV1.7...@tw11.nn.bcandid.com...
> > >
> > > >It's primary purpose is to allow the occupant access to the
> > > > phone line by simply disconnecting the jack. Most codes require
that
> > > these
> > > > jacks be mounted on the outside of any electornic device. I would
urge
> > > you to
> > > > utilize the jack.
> > >
Robert L Bass
violating code. That's up to the inspector. I do report criminals for breaking
the law. That's my job. It's also an ethical issue with me. If I know that an
alarm dealer is breaking the law, such as the Milford guy does, I feel it is my
responsibility to report him to the proper authorities.
I realize that there are some folks in this trade who resent the idea that
anyone would take umbrage with crooked alarm dealers. Ask me if I care.
Mark Leuck <mle...@Spamiadfw.net> wrote in message
news:7CA5D101AC6B6749.356A1E97...@lp.airnews.net...
:
: NBFAA <nb...@aol.com> wrote in message
: news:20000310115005...@ng-fh1.aol.com...
:
:
NBFAA
Tom isn't breaking a law, he is not a criminal, nor any purported deviant
that you have made him out to be. How dare judge others so quickly, freely,
unfairly....ah hell.....your just a pathetic prick.
Rodney