<html>
  <head>
    <meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=utf-8">
  </head>
  <body text="#000000" bgcolor="#FFFFFF">
    <div class="moz-cite-prefix">The WC58 wrapped up a few weeks ago and
      had the documents approved and published only last week - your
      timing is impeccable!<br>
      (...after kicking off as a second attempt at VDSL2 review back in
      October 2013 - at 4.5 years is the longest working group I've ever
      been part of!)<br>
      <br>
      The new Code is C658:2018 <i>Next-Generation Broadband Systems
        Deployment in Customer Cabling</i><br>
      <br>
      See <a moz-do-not-send="true"
        href="http://commsalliance.com.au/Documents/all/codes/c658">http://commsalliance.com.au/Documents/all/codes/c658</a><br>
      <br>
      <blockquote type="cite">
        <p><br>
          <a
href="http://commsalliance.com.au/__data/assets/pdf_file/0007/59938/C658_1_2018.pdf">C658:2018
            Part 1</a> – Performance Requirements (4272KB)<br>
          <a
href="http://commsalliance.com.au/__data/assets/pdf_file/0008/59939/C658_2_2018.pdf">C658:2018
            Part 2</a> – Methods For Determining Compliance (2275KB)<br>
          <a
href="http://commsalliance.com.au/__data/assets/pdf_file/0009/59940/C658_3_-2018.pdf">C658:2018
            Part 3</a> – Requirements for Deployment Class Systems
          (3086KB)<br>
          <br>
          C658:2018 is designed to prevent performance-degrading
          Unacceptable Interference within Customer Cabling that carries
          Legacy Systems (e.g. ADSL2+ technology) and/or Next Generation
          Broadband Systems (e.g. VDSL2 technology).<br>
          <br>
          The draft Industry Code is in three Parts:<br>
        </p>
        <ul>
          <li>Part 1 requires Next Generation Broadband Systems not to
            emit Unacceptable Excess Power and not to cause Unacceptable
            Interference to other Higher Priority Deployment Class
            Systems or to Legacy Systems in a Shared Cable Bundle.</li>
          <li>Part 2 defines the detailed technical methods and
            calculations required to demonstrate those requirements are
            met.</li>
          <li>Part 3 provides a list of defined Deployment Classes and a
            set of Appendices, each containing a detailed specification
            for a Deployment Class. It also describes the path to deemed
            compliance by these Deployment Class Systems.</li>
        </ul>
      </blockquote>
      <br>
      Happy Reading!<br>
      <br>
      <br>
      <br>
      On 18/04/2018 2:16 PM, David Hughes wrote:<br>
    </div>
    <blockquote type="cite"
      cite="mid:91B2CA02-CDF6-4DBC-8625-E8F978DC3D5B@hughes.com.au">
      <meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=utf-8">
      <div class=""><br class="">
      </div>
      Hah, thanks, I should have googled myself :) 
      <div class=""><br class="">
      </div>
      <div class="">So, based on that the Act has been amended to
        loosely provide protection against interference from different
        technologies, and Comms Alliance WC58 was working to revise
        documents to provide more specifics.  So I wonder if WC58 came
        up with the goods? There’s no details of output from the WC on
        the web site. </div>
      <div class=""><br class="">
      </div>
      <div class="">@Paul Brooks - are you still across this mate?  Any
        chance of an update?</div>
      <div class=""><br class="">
      </div>
      <div class=""><br class="">
      </div>
      <div class=""><br class="">
      </div>
      <div class="">Thanks</div>
      <div class=""><br class="">
      </div>
      <div class="">David</div>
      <div class="">...</div>
      <div class=""><br class="">
      </div>
      <div class=""><br class="">
        <div>
          <blockquote type="cite" class="">
            <div class="">On 18 Apr 2018, at 1:41 pm, Jason Leschnik
              <<a href="mailto:jason@leschnik.me" class=""
                moz-do-not-send="true">jason@leschnik.me</a>> wrote:</div>
            <br class="Apple-interchange-newline">
            <div class="">
              <div dir="ltr" class="">Is this it?
                <div class=""><br class="">
                </div>
                <div class=""><a
href="http://lists.ausnog.net/pipermail/ausnog/2016-February/034323.html"
                    class="" moz-do-not-send="true">http://lists.ausnog.net/pipermail/ausnog/2016-February/034323.html</a><br
                    class="">
                </div>
                <div class=""><br class="">
                </div>
                <div class="">Using this search in Google `Alliance
                  dslam site:<a
                    href="http://lists.ausnog.net/pipermail/ausnog/%60"
                    class="" moz-do-not-send="true">http://lists.ausnog.net/pipermail/ausnog/`</a></div>
                <div class=""><br class="">
                </div>
                <div class="">HTH</div>
              </div>
              <div class="gmail_extra"><br class="">
                <div class="gmail_quote">On 18 April 2018 at 12:57,
                  David Hughes <span dir="ltr" class="">
                    <<a href="mailto:david@hughes.com.au"
                      target="_blank" class="" moz-do-not-send="true">david@hughes.com.au</a>></span>
                  wrote:<br class="">
                  <blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0
                    .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">
                    Afternoon all,<br class="">
                    <br class="">
                    I recall a while back there being a mention of
                    someone looking at putting together requirements for
                    the happy coexistence of multiple dslams on the same
                    cable plant.  The context was for a FTTB provider
                    delivering services in a building that has an NBN
                    FTTB dslam in place.  Issues such as interference
                    from multiple vdsl vectoring config etc.<br class="">
                    <br class="">
                    I can’t recall where I heard of it or who was
                    working on it, Comms Alliance possibly.  Sorry for
                    being so vague, but if you are less vague about this
                    can you let me know the details?<br class="">
                    <br class="">
                    <br class="">
                    Thanks<br class="">
                    <br class="">
                    David<br class="">
                    ...<br class="">
                    ______________________________<wbr class="">_________________<br
                      class="">
                    AusNOG mailing list<br class="">
                    <a href="mailto:AusNOG@lists.ausnog.net" class=""
                      moz-do-not-send="true">AusNOG@lists.ausnog.net</a><br
                      class="">
                    <a
                      href="http://lists.ausnog.net/mailman/listinfo/ausnog"
                      rel="noreferrer" target="_blank" class=""
                      moz-do-not-send="true">http://lists.ausnog.net/<wbr
                        class="">mailman/listinfo/ausnog</a><br class="">
                  </blockquote>
                </div>
                <br class="">
              </div>
            </div>
          </blockquote>
        </div>
        <br class="">
      </div>
      <br>
      <fieldset class="mimeAttachmentHeader"></fieldset>
      <br>
      <pre wrap="">_______________________________________________
AusNOG mailing list
<a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:AusNOG@lists.ausnog.net">AusNOG@lists.ausnog.net</a>
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://lists.ausnog.net/mailman/listinfo/ausnog">http://lists.ausnog.net/mailman/listinfo/ausnog</a>
</pre>
    </blockquote>
    <p><br>
    </p>
  </body>
</html>