RETURN OF THE BORG "Take me to your leader"

There's a joke going around about a mathematician who said that 1000 chimpansees in 1000 years sitting at 1000 typewriters would eventually write the works of Shakespeare... And perhaps a bigger joke is that the Web proves this is not so! Kurt Vonnegut in "Vonnegut's Timequake; All Things Considered, September 22, 1997; US National Public Radio"

---

These messages are intended to provide information about cabling options and politics in NSW schools.

Following a request from some NSW DET Technology Advisors (14 MAY 1999), a number of original EMail messages have been removed from this document - which is a shame - it's always good to get a range of opinion.

The removed messages were universal in their rejection of any criticism of DET policies and\or procedures related to recent computer technology and cabling of NSW Government schools.

The remaining messages are thus an incomplete compilation from messages which originally appeared in the Net_Tech mailing list. The topic threads commenced during July 1998 and continue (with some side-tracks) through to the current time (May 1999). Kudos to all those who have not (yet?) requested their messages be withdrawn. This compilation was put together and edited somewhat hastily - hopefully any remaining glitches will be cleaned up shortly.

NB Blocks of text in red lettering are embedded references to text which appeared in previous messages.

Email this page URL to a friend.

For those of you who were ever in any doubt:

The following messages do not in any way represent the official views or policies of the NSW Department of Education and Training (DET) or their representatives!

Please examine the relationship between black text and red text if you wish to find out who said what!

Although the following stuff may appear to be haphazard, those who persevere will probably find answers (or starting points) to most of your questions - both technical and political ;^)

Any comments/complaints should be forwarded to relevant email address(es) appearing below:

---

• The Borg:   An entity featured in Star Trek that constituted a single intellect by combining the minds of all the victims it assimilated!

---

Date: Mon, 03 Aug 1998 10:58:16 +0000
From: Roger Buck 
Subject: Some school cabling issues

Eric and Randy are currently indisposed and have asked SAAS (Studio of Arts And Sciences) to communicate their views on the issue of school computer cabling - We have done our best to do their bidding.

All the usual caveats about bias and personal opinion still apply!

Some Observations About Network Cabling in NSW Schools:

With large numbers of computers entering NSW schools it makes sense for schools to connect to network resources - both across the school and across the world.

Given that fixed and limited funds are available for schools to improve their access to technology, the question is whether schools would do better to spend that money by cabling with Certified Cablers, or whether they would do better to engage community support and invest the resulting savings elswhere.

In simple, if you have the money it makes sense to have work done professionally and with no expense spared at all levels. If budget is an issue then then it usually pays to examine the options and compromise.

The USA NetDay project provides a good bench mark that NSW schools could consult when evaluating options and costs (the complete US NeTDay Kit, including 600 metres of Cat5 cable and terminating hardware and tools: Cost around US$350 - US$400).

As for the NSW experience, one local DET commentator (who declined to be named) was reported as saying:

"In typical fashion, NSW DSE (now DET) continue to lead the world in taking somebody else's good idea... and suffocating it to death.

NetDay Schools in New South Wales are paying a relatively high price to continue a system of commercially based inequality that the (NetDay) project itself is specifically designed to avoid!"

Putting aside any demarkation and/or political considerations, here is one person's experience of the present state of the game in NSW:

1. To date, most NSW NetDay cabling jobs have been performed at same or greater cost that schools would have achieved via the process of normal competitive tender.

2. Schools have spent $3000 - $4000 cabling one lab, where they could have done just as good a job using off-the shelf componentry (cables pre-terminated) for $500 - $600... and with all components properly certified before purchase.

3. Few (if any) installations have been properly completed and certified without significant intervention of TA's and other third parties. This intervention has been required to rectify genuine problems (often major).... but plenty of other jobs have get through because nobody knew enough to recognise the stuff-ups.

4. In most cases, no certificate is ever issued, and in some installations the test results (used to demonstrate certification compliance) have been questionable or downright, documented lies (cases where the cable "tested" still had one end - which had never been terminated - floating freely in the wall cavity... or others where documented test results for cable termination pairs labeled to one building actually went to another).

5. Most cablers I have met are just as efficient as you will find in any trade - but most of them are simply "wire pullers" - most have no network training at all, let alone any qualification in that area. Even when a cabling tradesperson obviously completes a job with skill and care, the actual solution may still be well below par due to poor implementation of hardware (hubs etc) and pool topology (unintelligent utilisation of cable segments etc). Good advice would be to NEVER let a cabler tell you what hardware to buy (especially if they have a commercial relationship with a particular supplier)... and certainly NEVER give any special credibilty to their advice regarding your network servers and related hardware.

6. In NSW, it has always been possible for computer/data cabling to be completed without requiring Austel (or more recently ACA, or any other) certification. Also, most people don't realise that the old Austel regulations applied to installation safety issues - they did not guarantee any kind of minimum standard concerning performace or suitability to task:

   In a situation where equipment has to be directly connected to a Public network, an approved line isolation unit (LIU) is usually all that is required. Most modern modems (and ISDN routers!) are an example of an approved LIU - there are others (and just about any Fibre Optic device is an LIU almost by definition).

   There have been very mixed results in schools that have done their own cabling, and equally mixed results from schools that have spent a lot of money to employ "experts". The difference in both cases relies on good supervision by experienced project managers.

   Too often the person responsible does not have the reqiured knowledge to supervise - let alone for assessing the finished quality of the job.

   Usually the only "test" is done by looking at how neat the job is... which is why may people think some crappy jobs are good!

   The simple definitive cabling test is to apply a properly calibrated meter and measure the results, then compare them with the published CAT5 specification (or other where appropriate). With minimal instruction, any novice can learn how to perform this test with no more than thirty minutes training. Properly calibrated CAT5 test equipment can be hired for as little as fifty dollars a day.

   Teachers and/or any other non qualified/experienced persons definitely should not install cable without obtaining good support and advice. In addition, no cabler should be trusted to provide advice on network hardware or topology without reference to an experienced network engineer - no matter whether the cablers are certified or not, and no matter how reputable their employer.

   The author is a Certified Master Cabler (CAT5 - Krone Australia) and has extensive experience of cabling installations in NSW school networks. The author has no commercial interests in school cabling or cabling companies.

   ---

From: "Peter Brownlow" 
To: 
Subject: Re: Some school cabling issues
Date: Tue, 4 Aug 1998 20:47:56 +1000

I was interested to here your views on cabling.

I am from a large comprehensive high school with half a dozen multi story older buildings spread over a largish (for schools) geographic area.

We wanted a network and we needed to be cabled - none existed. After investigating professional quotes which ranged from $50 000 to $130 000 for cabling alone we decided to do the work ourselves.

As an alternative I spent some time training and certifying myself with the following.

• Krone Master Installer
• Krone Master Designer
• Optical Fibre Cabling Certificate Module NTC21
• Certified Novell Administrator

Being able to buy the materials ex tax paid for all the training plus the tools needed. The cabling we did was quite extensive 100 plus outlets using FO and twisted pair.

Certification was not an issue for us - we need cabling to cat 5 standards, which is what we got. All the installation involved testing to cat 5. We did not see the point of paying the extra $2000 or so that it would have cost to get a certificate.

We now have a network that utilizes NetWare 4.11 for our file and print services and Unix as our Internet and Intranet server. It runs across the whole school, all staff rooms, admin areas, library and computer labs without a problem at all. None of this would have been possible if we had out soured our cabling.

Doing the cabling this way costs a fraction of the cost or getting a professional in. As a rough guide it cost us about $25 per termination plus $50 cents per meter for an average Cat 5 copper outlet in materials.

The easiest to cable we found were the computer rooms. A room with 20 outlets can be cabled by using 3 X 8 port hubs (about $150 a pop) and 20 x 6 meter patch leads (about $10 a pop). As long as no computer uses a lead more then 6 meters from a hub, the room is cabled for about $650, all within Cat 5 specifications and can be done in an afternoon.

It is most interesting to offer this idea to a professional cabler as an alternative to the $4000 to $5000 they are likely to quote for the same work. I would be interested to hear any views as to why this is not heavily promoted as the way to go for school computer labs. This is how we set up two of our three labs and we used students to do a lot of the work.

Since then I have done some cabling in a few other schools and am happy to give a hand to anyone that is interested in getting good cabling done cheaply.

Peter Brownlow
Head Teacher TAS
Lithgow High School

From: Roger Buck 
To: net_tech@powernet.nsw.gov.au
Subject: Re: Some school cabling issues

E&R wrote:

2. Schools have spent $3000 - $4000 cabling one lab, where they could have done just as good a job using off-the shelf componentry (cables pre-terminated) for $500 - $600... and with all components properly certified before purchase.

In response the E&R's comments above, a previous respondent wrote:

I think it is wrong to target cabling in schools as exclusively for computer data traffic. Why not look at the further benefits to the school of a fully structured system for delivery of other service (phone, fax, video, etc)

And Roger Buck continued:

Agreed whole heartedly - and this could still all be done by properly supervised, non qualified cablers: So long as the final connection to the public network is completed via an approved cabler using an approved Line Isolation Unit (LIU). There should be nothing to stop a school cabling for whatever properly compliant service they like (including video distribution and the internal telephone system) - no matter whether they choose to use voluntary parent labour or fully certified cablers?

Even when a cabling job is completed to the very highest possible standard, there are some other interesting problems to consider - because, after all, the cable is only one link in the chain, and the chain is no stronger than the weakest link... Well, we think it's interesting and we hope you do too!

CAVEAT: We haven't re-examined the following issues recently, and Australian regulations are currently somewhat dynamic as a result of industry de-regulation - so the following information may well no longer be strictly correct... but it most probably still is:

There has historically been one major issue that everyone ignores in the Australian, Austel approval process - a safety issue that COULD potentially invalidate the certification of many (maybe even ALL) of the, be it ever so nicely, "approved" and "certified" computer networks in Australian schools:

Certification (Austel or otherwise) usually remains valid only so long as all devices connected to any part (non-electrically isolated) of a certified cable installation are also properly certified and approved to the Australian standards.

Interestingly, most computer workstations are electrically un-isolated devices which may be connected directly to the cabling system following certification (of the cabling system itself)!

How many school computers have been Austel approved for direct connection to the public network... and (perhaps more importantly) Austel are not the only players in the approval process - how many school computers have passed an Energy Authority (EA) safety certification test?

Even if an electrical device has passed USA Underwriter Laboratories (UL or some other overseas electrical safety test), this does not (see caveat above) provide approved use in Australia (where the input voltage is more than double US/ASIA voltages... and even exceeds the 100 - 230V specified maximum (European) rating that are standard for most imported computer power supplies).

Most foreign produced computer cases sold in Australia are still imported from overseas with the power leads at the switch purposely disconnected from the internal power supply - this was/is done to exploit a loop-hole which allows un-approved electrical devices to enter Australia without requiring prior EA approval. As soon as the connections to the 240v switch are manually connected/assembled in Australia, these devices technically require(d) Energy Authority approval (assuming the system is intended to be for public use and connected to a power source rated at anything greater than thirty two volts (ELV)).

Unless this approval was obtained, most of these devices will be un-approved and strictly, technically, illegal (anything running from an APPROVED low voltage, double insulated, or similar step-down transformer/plug-pack would be OK - many note-book computers are OK).

Even a simple thing such as non-compliant colour coding on the internal 240v wiring, or the lack of an external 240v warning label, would be sufficient to constitute a breach of Australian EA standards for most desk-top machines.

Like the EA certification, Austel cable certification is mainly designed to ensure that systems meet prescribed standards to ensure the physical safety of persons coming into contact with the system - either as a technician or as an end user - especially technicians and users on the public network. The certification standards include the certification of attached devices in order to ensure that the safety standards of those other electrical cabling/devices in the installation environment do not compromise the electrical safety of the cabling sytem itself.

Connection of a workstation (of the type described above) to the network would have almost certainly invalidated the overall Austel certification - due to the possibility that the un-approved power supply may present an unacceptably high risk of delivering a high voltage potential to the network cabling system - either through omission of an approved LIU, poor insulation to the internal componentry, or through defective electrical earthing procedures to the wiring sytem or conductive case of the device itself.

A very nicely approved cabling job - so long as you don't connect a workstation

The simple message (if you ignore all the above BS) is that there may be more to the formal approval process than first meets the eye. To truly and completely meet all the requirements of a formal certification procedure, and all its related ramifications, may become prohibitively onerous - both in terms of financial viability and personal sanity!

As well as being problematic for administrators, it has become almost impossible for the approval authorities themselves to do anything but turn a blind eye to some of these problems.

Even if the above example does NOT constitute a breach of the Austel certification standards, it may still serve to show how reliance placed on formal certification of a cabling system provides no certainty for administrators dealing with the real world compliance, safety and budgetry compromises in Australian schools today

Only the incredibly naive or foolhardy would raise such issues in a formal context - so I'll keep it informal and add nothing to the above ;^)

R.

From: "Peter Brownlow" 
To: 
Subject: Re: Some school cabling issues
Date: Sat, 8 Aug 1998 17:10:26 +1000

I have followed the recent dialog about cabling and certification and find it very interesting. It sure does highlight the complexity of the certification issue when such experienced and competent people debate it so well and raise issues of considerable complexity.

In my opinion, from a teacher at the chalk face point of view, such debate also demonstrates that cabling certification is not an issue and not worth the worry. When a school knows what they want to achieve and if this involves cabling, and the cabling works and is playing its part in delivering the outcomes the school isseeking then I don't see how or why it matters if the cabling is certified or not.

For schools its very difficult to get a straight answer, or a consistent one, on cabling certification; eg

1. If I certify my cabling but use hardware that is not austel certified on my network is it still certified.

2. We want to install and certify a structured cabling system - does this mean that each of the 20 outlets in my 3 computer labs must have both a voice and data socket.

From experience I know that you get different answers to such questions. As a certified cabler I know that there are different and interesting technical considerations here and find it fascinating, as a teacher working in the classroom I COULD NOT CARE LESS.

As a teacher I want to know will the technology support my teaching and learning programs, will it deliver me the internet, will it deliver me email, is it safe, will it last etc.

If cabling certification was as cheap and as straight forward as registering your dog with the council then it might be worth it but as it stands now if you I don't see the benefit.

Peter Brownlow
Head Teacher TAS
Lithgow High

Date: Fri, 23 Oct 1998 10:59:18 +0000
From: Roger Buck 
To: net_tech@powernet.nsw.gov.au
Subject: CAT6... or DEEP6!

For those of you interested in CAT6 (you know who you are!):

For networker engineers who want to run be sure of successfully running very high-speed data (above 100MBps) over copper cabling, CAT5 may not be sufficient--and that's where an international Category 6 (CAT6) standard could help.

Unfortunately, one isn't likely to materialize soon. Cenelec (European Committee for Electrotechnical Standardization, Brussels), the ISO, and the TIA are trying to develop Cat 6 specs covering frequencies above 100 MHz--but work in all three groups is stalled.

For IT managers interested in true future-proofing, there seems to still be only only one option: fiber. There's also a major obstacle to installing fiber: cost. Although pulling fiber to the desktop is getting less expensive, it's still too expensive for anything more than limited implementation across the backbone.

For a more detailed analysis and starting point for discussion:

Source: http://www.cablesun.com/cat56.html

R.

Date: Dec 1998 
Authors: Eric and Randy
Subject: Re: Subject: E&R 1998 Technology Report

SLIPPERY ELM SCHOOL TECHNOLOGY REPORT 1998

A whole lot of stuff removed from here... EandR continue:

PROPOSED "MOLASIS" ROLLOUT

REALITY CHECK:
If the Department is true to form, then schools that have already invested money in cabling structures will be disadvantaged. Schools who have spent funds on swimming pools will (as usual) gain additional funds for technology. Schools who actually utilize technology (as demonstrated by their own preference to fund technology (cabling) initiatives) will thus be disadvantaged. It seems almost impossible to believe that these brave beaurocrats will go down the same path again after having been so derided and despised for previous attempts.

Schools with any sense of history will simply lie when asked if they have network connectivity between Library and Admin. This culture (cynical lying and cheating) seems to be one undesired, but predictable, outcome of percieved repetetive, beaurocrat led, injustice and incompetence.

One bright spot is that schools end up with an ISDN connect to what eventually may become an effective Departmental Intranet. But, given the budget and political backing, any technology minded person with minimal training and no knowledge of school education practice would be hard pressed to do worse :-)

It seems that, yet again, the decision makers have utter contempt for public opinion... as well as public funds (and in an election year too)!

But then maybe we've got it all wrong?

Your comments are invited.... but like the beaurocrazy - we won't guarantee we'll take any notice :-)

EandR

Date: Wed, 16 Dec 1998 23:23:26 +1100
From: Eddie Irvine 
To: Net_Tech@saas.nsw.edu.au
Subject: Re: EandR 1998 Technology Report

In reponse to EandR's 1998 Technology Report, a previous respondent wrote:

Hi Roger, Eric & Randy et al,

While I have the utmost respect for your skills, knowledge and services to schools, I am disappointed by your parody report on DET Technology in 1998.

And Eddie Irvine now replies:

A cheap shot, sure. How come it was so cheap to make?

The respondent continued:

I understand that it was meant to be funny, but it quickly degenerated into something that is not helpful at all to the department, district technology advisers nor schools. Your report sounds authoratative yet you resort to repeating "rumours" that have no right to existence.

Rumours? Such as?

Your 'Reality Checks' should have been constructive rather than divisive and just make our job as technology advisers to schools more difficult. I don't know how many schools are on Net Tech, but I do know that schools print out e-mail messages and pass them around - particularly if they are from respected professionals.

While it is easy to bag the Department and Information Technology Bureau in front of schools, it is smarter to highlight the problems and attempt to work out solutions which can be put forward to the powers that be. This is far better than driving a wider wedge between schools and the bureaucracy.

Eddie Irvine continues:

Well, one of the (not so hidden) messages was that well informed expertise is a better problem solving tool than money. Money to multi-nationals, for the most part.

Now that TAFE has merged with schools, I am already seeing signs that the new bureaucracy has some idea :) Why? Instead of empire building and feeling ashamed when someone knows more than they do, (which is silly) they are employing subcontractors from the industry who know one end from the other.

And help desk operators who return phone calls. This is good. Nay, Unprecedented!

> Schools need to work with what they are given.

What a disaster that would be. Perhaps schools could also be SHOWN rather than GIVEN and TOLD? (we are meant to be professional educators, after all).

Sure, politics plays a huge part in it and we can't avoid that.
The general public acknowledges when they hear that 100,000+ computers have gone into schools.

Like most things, Democracy is not perfect. That fact does not give moral licence to take advantage of its failings.

Some schools may have had problems with quality, but that is not the fault of the department. Every company that was selected was on ITS2000, a state government contract. All have to pass standards including being endorsed as a Quality Endorsed Company (ISO9002). I don't care if a perceived brand-name company like Compaq got onto the rollout, even they would have problems with high-volumes of equipment going to schools. I don't know which big companies you are referring to as not bothering to quote for the latest rollout, but as one of the quote evaluators, I saw several big names there.

I have had no problems with Optima and Apple, I'd have to agree.

In my district, a large proportion of schools are making excellent use of the rollout computers and can't wait for more. Those schools that have SchoolsNET across their entire network are raving about it and internet access has increased tenfold. Admittedly, these schools are the ones that chose to forego the "swimming pool" and spent their funds networking and promoting technology to their staff.

Tenfold increase? Glad to hear it.

These are the same schools that will be "stiffed" when it comes to the "rumoured" cabling to be provided by the department. To my understanding, a backbone alone does not a network make.

Yep.

And as a result, the 'real' technolgy schools won't give two hoots about missing out on reimbusement for a backbone.

Err, my one will. My history faculty, with no textbooks for two years, will be rather, shall we say, cynical. Internet access, half a dozen periods a year per child, is no substitute for textbooks.

Don't believe my maths? Four phone lines, 1000 kids ...

The schools that don't have a link between admin and library should be looking now at spending their own money extending network cabling on either side of the backbone and even extending the backbone where it doesn't fulfill their networking needs.

At the expense of reading recovery programs, perhaps?

On the other hand, it is not that hard to do yourself. A man in your position, familiar with the Austel Customer Premises Cabling Manual, (as a technology adviser, of course you would make it your business to know *as much* from *first principles* about something schools are spending huge dollars on as you can...) and the exemptions that can and can't apply to digital data cabling that is not DIRECTLY connected to a carrier. You've done that? Good!

> DO YOU YAHOO!?

You bet!

From: Roger Buck 
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Net_Tech@saas.nsw.edu.au

In response to an enquiry (not appearing above) from Eddie Irvine about switching hubs recommended by suppliers:

Switching hubs. I asked several suppliers for a price on an 8 port 10/100 switching hub. Reason? We have three rooms of Macs and, as you know, the rooms are three seperate Appletalk zones and IP networks. Each room has an el-cheapo 10-BaseT hub. This is less than optimal for At-Ease for networks, and also prevents our Apple Fileserver serving in TCP/IP (more than one interface and it refuses to talk tcp/ip - stupid, eh?).

Roger Buck replied:

The biggest potential issue in my experience is compatibility between the Switching hub, your NIC's, and other connected hardware.

The main problem is that most switching hub manufacturers use proprietary standards. This is not so much an issue for the cheap hubs (especially hubs with fixed speed 10M ports). The major issues arise when you are using 10/100 ports and 10/100 NICS. No BS - this is a major concern.

So. I want a switching hub so that I can plug it into a) two or three fileservers b) three hubs ( one for each room) c) a future 100BaseT / 100B-FX switch for the "whole school network".

Obviously, I want to get rid of the subnets and zones, have my apple filserver speak TCP/IP again, and minimise collisions.

Well, I think I want an 8 port switching hub. Asked for some quotes, and I got prices ranging from $500 to > $2000. So I rang up the $500 mob and said "that's pretty cheap! This is what I want to do... is the price still $500"

No! said the man. The $500 model only does "internal switching". "You need the no name $1600 model". $1600 was what I expected, anyhow.

After all of that, the $2000+ HP-Procurve model makes me feel more secure.

Don't do it... yet!

HP and AT&T went a different way to most of the rest of the industry.

There are substantially different standard - for your puposes there are probably tow serious contenders:

1. 100BASE-T/Fast ethernet
   1OOBASE-T is the same old Ethernet that you
   know and love - just 10-20 times faster!

2. 100VG-Anylan
   100VG-A is a brand new technology (well,
   1994 anyway) that incorporates a new
   protocol which includes a priority access
   method - "demand priority" - which is
   designed to enhace transmission of
   time-critical data such as multi-media
   streaming.

What is this "internal switching" caper? The man was not entirely clear (although he seemed to think he was :)

My guess is he was talking about #2 above...

Will it sort of route packets between MAC's?

Depends on the NICs in the MAC's - 99% probability they won't connect at all!

I tried to find some books at Dymocks on the weekend without much success.

The definitive guide - excellent, easy to read and comprehensive:

Title:"Switched and fast ethernet: How it works and how to use it"

Authors: Robert Breyer and Sean Riley
Publisher: Ziff Davis Press
ISBN 1-56276-338-5

The edition I have here is 1995

My sugggestion is "read the book first" if you have the time... otherwise, get a couple of hubs on eval and see what you find best.

The most common 100baseT 10/100 "chip-set" is the "Accton Chip Set"

There is a valid analogy here beteween hub chip-sets and modem chip-sets: Just like the majority of modems are built around the Rockwell chip-set, many middle and lower cost switches use the "Accton chip-set".

Accton "badged" hubs are available from Annabel Bits.

We often use Compex switching hubs (available from LAN1 in Sydney), but that is because we use Compex NIC's and the two work well together... we have had problems with compatibility between Accton hubs and Accton NICs .

We have had problems with 3Com and DLink switching hubs when combined with various other NICs (such as those embedded in the NEC Schoolmates).

Many MAC NICs are based on the Digital (DEC) "Tulip" 21x4x Chip-sets.

The Compex NICs are built on the same chip... in which case the Compex 100BaseTX HUBs might be a good bet.

As a bonus, most varieties of Linux kernel also support "Tulip" drivers so that should give you a high probability of solving integration compatibility issues ;^)

R.

Date: Thu, 17 Dec 1998 19:49:29 +1100
From: Roger Buck 
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Net_Tech@saas.nsw.edu.au
Subject: Re: EandR 1998 Technology Report

In response to comments from a previous message which stated:

> Hi Roger, Eric & Randy et al,

I am disappointed by your parody report on DET Technology in 1998.

I understand that it was meant to be funny, but it quickly degenerated into something that is not helpful at all to the department, district technology advisers nor schools.

Roger Buck replies:

Whilst I personally could not find anything negative in EandR's message, and maybe I am wrong, I don't think they specifically mentioned DET (there are other versions of SchoolsNet and MOLASIS).

I'm most surprised that anyone could identify similarities!

Having said that, I'm sure there were plenty of inaccuracies and I can understand how there may be some who felt personally offended or abused, and thus would support the above response (by xxxxxxx).

I guess it just means that Eric and Randy are wrong - or maybe they are simply not capable of communicating things they believe to be self-evident in an easily understood manner?

Others subscribers would also not enjoy the attempted humour over such serious issues.

The question of whether such attempts are helpful or not will depend on the final outcome - if any.

If history repeats (as seems to be the case), then those who feel themselves the butt of such cheap shots will reassure each other that all is well (just as it is), then move on to the next plan (9?) - In which case, the past and present offending message(s)* will soon be forgotten by all concerned and business will proceed as before.

On the other hand... who knows....

Your report sounds authoratative yet you resort to repeating "rumours" that have no right to existence.

It seems strange that these cabling "rumours" which "have no right to existence" seem to be addressed in such detail - NOT by EandR, but by DET respondents - especially considering the details in the response sound far more authoritative, and contain far more detail than EandR's original message! I also note that those who have sent messages of support have not repudiated these "rumours" - in fact, they seem to have indicated their full support for the position as stated below:

The respondent to E&R's message continued:

Admittedly, these schools are the ones that chose to forego the "swimming pool" and spent their funds networking and promoting technology to their staff.

These are the same schools that will be "stiffed" when it comes to the "rumoured" cabling to be provided by the department. To my understanding, a backbone alone does not a network make. And as a result, the 'real' technolgy schools won't give two hoots about missing out on reimbusement for a backbone. The schools that don't have a link between admin and library should be looking now at spending their own money extending network cabling on either side of the backbone and even extending the backbone where it doesn't fulfill their networking needs. Your 'Reality Checks' should have been constructive rather than divisive...

Roger Buck continues to rant:

I find this absolutely amazing!

To me, this response is a clear and classic example of _exactly_ the point that EandR seemed to be trying, so unsuccessfully to make.

In fact, if asked for their comments, they might say something like:

   "such responses serve only to reinforce the
    view that schools already have - that DET
    does not understand, or even acknowledge
    that they are dealing with intelligent
    beings who may not know a lot about
    technology, but who can recognise inequity
    and approaching BS - even from a great
    distance.

    Such arguments which attempt to dismiss the
    patently obvious, leave intelligent people
    in a state of either total frustration...
    or riotous laughter - your choice!"

To re-state the obvious:

Strange as it may seem, standard DET responses to serious questions of policy (such as this imaginary cabling rollout policy) may actually do more to reinforce the view that the beaurocracy is out of touch with how schools perceive fairness, justice and equity - than any occasional, non authoritative, comments made by n'er-do-wells such as EandR.

Anyone who doesn't understand why that is so - or chooses to ignore it - may need further physical counselling

And talking of positive outcomes - if there ever _was_ any such proposal in the pipeline, it won't be so easy to tackle this one so dismissively now it has gained some exposure... Hmmmm maybe they'd have to delegate it... or maybe leave that one until after the election.

Now, I have genuine respect for some of the "pro-active" TA's ... they are more dedicated than many in their practical efforts to help schools. Most of EandR's ravings over the last few years have all been directed at upper management - not the field mushrooms.

There is no personal criticism aimed at the respondents here - everyone who subscribes to this forum is, by their presence here, obviously committed to (and some of them even committeed too) improving technology outcomes for schools!

If anyone is looking for the culprits responsible for any current negativity in schools, then they'll have to do better than blame Eric and Randy... or TAFE (who seem to be perhaps the _most_ contemptuous of DET management in any regard!

EandR are simply promoting the very _positive_ view that for DET to provide more useful and cost effective technology, information, and support - to schools, government, and the public - a swift and significant change is required in DET management culture.

I would have thought that most TA's would feel the need for this - at least as much as the end-users in the schools (there are some obvious exceptions).

Anyone who can't see that such a change is necessary is welcome to deride these ramblings (as you do) - those who are of the opinion that the fault is in reality - not in their set, will still be tolerated ;^)

While it is easy to bag the Department and Information Technology Bureau in front of schools,

Well, maybe it should not be so easy...

it is smarter to highlight the problems and attempt to work out solutions which can be put forward to the powers that be.

.... perhaps if DET representatives made any effort to act on proposed solutions (there have been plenty offered - especially related to the improved quality and/or cost savings for the GCIS the rollout).

This is far better than driving a wider wedge between schools and the bureaucracy.

In this case it is pertinent to ask the oneself the question - who is the "wedgee" and who is the "wedgor". And speaking of wedges, maybe humour offers the best hope for freeing up the giant plug which of late, without any blame to Eric and Randy, seems to have lodged itself so firmly into the ample, technologically minded DET posterior!

R.

To: Net_Tech@saas.nsw.edu.au
Subject: Re: EandR 1998 Technology Report

Well the EandR Technology Report has certainly stirred the possum. I have decided to add my comments as a reply to Eddie's message. I have never met the man but he clearly is an outstanding individual as demonstrated in an earlier message posted to Net_Tech. Any passionate supporter of Linux, Squid and Apache is a friend of mine.

http://www1.tpgi.com.au/users/eirvine/freebsd/hermione.html

Eddie Irvine wrote:

On the other hand, it is not that hard to do yourself. A man in your position, familiar with the Austel Customer Premises Cabling Manual, (as a technology adviser, of course you would make it your business to know *as much* from *first principles* about something schools are spending huge dollars on as you can...) and the exemptions that can and can't apply to digital data cabling that is not DIRECTLY connected to a carrier. You've done that? Good!

Along with others I have raised this issue several times. I will attempt to obtain a clear directive from ACA (Austel's replacement) on this issue. Quote from ACA correspondence received in August 1998:

  "There is provision for certain types of cabling
   work to be done by non licenced cablers.  

   The types are (Data, security and Fire services) 
   and it involves all cabling behind the approved modem.

   The person doing this work must use approved cabling
   products and be aware of the cabling standards and
   cable to them.

   There is one area that he is excluded from and that
   is if the modem has to be physically connected into
   the telecommunications network. This must be done by
   a licenced cabler."

From: "Peter Brownlow" 
To: 
Subject: Cabling - who can do what
Date: Fri, 18 Dec 1998 07:30:40 +1100

Col,

I know you know but the first group that will tell you that its OK to cable computers without a licence is the ACA. The link below takes you to ACA FAQ site and asks and answers this question.

I have also used the ACA e-mail links to get the OK.

http://www.austel.gov.au/standards/cabling/faqs.htm#32

My two bobs worth (and experience) is that cabling is not rocket science and about 80% of the work involved is semi skilled to unskilled labour and as long as it works (that is tested to Cat 5) its probably the least important component of your network. I would encourage any school to have a crack at it themselves a put their savings into aspects of their network that will make a difference, how the severs set up, T&D for staff, hubs used, support contracts etc.

Peter Brownlow

From: "Peter Brownlow" 
To: 
Subject: RE: Cabling - who can do what
Date: Fri, 18 Dec 1998 16:28:38 +1100

Ian

Peter

I check the FAQ, but note the last line of it:

"The exemption does not apply if the computer cabling connects to a carriers digital network service, such as ISDN."

This rather limits the usefulness of the exemption in the present (for some) and future school situations don't you think...

I cant think of any schools in my district that this would limit the uesfulness of spending a saturday afternoon and a few hundred dollars cabling up a computer room or a few classrooms as I dont know of any schools that are using ISDN to deliver internet access on their network.

Also wouldn't simply using an Austel Approved line isolation unit (LIU) solve any potential problem.

Peter

Date: Fri, 18 Dec 1998 17:55:26 +1100
From: Eddie Irvine 
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Net_Tech@saas.nsw.edu.au
Subject: Re: Cabling - who can do what

"The exemption does not apply if the computer cabling connects to a carriers digital network service, such as ISDN."

This rather limits the usefulness of the exemption in the present (for some) and future school situations don't you think...

I cant think of any schools in my district that this would limit the uesfulness of spending a saturday afternoon and a few hundred dollars cabling up a computer room or a few classrooms as I dont know of any schools that are using ISDN to deliver internet access on their network.

Also wouldn't simply using an Austel Approved line isolation unit(LIU) solve any potential problem.

Peter

According to my instructor, and according to what I could decipher from the CPCM, and Austel Approved modem (one with the big tick inside a triangle - its called an "A tick") functions as an approved line isolation unit... Indeed this has always been an intention of A-ticked modems - to ensure 240 volts can't enter a carrier's system and zap whoever/whatever.

An ethernet hub would almost certainly perform the same duties - but strictly speaking, the term is "approved" line isolation unit - and I have not seen a hub with an A-tick on it (yet).

Then again, I wonder if the Cisco 1603's have an A-tick? These are the ISDN routers some of us have got. I didn't notice one, come to think of it, but surely... Anyone with one handy like to check next week? I'll be painting the house (grin).

As far as doing Cat-5 yourself, there are a number of things to get right when laying it:

1. Avoid out of doors - this can open up a number of issues that are perhaps best left alone. (Well, it's an extra endorsement on the Austel cabling licence, and I haven't done it, so I avoid it).

2. The rate of twist of those little cables inside is critical - esp if you plan to use 100Mbit. Keep the cable happy by not bending it 90 degrees (use a radius of 6cm and you'll be right), and keep cable ties *loose* (you should be able to *just* rotate the cable sheath).

3. If in doubt about the terminations, get someone who knows what they are doing to do the terminations for you. If you are paying them money, make certain they test it with a tester designed for cat-5 (eg Fluke, pentascanner). Testing is highly recommended anyhow if you are going to use 100Mbit links.

There is an Australian Standard for cabling - the AS3080 series. If you are paying someone money to do your cabling, any contract should make reference to these standards - its a good fallback that keeps out cowboys - otherwise any tender is really saying "we want the cheapest and nastiest job you can do".

There is a significant difference between the Austel mandated standard and AS3080.

Eddie.

Date: Fri, 18 Dec 1998 19:20:34 +1100
From: Eddie Irvine 
To: Net_Tech@saas.nsw.edu.au
Subject: Re: Cabling - who can do what

Stop!

One BIG thing I forgot to mention was separation of your cat 5 cables from electrical power.

Keep sockets at least 50mm from power outlets. Cables should not be laid within 25mm of power cables unless separated by a "fixed and durable barrier". Conduit of almost any discription (eg: white plastic pipe) is satisfactory. A Gyprock wall is also satisfactory. The sheath of the cable is most definitely not.

For High Voltage (>1000 V ac, >1500 V dc) the rules are obviously more severe.

Austel's mandatory rules are covered in a document called "TS009- Installation Requirements for Customer Wiring" available from Standards Australia for around $45 (I think). You shouldn't do any cabling through walls or near electrical power unless you've read and understood this document.

The Austel Customer Premises Cabling Manual includes this, and I'd recommend anyone who is serious about cabling buy this instead (but it's $180). It also includes AS3080. It also lets you check out the rules yourself, rather than rely on well intentioned advice (like mine).

At any rate, it is a good thing to have under your arm when chatting to cabling contractor!

Eddie.

From: "Peter Brownlow" 
To: 
Subject: RE: Cabling - who can do what
Date: Fri, 18 Dec 1998 21:05:53 +1100

Re Cabling, Eddie Irvine wrote: Austel's mandatory rules are covered in a document called "TS009- Installation Requirements for Customer Wiring" available from Standards Australia for around $45 (I think).

I thought (but we all know what thought did) that Tech Standard 9 was more to do with telephony services not data cabling and not cat5. Cat 5 and AS3080 having much tougher specs then outlined in TS009 - 600 mm sepration from low power conductors with excpetion made for cross overs,etc.

I agree that specifying AS3080 is good way if, you are unsure, to be sure that the cabling you get will be up to scratch but I think there is a lot of over kill in it for schools eg each outlet needing to be a dual data/voice outlet. With this a computer room of 25 machines has to have 50 sockets if it is to comply with AS3080.

Peter Brownlow

Date: Sat, 19 Dec 1998 07:08:41 +1100
From: Eddie Irvine 
To: Net_Tech@saas.nsw.edu.au
Subject: Re: Cabling - who can do what

Peter Brownlow wrote:

Eddie
Thanks for the Linux/ISDN pointers.

I thought (but we all know what thought did) that Tech Standard 9 was more to do with telephony services not data cabling and not cat5.

Eddie Irvine writes:

My understanding of the digital data exemption is that all equipment must comply with TS008. All cabling (of any sort) must comply with TS009. Roger Buck and I have had this debate before and I think he will at least partially disagree with this.

Cat 5 and AS3080 having much tougher specs then outlined in TS009 - 600 mm sepration> from low power conductors with excpetion made for cross overs,etc.

I don't have the specs handy at the moment. I thought that was for long parallel runs with "noisy" power (eg: power to an air conditioner).

I agree that specifying AS3080 is good way if, you are unsure, to be sure that the cabling you get will be up to scratch but I think there is a lot of over kill in it for schools

Yes, I think you are right here. Parts of it really are meant for a new office/workplace installation, not schools. There is certainly some (lots?) of overkill.

Eddie.

From: Roger Buck 
To: Net_Tech@saas.nsw.edu.au
Subject: Re: Cabling - who can do what

Eddie Irvine wrote: Peter Brownlow wrote:

I thought (but we all know what thought did) that Tech Standard 9 was more to do with telephony services not data cabling and not cat5.

My understanding of the digital data exemption is that all equipment must comply with TS008. All cabling ( of any sort ) must comply with TS009. Roger Buck and I have had this debate before and I think he will at least partially disagree with this.

Roger Buck continues:

Even if I did agree, you know I would still argue against it! ;^)

Here are the main compliance problems as I understand them (see below, as some stuff may be out of date):

Problem 1: TS008 and TS009 relate mainly to safety (and RFI) - not performance - AS3080 is/was the general standard to meet for performance standardisation.

Problem 2: Not only the cabling, but every device attached to it also needs to be compliant - and to be visibly marked as such on the external casing of each device.

Problem 3: Neither standard (alone or together) guarantees compliance with the broader Australian Energy Authority (EA) electrical safety regulations.

My interpretation is that so long as you proceed with due care and a general eye to comply with the "intended outcomes" of the regulations, then all will be well... but that (in the school situation at least) compliance with TS008/009 is technically breached the moment you connect your first (rollout) computer to it.. so it is really a non issue for NSW schools anyhow.

These issues were discussed from a school cabling perspective in Net_Tech a few months ago (ask if you want it) but not specifically related to TS008/009... so here goes:

TS008/009 SAFETY COMPLIANCE ISSUES FOR DATA CABLING: As you know, there are exemptions for DATA cabling related to cabling of customer premises.

One interpretation is that the exemption for data cabling also side-steps the TS008 and TS009 requirements if the "customer cabling" is isolated from the carriers network by an Austel (ACA) permitted Line Isolation Unit (LIU). This was the interpretation as confirmed (with much angst and wringing of hands :-) by an Austel representative who was asked this question at an industry training course I attended about three years ago (before ACA).

A disagreement with this interpretation entails that you view the Standards as mandatory for data cabling as well as for telecommunications - as could follow from a "face value" interpretation of the Standards documents which state:

     "customer cabling installation/maintenance
      shall be carried out in accordance with
      Austel's TS009"

The next problem is that if you believe TS009 _is_ mandatory for data, then you must also ensure that:

"all customer equipment" (telephones, modems, fax machines, computers, computer related hardware etc) " directly or indirectly connected to a carriers network shall exhibit Austel permits, unless isolated from the carrier's network by an Austel - permitted line isolation unit"

So, unless you have TS008 approval for every item connected to your network, then you are back to square one - with a non compliant network!

If you take the view that the exemptions _do_ apply (i.e. that TS008 and TS009 do not apply to customer Data cabling), then the safety standards which would take precedence are those issued by the Australian Energy Authority (EA) - for Low Voltage installations. This still requires that safety issues, such as cable separations , are properly addressed.

This standard also requires that all equipment connected to the public electricity grid be connected via EA approved power supply... even if the equipment itself operates at a voltage below 32V - battery operated equipment thus does not need approval.... but only if it complies with the Low Voltage or Extra Low Voltage EI safety regulations (also available from ASA). Electrical safety is not simply related to voltage - high current at low voltage is almost guaranteed to kill, whereas even hundreds of thousands of volts at very high frequency AC may barely raise a tickle!

*NB* Data cabling is inherently safe so long as dangerous electrical potential (not necessarily "voltage" alone) cannot enter via unsafe hardware connected to it... or insufficiently isolated from it. In reality, this is the practical stumbling block that defeats any movement insisting on approved cabling installation in schools.

My guess is that if anyone suffered injury through faulty electrical equipment or cabling on a customer cabled network - no matter whether it is isolated from the Carrier via an approved LIU or not (the DET ISDN router _should_ qualify as such an LIU) - then they would be prosecuted under EA related safety legislation, not Austel(ACA).

It is, mostly, conveniently overlooked that EA approval is ALWAYS required no matter whether equipment needs to comply with TS008/009 or not!

The more you look at it, the deeper the mess you get into - which is the reason that most authorities turn a blind eye - unless the installation is obviously unsafe, or it is a DATA connect that does not include an ILU.

Apart from that, the whole debate may be out-dated and academic as I believe there are new rules coming into force from 1st January 1999... If I had any great concerns I'd check that out ... instead, I'm going out now for a nice long walk

R.

NOT-WORKS is slung together by Randy Scot and Eric Fog. If you'd like to use these opinions on your site you are welcome - just let us know so that we can add the reference to our already enormous list of credits! Feedback is welcome.