ANSI C12.19 et al


> The following note suggests a middle ground approach to standards adoption
> - somewhere between doing nothing and jumping the gun by mandating too
> much too early.  I think the PSWG has the unique opportunity for setting a
> precedent and providing a direction for migration to national standards.
> 
> C12.19 defines a data format for transporting data - it does not define
> the transporting protocol nor dictate the internal format within the meter
> or the storage format at the host end.  When coupled with a standard
> transport protocol, it enables interoperability.  It also reduces the
> software effort required to build meter reading systems. It facilitates
> the support multiple vendors by reducing the number of variables (layer 2
> protocol, application language and data representation).  For optical and
> modem, C12.19 coupled with c12.18(and C21.21) make a great deal of sense
> and can be a powerful force for standardizing access to meter data.
> 
> For propietary networks such as Itron and Cellnet, there is no open
> interface at the meter (interface 3) - the data just shows up in the host
> system (MDMA).  When the interface at the meter gets standardized (maybe
> in C12.22), then it makes sense to also standardize the application
> language and data format to obtain the same advantages as optical and
> modem.
> 
> The PSWG should bless C12.18 with C12.19 because its here now (with
> appropriate grandfather clause and grace period).  C12.21 and C12.22(using
> C12.19), when they arrive, should be looked at and adopted based on their
> technical merit.  
> 
> California is in a unique postition to show the world a migration path to
> adopting national standards and put vendors on notice that that's the
> desired direction without necessarily jumping the gun by mandating across
> the board standardization now. 
> 
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From:	Chris King [SMTP:chrisk@cellnet.com]
> Sent:	Thursday, May 14, 1998 7:10 PM
> To:	pswg@dradmin.cpuc.ca.gov
> Cc:	bob@cpuc.ca.gov; Roscow, Steve
> Subject:	ANSI C12.19
> 
> PSWG-Data Communications Members,
> 
> I'd like to restate briefly CellNet's position on C12.19. To the extent
> C12.19 results in a clear and essential public policy benefit, CellNet
> eagerly supports it. In California's market, every ESP and customer has
> (or
> shortly will have) the right to demand and purchase a C12.19 meter. If
> C12.19 is better, ESPs and customers will buy it. If they want it, CellNet
> will happily deliver it.
> 
> A legal requirement, a mandate, for C12.19 tells customers they have no
> choice: thou shalt buy C12.19. I know the customer's meter has to be
> accurate, safe and reliable, so I'm comfortable saying "thou shalt buy
> C12." With 16 years experience in metering, however, I'm not smart enough
> to decide for 30 million Californians that their meter must be C12.19 (I
> definitely wouldn't say they can't, of course, just that they don't HAVE
> TO.) 
> 
> Since C12.19 limits choice and there is no consensus on its benefits or
> that it is necessary, CellNet cannot support it at this time. We regret
> this, because we strongly support national standards, where there is
> agreement that they are necessary.
> 
> Chris King
> 
.