Re: Clarification/revised meter communication diagram

The attached notes seem like a good example of the left hand not knowing
what the right hand is doing. Great! Let's let the communications group
figure out all the possibilities and not have any input from the meter
services techs who have to communicate with the meter. Sometimes some folks
seem to think that having all four groups work in a vacuum is the best way
to proceed. However, there may be some issues coming from PSWG4 that should
be addressed by the others, and I believe that tabling the issues is only a
means by which to have them addressed. I haven't seen the coordination
between the groups that I expected, and hope some of the issues don't fall
through the cracks only because PSWG4 expected the other groups to handle
it. So, please, everyone, don't take offense. I always sound off this way
when I get frustrated and then blow it off later. 
Thanx. - Mario Natividad
Applied Metering Technologies, Inc.

----------
> From: Mazy, Anthony <am1@cpuc.ca.gov>
> To: 'Greg Lizak' <Greg.Lizak@itron.com>; DMN5%Fsv%Csv@bangate.pge.com;
pswg2web@dradmin.cpuc.ca.gov; pswg@dradmin.cpuc.ca.gov;
tcv1%Fsv%Csv@bangate.pge.com; KSM8%GIR%BCS@bangate.pge.com
> Subject: RE: Clarification/revised meter communication diagram
> Date: Monday, March 23, 1998 10:15 AM
> 
> I have to agree.  Without explaination, this is certainly
> less-than-obvious.  My only hunch is that someone want to continue to
> look at the "meter product", while CPUC regulations should only be
> addressing the minimum performance requirements of the "meter proper":
> accuracy, reliability, etc.  Everything having to do with the
> meter-reading paraphernalia should be addressed together in the
> appropriate subgroup.
> 
> 
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From:	Greg Lizak [SMTP:Greg.Lizak@itron.com]
> > Sent:	Saturday, March 21, 1998 4:37 PM
> > To:	DMN5%Fsv%Csv@bangate.pge.com; pswg2web@dradmin.cpuc.ca.gov;
> > pswg@dradmin.cpuc.ca.gov; tcv1%Fsv%Csv@bangate.pge.com;
> > KSM8%GIR%BCS@bangate.pge.com
> > Subject:	re:Clarification/revised meter communication diagram
> > 
> > Young,
> > 
> > It seems that a communication device is a communication device and
> > therefore should be part of the Meter Communications Committee.  I am
> > therefore not sure why communication devices should be moved from the
> > Meter
> > Communications Committee to the Meter Equipment Committee.
> > 
> > The write up "Clarification/revised meter communication diagram" is
> > very
> > good and should be considered a proposal that should be discussed at
> > the
> > next PSWG meetings.
> > 
> > Gregory Lizak, Itron
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > >All
> > >
> > >Attached is the revised document which includes the modified diagram
> > and
> > >a clarification on the three boxes [labeled (1) to (3)] in the
> > diagram.  The
> > >three boxes are also the scope of the meter Communications Committee.
> > >
> > >Young Nguyen
> > >PG&E
> > >
> > >=====================================================================
> > >
> > >
> > >Attachment converted: GL Power Book:98330OAS.DOC (WDBN/MSWD)
> > (0001DD70)
> > 
> > 
.