[VoIP] Channel Bank on Ebay [not mine] and E&M

[Nathaniel D. Watson]

Whether or not a different name than Registered Jack should have been used,
it is what it is. The real problem is that way back, people started using
terms interchangeably, and it just propagates and perpetuates with time. So
that by now its nearly a lost cause to get the masses to use the proper
terms.

I don't see why there is such confusion on this subject. Other posters on
the list have done a good job of teaching what is what. It all boils down
to, in essence, that RJ designations have to do with APPLICATIONS, while the
number of positions and conductors (i.e. 8P8C, 4P4C, etc) describes a
particular plug/jack PHYSICALLY without reference to what it is used for.

Nathan


on 12/8/07 3:14 AM, windmill at windmill at topletter.com wrote:

> Steph,
> 
> I hear what you say and I understand it too but I have to say that the
> confusion is most likely due to the use of the word 'jack', I actually
> think it was a poor choice to create a standard called Reference Jack
> when it might better have been called something else that would not be
> so easily misinterpreted.
> 
> I think the problem is that many of us assoicate the word jack with
> socket and particularly in telephone work in the UK jack is the
> preferred word i.e. battery jack, line jack etc referring to a physical
> device.  Of course since the 1980s we have come to know the telephone
> plug and socket almost universally, prior to that very few subscribers
> had sockets but we booked them out of stores as Jacks 95A or similar.
> 
> You are correct in that we would not say RS232 Plug, I would've simply
> said serial plug which isn't correct today but it was all we knew a DB25
> for at one time and these things do stick.
> 
> Now you mention the use of modular jacks but I don't recall seeing the
> word 'modular' mentioned anywhere on the URL that Arthur posted, indeed
> the standard makes no mention of the physical at all except for one
> entry where weatherproof is mentioned so many of these standards could
> apparently be used on all sorts of connectors. You say the codes
> identify 'jacks', and your point regarding plugs is perfectly clear,
> but I can see all sorts of connector sockets fitting the bill for a jack!
> 
> Brian