Regulatory liability is non-existent in networking!?!?! Did you know that under FEDERAL law, simply attaching a device, regardless of use or purpose, to the telecommunications network - regardless of any actual harm, without proper authorization is a felony? Here is a URL that provides a good overview: http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/intel/98-326.pdf
Add to that security laws, and in the financial sector a whole lot more additional laws and we have not yet crossed international boundaries. I will remind you that you were first bring up regulatory liability, not me.
Perhaps you did not read my prior comment. I left licensing to the state and certification to the vendor. There SHOULD be a difference between a licensed engineer and a certified engineer. BTW, vendors can and do yank certifications.
My problem is that the government does not own the word engineer. It is apart of the English language. Just as the state does not own the word “Doctor”. They can restrict “medical doctor” or “licensed physician” but to restrict doctor would be just as over broad as restricting the word engineer.
You call the scenario of those who are not qualified to review the designs as nonexistent ... yet that is just what you are recommend. Especially from the view of 2003 when this article was first written. At that time, there were fewer than 100 people IN THE WORLD who held the certification that I had or anywhere close to the experience that I held. There were no degree programs for one to seek college training. The ONLY path was through vendors. Now add to that basic lack of qualified people and you now want to add a requirement to attend a college that does not provide anything close to the actual work? Under that logic, I suppose a general studies degree would qualify one to do just about any field of engineering.
We do ALWAYS document our work - that is part of the discipline. And yes and all the whys are wherefores are in that documentation. However a mid level network engineer is not going to understand the BGP multi-vector route redistribution algorithm .... much less any other “engineer” outside of networking. I assume that is also true for a nuke plant or a chemical plant as well. There are areas within networking that only a network engineer will be able to understand. That is due to their very specific training. Likewise a nuke engineer will know way more about the radiation risk than I would. That is why different levels and testing to those levels (vendor certification) is so necessary. It adds a level of testing of the individual and therefor reassurance that the individual is competent to perform design reviews or even develop the design in the first place.
You say that many networks don’t require any regulatory compliance (you are bringing that up again) and that is a true statement. It is also just as relevant as me pointing out that many home owner or business landscaping projects don’t have to be designed, engineered or approved by a civil engineer. On the flip side of that coin are billion dollar networks that I work on that connect multiple carriers integrating deeply into the telecommunications environment (SS7 signalling for call forwarding or route propagation), provide security connections to government and quasi-government agencies ... many of who require background checks just to even talk about the requirements. Add to that security products that provide credentialing, security audit and fraud detection in the network layer. Again, tie this all together in a manner that complies with internal audit, regulatory auditors and across international borders. And while a nuke power plant has a LOT of regulations and laws to comply with, I have yet to see one have to comply with the legal requirements from five different countries.
I believe our disagreement comes down to one perception that you have based upon your comment ...”they just can’t offer to “engineer” anything outside of the company environment for the public.”... You see, that is exactly what I did and to a smaller degree, still do today. My company (telecommunications provider in the US) engineers solutions for the public.
And in my world, vendor certification is a fundamental requirement. You don’t get to TOUCH a vendor’s equipment, especially in a production environment unless you have a certification from the vendor in that equipment. That lesson was learned in the telecom industry by first AT&T when their entire US frame relay network collapsed because a technician thought all he had to do was swap out a board on the ATM switch.
“Regulatory liability is non-existent in networking!”
Who said that? Not me. not every network has regulatory liability is what I said.
not every high-performance network is commercial.
“You see, that is exactly what I did and to a smaller degree, still do today. My company (telecommunications provider in the US) engineers solutions for the public.”
As a commercial carrier, your company is separately regulated in each state. All commercial carriers must be separately licensed, and the work done is part of the overall licensing process of a public utility.
Your company cannot offer, for instance, to design backup power systems for commercial clients unless there is an engineer in responsible charge.
public utilities have a life and a regulatory structure of their own. it doesn’t change the fact that engineering law states (to various degrees in each state) that you cannot offer to provide engineering services. That means use of the word (or derivations) “Engineer” or “Design”.
This isn’t a new thing. same applies to “Architect” under a different regulatory structure, also “surveyor”.
Texas is one of the more aggressively regulated states in that regard.
You may well be every bit as qualified or even more so than a licensed engineer on certain things, but if you are offering to provide engineering services without being a PE or working for a PE, you’re likely to get a visit from the engineering board at some point.
Engineering boards own the word “engineer” through legislation. typically, with Texas as one exception, these boards do little to nothing. If a complaint is filed they may do something, maybe not. they’ll probably just tell you to take out the word “engineer” and that will be that.
If you try to start a company “XYZ Network Engineering” many states won’t let you unless you prove licensure.
Folks think the term “engineer” has value, as it implies credibility and trust and some sort of process to arrive at a valuable service, and a means to complain if there is some problem. A “network engineer” has no such analogous process. It could happen one day, or not. I agree with you in one respect - Engineering boards are notoriously behind the technology curve. There could be and should be a way to license software, computer, network engineers. The inability to do so is partly because existing engineering boards don’t understand it, but also partly because professionals in those disciplines do not articulate a process for making it happen.
I maintain that becoming a PE is not that hard, though it does mostly require an accredited degree (but as higher education self-immolates this could change at some point).
the understanding of interdisciplinary topics in the FE portion of the test has some relevance and value, and the PE exam after a period of “engineer in training” also has some value in instilling a culture of accountability and review.
I have no opinion, generally, on vendor certs. Some have value, some don’t. Some are easy some are hard. Most of them are geared towards some implied cachet that will catalyze sales, which is fine.
I think we would generally agree on most things. I don’t overly value my PE, my degrees. I value my experience, and that’s the main thing that clients value - and pay me for. To some extent the PE and degrees are gating factors - and one can argue the value of those, but clients want it, and will pay more for it. Sometimes the PE is required for legal reasons.