Referring to what Greg posted above:
I guess that is why some say it is so ambiguous that it is unenforceable. I could meet the letter of the law if I just punched a piece of bell wire through the garage wall into whatever room that was and strung it over to an external wall in the garage near the front side of the house. That would work for a POTS phone.
This is precisely why I say the NEC is _NOT_ a Design Manual!
Greg's example is compliant to the article (as far as what I have read in this thread).
It complies because:
- An Outlet For Land-Line Communications -
- Is Installed -
- Someplace In The Dwelling -
- Connected To The Demark -
- Somehow -
- With Some Type Of Cable / Wire.
Non-Design, because it _DOES NOT_:
- Specify An Outlet Type -
- Specify A Cable Type -
- Specify How The Cable Is To Be Run -
- Require Minimum Performance Specifications -
- Require A POTS Subscription -
- Direct An Installer To Place Outlet At Required Height Or Location.
I do agree with others, where the influences of Manufacturers has lobbied certain articles, but that's another issue completely.
Seeing the proposal initiated by a BICSI rep falls in this category!
I also agree that the article is kind of lame, as this is not a 100% safety issue, but I may be reading / interpreting the ROP and article quotes the wrong way!
Please excuse the passion against seeing the article as a design measure. I see way too many design parameters in my line of work, and all of these design items have nothing to do with any type of safety or building safety compliance!
They have to do with _PERFORMANCE_
It's up to me to design per the desired performance, and include any and all safety compliances related to a given project.
Results are one part design, one part code compliance (more like CODES - as the designs orient around more than what's NEC compliant!)
Scott
