ECN Forum Forums Code Related Discussion NEC & other Code issues Another design issue in the Code

I respect your opinion leland, but I've gotta agree with Scott35 on this one. I definately see the advantage to having a communication outlet in the home, and think it SHOULD be mandatory. Phone systems are on their own power, and redundantly backed up, so they WILL work, barring the lines actually being down.

I don't really see this as being a design parameter imposed by the NEC, any more than the requirement for 12' linear wall space between outlets or 2 small appliance circuits in a kitchen, etc. etc., etc.

As far as your statement about the NEC promoting manufacturers, I whole-heartedly agree with you there. I don't think anybody can deny that the NEC has become a marketing tool for new products. It's to the point where you gotta wonder exactly what happens when the curtains are pulled.

This is the reason I got outta the music biz.

16-207 Log #2655 NEC-P16 Final Action: Accept in Principle in Part
(800.156)
_______________________________________________________________
Submitter: Robert W. Jensen, dbi / Rep. BICSI, A Telecommunications Association
Recommendation: Add new text to read:
800.156 Dwelling Unit Communications Outlets. For new construction, a minimum of two communications outlet shall be installed; one within the master bedroom and one within the living room or kitchen, and cabled to the service provider demarcation point.
Substantiation: Currently there is no requirement for a communications outlet in a dwelling unit. A communications outlet in the home is needed for many reasons, but most important is for emergency services such as a simple call for police, fire or rescue squad. This proposal only affects newly constructed dwelling units. In addition to the problem it solves for communications needs in a dwelling, the proposal is also targeted at safety of technicians and emergency responding personnel while enhancing the 5 key NFPA strategies to reduce fatal home fires.
1. Reduces the safety risk of electrocution to technicians where extended length drill bits (54 to 72 inches) are typically used to install cables and penetrate unseen electrical cables in the attic, wall and ceiling space. (See
pictures at end of this proposal)
2. Reduces the tripping hazard for fire protection personnel during a fire.
3. Reduces the need for home wiring for communications after occupancy which typically involves tracing, handling, and snaking through electrical cable pathways and spaces such as in attics and wall cavities which creates
potentially greater hazard (e.g., electrocution).
4. Increases the use of home protection systems and automation which typically includes fire detection and direct dial-up remote monitoring systems.
5. This proposal ties directly to one of the 5 key NFPA strategies to reduce fatal home fires (see attached “Fire Loss in the United States During 2002”,
Michael J Karter, Jr., Fire Analysis and Research Division, NFPA).
6. Places communications outlets in homes to address fire safety needs of young high user communications groups, older adults, and ADA affected.
7. A fine print note is used as a reference to a standard that specifies installation requirements such as minimum separation from power cabling and minimum requirements for cabling in support of the FCC mandate for category
3 cable or better. In addition, this standard references several NEC Articles for meeting minimum requirements.
Note: Supporting material is available for review at NFPA Headquarters.
Panel Meeting Action: Accept in Principle in Part
Add new text to 800.156 to read as follows:
800.156 Dwelling Unit Communications Outlet. For new construction, a minimum of one communications outlet shall be installed within the dwelling and cabled to the service provider demarcation point.
Panel Statement: The requirement for at least one outlet within the dwelling meets the submitter’s intent.
Number Eligible to Vote: 15
Ballot Results: Affirmative: 15
_________________________________

16-164 Log #1514 NEC-P16 Final Action: Reject
(800.156)
______________________________________________________
Submitter: Donad Ganiere, Ottawa, IL
Comment on Proposal No: 16-207
Recommendation: Reject this proposal.
Substantiation: Proposal is too vague to be enforceable and covers design issues not code issues. Many people have no need for any type of hard wired communication connection in their dwelling units.
Panel Meeting Action: Reject
Panel Statement: The commenter did not provide sufficient technical substantiation. The panel continues to agree with the proposer’s intent.
Number Eligible to Vote: 15
Ballot Results: Affirmative: 15
______________________________________________________
16-165 Log #2100 NEC-P16 Final Action: Reject
(800.156)
______________________________________________________
Submitter: James H. Maxfield, Dover, NH
Comment on Proposal No: 16-207
Recommendation: Delete the following text:
800.156 Dwelling Unit Communications Outlets. For new construction, a minimum of two communications outlet shall be installed; one within the master bedroom and one within the living room or kitchen, and cabled to the service provider demarcation point.
Substantiation: This proposal appears to be a matter of design convenience. The resident of a dwelling unit may act choose to subscribe to a land line communication provider. They may choose a wireless system. The addition of
this section does not appear to be in harmony with Section 90.1 of NFPA 70, NEC, 2005 edition. The addition of this proposal does not appear to solve any problem while mandating communication services and location of services
which may not be desired.
Panel Meeting Action: Reject
Panel Statement: See the panel action and statement on Comment 16-164.
Number Eligible to Vote: 15
Ballot Results: Affirmative: 15


Now we need a definition of "communications". Is a cable TV connection suitable?
Don

Don:
Reading your post above, and re-reading the others, I am still under the opinion that this is not 'design'. The Article is printed as one (1) within the dwelling, to the demarc.

In this area most EC's are installing telco and CTV, and have been for quite a while. THe 'smarter' ones are also offering/doing Audio/Video, data, alarm, CCTV, 'smart house' and any other LV that the market/homeowner/builder wants and will pay for.

Had the Article appeared in the '08 as written above....then I would have to say that it sounds like design, spelling out the kitchen and master bedroom.

I think is is design to require the communications outlet, just like it is design to install electric power to the dwelling unit. The code does not require that the dwelling unit have power...that is a design choice.
Also I have a problem with the wording of the section. It requires cabling from the communications outlet to the "demarcation point". That point does not exist unless you have contracted with a communications utility to provide service to the dwelling unit.
Don

Let me preface with: When I had my own house built (wired by me)in 1995, I installed cat5 /cable and fiber to all locations (Dang, she has it now!!!). Also, from my 1st house I wired (1983)it was good practice to put in phone and cable rec.All billable and greatly appreciated.

Now, It is still good standard practice (maybe not fiber,but it should be).I still don't get the safety factor of it. 911 and all. My current home, wired yes. Phone utility NO (outside not in use). I don't think I'm alone. In this wireless world (wich has more wires than I've ever seen before)I don't think it should be mandated.I feel this is only helping beldon cable and the like. How long before they spec out the cables we may use?
I still firmly feel this is a MFGR tool to get their products out there.
Respectfully to all Leland.

"It requires cabling from the communications outlet to the "demarcation point". That point does not exist unless you have contracted with a communications utility to provide service to the dwelling unit."
Don

Don:
I see your points, but still feel that it's not 'design'.
No, the NEC does not state that a dwelling must have power, but it states the minimum requirements for that power. I cannot say I ever saw a dwelling without power, although that may exist.

Yes, we are in a 'wireless' era, but...still we have land-line comm and data.

My point is, 'design' would be something like '1 jack, at the kitchen counter area within 12" of a 120 volt receptacle, to provide power to the cordless base unit'; NOT requiring a 'jack' be available.

Hotline1- Your design point is accurate. Agreed it is not design.Exactly what kind of comm. outlet do we need? Can I run 1 RG-6? Or do I need Phone cable,fiber or what? So many comm. resources out there now, who makes the call?
With that said, How does this fall under the intent of the NEC to make sure that wireing within dwellings is SAFE.
Good idea? YES. Have we not all been doing it for the better part of 30 Yrs? YES. Is there a need for it in the dwelling? NO. It is and should be an option.
This is a personal choice by the ocupant.
I am sure we will all continue to install these outlets, but to be required to.. I think is needless "Legislation".There are more important items to consider.
Such as pre wire surround sound, perhaps central vac (so lil' Johnny doesn't trip on the cord) etc.. etc..etc.
We do it and will continue to. Mandate it? NO.

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.

I think I have seen your work. Just kidding...

Leland:
Points taken, and yes, the US as a whole does not need any more Legislation. Mulling back over this thread again, and having a debate with the other AHJ in my office....I have to lean toward a 'bad add' into the 2008 NEC.

On the subject; as this will be required (Adopted '08 NEC) who HAS to install the required comm ?? The EC on the job? A telco contractor?

A further debate dependent on the Administrative policies of the locale (State, etc) is .....permit responsibility??

Should it be 'in-place' for rough ??
Or, could it be 'stapled-on' after the rock & spackle?

Or, point of services entry at garage side of dwelling (elec; cable; telco)...IF the jack was on the inside of that garage exterior wall....that would satisfy this Article...RIGHT?

The debate will go on at the Dec and January NJEIA meetings and CEU's