For a book that says it is not a design manual it sure seems like it is headed that way. What do you think?

This is copied from the T&B Code change booklet.

Communications Circuits (continued)
120
Article 800
Section 800.156 (NEW) 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.
Analysis of Change:
This new requirement is intended to ensure access to land based (hard-wired)
communications in all dwelling units. Although wireless communications as the principal
means of communicating is on the rise, Code-making panel 16 felt it necessary for safety
in the event of emergency. The panel did not address the need for the owner/occupant to
activate the service through a service contract with the provider in order for the land based
communications outlet to be of use in the event of an emergency.

Could not agree more.

.... And if that land based unit is in the control of the "public utility" it will most asuredly be down during an emergency, rendering it totaly useless.

However, It is another opertunity for us to charge and make a proffit.

I never hear plumbers complain about their codes. Or customers complain about their "fees".

Show them in writing and lets all make a buck.
It is what it is.

Just to elaborate.

I don't like code to design our ways either.
That is just plain wrong. It however appears that thats were we're headed. Coz they all know better than anyone.

I am all for safety. But what the heck does a cable/phone jack have to do with electrical safety?

Remember the photo just yesterday of the cable guy and his drill (wich he was not qualified to operate, obviousley)?

My point is this.
With the changes brings an opertunity for us to make a good living, lets seize it.
The old days, replace the outside rec.,make a few bucks on the GFCI, Now make a few on the "in use" cover.
Wire the new Dishwasher, Now make a few more on the cord and rec. Times change.

I don't agree with all the foolish changes but.... With each one, gives us the ability to charge and make a living.

We all must be more active in the code process ( I have never, but intend to now).
So untill then.. It is what it is.

Be fair and prosper, Together. Lets not croak each other.

I am speculating here but it is my understanding tha a phone utility can not refuse service to residential customers, however the customer is not required to get the service. By mandatorying the wiring does make is possible and easier for the service after the fact rather due to change of mind or new owners and eliminates the installation expense. Of all the different codes, the NEC would be the most practical place to put it to ensure it happens since most phone utilities do no enter private residences. Just because it is in the NEC, it does not require an electrician to install it. Like I said, I am only speculating. I can be barking up a tree

The code requiring an item is not 'design'. You might call it 'design' IF said comm point had to be installed at the kitchen countertop, 10" from the nearest 120 volt outlet, and 6" above the countertop.

Remember...there's $$$$$ in LV wiring!

Pleanty of it!!

Some states are starting to require lic. for it too.
So we are ahead of the curve now.Don't let it get away.
(fiber too)

Yes, Lic required in NJ and PERMIT

Review the Article, as written.
It does not specify the following:

• Location of Outlet,
• Type of Outlet,
• Cable to be used,
• Number of Outlets (more than 1),
• Performance of Cabling + Outlet,

This is no more of a "Design Issue" in the NEC, as is the Small Appliance Branch Circuits, Bathroom Circuits, or even Specific Branch Circuits for things like HVAC Condensers, extra circuits for Microwave Ovens & etc., or pool Equipment.

What I am getting at here is there will be a required outlet for Communications (land-line) - just as there are required outlets on the walls for general purpose receptacles + exterior receptacles; but the locations + performance are up to the designing persons.

This makes it a "Basic Requirement" - AKA "Minimal Code Compliant", not a Design Issue.
It becomes a Design Issue, when additional locations + performance specifications are involved.

I just do not see the NEC resembling anything at all in Design Performance, only "Minimum Requirements for Code Compliance regarding safety"

Scott

--I just do not see the NEC resembling anything at all in Design Performance, only "Minimum Requirements for Code Compliance regarding safety"--

How exactly does providing a communications outlet, promote or improve safety?

If the end user does not activate the service, then no use.
Don't get me wrong,They can install in the code that I need green rec.with the grounds up (:)). I will do it and charge accordingly.

Basicaly, I'm with some of the others. CODE, is starting to promote MFGRS'. Thats a sad commentary.

Is there not already an RJ-11 located at the demark of nearly every resi demark post 1980 anyway. Most TNI's (those grey boxes most phone companies use as a demark) already contain one as a jumper between terminals.

The problem lays with VIOP where the CATV company is providing telephone service through a modem - that may not work during power outages. Some companies here in CA had to provide a UPS to power the modem initially - but I think that's long gone???

As a long time (6 years) and now former cable modem owner I can assure you a UPS on the modem is not going to be much help. After any kind of storm the whole cable service is down for a day or two and the "data" won't be back for a week or more after they get the TV going.
I finally got frustrated and took the slower DSL since when averaged against 12 hours of "zero", .9-1 mbps is faster than the 1.6-1.7 I got from the cable 6.5 days a week. (and totally dead for days after a storm).
Cable would have to actually have to work for a week or more without an outage before I would ever consider dumping my POTS phone for VIOP. So far I have not seen it. I do hit it pretty often since the weather station at my house updates my web page once a minute. I can look at my log and see when it is down. I reported this to Comcast and they just blew it off. Their definition of "down" is you didn't swap ONE packet in 24 hours.
I sat their modem on the front porch in the DSL modem box and told them to come get it.

I hear 'ya there Greg, I hear ya there. If my father didn't work for Es Comcastico, the cable modem in my closet would be a DSL or FIOS modem, whenever Verizon gets their fiber in this section.

My aunt and uncle (one of the head engineers for all Comcast systems in NJ and PA) have CDV, Comcast Digital Voice. They blame our old fashioned "two copper wire" service when their phone doesn't sound good. My dad and I always tell them "Don't fix what ain't broke."

Ian A.

I originally had MediaOne and their "one way" cable moden was blazing fast (3-4 Mbps). It also never seemed to be down. When Comcast took over they gave us the "new improved" 2 way service along with the digital cable box and it was so bad I took both back. After a while they had a salemen tell me the bugs were all fixed and they gave me a special sign up deal to take the modem and digital box back. I ended up giving them the digital cable box back as soon as the introductory rate went away. I lived with the lousy cable modem until they screwed up my billing and locked it out. It took them THREE WEEKS, 6 or 7 service calls and phone calls to the corporate headquarters to get it going. By the time they got it going I had my DSL modem.
When they cut off the analog TV service (in a few months) I am cutting the cable, and dropping it in the right of way. If I need a box for every TV I own I might as well buy satellite.

We finally dropped our landline phone service after we discovered our line had been dead for a week without our even noticing. The lack of telemarketers was nice! If anything, cell phones are more reliable- cell towers at least have generators. And redundancy. And if recent uproar over the nanny state is any indication, can pinpoint your location as well as a billing address!

As for a UPS on the cable modem... works fine when the problem is a downed line or blown transformer in the neighborhood. 9 times out of 10, though, if our power is out in the house- so is the cable company's equipment. If you shut your PC down fast enough, a 700kVA UPS will leave a cable modem and wifi router up longer than a laptop can run on battery

I guess I will be the only guy on the planet without a cell when they cut off my analog car phone next year.

...And I'll be the only one with normal, two copper wire phone service from Verizon.

Ian A.

OK, so the thread is being 'jacked...
Verizon DSL has been 99.5% trouble free from day one. Comcast TV (Digital HDTV) has been 'missing' about 35 channels for over three weeks as of today. 'Cable guy' is supposed to show today...3 to 5 PM..
Stories were 'central issue'; changing channel designations, area situation, distribution issue....and a few I forgot. "Credit on bill' was to be .01 per missed channel, per day.

Land line for local, calls including 911.
Everything else is cell phone. With enhanced 911 if I pick it up and say HELP, they know where I am and will be on the run.
I still remember rotary dials when I was a kid.
Has any one ever seen a Stroger Switch ?
He developed the rotary dial system because he was sure the operator was being paid by his competion to steal his call.
It's not easy getting old, but somebody has to do it.

I still have 2 rotary dial phones hooked up. One was one of the original phones when the house was built and still has the Ma Bell phone number label in the dial. The other is an old pay phone out in the pool bar. Great for a bad weather place.

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

Hotline, I'm forever amazed at how one answer can raise so many questions.

Gregg, your point aswell, now, the only standard is for rated cables.

For the record, I will continue to install cable and phone.
Also fiber. I just need to learn how to terminate that. (all for a fee)Mandated or not.

Leland, I appreciate you desire to serve your customer best. I, also, do many things that are not required by code ...

OR, at least, not according to some, who use 'code' as a design guide. That might mean a few more receptacles and switches ... but I try to make the place livable, and not something to sneak past the planning department.

Still, there's a world of difference, in my mind, between what's 'legal' and what's 'right.' I've seen plans where the phone / data were left off - and have always raised the issue.

I make the distinction ... and I cannot, in my greatest stretch of the imagination, include a phone jack as essential to the minimum needed for safety ... which is what Article 90 tells us is the purpose of the NEC.

Let's not confuse what's 'better' or 'nicer' with the bare minimum. That's where the code panel and I disagree.

We Shall follow the code. Our responsability as pros.
I will.
I also tend to provide a plan with my bids/ schemes, as If I were to live there. Then we knock it down from there.
If they want code min.. so be it.

I have never been involved in the code process, but have friends who are (State level), I am intending to get involved, as an observer for now, then see where it takes me. Untill then..I'll just complain

Referring to what Greg posted above:


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