The Electrical Contractor Network

ECN Electrical Forum
Discussion Forums for Electricians, Inspectors and Related Professionals

Books, Tools and Test Equipment for Electrical and Construction Trades

Register Now!

Register Now!

We want your input!

Featured:
   

2017 NEC and Related
2017 NEC
Now Available!

   
Recent Posts
Locked rotor, no burnout
by andey
Today at 04:48 AM
Temporarily feeding a panel...
by Potseal
Yesterday at 11:05 PM
Massive power outage South Australia
by Meadow
Yesterday at 06:46 AM
short circuit??
by Meadow
Yesterday at 06:43 AM
Norwegian power?
by Meadow
Yesterday at 06:36 AM
New in the Gallery:
12.5A through 0.75mm˛ flex (just out of curiosity)
Shout Box

Top Posters (30 Days)
HotLine1 14
sparky 10
sparky66wv 8
gfretwell 8
Potseal 7
Who's Online
0 registered (), 300 Guests and 4 Spiders online.
Key: Admin, Global Mod, Mod
Page 1 of 4 1 2 3 4 >
Topic Options
Rate This Topic
#171100 - 11/19/07 05:55 PM Another design issue in the Code
Jim M Offline
Member

Registered: 08/10/01
Posts: 453
Loc: Chestertown, MD, USA
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.

Top
2014 / 2011 NEC & Related Books and Study Guides
#171110 - 11/19/07 07:03 PM Re: Another design issue in the Code [Re: Jim M]
renosteinke Offline
Cat Servant
Member

Registered: 01/22/05
Posts: 5300
Loc: Blue Collar Country
Could not agree more.

Top
#171114 - 11/19/07 08:42 PM Re: Another design issue in the Code [Re: renosteinke]
leland Offline
Member

Registered: 08/20/07
Posts: 856
Loc: Lowell area, Ma. USA
.... 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.

Top
#171116 - 11/19/07 09:20 PM Re: Another design issue in the Code [Re: leland]
leland Offline
Member

Registered: 08/20/07
Posts: 856
Loc: Lowell area, Ma. USA
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.

Top
#171118 - 11/19/07 09:40 PM Re: Another design issue in the Code [Re: leland]
sparkyinak Offline
Member

Registered: 07/08/07
Posts: 1286
Loc: Alaska
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
_________________________
"Live Awesome!" - Kevin Carosa

Top
#171122 - 11/20/07 04:51 AM Re: Another design issue in the Code [Re: sparkyinak]
HotLine1 Offline

Member

Registered: 04/03/02
Posts: 6786
Loc: Brick, NJ USA
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!
_________________________
John

Top
#171127 - 11/20/07 07:23 AM Re: Another design issue in the Code [Re: HotLine1]
leland Offline
Member

Registered: 08/20/07
Posts: 856
Loc: Lowell area, Ma. USA
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)

Top
#171139 - 11/20/07 11:17 AM Re: Another design issue in the Code [Re: leland]
HotLine1 Offline

Member

Registered: 04/03/02
Posts: 6786
Loc: Brick, NJ USA
Yes, Lic required in NJ and PERMIT
_________________________
John

Top
#171199 - 11/21/07 07:21 PM Re: Another design issue in the Code [Re: HotLine1]
Scott35 Offline

Broom Pusher and
Member

Registered: 10/19/00
Posts: 2724
Loc: Anaheim, CA. USA
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
_________________________
Scott " 35 " Thompson
Just Say NO To Green Eggs And Ham!

Top
#171203 - 11/21/07 09:27 PM Re: Another design issue in the Code [Re: Scott35]
leland Offline
Member

Registered: 08/20/07
Posts: 856
Loc: Lowell area, Ma. USA
--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.

Top
Page 1 of 4 1 2 3 4 >



ECN Electrical Forums - sponsored by Electrical Contractor Network - Electrical and Code Related Discussion for Electrical Contractors, Electricians, Inspectors, Instructors, Engineers and other related Professionals