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.
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.
Re: Another design issue in the Code
#171118 11/20/0701:40 AM11/20/0701:40 AM
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.
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 " 35 " Thompson Just Say NO To Green Eggs And Ham!
Re: Another design issue in the Code
#171203 11/22/0701:27 AM11/22/0701:27 AM