ECN Electrical Forum - Discussion Forums for Electricians, Inspectors and Related Professionals
ECN Shout Chat
ShoutChat Box
Recent Posts
Lock-down Thread
by Bill Addiss - 02/27/21 01:16 PM
Northern Tool Recalls Powerhorse Generators
by Admin - 02/25/21 09:49 PM
You will never guess
by gfretwell - 02/25/21 07:48 PM
New tool
by SMOKEYBOB - 02/15/21 04:59 PM
New in the Gallery:
Facebook follies, bad wiring
FPE in Germany pt.2
Who's Online Now
1 registered members (Scott35), 18 guests, and 17 spiders.
Key: Admin, Global Mod, Mod
Previous Thread
Next Thread
Print Thread
Rate Thread
Page 1 of 4 1 2 3 4
Another design issue in the Code #171100 11/19/07 08:55 PM
Joined: Aug 2001
Posts: 457
J
Jim M Offline OP
Member
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.


2017 / 2014 NEC & Related Books and Study Guides
Re: Another design issue in the Code [Re: Jim M] #171110 11/19/07 10:03 PM
Joined: Jan 2005
Posts: 5,316
renosteinke Offline
Cat Servant
Member
Could not agree more.

Re: Another design issue in the Code [Re: renosteinke] #171114 11/19/07 11:42 PM
Joined: Aug 2007
Posts: 853
L
leland Offline
Member
.... 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.

Re: Another design issue in the Code [Re: leland] #171116 11/20/07 12:20 AM
Joined: Aug 2007
Posts: 853
L
leland Offline
Member
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.

Re: Another design issue in the Code [Re: leland] #171118 11/20/07 12:40 AM
Joined: Jul 2007
Posts: 1,335
S
sparkyinak Offline
Member
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
Re: Another design issue in the Code [Re: sparkyinak] #171122 11/20/07 07:51 AM
Joined: Apr 2002
Posts: 7,233
HotLine1 Offline
Member
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
Re: Another design issue in the Code [Re: HotLine1] #171127 11/20/07 10:23 AM
Joined: Aug 2007
Posts: 853
L
leland Offline
Member
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)

Re: Another design issue in the Code [Re: leland] #171139 11/20/07 02:17 PM
Joined: Apr 2002
Posts: 7,233
HotLine1 Offline
Member
Yes, Lic required in NJ and PERMIT


John
Re: Another design issue in the Code [Re: HotLine1] #171199 11/21/07 10:21 PM
Joined: Oct 2000
Posts: 2,721
Scott35 Online Happy
Broom Pusher and
Member
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!
Re: Another design issue in the Code [Re: Scott35] #171203 11/22/07 12:27 AM
Joined: Aug 2007
Posts: 853
L
leland Offline
Member
--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.

Page 1 of 4 1 2 3 4

Featured:

2020 National Electrical Code
2020 National Electrical
Code (NEC)

* * * * * * *

2020 Master Electrician Exam Preparation Combos
2020 NEC Electrician
Exam Prep Combos:
Master / Journeyman

 

Member Spotlight
CharlieE
CharlieE
Indianapolis
Posts: 201
Joined: April 2004
Show All Member Profiles 
Top Posters(30 Days)
MCosta 3
Popular Topics(Views)
275,437 Are you busy
209,330 Re: Forum
196,614 Need opinion
Powered by UBB.threads™ PHP Forum Software 7.7.3