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

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