ECN Electrical Forum - Discussion Forums for Electricians, Inspectors and Related Professionals
ECN Shout Chat
Top Posters(30 Days)
Potseal 11
Recent Posts
600 KW 120/208 3 Phase Y protection
by Yooperup. 07/21/17 09:27 AM
1913 American Electrician's Handbook
by gfretwell. 07/20/17 01:08 PM
Green House wiring
by ghost307. 07/20/17 09:10 AM
Permit Snafus...AHJs and Contractors Jump in
by HotLine1. 07/18/17 08:06 PM
New in the Gallery:
SE cable question
Popular Topics(Views)
239,232 Are you busy
174,634 Re: Forum
167,060 Need opinion
Who's Online Now
0 registered members (), 79 guests, and 10 spiders.
Key: Admin, Global Mod, Mod
Previous Thread
Next Thread
Print Thread
Rate This Thread
Page 1 of 4 1 2 3 4
#171100 - 11/19/07 09:55 PM Another design issue in the Code  
Jim M  Offline
Member
Joined: Aug 2001
Posts: 457
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.



2017 / 2014 NEC & Related Books and Study Guides

#171110 - 11/19/07 11:03 PM Re: Another design issue in the Code [Re: Jim M]  
renosteinke  Offline
Cat Servant
Member
Joined: Jan 2005
Posts: 5,316
Blue Collar Country
Could not agree more.


#171114 - 11/20/07 12:42 AM Re: Another design issue in the Code [Re: renosteinke]  
leland  Offline
Member
Joined: Aug 2007
Posts: 853
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.


#171116 - 11/20/07 01:20 AM Re: Another design issue in the Code [Re: leland]  
leland  Offline
Member
Joined: Aug 2007
Posts: 853
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.


#171118 - 11/20/07 01:40 AM Re: Another design issue in the Code [Re: leland]  
sparkyinak  Offline
Member
Joined: Jul 2007
Posts: 1,327
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

#171122 - 11/20/07 08:51 AM Re: Another design issue in the Code [Re: sparkyinak]  
HotLine1  Offline


Member
Joined: Apr 2002
Posts: 6,853
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

#171127 - 11/20/07 11:23 AM Re: Another design issue in the Code [Re: HotLine1]  
leland  Offline
Member
Joined: Aug 2007
Posts: 853
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)


#171139 - 11/20/07 03:17 PM Re: Another design issue in the Code [Re: leland]  
HotLine1  Offline


Member
Joined: Apr 2002
Posts: 6,853
Brick, NJ USA
Yes, Lic required in NJ and PERMIT


John

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

Broom Pusher and
Member
Joined: Oct 2000
Posts: 2,707
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!

#171203 - 11/22/07 01:27 AM Re: Another design issue in the Code [Re: Scott35]  
leland  Offline
Member
Joined: Aug 2007
Posts: 853
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.


Page 1 of 4 1 2 3 4

Member Spotlight
The_Lightman
The_Lightman
Orlando, Fl, USA
Posts: 49
Joined: August 2001
Show All Member Profiles 
Featured:

2017 NEC and Related
2017 NEC
Now Available!

Shout Box
Powered by UBB.threads™ PHP Forum Software 7.6.0
Page Time: 0.017s Queries: 16 (0.002s) Memory: 0.8243 MB (Peak: 1.0054 MB) Zlib enabled. Server Time: 2017-07-23 12:39:56 UTC