800.156 Vanished?

[jim k]

In the 2020 NEC, Article 800 has been extensively modified, but Section 800.156 seems to have quietly vanished. Or has it been moved somewhere that I'm missing?
(In the 2008-2017 editions, this was the rule that required builders to install a single communications outlet, cabled to the service demarcation point.)

Jim Katen

 

[infinity]

I wrote a proposal (when they were called that) a few code cycles ago to eliminate this stupid requirement. Is is finally gone?

 

[don_resqcapt19]

See 805.156 in the 2020. Article 800 is now the general rules for Chapter 8 Articles and apply all of Chapter 8, other than Article 810. 805 is the specific communications circuit requirements that were previously in 800.

I agree that the rule should be deleted because it is physically impossible to comply with if the owner does not ask a communications utility to provide communications services to the house. The rule requires a communications circuit to be run to the "service provider demarcation point", but if the owner does has not asked a communications provider for service, there will not be a demarcation point, making the rule impossible to comply with. The lack of a physical connection to a communications utility is becoming more common.

 

[infinity]

See 805.156 in the 2020. Article 800 is now the general rules for Chapter 8 Articles and apply all of Chapter 8, other than Article 810. 805 is the specific communications circuit requirements that were previously in 800.

I agree that the rule should be deleted because it is physically impossible to comply with if the owner does not ask a communications utility to provide communications services to the house. The rule requires a communications circuit to be run to the "service provider demarcation point", but if the owner does has not asked a communications provider for service, there will not be a demarcation point, making the rule impossible to comply with. The lack of a physical connection to a communications utility is becoming more common.

There are many reasons (like you've mentioned) as to why this is waste of time and money. Here in New Jersey this was removed from the code as soon as it was put in. This is dumb on so many levels.

 

[hbiss]

800.156 Dwelling Unit Communications Outlet.
For new construction, a minimum of one communications outlet shall
be installed within the dwelling in a readily accessible area and
cabled to the service provider demarcation point.

I don't remember when that section first showed up, probably in one of the 70's cycles when cable was in vogue. We used to hang a tail out of the outside wall where the service was located then run it to the backboard next to the panel. It was expected that the installer would locate his splitters and home runs to that location if we didn't already do the inside wiring for it.

I suspect that what they intended was a cable outlet installed in the living room and run outside to facilitate connection but they didn't say that. So next to the panel is certainly a readily accessible area and made more sense.

Never had anybody even mention 800.156 though.

-Hal

 

[jim k]

See 805.156 in the 2020. Article 800 is now the general rules for Chapter 8 Articles and apply all of Chapter 8, other than Article 810. 805 is the specific communications circuit requirements that were previously in 800.

I agree that the rule should be deleted because it is physically impossible to comply with if the owner does not ask a communications utility to provide communications services to the house. The rule requires a communications circuit to be run to the "service provider demarcation point", but if the owner does has not asked a communications provider for service, there will not be a demarcation point, making the rule impossible to comply with. The lack of a physical connection to a communications utility is becoming more common.

Thank you. That's very helpful. I rarely venture into Article 800 and I was having a hard time understanding the overall changes. Now it makes sense.

Yes, this is a very strange rule, particularly since it first appeared in 2008, when communications *wiring* was on its way out.

 

[don_resqcapt19]

There were
public comment at second draft stage for the 2008 code, and a number of PIs since the to get rid of the rule, but the Code Making Panel says this rule is needed.

 

[hbiss]

Yes, this is a very strange rule, particularly since it first appeared in 2008, when communications *wiring* was on its way out.

2008? Yes, very strange indeed. I never looked for when it first appeared, I figured in the middle of the cable TV boom in the '70s. No matter, I was doing as I said above since back then, guess I was ahead of the times. Haven't done it in quite some time, now it's up to the customer and installer of whatever service they choose to do whatever they want.

-Hal

 

[jim k]

I guess with a little consideration, it's not that strange. Before 2008, there wasn't much need for the rule because the installation of com wiring was simply a given. Perhaps CMP 16 was simply reacting to pressure from some of the telecom companies to keep giving people wires so that they'd keep using them . . .

 

[don_resqcapt19]

Here is the proposal that resulted in this requirement.

Submitter: Robert W. Jensen, dbi / Rep. BICSI, A Telecommunications
Association
Recommendation: Add new text to read:
800.156 Dwelling Unit Communications Outlets. For new construction, a
minimum of two communications outlet shall be installed; one within the
master bedroom and one within the living room or kitchen, and cabled to the
service provider demarcation point.
Substantiation: Currently there is no requirement for a communications outlet
in a dwelling unit. A communications outlet in the home is needed for many
reasons, but most important is for emergency services such as a simple call for
police, fire or rescue squad.
This proposal only affects newly constructed dwelling units. In addition to
the problem it solves for communications needs in a dwelling, the proposal is
also targeted at safety of technicians and emergency responding personnel
while enhancing the 5 key NFPA strategies to reduce fatal home fires.
1. Reduces the safety risk of electrocution to technicians where extended
length drill bits (54 to 72 inches) are typically used to install cables and
penetrate unseen electrical cables in the attic, wall and ceiling space. (See
pictures at end of this proposal)
2. Reduces the tripping hazard for fire protection personnel during a fire.
3. Reduces the need for home wiring for communications after occupancy
which typically involves tracing, handling, and snaking through electrical cable
pathways and spaces such as in attics and wall cavities which creates
potentially greater hazard (e.g., electrocution).
4. Increases the use of home protection systems and automation which
typically includes fire detection and direct dial-up remote monitoring systems.
5. This proposal ties directly to one of the 5 key NFPA strategies to reduce
fatal home fires (see attached “Fire Loss in the United States During 2002”,
Michael J Karter, Jr., Fire Analysis and Research Division, NFPA).
6. Places communications outlets in homes to address fire safety needs of
young high user communications groups, older adults, and ADA affected.
7. A fine print note is used as a reference to a standard that specifies
installation requirements such as minimum separation from power cabling and
minimum requirements for cabling in support of the FCC mandate for category
3 cable or better. In addition, this standard references several NEC Articles for
meeting minimum requirements.
Note: Supporting material is available for review at NFPA Headquarters.
Panel Meeting Action: Accept in Principle in Part
Add new text to 800.156 to read as follows:
800.156 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.
Panel Statement: The requirement for at least one outlet within the dwelling
meets the submitter’s intent.
Number Eligible to Vote: 15
Ballot Results: Affirmative: 15

 

[jim k]

Thanks, that's great. Of course it was proposed by the Telecom Assn rep.

There's a certain elegance in the way that the proposed change really doesn't fulfill the enumerated rationalizations, but the panel's rewrite does meet the submitter's unspoken intent.

 

[infinity]

Thanks, that's great. Of course it was proposed by the Telecom Assn rep.

There's a certain elegance in the way that the proposed change really doesn't fulfill the enumerated rationalizations, but the panel's rewrite does meet the submitter's unspoken intent.

Yup and thanks to Don for digging this up. Another satisfied customer who got a useless code requirement added to the NEC to solely benefit the industry he represents. The NFPA needs an investigation into the practices that have crept into the code making process.