NEC Article 830

Status
Not open for further replies.
hbiss said:

Believe me, I would know from the equipment. But I really don't know what your point is anyway. If you say that nobody would know then why are you arguing with us about Art. 830? We don't install the stuff. Go debate with the cable companies.

-Hal
Click to expand...

Yes, some of it you can tell just by looking at it how it is powered. The NIU that is on my house from when I had telephone service through AT&T Broadband has a jumper in it that is removed if the device is powered via the drop. (Here, they were powered locally.) There is no way to tell just by looking at it whether it is powered locally or by the network. Made by Arris, a major CATV equipment manufacturer. Several neighbors have them as well.

This thread itself was concerning drops anyway, not equipment. It was started because someone asked, in another post, if NEC burial requirements apply to coax.
 
don_resqcapt19 said:
It could be that the franchise agreement requires compliance with the NEC or the agreement itself specifies installation methods, but the NEC itself does not apply to that part of the cable system. Or maybe even the NESC has rules that apply.
Click to expand...
Yeah, see, that's the thing. There are some that are saying that the NEC doesn't apply, yet we see incidences where cable companies are cited and even fined for non-compliance with the NEC.
 
egnlsn said:
Yeah, see, that's the thing. There are some that are saying that the NEC doesn't apply, yet we see incidences where cable companies are cited and even fined for non-compliance with the NEC.
Click to expand...

As Don said there may be a local agreement to meet the NEC or the enforcement authority may have exceeded their authority.
 
I agree with Don and iwire, It is the utilities responsibility. They may try to follow burrial depthes of the NEC but that is their rules. Once it enters the house and you burry it to your garage, thats a different story.
 
egnlsn said:
Yeah, see, that's the thing. There are some that are saying that the NEC doesn't apply, yet we see incidences where cable companies are cited and even fined for non-compliance with the NEC.
Click to expand...
That is correct, the NEC by itself does not apply. Other agreements may make it apply, but that is not the NEC, that is the other agreement.
 
As a parallel, the telephone companies install remote units (smart jacks) for services like T1 that are line powered and can go over 100 volts. The normal telephone wiring and drop is used and they have been doing this forever. I would think that if 830 applied they would be doing things differently. I don't see any BM listed wire for telephone.

Like has been mentioned, the NEC does not apply to utility owned and controlled wiring and equipment especially if it is not within a building. My opinion is that 830 is just another poorly written article that contradicts itself. Keep in mind that technology is not an NEC strong point.

The NEC has no say over electrical service drops of any voltage, why would it apply to low voltage communications drops?

-Hal
 
Last edited:
From an attorney who specializes in telecommunications law. Since 1984, Kramer.Firm, Inc. has assisted over 600 federal, state, and local government agencies, as well as private institutions, with telecommunications technology counsel and inspection services. (http://www.kramerfirm.com)

"90.2(B)(4) says the Code does NOT apply to:

"Installations of communications equipment under the exclusive control of communications utilities located outdoors or in building spaces used exclusively for such installations."

This exception comes up from time to time, but ask yourself these questions:

1. Is a drop under the "exclusive control of the communications utility" if it is merely installed on/under someone else's property? No.

2. Is there usually an easement for the drop granting "exclusive control" (as opposed to access) of the land to the communications utility? No.

3. Is the land occupied by the drop "exclusively used for such installations"? No.

What *might* fall into 90.2(B)(4) exclusion? Locked headends NOT shared by any vendors (i.e., a 2-way radio company that has a base station inside the headend and enters the headend to service it; a cable ad network that has equipment it services inside the headend). Locked cable TV equipment closets in a building where only the cable operator has the key.

As for the federal offense question, in the Communications Act of 1934 as amended by the Telecommunications Act of 1996, Congress has granted the authority to the FCC to suspend an FCC license for anyone who "[h]as willfully damaged or permitted radio apparatus or installations to be damaged" 47 U.S.C. 303 (m)(1)(a). That doesn't really apply here, does it. (Use a shovel, go to jail?)

But remember...many local governments and states DO NOT adopt the most current code year as their local or state code, and some do not adopt ALL of the NEC for a given code year. It pays to find out what code year is be the law in your jurisdiction, and to see whether there are any exceptions or additions to the Code."

First, I had E-mailed him privately, which he answered, then he asked me to post it on a couple of lists so he could answer it in a public forum.

In the public forum, the posts from other members immediately went to cutting drops being a federal offense.

Someone from CommScope (wire and cable manufacturer) wrote "Cutting drops a crime? I imagine the prisons would be overflowing." Followed by:

"Your right about cutting drops being a crime. If that was the case there would be a ton of Direct TV and Dish Network employees in jail," and

"No to mention AT&T employees," and

"Not to mention contractors doing in-ground sprinkler systems, alarm systems, Electric Fence...I just love the ones that cut through powered drops, isn't that what Dig Safe is for???"

That last one was posted by someone from Cox cable in New England. Obviously, they have drop-powered equipment.

Thank you, gentlemen, for the discussion. It has been enlightening.
 
hbiss said:
The NEC has no say over electrical service drops of any voltage, why would it apply to low voltage communications drops?
Click to expand...
So who is responsible for a cable left lying on the ground and presenting a trip hazard?
 
LarryFine said:
So who is responsible for a cable left lying on the ground and presenting a trip hazard?
Click to expand...
I, too, would think that it would be the cable company. The best thing would be to ask the AHJ over them in your area.
 
Using that line of argument, incidents such as Modesto Zaps Comcast With $1M Fine wouldn't happen because the grounding violations cited were all part of the installations of their equipment, nor would cities spend their money on things such as A Physical Plant Safety Inspection
of Comcast Cable.

Indeed, GROUNDING of the drop is a requirement of the NEC (see Art 820.33)just like protectors for telephone drops (Art 800.30).

From an attorney who specializes in telecommunications law.

I think we hit a new low here. Now we have an attorney telling us what he thinks the Code says. Hey counselor, I had no idea the bar exam included an NEC Code section.

Any day now: "Sorry Mr. Inspector, I don't agree with you. You'll be hearing from my attorney!"

-Hal
 
1. Is a drop under the "exclusive control of the communications utility" if it is merely installed on/under someone else's property?

Yes, when it belongs to the utility.

2. Is there usually an easement for the drop granting "exclusive control" (as opposed to access) of the land to the communications utility?

Just legal BS.

3. Is the land occupied by the drop "exclusively used for such installations"?

Why would it need to be? More legal BS.

Just because something is on your property doesn't make it yours or give you the right to play with it. Is an electric meter on the side of your house yours? Is it under exclusive control of the electric utility? Anything in the NEC about meters?


On cutting drops being a federal offense:

You whole argument is off base and stupid. Nobody was suggesting that someone go to jail for accidentally cutting a drop. Nobody was suggesting that someone go to jail for trying to move a drop. It might incur costs to them from the "owner" of the drop but that's a civil matter. It becomes criminal when damage is done maliciously- someone doesn't like their neighbor, a striking union member damages utility company property.

Things have changed since 1934. Since 9/11 we have Homeland Security and a whole host of new laws that make tampering, vandalism and hacking of communications facilities a federal crime. So all someone needs to do is prove intent, and it looks like with all the lawyers out there who are good at twisting just about anything around to fit the arguement that shouldn't be hard to do.

-Hal
 
hbiss said:

On cutting drops being a federal offense:

You whole argument is off base and stupid. Nobody was suggesting that someone go to jail for accidentally cutting a drop.

Things have changed since 1934. Since 9/11 we have Homeland Security and a whole host of new laws that make tampering, vandalism and hacking of communications facilities a federal crime. So all someone needs to do is prove intent, and it looks like with all the lawyers out there who are good at twisting just about anything around to fit the arguement that shouldn't be hard to do.

-Hal
Click to expand...

I didn't say anything about jail -- others (not in this forum) did. A Federal Offense does suggest some kind of (probably severe) penalty. The Communications Act of 1934 was amended by the Telecommunications Act of 1996. TV wasn't even around in 1934, let alone cable, but it was in 1996 and the damaging of CATV drops still wasn't addressed.
 
Because I'm not as current on CATV as those who actually do it everyday I asked about line powered EMTAs, BM cable, converting to 90 volts and other facts you quoted in this thread. These are guys from all over the country and this one sums up basically what they all said:

I'd have to agree with your guess on this one, RSU's for the old CDP service. We just turned off the last of ours this past spring. They used 90volts from the plant & were installed at the outside of the house, first piece of equipment the drop hit. The voltage stopped at the RSU. All the RSU's have been deprovisioned & the frequency it used is now for something else, but many RSU's still have 90volts going to them. We're slowly going through powering them down.

I couldn't really see EMTA's going this route for two reasons off the top of my head. One is that it's cheaper to have the sub pay the electricity to power the EMTA instead of us powering it from the plant. Second is that by using the EMTA they generally save on the amount of CPE in the house. Before if someone had phone & internet we needed to have both an RSU & a modem at every house, now they just need one EMTA. Makes the bean counters happy.

So apparently what you saw is not something new but rather something very old and on the way out. That's why it's a non issue along with Article 830.

-Hal
 
Last edited:
hbiss said:
Because I'm not as current on CATV as those who actually do it everyday I asked about line powered EMTAs, BM cable, converting to 90 volts and other facts you quoted in this thread. These are guys from all over the country and this one sums up basically what they all said:

I'd have to agree with your guess on this one, RSU's for the old CDP service. We just turned off the last of ours this past spring. They used 90volts from the plant & were installed at the outside of the house, first piece of equipment the drop hit. The voltage stopped at the RSU. All the RSU's have been deprovisioned & the frequency it used is now for something else, but many RSU's still have 90volts going to them. We're slowly going through powering them down.

I couldn't really see EMTA's going this route for two reasons off the top of my head. One is that it's cheaper to have the sub pay the electricity to power the EMTA instead of us powering it from the plant. Second is that by using the EMTA they generally save on the amount of CPE in the house. Before if someone had phone & internet we needed to have both an RSU & a modem at every house, now they just need one EMTA. Makes the bean counters happy.

So apparently what you saw is not something new but rather something very old and on the way out. That's why it's a non issue along with Article 830.

-Hal
Click to expand...
Yes, many systems have gone away from network powered subscriber equipment. Perhaps eventually all will. Thing is, though, network powered premises equipment is still out there. Even the Comcast technician you quoted said that while not in use anymore, they still had many RSU's that have 90volts going to them. They're slowly going through powering them down. Eventually, they will get that done. Until they do, though, they still have drops with 90VAC on them and Article 830 is still an issue.

BM cable is for medium power circuits of 0-150 volts (Table 830-4). BMU is underground. BLP cable is for low power circuits of 0-100 volts. BLP can be substituted with CMP cable (Table 830-58). The drop cable made my the major manufacturers that cable companies use are all CMP.
 
Last edited:
they still have drops with 90VAC on them and Article 830 is still an issue.

And if somebody wants to make an 830 issue out of that it's easy enough to make it a non-issue by simply disconnecting them.

-Hal
 
hbiss said:
they still have drops with 90VAC on them and Article 830 is still an issue.

And if somebody wants to make an 830 issue out of that it's easy enough to make it a non-issue by simply disconnecting them.

-Hal
Click to expand...
That definitely would to the trick. :wink:
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top