Depending on the state you reside in there may be some state requirements in 
regards to cabling.  I know in Florida there is a fire code requirement that 
best effort (undefined by the way as to what makes for best effort) has to be 
made to remove unused/retired/substandard cabling based on what exactly the 
company is doing.  At a previous $dayjob$ we had to have the contractor remove 
some Cat3 and Cat4 as well as 10BaseT from above the drop ceiling they were 
upgrading our network cabling for VOIP phones.  They did the Cat stuff to reuse 
existing conduit but the 10BaseT stuff was just cut off at the end of the 
conduit (the original contractor must of used soap or something similar as we 
could not get it to move in the conduit to get it out.  We were able to leave 
the original electrical wire in place as the contract was not an electrician.  
When we added some more cabling at a later point (electrician did the work this 
time) he pitched a fit about any cabling he put in had to be in conduit to make 
code, but unless he touched the panel with new wire he did not need to touch 
the old electrical wiring.
 
Jon
 
> From: [email protected]
> Date: Mon, 3 Jun 2013 18:03:42 -0400
> Subject: [NTSysADM] [semi-OT] Cabling requirements
> To: [email protected]
> 
>   Does anyone have or know of some requirements specifications for
> communications cabling I can steal from?
> 
>   I'm writing up some general requirements for structured cabling
> contractors, to use as a company standard.  I've got the obvious stuff
> like "Data cable runs must conform to TIA/EIA-568 category 5e blah
> blah".  But the corner cases and gotchas concern me.  For example,
> I've added a provision that cables run through masonry must be run in
> conduit so they don't abrade.  I've got a provision that testing must
> be done before walls are closed.  That sort of thing.
> 
>   Pointers to standards are welcome, but it could also just be someone
> else's existing public contract language I could steal idea from.
> 
>   Assistance greatly appreciated.
> 
> -- Ben
> 
> 
                                          

Reply via email to