Argument about data cabling.

The below would connect to the carriers network. These would also carry said carrier based traffic between them. Does that make my home electrical wiring fall under the data cabling regulations, and my electrical contractor needs to be data licensed? (ignoring electrician regulations for a sec)



On the alarm system side - if it has a dialler - all the alarm cabling (which is nothing special) needs to be installed by a licensed cabler. However this cabling will never connect to the carriers network (directly) nor will it carry traffic intended for a carrier network. - This is no different to the above - but the licensing requirements are reversed. One needs it, one doesnt.
Again - on the coaxial side - now that digital TV requires Quad Shield coax, and is terminated with F-Connectors - exactly the same as HFC - does that mean that all Mr-Antenna tradesmen need to be data cabler licensed?

The point is that there's no hard delineation between what is in and what is out of scope, and there are contradictory requirements.

 

The laws governing what you can and can't do needs a heavy uplift and a reality check for law and regulation pushers that lots of people DIY, especially with the wealth of information available nowadays, whether or not done correctly is irrelevant. They need to seriously revise and clearly state where the demarcation points are otherwise people will continue to DIY where they feel confident in doing so. Data wiring within your own premise for e.g looming cat6 cables properly terminated and setup with common sense for your Poe cameras should not require a licensed installer when it's possible you would know more about how to install and setup then the installer. Just because the installer or cabler holds a relevant license doesn't mean they will do a good job. Plenty of shit kickers out there and I've come across many throughout various trades in the industry. Then of cause you get genuine techs that do know what they are doing and have been doing it for a long time.

 

LV cabling is excluded.

I think everyone, me included , wants diy at home. I think it’s just the electrical industry preventing it

 

Those things and aren't intended to connect directly to fixed cabling. They would be A-Tick compliant and should connect to other A-Tick compliant hardware or compliant fixed cabling using pre-made, A-Tick compliant patch cords. Everything has some type of compliance requirement. A lot of the requirements for fixed cabling is cross-referenced from AS3000 and other standards.

It's not how you intend to use the product. It's the intended purpose of the manufactured product. Literally every alarm system is designed to connect to a carrier network - even if it requires an add-on card to do it. It is different to the adaptors in that alarm cabling is fixed, permanent cabling. The panel is mounted to the wall. Those things simply plug into a socket and use a cord designed to be quickly connected and reconnected. HFC is a terrestrial medium. Digital TV is not. That said, DTV is (very slowly) going the way of falling under fixed cabling regulations.

There actually are. Read S009:2020 and you'll see that they're far more specific than you think.

I personally think it's about indemnity and responsibility. If someone does DIY and does a good job of it, the authorities aren't likely to bat an eyelid if your house burns down from something else failing - However, if it's exceptionally shit work and the building burns, then they'll be looking closely at the cabling and pointing at the regulations. Insurance will do the same and wipe their hands of it.

 

Speaker cabling was never part of the cabling rules. Anyone has been able to do that forever.

TV antenna cabling installs were generally done by the electrician building the house, and more often than not they also ran the quad for the phone point internally (which was checked by the telstra install person when they made the boundary connection)

Coax endorsement is not for TV antennas, or even sat dishes, because all they do it receive a signal. The endorsement is more for transmission equipment where you are pumping power into it. Don't forget early networks used coax.

As for what other countries do and don't I don't give a shit. If you want to use their rules go live over there. People are going to do stupid shit with regards to electricity regardless of what rules are in place. Subscribe to the ESO mailing group and see how many cowboys are in the industry and get caught.

 

My interest was piqued by this thread, because it has been a big messy debate. I actually wondered if there was a big misunderstanding similar to the fact that you need to be a licensed motor vehicle repairer to charge to service a car, but anyone can service their own car.

Whenever these kinds of ambiguities come up, I like to look for the actual legislation, not some vested interest's interpretation of the legislation. Can I say, I've never come across such a convoluted set of legislation before (that said, I'm not a lawyer, just read legislation a fair bit). I think the complexity comes because the authority is delegated from the Act, to the governing body. Essentially, the act only says "The ACMA has the authority within these bounds to make the rules". And then the ACMA makes the rules, without much reference back to the Act...

Anyway. After 90 minutes of reading, the most succinct summary of the bits of relevant legislation and standards I can find is that:

Authority starts here in the Telecommunications Act 1997 (Still in force) https://www.legislation.gov.au/Details/C2021C00237/Html/Volume_2#_Toc75356141:

Next, the ACMA declares the types of telecommunications cabling work. Or more to the point, they declare what's NOT telecommunications cabling work https://www.legislation.gov.au/Details/F2013L01845 Relevant to us:

And then, finally, the most often quoted, but on its own, makes least sense standard, on the registration of cabling providers: https://www.acma.gov.au/cabling-provider-rules


So in other words, unless you're testing fire systems, are a broadcaster, working on a limited set of industrial exceptions, or work for the government, the only legal DIY network cabling you can do, is not concealed in a building cavity.

 

You can install your own data cabling in walls if the cabling does not connect to a carriers network (connection is by any means, including wireless) and that cabling is not intended to connect to a carriers network. Only really helpful in you are building a test lab or something.

 

That's kind of amusing. So I can forge non-compliant IP - or even ethernet frames on cabling done by an approved cabler, but I can't hide the cabling for my WiFi extender in a wall. Just make installers - professional or DIY - liable for any damage or disruption they do to the network and be done with it.

 

The rules have nothing to do with what you send down the line data wise. It is to protect the equipment, not the data.

You would have to include the RSP(ISP), Backhaul provider and international carrier provider to your list of liable people if you want to go down the line you are talking about.

 

So how do you propose having a wireless client not physically connected to the telco equipment would damage the equipment? I'm referring to Bucket23's post. I haven't seen anything that suggests that an airgap is still not permitted.

 

Depends. The rules were updated last year to allow permanent cabling leaving a building structure (ceiling or wall) and be allowed to be touched by a non-registered cabler. You have to make sure some stuff is done to the cabling though.

 

It doesn't. It's not just about protecting the carrier equipment anymore, it's about safety and more importantly, the safety of the electrical cabling. The telco act still has the bit about connecting to a carriers network, however at some stage the telco act will change and it will be any cabling, just the same as the electrical cabling regulations are enacted.

I'd rather have DiY for home cabling and if people stuff it up, it's their own problem. Won't be allowed until the electrical industry allow DiY at home though.

 

And here in lies the issue. Safety and damage due to bad electrical cabling only makes sense when you are connected to the carriers network by copper.
As an example - In my place, I have zero copper coming from the street into my house (being on FTTP) - so no matter what I do; no cabling work that is being done will disrupt the carriers network, or cause any safety issues for people working on the network. Same goes with what Sunder was saying about a wireless air gap - I'm thinking Satellite, Fixed Wireless and 4G connections here.
In all these cases, there is zero potential for any of these cabling systems being able to be 'connected' to a telecommunications network - and by that definition, should be exempt from the regulation.

As for safety of the cabling system alongside other electrical systems in my own home, this is where the argument falls apart - how is a running a network cable any different from a running a speaker cable, a HDMI cable, etc through a cavity? The answer is, it's not. The likelihood of an issue occurring is identical in call cases - yet the latter two are legal, and the former is illegal if you're not a registered cabler.

But, it's all academic.

This sums it up nicely.

 

[QUOTE="mjunek, post: 18947056, member: 32601"Safety and damage due to bad electrical cabling only makes sense when you are connected to the carriers network by copper..[/QUOTE]
It doesn't. Bad electrical cabling is always an issue whether or not you have internet access.

 

That's not the case in all US states, or even all provinces in Canada for that matter either. If you look at the 'guides' they have on youtube and online from North America they usually have a disclaimer somewhere to check the rules in your area.

On the rates of fatalities, when looked at on a per-capita basis there is little difference between western countries that follow IEC, NFPA/NEMA or AS/NZS electrical standards. There are several reasons for this, firstly in all areas the vast majority of electrocutions (fatality from electric shock) is contact with overhead lines, of which regional variations are going to make little difference. The second main reason is the widespread use of RCD/GFCI's in these countries, which significantly reduce the fatality rates regardless of if you allow DIY work or not. If you take the time to go through the incident data most of the fatalities in the home are associated with non-RCD circuits or situations where the RCD was defective.

Having spent some time working across AS/NZS, IEC and NFPA standards and codes I don't believe there is a conclusive argument one system is better than the other, they each have their strengths and weaknesses. I would argue that the US system is more complex and thus less DIY friendly, but they allow more DIY than they do here. The Australian system is simpler yet we have tighter rules on DIY.

 

FTTP: NTD is owned by NBN so yes it does matter.

Wireless - We are talking about fixed cabling, not wireless.

 

Also:-
FTTC
NBN over HFC
and
FW

 

obvious conclusion is that the average Australian DIYer is dumber than the average US DIYer

 

And yet you're allowed to install speaker wire yourself, right?

Such busted legislation. The risk to the carrier network is 3 tenths of f-all with those with fibre - nobody outside the building is getting zapped from that. And for those within it well then it is exactly the same as speaker wire or any other run.

It is a backwards industry that if it truly cared about safety it would spend its time offering free education so people can do residential DIY safely rather than focusing on the laws.

 

Maybe the rules around speaker cabling should be changed /sarcasm.
Data cabling legislation wont change until the electrical legislation changes. S009 is a free download to anyone.