Technical > Home Improvement > Just out of curiosity: Phone wiring in new construction

Just out of curiosity: Phone wiring in new construction

As a single family home landlord I would never dream of telling the renter that they can't use the Telco for phone service. Actually we have two cable companies and the Telco, and each is different installation wise. I prefer to try to have everything pre-wired as having multiple wires nailed on the outside by the install tech is never a good solution.

reply to IowaCowboy
These days, people don't want phone and data jacks. If they do get a phone jack, it's usually just one for a cordless set.
Most normal people are satisfied with wireless.

Code says you must have at least 1 "communications outlet" in a dwelling, but it doesn't say what type. Given the code section it's in, they probably intended telephone. Many areas are allowing a CATV jack as the required communications outlet.

There's no really good "wireless" alternative for CATV or Satellite signal.

I used to use composite cable for pre-wires: Coax, Cat5, and FO. I don't buy composite cable any more. It sits around too long. In most houses, I might do 1 or 2 phone jacks and 8-10 CATV jacks. FO was a big waste of time. At the time, it appeared everything would go FO, but that will probably never happen. Not when air foots the bill. Nobody knew how fast wireless technology would develop.

The phone company used to wire buildings for "free". When TA96 went through, there was a significant decline in that practice. When cable companies started offering dial tone, it almost completely went away. That left building owners in charge of the wiring. We all know that most LLs are not too concerned with the communications wiring or their tenants ability to choose providers. They want whatever is cheapest for themselves.
They also get "kickbacks", which sways their decision. The cable company has been giving LL's kickbacks since the inception of CATV service. It's not a new practice. But what the CC does now is try and cock-block all other providers (phone, SAT, WISP) by bribing the LL with a percentage.

To answer your basic question, yes - there are buildings going up every day with only "one path" in. It's usually whoever provides the best kickback.

Right now it's a "free-for-all".
--
If someone refers to herself / himself as a "guru", they probably aren't.

reply to robbin

I really don't know the legal aspects of this (I will try to check for my area) but for residential zoning I really do not think that I can prevent a tenant from subscribing to a utility provider. The Telco is one, and in this state is still under control by the Public Utility Commission. So while I do state in my lease that if they want DirectTv they CAN NOT drill any holes, I just don't think I can prevent the Telco from installing service based on lease. Multi-Family (apartment building) would be under different rules. I have to wonder if what "code" requires and what the tenant is allowed are two different things. As a landlord, each time a hole is drilled or a screw is driven it is damage to my property. It's in my interest to try to prevent that from happening.

reply to IowaCowboy
If I was a renter on a fairly new structure and it wasn't wired for TV and phone in the bedrooms and living area, I'd tell the landlord why I was walking. With the cost of the wire, it's ideodict not to pre-wire. When done it's a good marketing feature to advertise pre-wired for TV and phone to keep the units full. The only thing you can count on is a wired system. If it was me I'd also pre-wire at logical places for computers also.

I have a friend who built a new house for himself and family a few years ago and only put TV in the living room. He soon realized the benefit of having TV in the bedrooms. Since he finished part the basement and drywalled the ceiling(not a drop ceiling even though he had 9' walls) there's no way to get wires across the room. His only option is to have someone somehow fish some coax across ($$$) or do it on the outside(brick).

I also don't stay in hotels that only have wifi. It's a big security problem with a wired network and wifi only multiplies them. One of these days I need to get a pocket sized firewall that Zyxel used to make(if they still make them).

ZyWall P1 -- discontinued but found a few on Amazon. I have one and it works great.

reply to robbin
Like nunya said, the codes in his area require one communications outlet and most inspectors in his area consider a cable television outlet to be counted as a communications outlet (particularly since if the cable system is capable of two-way communication, as most cable systems are). Many times, landlords will enter into exclusivity agreements with cable companies and that allows them to shut out competing providers (DirecTV/Dish Network, Verizon copper/FiOS, AT&T U-Verse, etc). Many cable companies do offer telephone service. My main question was about traditional telephone service; which wiring the building for, can result in considerable expense as the telco charges for any work done on the customer side of the demarcation point. Why I am wondering is with the decline of traditional telephone/DSL if new landlords/developers are having new apartment buildings wired for phone.

As with the Cable/VoIP solution, then all you need to do is install a EMTA (also known as a Telephony Modem) and plug in a phone set/cordless phone base into the telephone port.

If I were building an apartment complex today, I would only wire the building for traditional telephone service if required by local sanitary codes. Otherwise, I'd put in a cable outlet in the living room and the bedroom except I would put two cable outlets in the master bedroom (one for a TV and one for the cable modem/EMTA).

I don't see anything in the Mass sanitary code requiring a phone jack connected to the PSTN although I have seen that you have a right to telephone service (source www.masslegalhelp.org) but the way I am interpreting it is the landlord could stick the tenants with installation charges if the tenant wishes to subscribe to telephone service. I also have seen somewhere that in Mass, a landlord must allow the local cable TV provider access to the building if one or more tenants requests cable TV (although the cost of wiring the building as MDU installs are treated differently, the landlord may tell the tenants to pay the cost of wiring).

Like nunya said, if I had to choose between providing a PSTN phone jack or a cable TV outlet, I would take the cable TV outlet as cable TV is improving technologically everyday and and has more capabilities (providing voice, TV, and high-speed internet) while traditional telephone service will be obsolete in another 10-15 years.

If Verizon offered FiOS in the local area and I was building an apartment building or new development, I would go for the FiOS as you can get higher rents as FiOS is very popular but scarce (as Verizon does not want to seem to expand it at the current time).
--
I wish I still lived in Iowa; Everything there from rent and groceries to Cable TV is much cheaper in Iowa (especially with an overbuilder in town).

I think you missed my point. You asked

reply to kherr

reply to IowaCowboy
LL's can do pretty much anything they want with their property, in terms of communications.
While they must permit "antennas", they can just say that they will allow no new penetrations to the building finish. This limits the mounting options severely. Unless you live on a balcony or courtyard with an unobstructed Southern view, you are screwed. This is why DirecTV and Dish Network have "blacklisted" many apartment communities. They don't want the hassle.
It can also work against the cable co.
I used to do installs for an MSO who specialized in running the cable co out of complexes. Basically, their service was more expensive, but they'd give the LL a bigger cut.
The LL would essentially tell the cable co to "get out", and there wasn't a damn thing they could do about it. We would come install dishes, antennas, and a headend. They'd usually put it in the apartment next to the laundry (nobody wants to live next to the laundry).
We'd run all new cable through the complex if needed, or simply "commandeer" the abandoned cable co cables.
--
If someone refers to herself / himself as a "guru", they probably aren't.

reply to IowaCowboy
As a low power special systems provider, we do pre-wires on new constructions (homes) all the time.
We typically provide dual CAT5/CAT6 and dual RG-6 drops as a rule of thumb to every location the homeowner/developer requires. All drops are terminated in a structured wiring enclosure ready for whatever use a homeowner requires.
Personally CAT5 is dead, and CAT6 should be the norm.
Wireless is great, but with range, and latency, along with security being the drawbacks, a typical buyer requests a network drop for communication needs.
--
Getting it Done.

reply to nunya

reply to IowaCowboy
Pretty much all of the new home construction I've seen includes structured wiring with a centiral cabinet with a telephone distribution point. Really, if the house is already wire for CAT 5/6, adding a telephone pair isn't much more. Then again, I haven't actually used a wired telephone pair in about 10 years.
--
This Space for Rent...

reply to robbin
Well then, single family folks simply "aren't biting" on pre-wires any more either. It's a trend that I don't like (for obvious reasons). But nonetheless, it happening. I can't ignore it. I prefer a wired connection for everything, but most people are not technologically savvy. All they know is that they have wireless now and it works for them.

I'll put it this way - I don't include LV wiring in my resi bids any more. I'll include the option, but not in the final tally. Why? Other contractors aren't including it either. Why? Because it's no longer in demand.

If I were building a house today for myself, it would be wired to the hilt. Actually, I would do conduit for LV.

I'm no longer "predicting" that wireless will be king. I don't have to. It's already happening right now.
--
If someone refers to herself / himself as a "guru", they probably aren't.

I've gotten lazy in my own home. We have 3 wireless HD video devices. I should run cat5 or at least get MoCA adapters; but why bother when wireless works without a hiccup?
--
If someone refers to herself / himself as a "guru", they probably aren't.

reply to nunya
I totally agree with you. I have starting asking tenants if they plan to have a "house phone" just out of curiosity and no one has one anymore. My response was more to the OP in the original post "telling the few tenants who want a home phone to go with a cable company telephone offering or a VoIP offering". So while practically no one uses it anymore, as a landlord I don't feel that I can forbid the Telco from my rental. With that being the case, I would rather have it reasonably wired so nothing additional is needed, whether it is an old house, remodel, or new construction.

reply to nunya

reply to robbin
New construction "should" have cat5e/cat6 pairs, RG6Quad (pair)" bundle to every room (even bathroom). Although FO is nice (I have it as a backbone from basement to attic), I've not terminated it, nor have any need (it was a free bundle so why complain)...

Wifi is "not" a complete solution. Aside from the usual interference (kitchens, glass, steel, stone), there can be other factors that don't make it 100% nice. Still, it should be factored in if say, homeowner wants outside signal, signal in garage, or ubiquitous coverage on their property. Having Cat5e/Cat6 to allow for access points or to run PoE is forward thinking (albeit how forward as tech evolves rapidly).

Having spare pairs is wise but wasteful, and used up space. I agree with just planning LV to every room, with fishtape for future needs should be more than adequate.
--
Splat