6 Pop Songs Great for Audio Demos
Worst DIY Installs Ever Part 7
10 Must-Have Products for Your Next Install
6 Amazing High-End Home Theaters
Print
Email
Comments (29)
Share
Warning Issued for Deficient Cat 5e, Cat 6 Cable
The CCCA has encountered several sources in the U.S. marketing Category 5e and Category 6 communications cables made with copper clad aluminum conductors instead of solid copper conductors. Communications cables made with copper-clad aluminum conductors violate several industry standards, including UL safety standard UL444.
Consequently, such cables made with copper clad aluminum conductors do not have a valid safety listing and cannot be legally installed into areas of buildings which require CM, CMG, CMX, CMR or CMP rated cables.
The CDA also expressed safety and performance concerns over the proliferation of non-compliant copper clad aluminum conductors for certain data cable applications.
The applicable industry standards, which require solid copper conductors for multi-conductor communications cables, are the National Electrical Code (current and older versions), UL 444, and TIA 568C.2.
The National Electrical Code (Section 800.179) states that “Conductors in communications cables, other than in a coaxial cable, shall be copper.” UL 444, Standard for Communications Cable (Section 5.1.1) states that “The conductors shall be solid or stranded, annealed, bare or metal-coated copper.”
UL444 compliance is a basic requirement for any communications cable to receive fire/safety ratings from Underwriters Laboratories or other nationally recognized test laboratories.
The Telecommunications Industry Association’s TIA 568C.2 specification (Section 5.3) requires compliance to ANSI/ICEA S-90-661-2006 and ANSI/ICEA S-102-732 which both include the following language: “Solid conductors shall consist of commercially pure, annealed, bare copper …”
Kevin Ressler, CCCA chairman says: “The use of copper-clad aluminum conductors in cable designs is a relatively new development, so some contractors may be unaware that such cable does not meet the NEC, UL and TIA codes and standards referenced above. Fortunately, copper-clad aluminum conductors can easily be detected by scraping the thin copper surface, exposing the underlying bright aluminum.”
The CCCA points out that the best practice to assure quality cable and network performance is to buy from known brands and quality distributors.
Frank Peri, CCCA’s executive director says, “When dealing with lesser known brands, users should consider asking for complete documentation of product specifications, in writing, to confirm the product meets recognized industry standards. Users should also carefully examine cable for proper marks and labels to show it has been verified or listed by an independent third party such as Underwriters Laboratories (UL) and/or Intertek/ETL. As an added measure, UL and ETL website directories can also be checked to assure cable manufacturers are in compliance and authorized to display the appropriate mark.”
Subscribe to the CE Pro Newsletter
Article Topics
News · Wire and Cable · Structured Wiring · Wire And Cable · Associations · Distributors · Nec · Ansi · Copper Development Association · Tia · Ul · Ccca ·About the Author
29 Comments (displayed in order by date/time)
CEPro,
It is VERY important to get the names of the sources that sold this cable and publish it here.
ALS
What a tease story!
Where do I put the dollar bill?
Guys—I am trying to get more info. CCCA is being mum other than to say they were “imported” and “virtually unknown” brands. They tested 469 total brands: 379 “unknowns” and 120 “major manufacturers.” None (that’s zero) of the major manufacturers’ cables failed, but an astonishing 85% of the “unknown” brands failed (322 failures). 78% of the failures were by 3dB or more.
Well, just posting the list of the 120 “major manufacturers” would be a good starting point.
As someone who sells directly to integrators, I am constantly hearing stories concerning these matters. There is a ton of offshore material that has flooded the market place that is not true in its copper content. This is why Windy City Wire prides itself on selling only quality American made product. It goes back to the only saying, “if its too good to be true…”. If you are constantly getting significantly lower prices from one distributor than the market average, there is something wrong.
Wow! Honestly thanks for the news Jason. I wonder if companies like Monoprice are in the fail list?
I suspend my CAT 5 cables with micro pyramids so that they do not touch the floor thereby inducing 360 degree phase reverse inversion. They run through a flux capacitance converter to cancel out nano vibratory resonance to insure ultimate high end performance. With this breaking news I don’t know what to do now!
A little more news… it’s very difficult to get the names/brands of the phony copper/aluminum cables for several reasons. First, most of the cables don’t even have brand names! According to the Fiber Optic Association, which has uncovered some of the bogus cables, the cables simply say “Cat 5” on the boxes. Here is a link to some images of the cables they found along with a story. http://www.thefoa.org/foanewsletter.html
Secondly, dealers and distributors who have bought them are not coming forward because they are hesitant to admit that they purchased the cable in the first place from such nefarious sources.
Mr. Tweak., you seem to think this is funny.
Not only is the Copper not Copper but the polymers are not correctly fire rated either, but i guess safty is not an concern when running your cable in a micro pyramid. Maybe you have been tweaking a little too much.
For everyone else
Google the part number on the box. There are many companies selling it.
Maybe UL can too.
Another issue I have come across with these type of cables, is that there are breaks in jacket insulation. I had a customer purchase some offshore material because it was $25 per thousand cheaper than our product. Turned out, he had to rip it all out of the wall, and do the entire installation again with our material. Paying that extra $25 for quality sure seems to be a much smarter choice.
As serious as this is, it isn’t a new issue. Even five years ago I was interacting with electrical inspectors who were on the hunt for counterfeit wire, both low voltage and high.
During the housing boom there was a huge flood of substandard wire, not to mention other building materials.
In one case I had to cough up documentation for the Crestron Cresnet wire we were using because the inspector was unfamiliar with some of the markings on the jacket, and we had to prove that it was legit before he would let us proceed.
This is the reason eDistSecurity only uses name brand UL certified cable such as Remee and Coleman Cable. Remember, you get what you pay for. There has been rumors for years about aluminum cable with copper clad only. All the cable we sell has a tech sheet available and you CAN reach a live person to discuss it!
I find it funny that this article is set right next to advertisement for a company that imports all their cable….SPC imports all their catergory cable. Think its kind of funny.
MJ, doesn’t EVERYONE import their cable? That’s not the issue. Some imports are good, some are bad.
Now they just said the “CCCA has encountered several sources in the US” but FAIL to mention a single one.
This is like the FDA saying “we have found poisoned bread in several US stores” “but we’re not going to tell you which ones, hehehe”
This all is just stupid. And it stinks.