Does this paragraph not exempt permitting or licensure requirements for low voltage work?? I see in paragraph B contractors that are licensed under chapter 364 which are the big boy utilities like verizon, brighthouse etc. but para a throws me off.

... when those items are for the purpose of transmitting data, voice communications, or commands as part of a cable television, community antenna television, or radio distribution system ...

This does make it sound like any 725(c2&c3),770, 800, 810, and 820 work done by anyone that connects to a telephone line, satellite or Cable TV network system is exempt from permitting.
I think they added (a) because (b) says "The definition of "employee" established in subsection (1) applies to this exemption and does not include subcontractors." and most of the work is done by subcontractors.

Did not read the section.
But my thinking is you need to first look at who is doing the work regardless if it is a subcontractor. And who is the mandating authority for the work performed.

Such as say progress energy. For example.
They are governed by the PSC.
In the PSC rules governing investor owned utilities it says they abide by the NESC not the NEC.
And it states what they can and can't do for the most part.
So when the big boys cross the boundaries which they all do today.

It starts to get a little convoluted on what code applies.

Some ahj's say it is a utility thing so don't bother.
And others say hey they are exceeding their scope of work.

Remember when meter cans became owner equipment instead of utility owned equipment.

So I think the same mentality applies with this issue.

The way I see itFS 489.503(14)(a-b) does not require a license for installation of cable or phone systems.

Hey yooooooos guys, don't be mixin' apples with these here oranges...

Remeber, that statute is for contracting. It would most certainly require a permit. It may not require a license but it would require a permit.

Also AHJ's that have "home rule" such as Broward and Miami-Dade have enacted local ordinances to require such people to get licensed.

Please check with your AHJ attorney and post back and let me know if I am correct!

Looks like I'm back in the CATV and telephone installation business....

In addition, these few people who may be exempt from the contractor license would not be exempt from an occupational license, to the best of my knowledge. One way or another...

Well ,Does anybody know who's hand that is?

It looks like my plumber's...

Gentlemen,
Please examine the statute closely. 489.503(14)(a) (according to my reading) applies to "cable television, community antenna television, or radio distribution system{S}" ONLY. tHERE IS NO MENTION OF Sattelite, home theater, or coax for outside antenna. One man asked me the difference- I could oly reply "They went to all those meetings in Tallahassee!"

489(14(b) Refers to the work done by the regulated telephone company. Most of that work is outside, but occasionaly they have to set a "box" or interface in the closet just inside the building. As mentioned, if the TELEPHONE COMPANY EMPLOYEE does that, it is exempt. Anyone else doing it must be licensed and permitted.

We have had several buildings with one contractor for the PA system, one contractor for the phone system, one contractor for the computer abeling, one contractor for the fire alarm system, one contractor for the security alarm system and access control, and one contractor for the "white noise" generator and speakers to make the building seem more private. They all have to be licensed and they all need permits and inspections. Sometimes they are suprised.

Lynn Adams

If you ever started enforcing this against the "contractors" that the satellite companies and Telcos hire it would have a chilling effect on the companies.
When you buy that "inside install/maintain" service from the telco, or have your dish installed that will usually be a contractor (AKA trunk slammer with a driver's license). I bet these guys don't even have a $30 occupational license.

WE Have surprised quite a few of them, license and permit required,

How did the satellite guy act when you told him about 810.21(J).

My guy cocked his head like a puppy and said "que"?

My 2 cents is the poor guy was hired by someone else that allows them to do whatever. And has no clue on what is required by him.
They just have him show up and work.
So the real culprit is the level above him.

I believe the precedent for allowing employees of utilities to work without separate licensing and permitting was based on a model of companies that had a cadre of lifetime employees and a regimen of clearly defined procedures. That model fell apart in the late 80s and 90s when these employees were laid off and rehired as "contractors". Once they retired we have new contractors entering the trade with no particular background in this arena.
I guess the real question, going forward, would be how would building departments like to handle things like telephone, cable and satellite installs? Do we even have a good idea of how many are going on now? What kind of fees would you charge? I am sure there will be a lot of resistance from the various companies and the customers if they have to add $50-100 to their installation prices.

This statute doesn't have anything to do with permitting. The AHJ's can set whatever permit fee they want to. For most I guess it would be the minimum permit fee for electrical.

Nick, my point is most of this work has been done without any permitting or inspection. If you start parsing the language to require every satellite installer (not cable installer) to be licensed and pull a permit the effect will be chilling on the industry. It will certainly limit the "free installation" deals.
I also doubt most people have seen an "employee" phone installer in years.

I believe that a permit is already required under 553, Florida Building Code.

If you told that to the trunk slammer who put in my Dish last month he would have cocked his head like a puppy and said "¿que?"

I have a very good question this exemption 14 (a) what types of companies is the meant for? Utilities or any company that opens a shop installing cable/coax or Cat5e wiring for Data/Phone?

Also would it cover work subcontracted out to independant contractors not employees?

When I was looking into this as far back as 1996, if you charged to install low voltage/data/telcom you were required to have a LV specialty license (according to DBPR). I understood the only exception was for regulated utilities at that time. Now that these guys are hiring "contractors" I am not sure how they get away with it.

You bet ya.
Coming from working for progress energy.
I think the problem is:
1. the utility is regulated by the PSC.
2. The psc mandates that they adhere to the NESC
3. The utility is not required to adhere to the Florida building code. Only the PSC.

So a disconnect is the culprit.

That is a tough question to answer. Dealing with investor owned utilities.
The reason being that they are governed by the PSC.
So the first item by the PSC is:
Is it a approved program ,if it is then the PSC rules.

If the PSC rules then they don't abide by the NEC but the NESC.
Also they don't go by any local jurisdiction to govern them. But the PSC.
So then the missing part shows.
The NESC does not cover parts that the NEC would nor does the FBC. Since the FBC is a not adopted by the PSC or the NESC.
So it becomes a real mess. And it has been for many years.

PS.
I hope I got all the terms correct-PSC,nec,nesc,fbc,etc.
All clear as mud.