wpqs said:

just a single CAT5 cable running from the router in their basement to a network switch in their bedroom. Admittedly my proposed network is a little more complex, but the point is the same - some common sense is needed.

Given the increasing use of CAT5/6/7 cable in people's homes

Been there done that - before we had wifi, I ran a cable between Mrs P's office and mine in order to connect her PC to the router. That became obsolete when we got iPads so I would be surprised if the installation of networks is increasing.

A reasonable definition of 'premises' is a house or building, together with its land and outbuildings, occupied by a business.

I'd suggest that might be a good definition of business premises - in normal UK usage "premises" alone is often applied to domestic as well as commercial property (in the sense of including the whole curtilage, not just the main building(s)).

and band 2 circuits (220V AC lighting and power)

The norm in the UK is 230V rather than 220V (and has been since it changed from 240V).

Using armored cable for three phase and any external underground power/lighting

There's no real difference in requirements for 3-phase vs single phase - they're both 230V to Earth after all. A 3-phase version of T&E (triple & earth) is readily available and perfectly suitable for indoor use on 3-phase systems (even if in practice it's rarely used for anything other than 2-way switching on single phase lighting circuits).

   - Andy.

Chris Pearson said:

That became obsolete when we got iPads so I would be surprised if the installation of networks is increasing.

Still needed in my house. Interior brick walls mean we need wired between parts of the house to make WiFi available everywhere ... and it's not that big either!

Chris Pearson said:

Yes, the scope of BS 6701 is not limited to any particular class of premises.

The division of responsibility between the owner and installer is a matter of contract. So if the contract specifies that the telecoms equipment shall be installed i.a.w. BS 6701 and it is not, the installer is in breach.

I think it's a little more than that.

First, BS 7671 makes reference to BS 6701 for telecomms cabling, so you can't really comply with BS 7671 without BS 6701.

Second, the standard does contain some requirements for safety - so if anything does go wrong, and you didn't comply with BS 6701 (but doing so would have led to a different outcome) ....

WiFi isn't a good solution in any room which is more than 15-20m from the Access Point, particularly for 5GHz. In property with thick walls it's even worse. My experience of WiFi extenders has been poor. There really isn't any substitute for wired ethernet in a largish house. I can't accept that use is decreasing.

I suspect that BS6701 makes no explicit reference to installation, use, and maintenance of Cat5/6/7 in a domestic house, but does give details of such in factories, offices, hospitals, etc. Therefore it could be argued that BS6701 was not intended to cover a house rewiring project. This is also an argument for common sense as its requirements are too onerous for homeowners and add no value. In the words of Lord Denning, ‘Equity comes in, true to form, to mitigate the rigours of strict law’ I cannot imagine a successful prosecution being made against a homeowner for not complying with BS 6701 in respect of Cat5/6/7 wiring in their home. Does anyone know of such a case? It is enough that reasonable care was taken - see my list of proposals.

I was merely pointing out that no class of premises is excluded - there is no exemption; and if something does go wrong, and it was as a result of non-compliance, the contractor may be liable not only in breach of contract, but also in tort.

So, best to comply!

So what do you do? Do you (and wpqs) have multiple routers dotted about the house?

We have one repeater, but more could be justified. Somehow, however, I don't find a need for my iPad in the kitchen just as much as I don't do any cooking in my office.

wpqs said:

Therefore it could be argued that BS6701 was not intended to cover a house rewiring project. This is also an argument for common sense as its requirements are too onerous for homeowners and add no value. In the words of Lord Denning, ‘Equity comes in, true to form, to mitigate the rigours of strict law’ I cannot imagine a successful prosecution being made against a homeowner for not complying with BS 6701 in respect of Cat5/6/7 wiring in their home. Does anyone know of such a case? It is enough that reasonable care was taken - see my list of proposals.

I disagree: the scope of BS 6701 does not exclude domestic premises. However, there is no statutory requirement to comply and failure to do so would not be an offence.

Yes, it is a defence in tort that reasonable care was taken. The advantage of complying with BS 6701 (or any other standard), and having evidence to demonstrate it (e.g. an EIC), is that it is so much easier to make one's case with as opposed to without compliance.

Equity, in the legal sense, has little or nothing to do with it.

Chris Pearson said:

So what do you do? Do you (and wpqs) have multiple routers dotted about the house?

Yes - wired repeaters would be another option, but the advantage of separate routers means easier option for fanning out wires locally too, which I use in the office, and for TV/gaming in other rooms (glitch-free 4K TV and also faster game downloads of game updates etc).