Warning about Monoprice in-wall category cable

All,

Just wanted to let everyone know that UL has issued a warning about Monoprice Cat 6 CMR cable (which is relatively rare for UL to do). The cable has been tested has has been found to not contain the necessary flame retardants to mark it as CMR. As they likely get much of their bulk wire from the same China factories, I would be very hesitant to buy their products right now. Also, if the factory is willing to cut corners on safety issues, would you be willing to trust the performance of the cable? Yeah, me neither.

http://www.ul.com/global/eng/pages/corporate/newsroom/newsitem.jsp?cpath=%2Fglobal%2Feng%2Fcontent%2Fcorporate%2Fnewsroom%2Fpublicnotices%2Fdata%2Ful-warns-of-potentially-hazardous-communications-cable-release_20130131080000.xml

Carl

Per the UL press release, the cable itself is marked CMR.

I've read in other media outlets that Monoprice is not allowed to mark UL on their cable at all, but the E-number on this cable is registered to Monoprice. But, clearly Monoprice is a secondary registrar as they don't actually make any of these cables - they just import them. This may be a case where some factory was using Monoprice's e-number without approval. (Only UL would be able to know this)

Carl

Also marked UL verified to Cat 6e (there is no such thing) and the box says ETL verified (while marked UL verified on the wire itself). So clearly, this wire wasn't verified at all.

Also marked FT4 which is more/less the Canadian version of the US CMR. The wire is market c(UL)us while the box itself is marked CSA.

So many problems and inconsistencies here that just don't add up. This is the type of stuff that happens when a US company like Monoprice imports their own product from a foreign factory without really knowing about the product or verifying anything about it. This would never happen with a reputable wire manufacturer...

Again, it just makes you begin to question the overall quality of the wire.

Carl

So, what is the exact text printed on your wire? This would help in determining what they are saying it is rated for. Also, I've never heard of a quick-and-dirty test like the one described by Dupont where you can do a "home test" on your wire. If it works, great, but in my experience these tests are replicated in very expensive sessions at the UL labs.

Frankly, I'd also call up Monoprice and see what they have to say for themselves - perhaps they have a good explanation and a way of telling their good cable from the bad? And for the record - I'm a fan of monoprice and have purchased thousands of dollars worth of stuff from them. However, their bulk wire prices have always made me suspicious given all the foreign factories willing to cut corners on performance and safety to meet a lower price.

Best,

Carl

Clearly a different legend, I agree. What's weird now is that this e-number (e239415) does not show up in the UL directory. You can check here: http://database.ul.com/cgi-bin/XYV/template/LISEXT/1FRAME/index.htm

Perhaps this number wasn't typed in exactly correct?

Also, does your box look the same as the pictures from UL? Your legend no longer states anything about FT4 or any c(UL) Canadian rating. Does the box have these markings? Also, does your box have a UL hologram (sticker) on it which proves that Monoprice has the approval from UL to use their mark?

Again, interesting on the burn test. I've never heard of it being used as a field test by anyone in the industry, but Dupont is a well-respected name, especially for plenum-rated cables.

Best,

Carl

That only works if the wires are also to code...

Carl

Look further down the wire. They state CM on the front part of the legend and then CMR with the FT4. Not politics. It is frustrating for US wire companies who make legitimate wire that meet standards. Trust me, I've looked at lots of imported category wire in my career and while there are some Asian companies that you can trust, the vast majority cut corners or frankly didn't even know what they were printing on the wire. (or what it meant)

When the price of the wire seems too good to be true for one reason or another - it usually is.

Carl

Well, it appears that Monoprice has recognized its issues and has some new processes in place to hopefully correct these issues:

Source: Cabling and Installation Maintenance
http://www.cablinginstall.com/articles/2013/february/monoprice-response-to-ul.html

Monoprice responds to UL alert about its Cat 6 cable
February 13, 2013

An associate product manager for Monoprice has made a statement addressing the recent notice that UL issued, alerting the public to Monoprice cable that uses the UL mark without authorization and lacks certain fire-retardant materials. In the Comments section of our news story about the UL alert, as well as in an email to Cabling Installation & Maintenance, Monoprice’s Chris Apland detailed the company’s side of the issue.

“Unbeknownst to us at the time, Monoprice’s former vendor for the product in question was inappropriately labeling our product certifications,” Apland explained. “Monoprice terminated our relationship with the vendor in question when we discovered these malpractices. We apologize to both UL and to our customers for any confusion this may have caused. To our knowledge, there have been no safety problems reported with these cables.

“Monoprice has a new process in place to evaluate that all UL certificates on our products are legitimate,” he continued. “We have since quarantined our inventory of the mislabeled product and have contracted with a new vendor to only sell verified UL CMR/CMP/CM bulk cable. We also now employ a double certification process to avoid such occurrences from happening again.”

Apland added that Monoprice’s “new vendor provides a higher quality Cat 6 bulk cable that includes the critical fire retardant material called for in the UL complaint. Our new vendor also has certificates from authorized UL testing centers.

“Apparently, UL was not aware of our recent new processes when issuing their statement,” Apland said. “However, we have since been in contact with UL through our China office, and have made them aware of the situation. We have informed UL of our new improved UL evaluation processes in place, and are awaiting their updated response.

“Monoprice takes the legitimacy of our products and certifications very seriously, as we do the safety and well-being of our customers,” Apland concluded.

Exactly. And further to the point, I don't let the distributors off the hook when these stories come out. Some of the blame has to be on these import re-sellers who do not inspect, test, or even visit the factories that make these products for them. Performance testing is relatively easy to do on product at-random that comes into their stock, but would require a testing machine investment (for bulk wire) of $200K or so. For the safety side - they could follow-up with UL or ETL to make sure that this factory does not have compliance issues.

I do applaud Monoprice for seemingly owning up to these issues - but I still have to ask where the recall notice was posted several months ago when they supposedly realized there was an issue with their supplier? As a result, we now have hundreds of DIY homeowners with non-compliant wire sitting in the walls of their homes.

Carl

You should care. Should the unfortunate happen, you do not want to give the insurance company any reason to not pay you. Of course, the safety of yourself and your family are also important!

Carl