As other readers have noted, NEC applies in any jurisdiction that adopts it by reference. The adopting law or ordinance identifies the edition of the code, and sometimes includes modifying clauses to clarify certain requirements, create additional requirements, or omit certain requirements. Some state governments adopt it (e.g. Wisconsin); most counties and municipalities also adopt it.
In your case, I'd guess that if you live in the City of Rutland, the Building & Zoning Department enforces it. If you live in one of the surrounding towns, either the town government or the Rutland County government enforces it.
It certainly existed in 1987, according to "The National Electrical Code 1987 Handbook" (published by NFPA as a companion to the code itself; includes the complete text of the 1987 code, plus numerous drawings and annotations to clarify the text). The annotation at Article 250-71(b) states:
The Code requires that separate systems be bonded together to reduce differences of potential between them, which can result from lightning or power contacts. Interconnection is required for lightning rod systems (Section 250-46), communications systems [Sections 800-31(b)(5)], and CATV systems [Section 820-22(f)]. Lack of interconnection can result in severe shock and fire hazard.
"Communications systems" includes telephone.
Contact the city, town, or county building inspection department.
The average citizen is not expected to know; the contractors who install the stuff are supposed to know. And the city/town/county building inspector is supposed to make sure that it's done correctly.
The problem, of course, is that inspectors only inspect when a contractor pulls a permit and then calls for an inspection. If work is done without a permit, there's usually no inspection. Telephone and CATV companies rarely, if ever, pull permits for residential installs; from what I've seen, even electricians don't pull permits for branch-circuit work. Building inspection departments probably don't approve of this arrangement, but in my experience they're usually too overworked and underfunded to do much about it.
I can't speak for the telco industry, but in the CATV industry (where I used to work), we certainly assumed that we'd be liable for faulty work done by our own employees. Our contracts with subcontractors included insurance and hold-harmless clauses to protect the customer, the CATV company, and franchising authority, and all property owners where CATV facilities were located.
Of course, if I were a personal injury lawyer, I'd be keeping a close eye on that telephone company ...
Neal McLain