I plan on installing a VOIP setup in my house.

The problem is that the phone wiring that enters the house is 8 conductor
and is hardwired to the phone distribution center. So, I figure I can break
into that incoming line and install a couple of cat5 8 conductor female
plugs on the two severed ends and can use a cat5 patch cord to connect them
if I ever want to go back to the teleco. But, that would only happen if I
sell the house.

The question I have is: Can I plug in a normal rj11 modular plug (coming
from the modem) into the female rj45 jack that I'll be installing upstream
from the distribution center and expect those 4 conductors in the plug to be
aligned with the appropriate conductors in the rj45 jack? The phone modem
only has rj11 plugs.


BTW-I know I'll only be able to hook up one phone (an expandable wireless
system) to this setup. I just want to make my setup easy to undo when I
move.

CraigT wrote:

I plan on installing a VOIP setup in my house.

The problem is that the phone wiring that enters the house is 8 conductor
and is hardwired to the phone distribution center. So, I figure I can
break into that incoming line and install a couple of cat5 8 conductor
female plugs on the two severed ends and can use a cat5 patch cord to
connect them if I ever want to go back to the teleco. But, that would only
happen if I sell the house.

The question I have is: Can I plug in a normal rj11 modular plug (coming
from the modem) into the female rj45 jack that I'll be installing upstream
from the distribution center and expect those 4 conductors in the plug to
be aligned with the appropriate conductors in the rj45 jack? The phone
modem only has rj11 plugs.


BTW-I know I'll only be able to hook up one phone (an expandable wireless
system) to this setup. I just want to make my setup easy to undo when I
move.

RJ-45 is for network (ie ethernet), RJ-11 is for telephones. You are not
going to hook your telephone to the network. You are going to hook your
voip phone adapter or voip router to the network ( via an RJ-45 connector )
and then hook your telephone to the voip adapters' RJ-11 telephone port.

Eric

On Sat, 14 Oct 2006 21:52:22 -0400, "CraigT"
wrote:

I plan on installing a VOIP setup in my house.

The problem is that the phone wiring that enters the house is 8 conductor
and is hardwired to the phone distribution center.

They often do use cat5 for phone now, but the wires are probably all
unused except for one pair (pins 4&5 on a RJ45 jack), as needed for
phone. The extra ones could be useful in the future (maybe you'll want
another phone line). You should not use the same cables for ethernet.

So, I figure I can break
into that incoming line and install a couple of cat5 8 conductor female
plugs on the two severed ends and can use a cat5 patch cord to connect them
if I ever want to go back to the teleco. But, that would only happen if I
sell the house.


Or that VOIP company went out of business. That sort of thing does
happen.

The question I have is: Can I plug in a normal rj11 modular plug (coming
from the modem) into the female rj45 jack that I'll be installing upstream
from the distribution center and expect those 4 conductors in the plug to be
aligned with the appropriate conductors in the rj45 jack? The phone modem
only has rj11 plugs.


You can plug a RJ11 plug into a RJ45 jack. The shape of the
plugs/jacks forces them to be centered. Pins 2&3 or a RJ11 plug (those
normally used by a telephone) will connect to 4&5 or the RJ45 jack.

BTW, I was just in Lowe's and noticed they were only selling RJ12
connectors. A RJ12 is the same size as a RJ11, but has all 6
connections. RJ12 connectors can be used for phone with no problems,
and fit into RJ45 jacks too. Pins 2-5 on a RJ12 match pins 1-4 on a
RJ11. RJ12 does require a different crimping tool.


BTW-I know I'll only be able to hook up one phone (an expandable wireless
system) to this setup. I just want to make my setup easy to undo when I
move.


Never heard of these little things you plug in a jack and it makes
two? Expandable cordless phones are still a good idea. I see some for
sale that allow up to 10 handsets (I think Wal-Mart has one for about
$100 with 3 handsets and you can add up to 7 more for $30 each).




--
72 days until the winter solstice celebration

Mark Lloyd
http://notstupid.laughingsquid.com

"Unlike biological evolution. 'intelligent design' is
not a genuine scientific theory and, therefore, has
no place in the curriculum of our nation's public
school classes." -- Ted Kennedy

In article ,
Mark Lloyd wrote:

Expandable cordless phones are still a good idea. I see some for
sale that allow up to 10 handsets (I think Wal-Mart has one for about
$100 with 3 handsets and you can add up to 7 more for $30 each).

A houseful of cordless phones driven by VOIP.

Now *THAT'S* flaky. (Or likely to be.)

It could be worse: It could all be driven by satellite receiver.

Now that's REALLY flaky.

You'd be surprised at how many users soon reject the foibles of VOIP and
return to an old-fashioned land line.
--

JR

"Jim Redelfs" wrote in message
...
In article ,
Mark Lloyd wrote:

Expandable cordless phones are still a good idea. I see some for
sale that allow up to 10 handsets (I think Wal-Mart has one for about
$100 with 3 handsets and you can add up to 7 more for $30 each).

A houseful of cordless phones driven by VOIP.

Now *THAT'S* flaky. (Or likely to be.)

It could be worse: It could all be driven by satellite receiver.

Now that's REALLY flaky.

You'd be surprised at how many users soon reject the foibles of VOIP and
return to an old-fashioned land line.
Chuckle. My employers are currently running VOIP phones over portable sat
links at multiple sites- three guesses where- and we are currently dealing
with a vendor for a micro-cell setup to run either private cell phones or
long-distance cordless phones, hung off the same setup as the current
PC-based VOIP phones.

Sound quality and reliability are less than optimum, but when you set up
where there IS no local infrastructure, options are limited. Multiple hops
halfway around the world, to call ten miles away, doesn't make for a great
connection. No, you really don't wanna know how much it costs.

aem sends....

CraigT wrote:
I plan on installing a VOIP setup in my house.

The problem is that the phone wiring that enters the house is 8 conductor
and is hardwired to the phone distribution center. So, I figure I can break
into that incoming line and install a couple of cat5 8 conductor female
plugs on the two severed ends and can use a cat5 patch cord to connect them
if I ever want to go back to the teleco. But, that would only happen if I
sell the house.

The question I have is: Can I plug in a normal rj11 modular plug (coming
from the modem) into the female rj45 jack that I'll be installing upstream
from the distribution center and expect those 4 conductors in the plug to be
aligned with the appropriate conductors in the rj45 jack? The phone modem
only has rj11 plugs.


BTW-I know I'll only be able to hook up one phone (an expandable wireless
system) to this setup. I just want to make my setup easy to undo when I
move.



Yes, an RJ11 plug will fit in an RJ45 socket. The center pair of an
RJ45 jack is reserved for telephone, even though it's seldom used that
way. It's up to you to wire it up.

Bob

What you are trying to do makes sense. MOST new installations create a
DEMARK point on the side of your residence that disconnects THEIR network
from YOUR wiring. If any service calls occur, they REALLY want to find that
demark point and test the line TO YOUR HOUSE. Then on problems INSIDE will
cost YOU money, anything TO THE DEMARK from the street will be fixed at no
charge.

So, using this same DEMARK location, you can simply insert these 8-conductor
to 8-conductor junction point, and then disconnect it while you are using
VOIP. Remember, VOIP will be 'driven' by a VOIP router insdie the house,
presumably fed by a cable modem. (Can't cut the DEMARK wires if you are
actually using DSL).

So, if you have a cable modem, feeding a VOIP router, then simply make the
break so it can easily be restored in the future, and then just feed the
POTS jack on the side of the VOIP router into your existing house wiring,
making sure the 'hot wires' are locted on the CENTER TWO PINS, RS11, RJ12,
RJ45, whatever the jack is, it will ALWAYS be the center TWO pins carrying
LINE-1 on a analog jack.

Should work fine, and then all telephones which work today on your wiring
will contiunue to work.

Note: You may have a RINGER loading issue is using many OLD phones in your
house today. They carry a REN value which basically states how much current
the ringer takes. A VOIP router can only supply a a total of perhaps 2.5 REN
(adding up all of the REN numbers printed on each phone label).

"CraigT" wrote in message
. ..
I plan on installing a VOIP setup in my house.

The problem is that the phone wiring that enters the house is 8 conductor
and is hardwired to the phone distribution center. So, I figure I can
break into that incoming line and install a couple of cat5 8 conductor
female plugs on the two severed ends and can use a cat5 patch cord to
connect them if I ever want to go back to the teleco. But, that would only
happen if I sell the house.

The question I have is: Can I plug in a normal rj11 modular plug (coming
from the modem) into the female rj45 jack that I'll be installing upstream
from the distribution center and expect those 4 conductors in the plug to
be aligned with the appropriate conductors in the rj45 jack? The phone
modem only has rj11 plugs.


BTW-I know I'll only be able to hook up one phone (an expandable wireless
system) to this setup. I just want to make my setup easy to undo when I
move.

CraigT wrote:
I plan on installing a VOIP setup in my house.

The problem is that the phone wiring that enters the house is 8
conductor and is hardwired to the phone distribution center. So, I
figure I can break into that incoming line and install a couple of
cat5 8 conductor female plugs on the two severed ends and can use a
cat5 patch cord to connect them if I ever want to go back to the
teleco. But, that would only happen if I sell the house.

The question I have is: Can I plug in a normal rj11 modular plug
(coming from the modem) into the female rj45 jack that I'll be
installing upstream from the distribution center and expect those 4
conductors in the plug to be aligned with the appropriate conductors
in the rj45 jack? The phone modem only has rj11 plugs.


BTW-I know I'll only be able to hook up one phone (an expandable
wireless system) to this setup. I just want to make my setup easy to
undo when I move.

You're confused. The VoIP adapter sits between your internet connection and
the telephone system. The wire that comes OUT of the VoIP box IS a telephone
line and should be treated in all ways as another telephone trunk line.

In our case, we have three VoIP modems connected to the network router. Each
of the outputs from the three VoIP modems then goes to our PBX system, just
like the wires from the telephone company do. To the telephone user, they
look exactly like an additional telephone line.

"HeyBub" wrote in message
...
CraigT wrote:
I plan on installing a VOIP setup in my house.

The problem is that the phone wiring that enters the house is 8
conductor and is hardwired to the phone distribution center. So, I
figure I can break into that incoming line and install a couple of
cat5 8 conductor female plugs on the two severed ends and can use a
cat5 patch cord to connect them if I ever want to go back to the
teleco. But, that would only happen if I sell the house.

The question I have is: Can I plug in a normal rj11 modular plug
(coming from the modem) into the female rj45 jack that I'll be
installing upstream from the distribution center and expect those 4
conductors in the plug to be aligned with the appropriate conductors
in the rj45 jack? The phone modem only has rj11 plugs.


BTW-I know I'll only be able to hook up one phone (an expandable
wireless system) to this setup. I just want to make my setup easy to
undo when I move.

You're confused. The VoIP adapter sits between your internet connection
and the telephone system. The wire that comes OUT of the VoIP box IS a
telephone line and should be treated in all ways as another telephone
trunk line.

In our case, we have three VoIP modems connected to the network router.
Each of the outputs from the three VoIP modems then goes to our PBX
system, just like the wires from the telephone company do. To the
telephone user, they look exactly like an additional telephone line.

Okay, after reading all this thread, I think I get it- he doesn't have a
normal residential demarc, with the rj-11 jacks- he has one of those
aluminum or gray boxes with the brass posts for the 4-pair incoming, that
also has posts or punchdowns for the runs to all the rooms. Or maybe he has
a 66 block, with no apparent terminals or ground blocks upstream. Not
uncommon a few years ago for multi-line or multi-residence service. He wants
to break the 4-pair telco feed wire, so he can use the inside wiring as
distribution for his VOIP dial tone from the VOIP box.

Telco will get cranky if OP cuts 'their' wire, if this distribution point is
in fact their 'demarc'. Proper solution is to get telco out there to install
a modern demarc with a seperate rj11 for each existing or potential pair on
the incoming drop. (Like a small apartment building would have). Not to
mention the additional noise a field-installed rj connector is likely to add
to the line. Failing that, I would mark, by color, which posts the incoming
pairs are attached to, via a weatherproof sticker inside the lid, and simply
disconnect them, and tape the bare ends. (There is sometimes a digram in the
box- if not, draw one.) I would also include a sign saying VOIP is in use,
and to NOT reconnect incoming service without verifying status with the
subscriber. The signage is needed if the box is outside the house, because
telco will sometimes open a demarc on the wrong house, or open all the
demarcs to a particular pedestal or pole connection if it is damaged or has
to be switched out. If the box is in the basement or garage, it is still a
good idea, since somebody else who doesn't understand the VOIP may let them
in the house while you are away. In fact, a note or sign in the box is a
good idea even for people with rj11 demarcs, for the same reasons, along
with a piece of tape over the incoming feed wires or connectors. You never
know if the next guy to open the box will be up to speed on what is going
on.


aem sends....

In article ,
"Mark Harris" wrote:

Note: You may have a RINGER loading issue is using many OLD phones in your
house today. They carry a REN value

Ringer Equivalence Number

which basically states how much current the ringer takes.
A VOIP router can only supply a a total of perhaps 2.5 REN
(adding up all of the REN numbers printed on each phone label).

When The Big Splittm came in 1984, the dual gong electromechanical ringer in
the Western Electric Model 500 (old, black, rotary dial, desk phone) was used
to set the baseline for the REN. The 500 = 1.0 REN.

However, with the virtually complete takeover by electronic ringers, the REN
has become mostly useless. They all have a modest REN, rarely over 1.2, but
many don't even register using an old ringer test: Using a plain VOM set to
Ohms, repeatedly reversing lead polarity. The amount of needle deflection
indicates the number of ringers. Many electronic telephone devices with a REN
of .8 (for example) won't even make the old VOM budge. Weird. Given that,
MANY more electronic ringer-equipped phones and devices will ring/answer than
is otherwise indicated by the sum of the indicated RENs.

In the old days, electrically disconnecting the ringer from an illegal
telephone set actually WOULD elude a telco attempt to determine the number of
phones on a line.

Soooooo... Someone just said the center, two pins of an RJ45 jack are for
POTS phone use. Does that mean they are NOT used in for ethernet? If yes,
can I run POTS *AND* ethernet over the same Cat5 4pr? If yes, what are the
implications to ethernet performance, if any?

I was told the other day that Cat5 is NOT absolutely necessary to run
ethernet. Given that, what can I expect if I run a basic (modest) network
using the older wire in my 1991 (RBOC gray-sheathed 6-pr, probably Cat3)? TIA
--

JR

In article ,
wrote:

In fact, a note or sign in the box is a
good idea even for people with rj11 demarcs, for the same reasons, along
with a piece of tape over the incoming feed wires or connectors. You never
know if the next guy to open the box will be up to speed on what is going
on.

Excellent advice.

As a local telco tech, my first experience with VOIP was VERY confusing.

With the home disconnected from us at the SNID, I discovered dial tone coming
FROM the inside of the home. Huh? It had a strange, foreign telephone number
working on it, too. Very weird.

Anyway, this was while reconnecting a customer that found satellite-driven
VOIP performance was unacceptable enough that he was giving it up and
returning to a POTS land line.
--

JR

Be cautious about using the physically smaller RJ11/12 plugs in RJ45
sockets. Sometimes the plugs can screw up the flexible pins/wires in
the sockets because the shoulder of the plug doesn't quite fit
comfortably. Better to make your patch cords with RJ45's.

As for CAT 5 and Ethernet, you must use CAT 5 for 100 MB Enet; you
might get away with short stretches of plain old bell wire for 10MB Enet.

CraigT wrote:
I plan on installing a VOIP setup in my house.

The problem is that the phone wiring that enters the house is 8 conductor
and is hardwired to the phone distribution center. So, I figure I can break
into that incoming line and install a couple of cat5 8 conductor female
plugs on the two severed ends and can use a cat5 patch cord to connect them
if I ever want to go back to the teleco. But, that would only happen if I
sell the house.

The question I have is: Can I plug in a normal rj11 modular plug (coming
from the modem) into the female rj45 jack that I'll be installing upstream
from the distribution center and expect those 4 conductors in the plug to be
aligned with the appropriate conductors in the rj45 jack? The phone modem
only has rj11 plugs.


BTW-I know I'll only be able to hook up one phone (an expandable wireless
system) to this setup. I just want to make my setup easy to undo when I
move.

On Sat, 14 Oct 2006 23:08:26 -0500, Jim Redelfs
wrote:

In article ,
Mark Lloyd wrote:

Expandable cordless phones are still a good idea. I see some for
sale that allow up to 10 handsets (I think Wal-Mart has one for about
$100 with 3 handsets and you can add up to 7 more for $30 each).

A houseful of cordless phones driven by VOIP.

Now *THAT'S* flaky. (Or likely to be.)

It could be worse: It could all be driven by satellite receiver.


Satellite internet cannot support VOIP, because of excessive latency.
It takes over 600mS for the signal to get through (considering the
distance to synchronous orbit).

Now that's REALLY flaky.


I think you can call people but not talk to them. You might hear them
complaining about that.

You'd be surprised at how many users soon reject the foibles of VOIP and
return to an old-fashioned land line.

I considered getting VOIP, but was worried about quality and
reliability. The POTS system is very reliable. Cable has more outages.
Instead of the highly reliable phone line, you get a not-so-reliable
ISP and a less-than-reliable VOIP provider.
--
71 days until the winter solstice celebration

Mark Lloyd
http://notstupid.laughingsquid.com

"God was invented by man for a reason, that
reason is no longer applicable."

On Sun, 15 Oct 2006 00:18:50 -0500, zxcvbob
wrote:

CraigT wrote:
I plan on installing a VOIP setup in my house.

The problem is that the phone wiring that enters the house is 8 conductor
and is hardwired to the phone distribution center. So, I figure I can break
into that incoming line and install a couple of cat5 8 conductor female
plugs on the two severed ends and can use a cat5 patch cord to connect them
if I ever want to go back to the teleco. But, that would only happen if I
sell the house.

The question I have is: Can I plug in a normal rj11 modular plug (coming
from the modem) into the female rj45 jack that I'll be installing upstream
from the distribution center and expect those 4 conductors in the plug to be
aligned with the appropriate conductors in the rj45 jack? The phone modem
only has rj11 plugs.


BTW-I know I'll only be able to hook up one phone (an expandable wireless
system) to this setup. I just want to make my setup easy to undo when I
move.



Yes, an RJ11 plug will fit in an RJ45 socket. The center pair of an
RJ45 jack is reserved for telephone, even though it's seldom used that
way. It's up to you to wire it up.

Bob

I've often heard that it's not a good idea to have telephone and
ethernet in the same cable. That's why some people install TWO cat5
cables everywhere. The wire assignments (different pins for ethernet
and phone) help prevent damage caused by plugging something in wrong.
--
71 days until the winter solstice celebration

Mark Lloyd
http://notstupid.laughingsquid.com

"God was invented by man for a reason, that
reason is no longer applicable."

On Sun, 15 Oct 2006 09:20:48 -0500, Jim Redelfs
wrote:

In article ,
"Mark Harris" wrote:

Note: You may have a RINGER loading issue is using many OLD phones in your
house today. They carry a REN value

Ringer Equivalence Number

which basically states how much current the ringer takes.
A VOIP router can only supply a a total of perhaps 2.5 REN
(adding up all of the REN numbers printed on each phone label).

When The Big Splittm came in 1984, the dual gong electromechanical ringer in
the Western Electric Model 500 (old, black, rotary dial, desk phone) was used
to set the baseline for the REN. The 500 = 1.0 REN.

However, with the virtually complete takeover by electronic ringers, the REN
has become mostly useless. They all have a modest REN, rarely over 1.2, but
many don't even register using an old ringer test: Using a plain VOM set to
Ohms, repeatedly reversing lead polarity. The amount of needle deflection
indicates the number of ringers. Many electronic telephone devices with a REN
of .8 (for example) won't even make the old VOM budge. Weird. Given that,
MANY more electronic ringer-equipped phones and devices will ring/answer than
is otherwise indicated by the sum of the indicated RENs.

In the old days, electrically disconnecting the ringer from an illegal
telephone set actually WOULD elude a telco attempt to determine the number of
phones on a line.

Soooooo... Someone just said the center, two pins of an RJ45 jack are for
POTS phone use. Does that mean they are NOT used in for ethernet?

Ethernet uses two pairs: one on pins 1&2, the other on pins 3&6. Most
(single line) phone connections use one pair (4&4 on a RJ45).

BTW, I've wired a few ethernet cables, They won't work reliably unless
you get the pairs right (pins 3 & 6 must be connected to the 2 wires
in the same pair).

If yes,
can I run POTS *AND* ethernet over the same Cat5 4pr?

You could, but it's not a good idea. If you're putting the cable in,
it's not that much harder to run 2 than it is to run 1.

If yes, what are the
implications to ethernet performance, if any?


Phone uses voltages up to about 125V (during ringing). A short in the
cable could damage your ethernet equipment. Also, the phone can cause
interference to the ethernet. You could find your network much slower
(many retries).

I was told the other day that Cat5 is NOT absolutely necessary to run
ethernet. Given that, what can I expect if I run a basic (modest) network
using the older wire in my 1991 (RBOC gray-sheathed 6-pr, probably Cat3)? TIA

A 10mbps network is likely to work. Any faster one may not. The
twisting is important.
--
71 days until the winter solstice celebration

Mark Lloyd
http://notstupid.laughingsquid.com

"God was invented by man for a reason, that
reason is no longer applicable."

On Sun, 15 Oct 2006 17:16:39 GMT, Bennett Price
wrote:

Be cautious about using the physically smaller RJ11/12 plugs in RJ45
sockets. Sometimes the plugs can screw up the flexible pins/wires in
the sockets because the shoulder of the plug doesn't quite fit
comfortably. Better to make your patch cords with RJ45's.

As for CAT 5 and Ethernet, you must use CAT 5 for 100 MB Enet; you
might get away with short stretches of plain old bell wire for 10MB Enet.


When I started making ethernet cables, I didn't know about the
importance of pairs, and just wired them in the obvious way (1&2, 3&4,
5&6, 7&8). These worked OK for 10Mb internet (BTW, it's Mb [megaBITS]
not MB [megaBYTES]). Then I upgraded to 100Mb. The connection LEDs
came on, but no data was transferred. I needed to put new ends on the
cables with 3&6 on one pair.

CraigT wrote:
I plan on installing a VOIP setup in my house.

The problem is that the phone wiring that enters the house is 8 conductor
and is hardwired to the phone distribution center. So, I figure I can break
into that incoming line and install a couple of cat5 8 conductor female
plugs on the two severed ends and can use a cat5 patch cord to connect them
if I ever want to go back to the teleco. But, that would only happen if I
sell the house.

The question I have is: Can I plug in a normal rj11 modular plug (coming
from the modem) into the female rj45 jack that I'll be installing upstream
from the distribution center and expect those 4 conductors in the plug to be
aligned with the appropriate conductors in the rj45 jack? The phone modem
only has rj11 plugs.


BTW-I know I'll only be able to hook up one phone (an expandable wireless
system) to this setup. I just want to make my setup easy to undo when I
move.





--
71 days until the winter solstice celebration

Mark Lloyd
http://notstupid.laughingsquid.com

"God was invented by man for a reason, that
reason is no longer applicable."

In article ,
Eric wrote:

RJ-45 is for network (ie ethernet), RJ-11 is for telephones. You are not
going to hook your telephone to the network. You are going to hook your
voip phone adapter or voip router to the network ( via an RJ-45 connector )
and then hook your telephone to the voip adapters' RJ-11 telephone port.


Incorrect.

RJ-45 is for a dedicated single pair data circuit, and has nothing to do
with ethernet.

The connectors themselves do not have any RJ designations until they are
wired for a specific telephone application, as originally defined in
47 CFR 68.502.

The only exceptions might be jacks for alarm applications complying with
RJ-31X or RJ-38X, which have shorting bars, making them difficult to use
for other applications.

Ethernet and Token Ring do not have any RJ designation.




--
-- Welcome My Son, Welcome To The Machine --
Bob Vaughan | techie @ tantivy.net |
| P.O. Box 19792, Stanford, Ca 94309 |
-- I am Me, I am only Me, And no one else is Me, What could be simpler? --

Bob Vaughan wrote:

In article ,
Eric wrote:

RJ-45 is for network (ie ethernet), RJ-11 is for telephones. You are not
going to hook your telephone to the network. You are going to hook your
voip phone adapter or voip router to the network ( via an RJ-45 connector )
and then hook your telephone to the voip adapters' RJ-11 telephone port.



Incorrect.

RJ-45 is for a dedicated single pair data circuit, and has nothing to do
with ethernet.

The connectors themselves do not have any RJ designations until they are
wired for a specific telephone application, as originally defined in
47 CFR 68.502.


I don't see how the CFR can be authoritative in a non-telephone (e.g.
ethernet) context.

The only exceptions might be jacks for alarm applications complying with
RJ-31X or RJ-38X, which have shorting bars, making them difficult to use
for other applications.

Ethernet and Token Ring do not have any RJ designation.






--
The e-mail address in our reply-to line is reversed in an attempt to
minimize spam. Our true address is of the form .

"Mark Lloyd" wrote in message
...
On Sat, 14 Oct 2006 23:08:26 -0500, Jim Redelfs
wrote:

In article ,
Mark Lloyd wrote:

Expandable cordless phones are still a good idea. I see some for
sale that allow up to 10 handsets (I think Wal-Mart has one for about
$100 with 3 handsets and you can add up to 7 more for $30 each).

A houseful of cordless phones driven by VOIP.

Now *THAT'S* flaky. (Or likely to be.)

It could be worse: It could all be driven by satellite receiver.


Satellite internet cannot support VOIP, because of excessive latency.
It takes over 600mS for the signal to get through (considering the
distance to synchronous orbit).

Now that's REALLY flaky.

Uh, mebbe not 'residential grade' internet-over-sat, but commercial grade
internet over sat supports it okay. I know, we use it at several sites. The
problems is has aren't due to the sat connection per se, but just due to too
many hops. Google 'Tachyon' for specifics.

aem sends....

In article , CJT wrote:
Bob Vaughan wrote:


The connectors themselves do not have any RJ designations until they are
wired for a specific telephone application, as originally defined in
47 CFR 68.502.


I don't see how the CFR can be authoritative in a non-telephone (e.g.
ethernet) context.


The RJxx designations are known as a Universal Service Ordering Code (USOC),
and the wiring for specific telephone services was defined in 68.502, along
with the associated USOC. The specification includes the type of jack/plug,
wiring pattern, and signaling.

There is no USOC for ethernet or token ring.

The connectors are obviously used for multiple uses, only some of which
have USOC's, and since the same connectors are used for multiple
USOC's, the connectors themselves do not have a USOC until they
are wired for a specific application.


The specification for the RJ45 USOC is for a keyed 8 position/8 contact
modular jack/plug, wired for a single line, bridged tip/ring, wired on
ping 4/5 of the jack/plug, with a programming resistor wired across pins
7/8 or the wall jack, with a value determined based on loop loss between
the jack and the CO. This allows the connected equipment to set transmit
levels to not exceed -12dBm at the CO.

For comparison, 10/100 ethernet uses an unkeyed 8p8c jack/plug, wired
with one pair across ping 1/2, and the second across 3/6.

Note the lack of any cross-compatibility between RJ45 and 10/100 ethernet.
If properly wired, using the proper connectors, and 2 pair cable, a cable
wired for RJ-45 will not fit into an ethernet jack, nor will there be any
electrical continuity on any of the wires used by ethernet.


The unkeyed 8p8c jack/plug are also used for RJ-31, RJ-38, RJ-61, and others,
and the keyed 8p8c jack/plug is used for RJ-41, RJ-45, RJ-48, etc.



--
-- Welcome My Son, Welcome To The Machine --
Bob Vaughan | techie @ tantivy.net |
| P.O. Box 19792, Stanford, Ca 94309 |
-- I am Me, I am only Me, And no one else is Me, What could be simpler? --

Bob Vaughan wrote:
In article ,
Eric wrote:

RJ-45 is for network (ie ethernet), RJ-11 is for telephones. You are not
going to hook your telephone to the network. You are going to hook your
voip phone adapter or voip router to the network ( via an RJ-45 connector )
and then hook your telephone to the voip adapters' RJ-11 telephone port.



Incorrect.

RJ-45 is for a dedicated single pair data circuit, and has nothing to do
with ethernet.

The connectors themselves do not have any RJ designations until they are
wired for a specific telephone application, as originally defined in
47 CFR 68.502.

The only exceptions might be jacks for alarm applications complying with
RJ-31X or RJ-38X, which have shorting bars, making them difficult to use
for other applications.

Ethernet and Token Ring do not have any RJ designation.




The confirmed number of people in the known universe who are offended at
the LAN world's usurpation of the RJ-XX terminology now stands at 2. Me
and Bob.

Keep up the good fight Bob. We shall overcome someday.

Now, about the word "modem"; but ... that's another fight for another day

--Reed (old modem jockey)

Reed spake thus:

The confirmed number of people in the known universe who are offended at
the LAN world's usurpation of the RJ-XX terminology now stands at 2. Me
and Bob.

Keep up the good fight Bob. We shall overcome someday.

Now, about the word "modem"; but ... that's another fight for another day

--Reed (old modem jockey)

So, I'm curious: does a modem to you mean a big box with a cable coming
out of it that has a cradle for a telephone receiver? I remember those
from my school daze ...


--
"In 1964 Barry Goldwater declared: 'Elect me president, and I
will bomb the cities of Vietnam, defoliate the jungles, herd the
population into concentration camps and turn the country into a
wasteland.' But Lyndon Johnson said: 'No! No! No! Don't you dare do
that. Let ME do it.'"

- Characterization (paraphrased) of the 1964 Goldwater/Johnson
presidential race by Professor Irwin Corey, "The World's Foremost
Authority."

David Nebenzahl wrote:
Reed spake thus:

The confirmed number of people in the known universe who are offended
at the LAN world's usurpation of the RJ-XX terminology now stands at
2. Me and Bob.

Keep up the good fight Bob. We shall overcome someday.

Now, about the word "modem"; but ... that's another fight for another day

--Reed (old modem jockey)


So, I'm curious: does a modem to you mean a big box with a cable coming
out of it that has a cradle for a telephone receiver? I remember those
from my school daze ...



I think you are describing an "acoustic coupler". Not the same as a
modem. A modem used an A/C to "couple" it's signal to a standard
telephone handset, without being hard-wired.

In article ,
Bennett Price wrote:

As for CAT 5 and Ethernet, you must use CAT 5 for 100 MB Enet; you
might get away with short stretches of plain old bell wire for 10MB Enet.

So, without running Cat5 wire, a secure WIRELESS network would probably be
noticably faster than a wired one running on the old Bell 6-pr, right?
--

JR

In article ,
wrote:

Google 'Tachyon' for specifics.

Hehehehehe! Thank-you, Geordi!
--

JR

Bob Vaughan wrote:

In article ,
Eric wrote:

RJ-45 is for network (ie ethernet), RJ-11 is for telephones. You are not
going to hook your telephone to the network. You are going to hook your
voip phone adapter or voip router to the network ( via an RJ-45 connector
) and then hook your telephone to the voip adapters' RJ-11 telephone port.


Incorrect.

RJ-45 is for a dedicated single pair data circuit, and has nothing to do
with ethernet.

The connectors themselves do not have any RJ designations until they are
wired for a specific telephone application, as originally defined in
47 CFR 68.502.

The only exceptions might be jacks for alarm applications complying with
RJ-31X or RJ-38X, which have shorting bars, making them difficult to use
for other applications.

Ethernet and Token Ring do not have any RJ designation.




How many angels can dance on the head of a pin? , in the day to day
residential world this is the way its done RJ-11 for telephone and RJ-45
for ethernet.
Eric

On Mon, 16 Oct 2006 03:09:25 GMT, Reed wrote:

David Nebenzahl wrote:
Reed spake thus:

The confirmed number of people in the known universe who are offended
at the LAN world's usurpation of the RJ-XX terminology now stands at
2. Me and Bob.

Keep up the good fight Bob. We shall overcome someday.

Now, about the word "modem"; but ... that's another fight for another day

--Reed (old modem jockey)


So, I'm curious: does a modem to you mean a big box with a cable coming
out of it that has a cradle for a telephone receiver? I remember those
from my school daze ...



I think you are describing an "acoustic coupler". Not the same as a
modem. A modem used an A/C to "couple" it's signal to a standard
telephone handset, without being hard-wired.

The first modem I used was one of those "handset-coupled" things,
operating at 300 baud.
--
70 days until the winter solstice celebration

Mark Lloyd
http://notstupid.laughingsquid.com

"God was invented by man for a reason, that
reason is no longer applicable."

On Sun, 15 Oct 2006 19:42:08 -0700, David Nebenzahl
wrote:

Reed spake thus:

The confirmed number of people in the known universe who are offended at
the LAN world's usurpation of the RJ-XX terminology now stands at 2. Me
and Bob.

Keep up the good fight Bob. We shall overcome someday.

Now, about the word "modem"; but ... that's another fight for another day

--Reed (old modem jockey)

So, I'm curious: does a modem to you mean a big box with a cable coming
out of it that has a cradle for a telephone receiver? I remember those
from my school daze ...

A modem is a mo and a dem in the same package, considering the fact
that phone lines won't handle TTL levels.
--
70 days until the winter solstice celebration

Mark Lloyd
http://notstupid.laughingsquid.com

"God was invented by man for a reason, that
reason is no longer applicable."

On Sun, 15 Oct 2006 21:42:44 -0700, Eric wrote:

Bob Vaughan wrote:

In article ,
Eric wrote:

RJ-45 is for network (ie ethernet), RJ-11 is for telephones. You are not
going to hook your telephone to the network. You are going to hook your
voip phone adapter or voip router to the network ( via an RJ-45 connector
) and then hook your telephone to the voip adapters' RJ-11 telephone port.


Incorrect.

RJ-45 is for a dedicated single pair data circuit, and has nothing to do
with ethernet.

The connectors themselves do not have any RJ designations until they are
wired for a specific telephone application, as originally defined in
47 CFR 68.502.

The only exceptions might be jacks for alarm applications complying with
RJ-31X or RJ-38X, which have shorting bars, making them difficult to use
for other applications.

Ethernet and Token Ring do not have any RJ designation.




How many angels can dance on the head of a pin?

x=1/0 :-)

, in the day to day
residential world this is the way its done RJ-11 for telephone and RJ-45
for ethernet.

I remember someone saying they ought to be called 6P4C and 8P8C (and
RJ12 is 6P6C, what is 4P4C or 10P10C?). That describes the specific
connectors, but sounds awkward.

Eric


--
70 days until the winter solstice celebration

Mark Lloyd
http://notstupid.laughingsquid.com

"God was invented by man for a reason, that
reason is no longer applicable."

On Sun, 15 Oct 2006 23:01:36 -0500, Jim Redelfs
wrote:

In article ,
Bennett Price wrote:

As for CAT 5 and Ethernet, you must use CAT 5 for 100 MB Enet; you
might get away with short stretches of plain old bell wire for 10MB Enet.

So, without running Cat5 wire, a secure WIRELESS network would probably be
noticably faster than a wired one running on the old Bell 6-pr, right?

Maybe not if the wired network used 10mbps equipment.
--
70 days until the winter solstice celebration

Mark Lloyd
http://notstupid.laughingsquid.com

"God was invented by man for a reason, that
reason is no longer applicable."

In article ,
Mark Lloyd wrote:
On Sun, 15 Oct 2006 21:42:44 -0700, Eric wrote:

Bob Vaughan wrote:

In article ,
Eric wrote:

RJ-45 is for network (ie ethernet), RJ-11 is for telephones. You are not
going to hook your telephone to the network. You are going to hook your
voip phone adapter or voip router to the network ( via an RJ-45 connector
) and then hook your telephone to the voip adapters' RJ-11 telephone port.


Incorrect.

RJ-45 is for a dedicated single pair data circuit, and has nothing to do
with ethernet.

The connectors themselves do not have any RJ designations until they are
wired for a specific telephone application, as originally defined in
47 CFR 68.502.

The only exceptions might be jacks for alarm applications complying with
RJ-31X or RJ-38X, which have shorting bars, making them difficult to use
for other applications.

Ethernet and Token Ring do not have any RJ designation.




How many angels can dance on the head of a pin?

x=1/0 :-)

, in the day to day
residential world this is the way its done RJ-11 for telephone and RJ-45
for ethernet.

I remember someone saying they ought to be called 6P4C and 8P8C (and
RJ12 is 6P6C, what is 4P4C or 10P10C?). That describes the specific
connectors, but sounds awkward.



Actually, RJ-12 only uses 4 conductors, and can use a 6p4c, as can
RJ-13, and RJ-14. RJ-25 uses 3 pairs, and requires a 6p6c.




--
-- Welcome My Son, Welcome To The Machine --
Bob Vaughan | techie @ tantivy.net |
| P.O. Box 19792, Stanford, Ca 94309 |
-- I am Me, I am only Me, And no one else is Me, What could be simpler? --

On Mon, 16 Oct 2006 20:39:48 +0000 (UTC),
(Bob Vaughan) wrote:

In article ,
Mark Lloyd wrote:

I remember someone saying they ought to be called 6P4C and 8P8C (and
RJ12 is 6P6C, what is 4P4C or 10P10C?). That describes the specific
connectors, but sounds awkward.



Actually, RJ-12 only uses 4 conductors, and can use a 6p4c, as can
RJ-13, and RJ-14. RJ-25 uses 3 pairs, and requires a 6p6c.

OK, I know the 4c or 6c is the max number of wires, but what does 6p
mean, and what does Mark refer to wrt 4P and 10P?

In article ,
mm wrote:
On Mon, 16 Oct 2006 20:39:48 +0000 (UTC),
(Bob Vaughan) wrote:

In article ,
Mark Lloyd wrote:

I remember someone saying they ought to be called 6P4C and 8P8C (and
RJ12 is 6P6C, what is 4P4C or 10P10C?). That describes the specific
connectors, but sounds awkward.



Actually, RJ-12 only uses 4 conductors, and can use a 6p4c, as can
RJ-13, and RJ-14. RJ-25 uses 3 pairs, and requires a 6p6c.

OK, I know the 4c or 6c is the max number of wires, but what does 6p
mean, and what does Mark refer to wrt 4P and 10P?


Position (maximum number of contact positions)
Contact (actual number of positions available to be wired)

A 6p4c is a plug sized for a maximum of 6 wiring positions, but with
only 4 of them having physical contacts. Frequently sized so that a
maximum of 4 conductor cable will fit in the plug.

You normally only see the mismatched numbering in the 6 position plugs.
You can get them as 6p2c, 6p4c, and 6p6c.




--
-- Welcome My Son, Welcome To The Machine --
Bob Vaughan | techie @ tantivy.net |
| P.O. Box 19792, Stanford, Ca 94309 |
-- I am Me, I am only Me, And no one else is Me, What could be simpler? --

Bob Vaughan wrote:
In article ,
mm wrote:
On Mon, 16 Oct 2006 20:39:48 +0000 (UTC),
(Bob Vaughan) wrote:

In article ,
Mark Lloyd wrote:

I remember someone saying they ought to be called 6P4C and 8P8C
(and RJ12 is 6P6C, what is 4P4C or 10P10C?). That describes the
specific connectors, but sounds awkward.



Actually, RJ-12 only uses 4 conductors, and can use a 6p4c, as can
RJ-13, and RJ-14. RJ-25 uses 3 pairs, and requires a 6p6c.

OK, I know the 4c or 6c is the max number of wires, but what does 6p
mean, and what does Mark refer to wrt 4P and 10P?


Position (maximum number of contact positions)
Contact (actual number of positions available to be wired)

A 6p4c is a plug sized for a maximum of 6 wiring positions, but with
only 4 of them having physical contacts. Frequently sized so that a
maximum of 4 conductor cable will fit in the plug.

You normally only see the mismatched numbering in the 6 position
plugs. You can get them as 6p2c, 6p4c, and 6p6c.

Everyone seems to have forgotten though that "RJ" defines a lot more than
the number of positions and number of wires; it also defines the intended
use of the plugs and receptacles and which pins are used for what. Specific
examples: RJ-11, RJ31, etc. RJ-11 uses only the two center conductors for
analog services, RJ-31 actually breaks a phone connection and allows one
piece of equipment exclusive use of the telco pair, etc.. There are many RJ
designations.

On Wed, 18 Oct 2006 11:16:22 +0000 (UTC),
(Bob Vaughan) wrote:

In article ,
mm wrote:
On Mon, 16 Oct 2006 20:39:48 +0000 (UTC),
(Bob Vaughan) wrote:

In article ,
Mark Lloyd wrote:

I remember someone saying they ought to be called 6P4C and 8P8C (and
RJ12 is 6P6C, what is 4P4C or 10P10C?). That describes the specific
connectors, but sounds awkward.



Actually, RJ-12 only uses 4 conductors, and can use a 6p4c, as can
RJ-13, and RJ-14. RJ-25 uses 3 pairs, and requires a 6p6c.

OK, I know the 4c or 6c is the max number of wires, but what does 6p
mean, and what does Mark refer to wrt 4P and 10P?


Position (maximum number of contact positions)
Contact (actual number of positions available to be wired)

A 6p4c is a plug sized for a maximum of 6 wiring positions, but with
only 4 of them having physical contacts. Frequently sized so that a
maximum of 4 conductor cable will fit in the plug.

You normally only see the mismatched numbering in the 6 position plugs.
You can get them as 6p2c, 6p4c, and 6p6c.

I think I've seen a 4P2C once.
--
68 days until the winter solstice celebration

Mark Lloyd
http://notstupid.laughingsquid.com

"God was invented by man for a reason, that
reason is no longer applicable."

Old Bell 6-wire cable will not make you happy at higher data-rates
(i.e. 100Mb) even if you re-crimp the shells properly (1&2, 3&6
twisted) because the old bell wire simply doesn't have the required
number of twists per foot to reliably move data at high rates. I am
surprised that 10Mb even worked for some folks. Perhaps shorter
distances.

Anyway, 11G wireless is certainly an alternative, but again, distances
and data rates are tied closely. Even great wireless 11G stuff (54Mbps)
tails off in performance as the signal decreases, and at 100 feet or
more, you'll probably see LESS datarate than a wired 10Mb pipe in a
typical home.


Lastly, in a wired scenerio, the link make activate, but due to poor
cabling, the error rate may be high, and the effective performance will
be much lower. You'll need to look at error and re-transmit rates to
see if you have a good solution.

Mark

Jim Redelfs wrote:
In article ,
Bennett Price wrote:

As for CAT 5 and Ethernet, you must use CAT 5 for 100 MB Enet; you
might get away with short stretches of plain old bell wire for 10MB Enet.

So, without running Cat5 wire, a secure WIRELESS network would probably be
noticably faster than a wired one running on the old Bell 6-pr, right?
--

JR

replying to CraigT, WandaW wrote:
Most NIDs have a provision that allows the homeowner to unplug the phone
network from the house wiring.

--
for full context, visit https://www.homeownershub.com/mainte...45-156305-.htm