On 2010-07-07, Joseph Gwinn wrote:
In article ,
"DoN. Nichols" wrote:
On 2010-07-07, Joseph Gwinn wrote:
In article ,
"J. Clarke" wrote:
[ ... ]
That's one thing that bugs me about the State of Connecticut, one _must_
have an electrician's license to work on network cables. Never seen an
electrician with said license yet who could identify a cable scanner,
let alone who owned one,.
[ ... ]
Does this apply to:
1) Network cabling outdoors?
2) Network cabling in commercial or apartment buildings?
3) Or even home wiring?
Depends on the local laws, I suppose. One should not be expecting a real
technical rationale.
I was asking in particular about the Connecticut situation which
J. Clarke mentioned.
[ ... ]
Hmm ... also -- does it apply when running ethernet through
fiber optics? No wires there at all! No excuse for needing someone who
is accustomed to wiring voltages around. :-)
Hmm. This could be fun! Well, it looks like a wire....
Might be fun to take it to court. :-)
[ ... ]
Granted, I have a friend with an old house where it does not
work well at all. The walls are not drywall, but rather real plaster
over metal mesh. But I can't imagine an electrician knowing enough
about that to even diagnose the problem. :-)
Eight or nine years ago, I paid an electrician to install the CAT5e cable from
basement to my wife's office on the second floor, and I will say that the
electrician and his helper earned their pay on that one. It's an old house,
with wood lath plaster and strategically-placed bricks as fire-stops. It took
hours, and they were working all the while.
Sounds like you are thankful that *you* did not try to do it
yourself. :-)
I then terminated and connected the installed cable. It works just fine.
Of course.
Installing that wire probably cost what a full WiFi setup would have cost, but
once installed the wire just works, needs no sysadmin effort, has no security
drama, and has far greater data capacity than the WiFi of the day. Only
recently have wireless LANs even approached the theoretical datarate of a CAT5e
wire. In practice, wireless LANs rarely achieve anything like the capacity of a
cable.
Of course. I've got a wireless bridge running to a friend's
house across the street and down one house -- using circular waveguide
antennas which I machined up. Encryption enabled, good aggressive
firewall on each end, and all logins from one side to the other via ssh.
If I ran cable today, it would be CAT7, which supports gigabit datarates, far
exceeding any likely wireless LAN technology. The CAT7 wire is expensive to be
sure, but installation costs will swamp the wire cost.
But the current 100 megabits per second is more than sufficient.
Certainly. I'm running my home directories from a server on
another machine, and the speed is quite adequate for most things. If I
want to run find(1) on the home directory, I do that on the server
itself, of course.
Actually, the best thing to install is plastic conduit, if one has the
opportunity to do it reasonably easily, like if the walls are already open for
some other reason.
Hmm ... specifically plastic? Is there a problem running
twisted-pair ethernet in close proximity to a metal surround? I know
that some of the network wiring we installed at work was shielded
four twisted pair cable. Or is plastic conduit simply less expensive?
I recall lots of ads from various wire manufacturers touting their latest
(fastest, expensive) kinds of cable, saying that companies should buy the better
stuff even if not strictly needed today, as "future-proofing". But, conduit is
the true "future-proofing", as one can always upgrade the wire within, and
easily. Nor does one need to guess which direction the technology will go and
which wire it will need. For some reason, the ads didn't mention the conduit
option.
:-)
Enjoy,
DoN.
--
Email: | Voice (all times): (703) 938-4564
(too) near Washington D.C. |
http://www.d-and-d.com/dnichols/DoN.html
--- Black Holes are where God is dividing by zero ---