.. wrote:

all this tosh about network speed is willy waving, really. who /really/
wants to push HDTV over wi-fi when there's a far simpler method of
watching movies ?

http://www.mythtv.org/

Or any similar application that requires a high-throughput and
reasonably reliable network. Just because a network-oriented PVR system
is not currently a mainstream application doesn't mean it isn't useful
or desirable to non-specialised users. It's certainly not just
willy-waving.

I'm using MythTV to great success on a wired network, but from what I've
read on the user lists, 802.11G works reasonably well for SD content[1],
assuming the network isn't being degraded by other traffic, the wrong
kind of walls or interference. Which is a fairly large assumption.


Kim.
--
[1] MythTV usually streams DVB recordings in the format in which they
were broadcast. Use of timestretch and picture-in-picture will increase
the throughput accordingly. Bandwidth requirements for HDTV left as an
exercise for the reader.

Andy Hall wrote:
On 2007-01-05 08:45:06 +0000, "TheScullster" said:

Hi all

Just a general enquiry really.
Noticed on posts for data/sky/tv cabling that people were still
advocating installation of network and phone cabling.
This is obviously at odds to the current hype wireless
networking/broadband etc.
I have already installed cat 5 and phone lines to most rooms, but am
beginning to think that technology has overtaken this.

Apart from the security issues with wireless broadband, can anyone
support the case for putting in a wired home network and phone system?

TIA

Phil

I think that the short answer to this one is yes.

Megasnip


There's more reason as well. LV wiring isnt only good for computer
networks & phone, there are a bundle of apps that are fairly likely to
become wanted over the next n years, and cable already in place can be
used for any of these. Some examples include

* heating control (room by room monitor & control of temp, and possibly
other factors like controlling extraction fans and detecting/learning
which rooms are used when)
* backup lighting
* burglar alarms
* intercom
* fire alarms
and who knows what other apps that might become desirable over the
decades ahead.

Given the chance I'd always put a bunch of cat5e in, not just one cable
but the whole reel. Theres no need to terminate it or connect it to
anything for now, if its there then future uses are all go.

If you dont, you miss the window of opportunity, all those uses are
either closed off, or would require a great deal more expense to cable
for.


NT

On 2007-01-05 20:37:48 +0000, "Bob Eager" said:

On Fri, 5 Jan 2007 20:18:13 UTC, David Hansen
wrote:

On Fri, 5 Jan 2007 10:19:25 +0000 someone who may be tony sayer
wrote this:-

And Yes we do have a wireless access point for visitors!....

Their laptops presumably have little sockets, into which network
cables can be plugged.

Personally, a visitor can use the little sockets I have provided in
the bedrooms or living room. There are no little sockets in the
kitchen for anything, as that is for cooking in rather than playing
with toys and the amount of mess while cooking means that this is a
service to them:-)

Oh, we do have a socket under the breakfast bar. Just in case one day we
get an IPv6 Internet enabled toaster...

Do you have one near the cider as well?

John Rumm wrote:

incompatibility of different vendors kit.

LOL

yah, you know /loads/ ;-)

On Sat, 6 Jan 2007 00:51:19 UTC, wrote:

On 5 Jan,
"Dave Liquorice" wrote:

But at least modern boxes with an internal soil stacks have a
nice duct running from the roof space through all floors. B-)

Modern? the internal soil stack was only in use (apart from high rise where
there would also be fire issues) in the 1970s and 1980s.

My parents' house was built in 1967, and the whole estate has them. I
believe some regulation came in around then.

--
The information contained in this post is copyright the
poster, and specifically may not be published in, or used by
http://www.diybanter.com

On Sat, 6 Jan 2007 06:41:32 UTC, Andy Hall wrote:

On 2007-01-05 20:37:48 +0000, "Bob Eager" said:

Oh, we do have a socket under the breakfast bar. Just in case one day we
get an IPv6 Internet enabled toaster...

Do you have one near the cider as well?

?

--
The information contained in this post is copyright the
poster, and specifically may not be published in, or used by
http://www.diybanter.com

For me cabling is a no brainier for the reasons most people have picked
up on.

Wireless has its place but the quoted network speeds for this stuff are
laughable. The physical throughput is dramatically lower so much so I'm
surprised that no one has taken the manufacturers to court. I have
wireless for occasional use, laptops, music steaming in the garden etc.


It still surprises me how many times I see CAT5e sockets next to
telephone sockets. CAT5e can carry almost all media types given the
right sorts of adaptors, HDMI, Telephones, RS232, Data, Environmental
monitoring etc. And because CAT5e has been in the commercial sector for
years the adaptors are relatively cheap. Points adequately provisioned
will provide a flexible communications infrastructure for years to
come.

I would argue that fibre is not the way to go. The cost of installation
and correct termination coupled with the cost of the media converters
rule it out. It does make a fantastic backbone so it will appear more
and more as the main feed into the house. Potentially fibre can support
much higher data speeds but due to the costs data cable often catches
up shortly after.

If it were a new build then flooding the property with CT100 coax for
the RF and CAT5e for data is very cost effective. An alternative is
something like this:-

http://www.singlepointnetworks.co.uk/

This effectively combines the two cable technologies and provides a
range of adaptors to cater for nearly every media source. Also cuts
down on the wall acne. Not cheap though. If I were contiplating a new
build or referbishment I'd go for it.

And for the chap that was looking at HD media streaming:-

http://www.cyberselect.co.uk/product/1010 I have not have any
practical experience of the unit however.

On 6 Jan 2007 10:47:15 GMT someone who may be "Bob Eager"
wrote this:-

Modern? the internal soil stack was only in use (apart from high rise where
there would also be fire issues) in the 1970s and 1980s.

My parents' house was built in 1967, and the whole estate has them. I
believe some regulation came in around then.

In England and Wales it was a reaction to the winter of 1963, where
many two pipe drainage systems froze.

It was a faulty appreciation of the cause, which was largely due to
modifying the two pipe system to cope with upstairs bathrooms rather
than external pipes as such. Provided the system is properly
designed and used water in an external pipe is most unlikely to
freeze during the short time it is in the pipe. However, that does
not mean external pipes are desirable. Internal ones are easier to
work on and don't spoil the external appearance of a building.


--
David Hansen, Edinburgh
I will *always* explain revoked encryption keys, unless RIP prevents me
http://www.opsi.gov.uk/acts/acts2000/00023--e.htm#54

In article ,
"Bob Eager" writes:
On Sat, 6 Jan 2007 00:51:19 UTC, wrote:
Modern? the internal soil stack was only in use (apart from high rise where
there would also be fire issues) in the 1970s and 1980s.

My parents' house was built in 1967, and the whole estate has them. I
believe some regulation came in around then.

Legislation came in resulting from the cold winter of 1962
when lots of external cast iron soil stacks froze and shattered.
It was repealled after plastic soil stacks became commonplace,
but many architects still put them inside the building as they
are not considered very pretty on the outside.

--
Andrew Gabriel

.. wrote:

John Rumm wrote:


incompatibility of different vendors kit.


LOL

yah, you know /loads/ ;-)

The incompatibility is usually at a more subtle level than at the
MAC/LLC level. Andy touched on one of the most irritating examples in
his reply, and this is the issue of lame configuration software. Many
times you may have kit that talks at the physical level, but you are
unable to specify shared security settings to allow them to work, simply
because one configuration utility insists on a key being specified in
hex, and the other requires a textual key that it will then hash to form
a key. Needless to say they don't all use the same hash functions so
there is no ready way to convert one to the other.

Driver incompatibility is another problem. I lose count of the number of
times I have found WiFi NICs that in theory work over a number of OS
platforms only to find said compatibility is illusury when you actually
try to install them. With machine lockups or drivers that simply fail to
load at startup etc.

--
Cheers,

John.

/================================================== ===============\
| Internode Ltd - http://www.internode.co.uk |
|-----------------------------------------------------------------|
| John Rumm - john(at)internode(dot)co(dot)uk |
\================================================= ================/

On Fri, 5 Jan 2007 14:56:50 +0000, Andy Hall
wrote:



Where a physical card has to be installed in
a PC or equivalent, there are
the usual possible issues with drivers, interrupt conflicts

"interrupt conflicts", now those were the days ;-)

Handy though I was with jumpers, links and dip switches the advent of
real PnP (after the interim 'plug and pray') did away with much of
what made many of us 'different' for any other would be PC builder,
that and understanding the difference between, conventional, upper,
high, extended, expanded memory of course ;-)

"Hmm, now I can't put that Adaptec 1542B on IRQ5 and DMA3 as that will
conflict with ... "

All the best ...

T i m

John Rumm wrote:
. wrote:

John Rumm wrote:


incompatibility of different vendors kit.


LOL

yah, you know /loads/ ;-)

The incompatibility is usually at a more subtle level than at the
MAC/LLC level. Andy touched on one of the most irritating examples in
his reply, and this is the issue of lame configuration software. Many
times you may have kit that talks at the physical level, but you are
unable to specify shared security settings to allow them to work, simply
because one configuration utility insists on a key being specified in
hex, and the other requires a textual key that it will then hash to form
a key. Needless to say they don't all use the same hash functions so
there is no ready way to convert one to the other.

Driver incompatibility is another problem. I lose count of the number of
times I have found WiFi NICs that in theory work over a number of OS
platforms only to find said compatibility is illusury when you actually
try to install them. With machine lockups or drivers that simply fail to
load at startup etc.

Exactly., Using 5 year old technology GENERALLY means there are drivers
that work ...I had an issue with a mission critical website not being
accessible..their support finally said 'upgrade your router firmware'

I didn't believe it would work, but after rebooting the router, things
came back, so I grudgingly did as requested..it fixed it. Apparently the
NAT algorithms were faulty and the translation was timing out or
somesuch, so that return packets were forever discarded. Nice to know
that an 8 year old router could be upgraded to be only 4 years old
firmware wise :-)

As an IT professional for many years, I have an absolute aversion to the
latest and greatest. Its always bug ridden ****e. Let someone ELSE have
the problems of fixing it..how many times have I been out to 'fix';
systems that have just been 'upgraded'..for no other reason than someone
thought it would make a perfectly good system somehow 'better' I ONLY
upgrade when there is something the new system will do that I really
need, and the old system simply won't.

Buying 5 year old technology generally means its cheap, reliable and
stable, and probably has about ten years of life left in it. Just about
every cabled installation I have been involved with in the last 5 years
worked first time and stayed that way. I would say that 50% of the
wireless ones have NOT, for a variety of reasons. In time I am sure they
will get much much better. But right now I am not interested.

We moved away from 10base5, because it was unreliable..10baseT was
wonderful. OK you need a HUB which was expensive., but the cable was
cheaper, the connectors were cheaper, and one bloody PC didn't bring a
whole office to a halt..

And its still more than good enough for most things.

No modern phone system gives me anything I really need beyond what a
1980 style analogue PABX can do either, in many instances.

So much is innovation for the sake of it. I don't actually WANT to take
pictures on my phone, or receive e-mails on it. Or take the phone into
the bog so I can chat to some goofy teenager about my sex-life. When I
leave this computer its because I don't WANT to get e-mails..how much of
all this stuff would people actually trade for a simjple system, with no
bells and whistles, that simply and reliably did the very few basic
things that they actually needed?

How much time did I spend the other night, vainly trying to get rd of
whatever random selection of keystrokes suddenly made every correction
to what I was writing come out in red strikethrough? About 30 minutes of
WASTED TIME.

Or take my new mouse. All I wanted was one that didn't get clogged up
with cat fluff and cigarette ash.I thought 'hey, optical will do that'
and so it did..BUT its now got two buttons on the side, plus a trackball
that rolls AND clicks and when I grab it too hard editing a web input,
it suddenly launches me back to a previous screen..and whenever I
highlight text and move too the keyboard to edit a word, it slips and I
end up editing three lines. ARGGH! I HATE INNOVATION. HOW CAN I TURN ALL
THIS ****E OFF. I JUST want a mouse that moves a cursor, thats ALL.

John Rumm wrote:
. wrote:

John Rumm wrote:


incompatibility of different vendors kit.


LOL

yah, you know /loads/ ;-)

The incompatibility is usually at a more subtle level than at the
MAC/LLC level. Andy touched on one of the most irritating examples in
his reply, and this is the issue of lame configuration software. Many
times you may have kit that talks at the physical level, but you are
unable to specify shared security settings to allow them to work, simply
because one configuration utility insists on a key being specified in
hex, and the other requires a textual key that it will then hash to form
a key. Needless to say they don't all use the same hash functions so
there is no ready way to convert one to the other.

all of which can be avoided by doing proper research beforehand and
RTFM/STFW once the correct purchase has been made.

Driver incompatibility is another problem. I lose count of the number of
times I have found WiFi NICs that in theory work over a number of OS
platforms only to find said compatibility is illusury when you actually
try to install them. With machine lockups or drivers that simply fail to
load at startup etc.

you must be unlucky, I've only had a few and that's with obscure floppy
firewall type stuff on old hardware and there was usually a workaround.

everything you've pointed out still shouldn't put someone off using wi-fi.

On 2007-01-06 10:47:15 +0000, "Bob Eager" said:

On Sat, 6 Jan 2007 06:41:32 UTC, Andy Hall wrote:

On 2007-01-05 20:37:48 +0000, "Bob Eager" said:

Oh, we do have a socket under the breakfast bar. Just in case one day we
get an IPv6 Internet enabled toaster...

Do you have one near the cider as well?

?

CIDR...

On 2007-01-06 12:48:53 +0000, T i m said:

On Fri, 5 Jan 2007 14:56:50 +0000, Andy Hall
wrote:



Where a physical card has to be installed in a PC or equivalent, there are
the usual possible issues with drivers, interrupt conflicts

"interrupt conflicts", now those were the days ;-)

They still are. Even now there are cases where some devices will happily
share an interrupt with some drivers on some operating systems but
others won't.



Handy though I was with jumpers, links and dip switches the advent of
real PnP (after the interim 'plug and pray') did away with much of
what made many of us 'different' for any other would be PC builder,
that and understanding the difference between, conventional, upper,
high, extended, expanded memory of course ;-)

"Hmm, now I can't put that Adaptec 1542B on IRQ5 and DMA3 as that will
conflict with ... "

Yes, although PnP still really isn't a panacea.




All the best ...

T i m

On Sat, 6 Jan 2007 14:36:47 UTC, Andy Hall wrote:

On 2007-01-06 10:47:15 +0000, "Bob Eager" said:

On Sat, 6 Jan 2007 06:41:32 UTC, Andy Hall wrote:

On 2007-01-05 20:37:48 +0000, "Bob Eager" said:

Oh, we do have a socket under the breakfast bar. Just in case one day we
get an IPv6 Internet enabled toaster...

Do you have one near the cider as well?

?

CIDR...

(groan)

--
The information contained in this post is copyright the
poster, and specifically may not be published in, or used by
http://www.diybanter.com

On 2007-01-06 14:33:42 +0000, "." said:

John Rumm wrote:
. wrote:

John Rumm wrote:


incompatibility of different vendors kit.


LOL

yah, you know /loads/ ;-)

The incompatibility is usually at a more subtle level than at the
MAC/LLC level. Andy touched on one of the most irritating examples in
his reply, and this is the issue of lame configuration software. Many
times you may have kit that talks at the physical level, but you are
unable to specify shared security settings to allow them to work, simply
because one configuration utility insists on a key being specified in
hex, and the other requires a textual key that it will then hash to form
a key. Needless to say they don't all use the same hash functions so
there is no ready way to convert one to the other.

all of which can be avoided by doing proper research beforehand and
RTFM/STFW once the correct purchase has been made.

That assumes that the Friendly Manual describes the functionality
correctly or at all.

Especially in the case of entry level Wifi products for the consumer
market, the documentation
is appalling. I imagine that this is for a few reasons:

- an assumption on the part of the vendor that the customer won't
understand the technical detail
anyway so why bother

- why bother because the product will have a short lifetime

- nobody likes writing manuals

- not having people with the ability to write anything beyond a cut and
paste from the product config
screens.


I recently bought a Linksys managed gigabit switch. It is quite well
featured, but the documentation is appalling.
Specifically in the area of VLAN configuration, the information is
quite sparse and requires an email to their tech support for
clarification.

Many of the configuration setups for these types of product including
wireless and other home routers are web based. Nothing wrong with
that except that behaviour is not consistent among different web
browsers and versions thereof. I have had cases of products where it
is impossible to do the entire set up using one browser and where two
different ones have been needed in order to complete the set up.
Probably this has to do with java, active X and so on, but this is
hopeless for something that is meant to be an out of the box simple set
up product.




Driver incompatibility is another problem. I lose count of the number of
times I have found WiFi NICs that in theory work over a number of OS
platforms only to find said compatibility is illusury when you actually
try to install them. With machine lockups or drivers that simply fail to
load at startup etc.

you must be unlucky, I've only had a few and that's with obscure floppy
firewall type stuff on old hardware and there was usually a workaround.

All of that assumes that you know what you are doing, know where to look
for information and when things are broken having a reasonable idea how to
go about troubleshooting.



everything you've pointed out still shouldn't put someone off using wi-fi.

No, and some of the issues such as configuration, drivers and so on can
arise with wired equipment also.

Wifi adds additional problems of security settings and RF behaviour
into the mix.

Admittedly there are product improvements in some areas, but there is
still a lot of crap
on the market. Vendors are still not taking enough care over
firmware and documentation
and are too focussed on selling based on claimed speed rather than what
it really is and on
product reliability, supportability and ease of use.

Part of the blame for this can be laid at the door of the manufacturers
because of their perceived
need to bring out something apparently but not really new every few
months; while the rest is on
the ever decreasing market pricing and margins. Both reduce the
ability and interest to produce
properly reliable and supported products.

On 2007-01-06 14:54:23 +0000, "Bob Eager" said:

On Sat, 6 Jan 2007 14:36:47 UTC, Andy Hall wrote:

On 2007-01-06 10:47:15 +0000, "Bob Eager" said:

On Sat, 6 Jan 2007 06:41:32 UTC, Andy Hall wrote:

On 2007-01-05 20:37:48 +0000, "Bob Eager" said:

Oh, we do have a socket under the breakfast bar. Just in case one day we
get an IPv6 Internet enabled toaster...

Do you have one near the cider as well?

?

CIDR...

(groan)

Thought you'd have got that one. IPv4 vs. IPv6 address spaces etc.

I can remember going to a presentation by Jon Postel where he said that
he couldn't ever see a reason why more than 32 bit IP addresses would ever
be needed.

On 2007-01-05 15:38:12 +0000, "." said:

that should be formatted, de personalised (I's and Yous') and added to
the DIY wiki as it sums everything up very nicely indeed.

I'll see what I can do, although will need to teach myself about Wiki editing,
not having really done that before.

Perhaps someone has a pointer on where to look for info. on that?

On Sat, 6 Jan 2007 14:42:49 +0000, Andy Hall
wrote:

On 2007-01-06 12:48:53 +0000, T i m said:

On Fri, 5 Jan 2007 14:56:50 +0000, Andy Hall
wrote:



Where a physical card has to be installed in a PC or equivalent, there are
the usual possible issues with drivers, interrupt conflicts

"interrupt conflicts", now those were the days ;-)

They still are. Even now there are cases where some devices will happily
share an interrupt with some drivers on some operating systems but
others won't.

Well of course, but I would offer the instances are still rare
compared with the 'requirement' to actually set resources as we had to
in the olden days? ie, I can't remember having any real / hard
'conflicts' within the last ~50 PC's I've built over the last ~7 years
(just lucky maybe)? ;-)



Handy though I was with jumpers, links and dip switches the advent of
real PnP (after the interim 'plug and pray') did away with much of
what made many of us 'different' for any other would be PC builder,
that and understanding the difference between, conventional, upper,
high, extended, expanded memory of course ;-)

"Hmm, now I can't put that Adaptec 1542B on IRQ5 and DMA3 as that will
conflict with ... "

Yes, although PnP still really isn't a panacea.

Indeed. But what used to be the issue of 'is IRQX free' is now 'can we
still get that type of memory' or 'have you tried this weeks driver'
... or 'what on earth is that connector for!?' ;-)

All the best ..

T i m

On Sat, 6 Jan 2007 15:38:00 UTC, Andy Hall wrote:

On 2007-01-06 14:54:23 +0000, "Bob Eager" said:

On Sat, 6 Jan 2007 14:36:47 UTC, Andy Hall wrote:

On 2007-01-06 10:47:15 +0000, "Bob Eager" said:

On Sat, 6 Jan 2007 06:41:32 UTC, Andy Hall wrote:

On 2007-01-05 20:37:48 +0000, "Bob Eager" said:

Oh, we do have a socket under the breakfast bar. Just in case one day we
get an IPv6 Internet enabled toaster...

Do you have one near the cider as well?

?

CIDR...

(groan)

Thought you'd have got that one. IPv4 vs. IPv6 address spaces etc.

Well, I did, once you'd pointed out the bad pun...!

I can remember going to a presentation by Jon Postel where he said that
he couldn't ever see a reason why more than 32 bit IP addresses would ever
be needed.

Yes, I heard he'd said that...but from a mutual frind of Postel's and
mine (who also wrote a number of RFCs). He wrote the 'real' RFC 666
(whose number is not at all significant).

--
The information contained in this post is copyright the
poster, and specifically may not be published in, or used by
http://www.diybanter.com

Andy Hall wrote:
On 2007-01-06 14:54:23 +0000, "Bob Eager" said:

On Sat, 6 Jan 2007 14:36:47 UTC, Andy Hall wrote:

On 2007-01-06 10:47:15 +0000, "Bob Eager" said:

On Sat, 6 Jan 2007 06:41:32 UTC, Andy Hall wrote:

On 2007-01-05 20:37:48 +0000, "Bob Eager" said:

Oh, we do have a socket under the breakfast bar. Just in case one
day we
get an IPv6 Internet enabled toaster...

Do you have one near the cider as well?

?

CIDR...

(groan)

Thought you'd have got that one. IPv4 vs. IPv6 address spaces etc.

I can remember going to a presentation by Jon Postel where he said that
he couldn't ever see a reason why more than 32 bit IP addresses would ever
be needed.


And in fact, it transpires that they aren't...as NAT has released HUGE
blocks of addresses from large companies back to RIPE at al..

On Sat, 6 Jan 2007 16:55:11 UTC, The Natural Philosopher wrote:

I can remember going to a presentation by Jon Postel where he said that
he couldn't ever see a reason why more than 32 bit IP addresses would ever
be needed.

And in fact, it transpires that they aren't...as NAT has released HUGE
blocks of addresses from large companies back to RIPE at al..

My employer still have their original /16....!
--
The information contained in this post is copyright the
poster, and specifically may not be published in, or used by
http://www.diybanter.com

I can remember going to a presentation by Jon Postel where he said that
he couldn't ever see a reason why more than 32 bit IP addresses would
ever
be needed.


And in fact, it transpires that they aren't...as NAT has released HUGE
blocks of addresses from large companies back to RIPE at al..

However, that brings a host (!) of issues of its own, with the NAT breaking
end-to-end connectivity. NAT is an OK stopgap but makes some things
difficult and others impossible.

IPv6 will restore end-to-end connectivity, with everyone able to use as many
routable addresses as they need. I just wish we'd get on with it a bit
quicker.

--
Ron ( Natively IPv6 enabled here ).

raden wrote:
In message , Bob Eager
writes
On Fri, 5 Jan 2007 17:32:53 UTC, Harry Bloomfield
wrote:

I have wired up the entire house for both too,

I rewired the whole house for everything,

Just before I re-carpeted the house, I managed to lay a whole reel of
CAT5 (1000 feet) under the floorboards,

Wish I'd thought of that when I was decorating. Wireless doesn't work
too well in my house so I ended up with homeplug jobbies. No doubt there
are loads of downsides to them but at least they got the new xbox 360
online without any effort on my part.

--
Matt Helliwell
www.helliwell.me.uk

Just before I re-carpeted the house, I managed to lay a whole reel of
CAT5 (1000 feet) under the floorboards, so there are multiple cables from
more or less everywhere to everywhere else - £10 well spent, I think


If you are going to lay cat5, I'd not lay it "from more or less everywhere
to everywhere else ". I'd lay it from "more or less everywhere" back to
one central point.

UTP networking is essentially a star architecture, not a matrix.

At the central point, punch it down onto a patch panel, and then you can
hook the various ports up to the switch as required with short patch cables.

I prefer to use dual outlets at each point, typically 2 or more points per
room. Wherever I need 1 network port, I tend to find that I usually need
another occasionally for some reason. I don't have enough switch ports to
have them all live at any one time, but I can use the patch panel to hook up
the ports I do need. It also lets me use a bank of PoE injectors to enable
PoE on the ports I use for the Cisco IP phones.

The central point does not need to be a dedicated comms cabinet or room, A
void space behind a wardrobe or similar will do, if necessary...

--
Ron

On Sat, 06 Jan 2007 00:51:19 GMT, wrote:

Modern? the internal soil stack was only in use (apart from high rise
where there would also be fire issues) in the 1970s and 1980s.

Precisely modern... Have external stacks come back? Can't say I pay much
attention to modern pocket handkerchief and rabbit hutch estate housing.

In one of the cold winters in the early 80's some of the external waste
pipe work at my rented Bristol flat froze up, simple reason dripping tap.

--
Cheers
Dave. pam is missing e-mail

On Sat, 6 Jan 2007 21:43:05 -0000 someone who may be "Ron Lowe"
ronATlowe-famlyDOTmeDOTukSPURIOUS wrote this:-

The central point does not need to be a dedicated comms cabinet or room, A
void space behind a wardrobe or similar will do, if necessary...

Indeed. The space in the corner of a built-in cupboard does very
nicely in my house.


--
David Hansen, Edinburgh
I will *always* explain revoked encryption keys, unless RIP prevents me
http://www.opsi.gov.uk/acts/acts2000/00023--e.htm#54

wrote:
On 5 Jan,
Harry Bloomfield wrote:

What is the likelihood of your house catching fire, the dect phone
failing as a result of the fire and the local cell also failing all at
exactly the same time as you need to ring the fire brigade?

A reasonably local lightning strike could cause all three.



In event of major disaster Mobile Network would be turned off to all
except Emergency Services SIMS ... so if something does go wrong, don't
expect your mobile to work.

Modern? the internal soil stack was only in use (apart from high rise where
there would also be fire issues) in the 1970s and 1980s.


I have new Selfbuild and this has 2 internal stacks and no external
stacks.

There was a Bld Reg change in early 70's which forced builders to put
stacks inside (knee jerk reaction to a severe winter) .... this did not
last long, and you can put them in or out ... planning permitting.

In message , Ron Lowe
writes

Just before I re-carpeted the house, I managed to lay a whole reel of
CAT5 (1000 feet) under the floorboards, so there are multiple cables
from more or less everywhere to everywhere else - £10 well spent, I
think


If you are going to lay cat5, I'd not lay it "from more or less
everywhere to everywhere else ". I'd lay it from "more or less
everywhere" back to one central point.

UTP networking is essentially a star architecture, not a matrix.

Ah yes, but you're assuming I'd use it just for networking

I ended up laying it everywhere just to use it up

Once you have 10 cables from modem to router and from modem to main
computer, router to main computer and router to upstairs points, you're
just using up cable to allow for every contingency


--
geoff

TheScullster wrote:

Hi all

Just a general enquiry really.
Noticed on posts for data/sky/tv cabling that people were still advocating
installation of network and phone cabling.
This is obviously at odds to the current hype wireless
networking/broadband etc.
I have already installed cat 5 and phone lines to most rooms, but am
beginning to think that technology has overtaken this.

Apart from the security issues with wireless broadband, can anyone support
the case for putting in a wired home network and phone system?

I've got a wireless network and then installed a cable network
afterwards. The wireless one is brilliant and ideal for a laptop, but a
cable is so much faster, but that's not all. It's much more versatile
too.

If you've got equipment that works in one fixed position, then cable is
usually the answer, mobile stuff obviously needs wireless.

My wife mentioned that she wanted to be able to hear the HiFi when she
was working in our dining room and it was a doddle to distribute the
audio ( and video too ) over a CAT5 line that was already there. I'm now
thinking of adding more CAT5 lines to each room as I can see so many
uses for them.

.. wrote:

The incompatibility is usually at a more subtle level than at the
MAC/LLC level. Andy touched on one of the most irritating examples in
his reply, and this is the issue of lame configuration software. Many
times you may have kit that talks at the physical level, but you are
unable to specify shared security settings to allow them to work, simply
because one configuration utility insists on a key being specified in
hex, and the other requires a textual key that it will then hash to form
a key. Needless to say they don't all use the same hash functions so
there is no ready way to convert one to the other.


all of which can be avoided by doing proper research beforehand and
RTFM/STFW once the correct purchase has been made.

You seem to be assuming that one gets to choose and specify the kit. In
the real world many times the job is to "make that lot work" where the
equipment has already been bought on price or advertising hype by people
who have not done any research.

If the kit is all from one maker then that can make it easier, but there
are times you can not get all the capabilities you need in all off the
the different system components from one maker (and whos parts are all
in stock concurrently with your suppliers)

When you are specifying and purchasing the kit then it falls to you to
do the research. Here you run into another problem of getting the
information required. It is frustrating how many vendors will omit
information about how their configuration software works, and the key
entry formats which are supported.

you must be unlucky, I've only had a few and that's with obscure floppy
firewall type stuff on old hardware and there was usually a workaround.

Maybe you are lucky, or don't do much of this sort of stuff.

everything you've pointed out still shouldn't put someone off using wi-fi.

I was not trying to put anyone off WiFi at all. I use it myself. However
it has its unique limitations and problems, and in some cases is less
suitable for the task than wired components. Hence back to the original
question as to whether cable is still justified for phone and data
systems. The answer is unarguably yes in some cases. In others you will
be able to avoid it with wireless solutions.

--
Cheers,

John.

/================================================== ===============\
| Internode Ltd - http://www.internode.co.uk |
|-----------------------------------------------------------------|
| John Rumm - john(at)internode(dot)co(dot)uk |
\================================================= ================/

John Rumm wrote:

snip

You seem to be assuming that one gets to choose and specify the kit.

that's quite an assumption you've made there.

In the real world many times the job is to "make that lot work" where the
equipment has already been bought on price or advertising hype by people
who have not done any research.

yes, like in the 'real world' 2 DSL installs I've done this year (so far)
both have signed up to talktalk from carphone warehouse (?) and neither
of them have thought about a router firewall despite me telling them both
that they would need one and that talktalk were rubbish.

I've got another install to do next week (quick £50)

snip

Maybe you are lucky, or don't do much of this sort of stuff.

these days ? not as much as I used to do (daily, for several years) but
enough to realise that pointing out the negatives of a technology doesn't
negate the benefits of it. but I've never had any problems in searching out
the positive elements of technology or finding workarounds for any issues
I might encounter. YMMWV

.. wrote:

You seem to be assuming that one gets to choose and specify the kit.


that's quite an assumption you've made there.

Well hardly, you did say "all of which can be avoided by doing proper
research beforehand and RTFM/STFW once the correct purchase has been
made.", which does seem to presuppose that one gets a look in beforehand.

both have signed up to talktalk from carphone warehouse (?) and neither
of them have thought about a router firewall despite me telling them both
that they would need one and that talktalk were rubbish.

I find you can really upset them by pointing out "but it is free!"[1]
when they are going through the hell of trying to get TalkTalk to
provide any service at all, or trying to get a MAC code out of them when
they can't ;-)

[1] The phrase that I often hear in response to my warnings about the
likely problems... still you get what you pay for.

these days ? not as much as I used to do (daily, for several years) but
enough to realise that pointing out the negatives of a technology doesn't
negate the benefits of it.

Indeed it does not. I don't think I was pointing out just the negatives,
more highlighting the areas in which wired solutions have advantages.


--
Cheers,

John.

/================================================== ===============\
| Internode Ltd - http://www.internode.co.uk |
|-----------------------------------------------------------------|
| John Rumm - john(at)internode(dot)co(dot)uk |
\================================================= ================/