I'm about to change the dining room floor and while at it thought I would
run some Cat5e to where the TV / PS3 lives back to the router / slave PC in
the hall cupboard.
Is there any advantage on using Cat6?
The rest of the house has been done in Cat5.
I'd hate to do it then find I really need Cat6 in a year or so.

Cheers.

RoundSquare wrote:

I'm about to change the dining room floor and while at it thought I would
run some Cat5e to where the TV / PS3 lives back to the router / slave PC in
the hall cupboard.
Is there any advantage on using Cat6?

Only if you expect to use 10Gb ethernet!

On 2010-11-16 12:28:59 +0000, RoundSquare said:

I'm about to change the dining room floor and while at it thought I
would run some Cat5e to where the TV / PS3 lives back to the router /
slave PC in the hall cupboard.
Is there any advantage on using Cat6?
The rest of the house has been done in Cat5.
I'd hate to do it then find I really need Cat6 in a year or so.

You're unlikely to need/spot any difference between cat5e and cat6
anytime soon. And cat6 is more of a faff to cable up (thicker, larger
minimum bend radius, etc).

Having said that as part of my rewire I'm using cat6, cos I never want
to have to rewire again and it would be a shame to have to just because
I wanted to save some pennies now.

"RoundSquare" bigbad@hole wrote in message
...
I'm about to change the dining room floor and while at it thought I would
run some Cat5e to where the TV / PS3 lives back to the router / slave PC
in the hall cupboard.
Is there any advantage on using Cat6?
The rest of the house has been done in Cat5.
I'd hate to do it then find I really need Cat6 in a year or so.

Over short lengths you are unlikely to notice any difference.
Over 100m you might.

On Nov 16, 12:28*pm, "RoundSquare" bigbad@hole wrote:
I'm about to change the dining room floor and while at it thought I would
run some Cat5e to where the TV / PS3 lives back to the router / slave PC in
the hall cupboard.
Is there any advantage on using Cat6?
The rest of the house has been done in Cat5.
I'd hate to do it then find I really need Cat6 in a year or so.

Cheers.

How far do you think computers will change in 10 or 20 years?


NT

On Tue, 16 Nov 2010 12:28:59 -0000, "RoundSquare" bigbad@hole wrote:

I'm about to change the dining room floor and while at it thought I would
run some Cat5e to where the TV / PS3 lives back to the router / slave PC in
the hall cupboard.
Is there any advantage on using Cat6?
The rest of the house has been done in Cat5.
I'd hate to do it then find I really need Cat6 in a year or so.

I'd always install the best possible cable available at the time
because it's a pain to replace if you need to.
--
(\__/) M.
(='.'=) Due to the amount of spam posted via googlegroups and
(")_(") their inaction to the problem. I am blocking some articles
posted from there. If you wish your postings to be seen by
everyone you will need use a different method of posting.

On Tue, 16 Nov 2010 12:28:59 -0000, "RoundSquare" bigbad@hole wrote:

I'm about to change the dining room floor and while at it thought I would
run some Cat5e to where the TV / PS3 lives back to the router / slave PC in
the hall cupboard.
Is there any advantage on using Cat6?
The rest of the house has been done in Cat5.
I'd hate to do it then find I really need Cat6 in a year or so.

If you run the cable in conduit it should be pretty trivial to change
the cable at a later date.

--
Frank Erskine

On Nov 16, 1:19*pm, Tabby wrote:
On Nov 16, 12:28*pm, "RoundSquare" bigbad@hole wrote:

I'm about to change the dining room floor and while at it thought I would
run some Cat5e to where the TV / PS3 lives back to the router / slave PC in
the hall cupboard.
Is there any advantage on using Cat6?
The rest of the house has been done in Cat5.
I'd hate to do it then find I really need Cat6 in a year or so.

Cheers.

How far do you think computers will change in 10 or 20 years?

;-) far enough to not need Cat5 or Cat6! I don't think any network
cabling you could have conceived of in 1990 would be in any way
relevant today.

Cat6 doesn't seem to be taking over yet, but the incremental price
difference isn't _that_ great - it's nothing compared with your time
_now_, never mind the time involved in re-doing it when all decoration
has been done.

I wonder if Cat6 might be even more versatile in the exotic non-IP-
related uses of Cat5? e.g.
http://www.nexxia.co.uk/products.asp...%20AV%20Baluns
(link is only an example - you can make this stuff yourself quite
cheaply)

Cheers,
David.

David Robinson wrote:

I don't think any network cabling you could have conceived of
in 1990 would be in any way relevant today.

Actually, 10Mb Ethernet over cat3 cable was introduced in 1990 and the
standard for cat5 cable was published in 1991 which will still work
today with 10Mb, 100Mb or 1Gb Ethernet, and I can't see much pressure
for 10Gb or 40Gb Ethernet in most businesses yet, let alone houses.

Tabby wrote:
On Nov 16, 12:28 pm, "RoundSquare" bigbad@hole wrote:
I'm about to change the dining room floor and while at it thought I would
run some Cat5e to where the TV / PS3 lives back to the router / slave PC in
the hall cupboard.
Is there any advantage on using Cat6?
The rest of the house has been done in Cat5.
I'd hate to do it then find I really need Cat6 in a year or so.

Cheers.

How far do you think computers will change in 10 or 20 years?



To be unrecognisable as computers, I would say.

You wont but a 'computer' and load 'software' on it.

You will have an appliance, with apps.

Most of which will be cloud based, not on the computer at all.


NT

Sunny Bard wrote:
David Robinson wrote:

I don't think any network cabling you could have conceived of
in 1990 would be in any way relevant today.

Actually, 10Mb Ethernet over cat3 cable was introduced in 1990 and the
standard for cat5 cable was published in 1991 which will still work
today with 10Mb, 100Mb or 1Gb Ethernet, and I can't see much pressure
for 10Gb or 40Gb Ethernet in most businesses yet, let alone houses.


well I need 100GBps in my house RIGHT NOW

so if you have a spare 100GBps switch...

On 16/11/10 17:40, Sunny Bard wrote:
David Robinson wrote:

I don't think any network cabling you could have conceived of
in 1990 would be in any way relevant today.

Actually, 10Mb Ethernet over cat3 cable was introduced in 1990 and the
standard for cat5 cable was published in 1991 which will still work
today with 10Mb, 100Mb or 1Gb Ethernet, and I can't see much pressure
for 10Gb or 40Gb Ethernet in most businesses yet, let alone houses.

I can - I can usefully utilise 50% of a gig link pushing media files
around (that's copying not streaming) *whilst* doing other stuff. My
802.11g WiFi can stream VCD quality media video at the expense of other
activity.

With HD this will get rapidly worse, especial as "media servers"
(prebuilt and the likes of MythTV) are becoming more popular.

I would certainly run Cat6a now, unless conduit is installed.

--
Tim Watts

On Nov 16, 5:13*pm, David Robinson
wrote:
On Nov 16, 1:19*pm, Tabby wrote:

On Nov 16, 12:28*pm, "RoundSquare" bigbad@hole wrote:

I'm about to change the dining room floor and while at it thought I would
run some Cat5e to where the TV / PS3 lives back to the router / slave PC in
the hall cupboard.
Is there any advantage on using Cat6?
The rest of the house has been done in Cat5.
I'd hate to do it then find I really need Cat6 in a year or so.

Cheers.

How far do you think computers will change in 10 or 20 years?

;-) far enough to not need Cat5 or Cat6! I don't think any network
cabling you could have conceived of in 1990 would be in any way
relevant today.

10M ethernet over coax from about 85 would still be serviceable today.
Maybe I should have been less vague on the time span, but point is
there will be a period where some of todays standards are still
usable, some not. OTOH there's far more cat5 installed than cat6, and
that factor alone makes a difference to what remains viable.

Placing a few net cables in parallel costs next to nothing extra, and
could prolong service further.


NT

Tim Watts wrote:

On 16/11/10 17:40, Sunny Bard wrote:

I can't see much pressure
for 10Gb or 40Gb Ethernet in most businesses yet, let alone houses.

I can

Admittedly many businesses bundle together multiple 1Gb links because
that's cheaper than using 10GbE links.

I can usefully utilise 50% of a gig link pushing media files
around

But I bet you're less keen to spend £500 to £1000 per NIC and several
grand on a 10GbE switch ;-)

If you're really in that desperate need of bandwidth go for fibre and
be done with!

"1501" wrote in message
...
If you're really in that desperate need of bandwidth go for fibre and
be done with!


SM or MM?
I wonder how far Intel has got with its 10G to the home stuff?

"www.GymRatZ.co.uk" wrote in message
...
On 16/11/2010 12:28, RoundSquare wrote:
I'm about to change the dining room floor and while at it thought I would
run some Cat5e to where the TV / PS3 lives back to the router / slave PC
in
the hall cupboard.
Is there any advantage on using Cat6?
The rest of the house has been done in Cat5.
I'd hate to do it then find I really need Cat6 in a year or so.

Firstly I would suggest fibre more a realistic scenario than wire if
you're looking at the next 5+ years of "future-proofing", especially
when FTH becomes a reality.
And.... with so many millions of miles of Cat5e throught the worlds
offices I shouldn't wonder if technology will allow further mutations of
what speeds and frequencies can be passed along plain old twisted wires
at the same time to upgrade capacity without upgrading network, in the
same way telephone wires have had an almost never ending lease of life
through the decades. I remember when 14.4kbps from my US Robotic modem
was considered the highest speed posible.

I remember less speed than that being available.


I can happily stream Full-blown HDTV from PC to Xbox-360 while only
using a snippet of bandwidth.
My other guess is that digital media will speed up through improved
compression techniques and technology requiring LESS bandwidth than is
currently needed. Certainly in a domestic capacity at least.

I doubt that, the current compression technology chucks stuff away and
degrades the image.
Compressing more will result in an even worse image.

Hover all that's pretty pointless worrying about as there is no life
beyond December 2012 anyway so worry about the now and don't waste time
worrying about the what-if?s

Can you donate all your goods to me on at the end of 2012 then as you wont
be needing them.

On 16/11/2010 20:10, dennis@home wrote:

I doubt that, the current compression technology chucks stuff away and
degrades the image.
Compressing more will result in an even worse image.

Hover all that's pretty pointless worrying about as there is no life
beyond December 2012 anyway so worry about the now and don't waste time
worrying about the what-if?s

Can you donate all your goods to me on at the end of 2012 then as you
wont be needing them.

Future compressions will be cleverer and more efficient. Just the way
MPEG4 is better than MPEG2.

Chucking CPU power at the problem also permits better use of the
existing standards. _without_ any extra loss of quality.

Just because the beeb think a new encoder is better than it is doesn't
mean the problem is impossible.

Andy

On 16/11/10 18:01, Sunny Bard wrote:
Tim Watts wrote:

On 16/11/10 17:40, Sunny Bard wrote:

I can't see much pressure
for 10Gb or 40Gb Ethernet in most businesses yet, let alone houses.

I can

Admittedly many businesses bundle together multiple 1Gb links because
that's cheaper than using 10GbE links.

I can usefully utilise 50% of a gig link pushing media files
around

But I bet you're less keen to spend £500 to £1000 per NIC and several
grand on a 10GbE switch ;-)

Now, yes. Later when they're dirt cheap, no...

--
Tim Watts

On Nov 16, 8:37*pm, "www.GymRatZ.co.uk"
wrote:
On 16/11/2010 20:10, dennis@home wrote:

My other guess is that digital media will speed up through improved
compression techniques and technology requiring LESS bandwidth than is
currently needed. Certainly in a domestic capacity at least.

I doubt that, the current compression technology chucks stuff away and
degrades the image.
Compressing more will result in an even worse image.

But in the same way is it was "impossible" to increase the capacity of a
DVD until technology allowed more data to be stored on different layers
of the same disc. Perhaps compression was the wrong term to use, what I
ment was some form of simultaneus data transfer like diferent "colour"
binary digits... Blue, Red, Green, 0s and 1s
sort of like combination between DVD layers and multiple frequencies
transmitted simultaneously....
/////

NO! NO! a thousand times NO!

The bandwidth of any communication channel - whether formed by CAT5, 6
or fiberoptic or radio waves or plain audio or whatever - is a
physical limit of that channel (often expressed in MHz). No amount of
jiggery pokery with the electronics, compression algorithm maths,
frequency mixing, or any other deceptively clever compression scams,
can increase the maximum physical bandwidth.

Anything else is the same as a scheme to beat the second law of
thermodynamics. Otherwise known as squeezing blood out of a stone.

Yes many channels can be pushed beyond their stated specification - by
top grade cable & kit + careful installation & testing - but once you
have reached the real max that's your lot. Any attempt to push
further inevitably loses information.

And, yes, most compression algorithms are a compromise between
encoding speed and how much bandwidth (capacity) is left unutilised;
so there can be scope to use faster processing to reduce wasted
bandwidth in a channel but IMHO you will find it is a lot of work for
not much gain over current compression techniques.

Also in the case of a lossy compression method, it is pretty certain
that the encoding method will already be running near the maximum
bandwidth. That is why information has to be lost.

As to cat5 v cat 6 as others have suggested: insert ducts into your
new floor: make sure they can't get wet; these cables are unlikely to
stay the course: at some time not too far ahead fiberoptic will almost
certainly take over. Possibly the crunch point will be when cable
distributed high speed public networks become available running at
decent speeds 100Mbps probably sweeping aside conventional radio &
TV which will become internet services.

In chez nous cat6 was installed as there was minimal price difference
compared with installation effort & there was the feint hope of it
having a longer life. Cat6 also meant, I hoped, that if cabling
wasn't perfect, cat5 performance would still be attained.

HTH

www.GymRatZ.co.uk wrote:
On 16/11/2010 20:10, dennis@home wrote:


My other guess is that digital media will speed up through improved
compression techniques and technology requiring LESS bandwidth than is
currently needed. Certainly in a domestic capacity at least.
I doubt that, the current compression technology chucks stuff away and
degrades the image.
Compressing more will result in an even worse image.

But in the same way is it was "impossible" to increase the capacity of a
DVD until technology allowed more data to be stored on different layers
of the same disc. Perhaps compression was the wrong term to use, what I
ment was some form of simultaneus data transfer like diferent "colour"
binary digits... Blue, Red, Green, 0s and 1s
sort of like combination between DVD layers and multiple frequencies
transmitted simultaneously....



Compression is all about reconstructing from the transmitted data what
you EXPECT to be there.
If the data is full of the unexpected, like sports, it wont compress too
well.

However apart from camera cutaways, one video frame is very like
another, so delta techniques work well. The downside is that it
necessarily introduces delays..


Hover all that's pretty pointless worrying about as there is no life
beyond December 2012 anyway so worry about the now and don't waste time
worrying about the what-if?s
Can you donate all your goods to me on at the end of 2012 then as you
wont be needing them.

Look me up in January 2013 and I'll see what we have left that hasn't
been melted by excessive rediation.
;¬)


Rediation?

Nivver erd of that guv!

your life will come to an end at the wrong end of a baseball bat wielded
by a starving thug who has already finished looting Tescos, and now
wants the contents of you fridge.

jim wrote:


In chez nous cat6 was installed as there was minimal price difference
compared with installation effort & there was the feint hope

feint hope? who are you kidding then?

Tim Streater wrote:
In article
,
jim wrote:

On Nov 16, 8:37�pm, "www.GymRatZ.co.uk"
wrote:
On 16/11/2010 20:10, dennis@home wrote:

My other guess is that digital media will speed up through improved
compression techniques and technology requiring LESS bandwidth
than is
currently needed. Certainly in a domestic capacity at least.

I doubt that, the current compression technology chucks stuff away
and
degrades the image.
Compressing more will result in an even worse image.

But in the same way is it was "impossible" to increase the capacity
of a
DVD until technology allowed more data to be stored on different layers
of the same disc. Perhaps compression was the wrong term to use, what I
ment was some form of simultaneus data transfer like diferent "colour"
binary digits... Blue, Red, Green, 0s and 1s
sort of like combination between DVD layers and multiple frequencies
transmitted simultaneously....
/////

NO! NO! a thousand times NO!

The bandwidth of any communication channel - whether formed by CAT5, 6
or fiberoptic or radio waves or plain audio or whatever - is a
physical limit of that channel (often expressed in MHz). No amount of
jiggery pokery with the electronics, compression algorithm maths,
frequency mixing, or any other deceptively clever compression scams,
can increase the maximum physical bandwidth.

The information capacity of fibre or radio is a function of the
frequency used. So, what is it that limits cat5 or cat6 then?


maximum voltage before the insulation breaks down and maximum distance
before the tail end signal is swamped by the return transmitter...which
is a function of the attenuation at the frequency of interest.

And of course, the chips driving it.

No sure where GaAs gives out but maybe 300GHz?

That means wire probably won't ever do more than 10 terabits/s.

At that sort of frequencies anyway, you are better off using a waveguide
than wire, and once you do that, you find that fibre and light is
probably cheaper.





That should be fibreoptic, BTW.

On Tue, 16 Nov 2010 20:10:51 -0000, dennis@home wrote:

I can happily stream Full-blown HDTV from PC to Xbox-360 while
only
using a snippet of bandwidth. My other guess is that digital
media
will speed up through improved compression techniques and
technology
requiring LESS bandwidth than is currently needed. Certainly in a
domestic capacity at least.

I doubt that, the current compression technology chucks stuff away and
degrades the image.

I doubt it as well as "Full-blown HDTV" runs at 1Gbps. Blue-ray
runs at 40Mbps, hardly "a snippet of bandwidth" on a 100Mbps LAN. I
guess the post might have Gigabit LAN but that requires kit either
end of the link that can handle data at that rate. The link may well
be running at 1Gbps but if the kit working flat out can only manage
200Mbps...

Just because broadcast "HD" telly uses 10Mbps doesn't mean it's any
good. It is noticeably degraded by the compression.

As for Cat5e v Cat6 as other have said put it in such that it can be
used to pull something "better" in at a later date. Cables don't pull
round bends very well so have access at any bends. Is Cat6 that much
more than Cat5e? The majority of the cost in putting cables in is the
labour and access not the bit of PVC and copper.

--
Cheers
Dave.

On Tue, 16 Nov 2010 17:50:39 +0000, The Natural Philosopher
wrote:

Sunny Bard wrote:
David Robinson wrote:

I don't think any network cabling you could have conceived of
in 1990 would be in any way relevant today.

Actually, 10Mb Ethernet over cat3 cable was introduced in 1990 and the
standard for cat5 cable was published in 1991 which will still work
today with 10Mb, 100Mb or 1Gb Ethernet, and I can't see much pressure
for 10Gb or 40Gb Ethernet in most businesses yet, let alone houses.


well I need 100GBps in my house RIGHT NOW

so if you have a spare 100GBps switch...

100GB/s??? Even if you mean 100Gb/s that's extremely fast and I'll
bet all the kit is /very/ expensive. I didn't think you could even
buy such hardware yet.
--
(\__/) M.
(='.'=) Due to the amount of spam posted via googlegroups and
(")_(") their inaction to the problem. I am blocking some articles
posted from there. If you wish your postings to be seen by
everyone you will need use a different method of posting.

On Tue, 16 Nov 2010 18:04:27 +0000, "www.GymRatZ.co.uk"
wrote:

On 16/11/2010 12:28, RoundSquare wrote:
I'm about to change the dining room floor and while at it thought I would
run some Cat5e to where the TV / PS3 lives back to the router / slave PC in
the hall cupboard.
Is there any advantage on using Cat6?
The rest of the house has been done in Cat5.
I'd hate to do it then find I really need Cat6 in a year or so.

Firstly I would suggest fibre more a realistic scenario than wire if
you're looking at the next 5+ years of "future-proofing", especially
when FTH becomes a reality.
And.... with so many millions of miles of Cat5e throught the worlds
offices I shouldn't wonder if technology will allow further mutations of
what speeds and frequencies can be passed along plain old twisted wires
at the same time to upgrade capacity without upgrading network, in the
same way telephone wires have had an almost never ending lease of life
through the decades. I remember when 14.4kbps from my US Robotic modem
was considered the highest speed posible.

I remember acoustic couplers.

I can happily stream Full-blown HDTV from PC to Xbox-360 while only
using a snippet of bandwidth.
My other guess is that digital media will speed up through improved
compression techniques and technology requiring LESS bandwidth than is
currently needed. Certainly in a domestic capacity at least.

I doubt it. The manufacturers need to keep selling you more **** so
they will make sure that you need more and more bandwidth so that you
must upgrade to their latest technology.

Hover all that's pretty pointless worrying about as there is no life
beyond December 2012 anyway so worry about the now and don't waste time
worrying about the what-if?s

Is this the new date for the "end of the world" (tm)?
--
(\__/) M.
(='.'=) Due to the amount of spam posted via googlegroups and
(")_(") their inaction to the problem. I am blocking some articles
posted from there. If you wish your postings to be seen by
everyone you will need use a different method of posting.

On Nov 17, 8:02*am, "Dave Liquorice"
wrote:
On Tue, 16 Nov 2010 20:10:51 -0000, dennis@home wrote:
I can happily stream Full-blown HDTV from PC to Xbox-360 while
only
*using a snippet of bandwidth. My other guess is that digital
media
will speed up through improved compression techniques and
technology
requiring LESS bandwidth than is currently needed. Certainly in a
domestic capacity at least.

I doubt that, the current compression technology chucks stuff away and
degrades the image.

I doubt it as well as "Full-blown HDTV" runs at 1Gbps. Blue-ray
runs at 40Mbps, hardly "a snippet of bandwidth" on a 100Mbps LAN. I
guess the post might have Gigabit LAN but that requires kit either
end of the link that can handle data at that rate. The link may well
be running at 1Gbps but if the kit working flat out can only manage
200Mbps...

Just because broadcast "HD" telly uses 10Mbps doesn't mean it's any
good. It is noticeably degraded by the compression.

As for Cat5e v Cat6 as other have said put it in such that it can be
used to pull something "better" in at a later date. Cables don't pull
round bends very well so have access at any bends. Is Cat6 that much
more than Cat5e? The majority of the cost in putting cables in is the
labour and access not the bit of PVC and copper.

Yes... but bury your cat5 /outside/ the conduit, as explained he
http://wiki.diyfaq.org.uk/index.php?...Wiring#Conduit


NT

Mark wrote:
On Tue, 16 Nov 2010 18:04:27 +0000, "www.GymRatZ.co.uk"
wrote:

On 16/11/2010 12:28, RoundSquare wrote:
I'm about to change the dining room floor and while at it thought I would
run some Cat5e to where the TV / PS3 lives back to the router / slave PC in
the hall cupboard.
Is there any advantage on using Cat6?
The rest of the house has been done in Cat5.
I'd hate to do it then find I really need Cat6 in a year or so.
Firstly I would suggest fibre more a realistic scenario than wire if
you're looking at the next 5+ years of "future-proofing", especially
when FTH becomes a reality.
And.... with so many millions of miles of Cat5e throught the worlds
offices I shouldn't wonder if technology will allow further mutations of
what speeds and frequencies can be passed along plain old twisted wires
at the same time to upgrade capacity without upgrading network, in the
same way telephone wires have had an almost never ending lease of life
through the decades. I remember when 14.4kbps from my US Robotic modem
was considered the highest speed posible.

I remember acoustic couplers.


I note that a telephone channel is a raw 64k bit rate, ergo no modem
could ever achieve more than that. Period.

I can happily stream Full-blown HDTV from PC to Xbox-360 while only
using a snippet of bandwidth.
My other guess is that digital media will speed up through improved
compression techniques and technology requiring LESS bandwidth than is
currently needed. Certainly in a domestic capacity at least.

I doubt it. The manufacturers need to keep selling you more **** so
they will make sure that you need more and more bandwidth so that you
must upgrade to their latest technology.


Oh, indeed.

Hover all that's pretty pointless worrying about as there is no life
beyond December 2012 anyway so worry about the now and don't waste time
worrying about the what-if?s

Is this the new date for the "end of the world" (tm)?

..I think its the Maya one.

Mark wrote:
On Tue, 16 Nov 2010 17:50:39 +0000, The Natural Philosopher
wrote:

Sunny Bard wrote:
David Robinson wrote:

I don't think any network cabling you could have conceived of
in 1990 would be in any way relevant today.
Actually, 10Mb Ethernet over cat3 cable was introduced in 1990 and the
standard for cat5 cable was published in 1991 which will still work
today with 10Mb, 100Mb or 1Gb Ethernet, and I can't see much pressure
for 10Gb or 40Gb Ethernet in most businesses yet, let alone houses.

well I need 100GBps in my house RIGHT NOW

so if you have a spare 100GBps switch...

100GB/s??? Even if you mean 100Gb/s that's extremely fast and I'll
bet all the kit is /very/ expensive. I didn't think you could even
buy such hardware yet.

Sorry. 1 Gbps ;-)
Brain turned to porridge again.

Thanks guys for the interesting debates.
However after reading this article about the pitfalls of Cat6 I'm not sure I
even want to attempt it now.

http://www.automatedhome.co.uk/Insta...6-Cabling.html

On 2010-11-18 22:54:34 +0000, RoundSquare said:

Thanks guys for the interesting debates.
However after reading this article about the pitfalls of Cat6 I'm not
sure I even want to attempt it now.

http://www.automatedhome.co.uk/Insta...6-Cabling.html

Thanks

for the link - I had read it before and was the reason I made the
conclusion I did (it's a bit more of a faff, but I couldn't find it
again this time!

However, I don't think this is necessarily a good reason _not_ to
install Cat 6. If you make mistakes in cabling Cat 6 the worst that's
going to happen is you wasted the difference in price by having nothing
better than Cat5e, unless you end up doing something that would also
have ruined cat5e!

Piers

In article ,
Tim Watts writes:
On 16/11/10 17:40, Sunny Bard wrote:
David Robinson wrote:

I don't think any network cabling you could have conceived of
in 1990 would be in any way relevant today.

Actually, 10Mb Ethernet over cat3 cable was introduced in 1990 and the
standard for cat5 cable was published in 1991 which will still work
today with 10Mb, 100Mb or 1Gb Ethernet, and I can't see much pressure
for 10Gb or 40Gb Ethernet in most businesses yet, let alone houses.

I can - I can usefully utilise 50% of a gig link pushing media files
around (that's copying not streaming) *whilst* doing other stuff. My
802.11g WiFi can stream VCD quality media video at the expense of other
activity.

I just about saturate my gig ethernet when doing backups.
That is also about the limit of sustained disk throughput on
the fileserver, so increasing network bandwidth would make no
difference.

My networking is all Cat5e, installed about 10 years ago,
but was only run at 10/100Mb at that time. Bumped up to 1Gb
around 4 years ago.

--
Andrew Gabriel
[email address is not usable -- followup in the newsgroup]

On 19/11/10 18:27, Andrew Gabriel wrote:
In ,
Tim writes:
On 16/11/10 17:40, Sunny Bard wrote:
David Robinson wrote:

I don't think any network cabling you could have conceived of
in 1990 would be in any way relevant today.

Actually, 10Mb Ethernet over cat3 cable was introduced in 1990 and the
standard for cat5 cable was published in 1991 which will still work
today with 10Mb, 100Mb or 1Gb Ethernet, and I can't see much pressure
for 10Gb or 40Gb Ethernet in most businesses yet, let alone houses.

I can - I can usefully utilise 50% of a gig link pushing media files
around (that's copying not streaming) *whilst* doing other stuff. My
802.11g WiFi can stream VCD quality media video at the expense of other
activity.

I just about saturate my gig ethernet when doing backups.
That is also about the limit of sustained disk throughput on
the fileserver, so increasing network bandwidth would make no
difference.

My networking is all Cat5e, installed about 10 years ago,
but was only run at 10/100Mb at that time. Bumped up to 1Gb
around 4 years ago.


Exactly Andrew - you deployed at 100 and planned for 1000 and in 6 years
upgraded to a gig.

My point was that if folks are usefully or very nearly usefully
consuming a gig *now* it is a safe assumption (based on previous trends)
that 1 gigbit/sec is going to seem lame in a few years time. Whether
that is 3 years, 5 years or 10 years isn't clear and will depend very
much on a person's habits but, although Cat6a is a bit harder to work
with, it would be a wise consideration for anyone doing an install for
the next decade's use

--
Tim Watts

On Tue, 16 Nov 2010 09:13:07 -0800 (PST), David Robinson
wrote:

I wonder if Cat6 might be even more versatile in the exotic non-IP-
related uses of Cat5? e.g.
http://www.nexxia.co.uk/products.asp...rs&category =
=3DCAT5%20AV%20Baluns
(link is only an example - you can make this stuff yourself quite
cheaply)

Can you tell us more?

I was thinking about installing some cat? to send AV over. I figure it
would be easier to drop cat down oval conduit and attach a balun on
the end, whereas s-video, hdmi, and scart would be too thick to drop
down conduit and a nightmare to solder the plugs back on!

Where's good place to buy cat? cable from in smaller quantities. I'm
not sure I really need hundreds of metres yet.

Is there any advantage using stp?

On Nov 16, 11:12*pm, jim wrote:
The bandwidth of any communication channel - whether formed by CAT5, 6
or fiberoptic or radio waves or plain audio or whatever - is a
physical limit of that channel (often expressed in MHz). *No amount of
jiggery pokery with the electronics, compression algorithm maths,
frequency mixing, or any other deceptively clever compression scams,
can increase the maximum physical bandwidth.

ISTM you are confusing *bit rate* with *symbol rate*. Yes, the
bandwidth of the system is finite and that constrains the symbol rate,
but it does not place a theoretical limit on the information-carrying
capacity (bit rate). Consider DTT transmissions, in which you can
increase the bit-rate by a factor of 1.5 by changing from 16-QAM (4
bits-per-symbol) to 64-QAM (6 bits-per-symbol) modulation, without
increasing the bandwidth at all.

The price you pay in using these higher-order modulation schemes is
sensitivity to noise. 64-QAM modulation will fail at a lower level of
added noise than 16-QAM will. But suggesting that the finite
bandwidth of the channel places an upper limit of the information-
carrying capacity of that channel (without saying anything about
noise) is plain wrong.

Richard.
http://www.rtrussell.co.uk/