Looking at the DIY wiki & some other stuff on the WWW, I see that Cat
6 wiring has its pitfalls, & that "cat5e is the current general
recommendation for home use in 2010".

Is that still the case?

http://wiki.diyfaq.org.uk/index.php?...Network_wiring

Thanks.

On 08/04/15 21:05, Adam Funk wrote:
Looking at the DIY wiki & some other stuff on the WWW, I see that Cat
6 wiring has its pitfalls, & that "cat5e is the current general
recommendation for home use in 2010".

Is that still the case?

http://wiki.diyfaq.org.uk/index.php?...Network_wiring

Thanks.


Choose your Cat6 carefully:

Cat6 will do 10gig at upto around 30-50ish metres depending on which
article you believe.

Cat6a will do 10gig at 100m.


Both are likely *******s to install compared to Cat5e as they are very
stiff (by design). 6a has lots of foil shielding too - not sure how much
harder that makes it to terminate - not tried yet. But if your house
will involve sub 30m runs, Cat6 will probably be good enough with no loss.

So you can be bothered with a more difficult install, Cat6/6a may well
pay off in (guessing) 5-10 years.

The world's gone digital media. The media are getting fatter every year.

There was a time people in offices were grateful for a shared 10Mbit/s
bus (10base2). Now my mobile phone gets more bandwidth from the Internet
over 4G and by tomorrow (hopefully when Mr BT man comes) my DSL will be
near to using most of a hypothetical 100baseT link, at least downwards
(I'm all gig in the house).

So future-resistance is a good plan, but tempered with not making things
unreasonable hard and/or expensive.


Just my 2p's worth

On Wednesday, 8 April 2015 21:15:06 UTC+1, Adam Funk wrote:
Looking at the DIY wiki & some other stuff on the WWW, I see that Cat
6 wiring has its pitfalls, & that "cat5e is the current general
recommendation for home use in 2010".

Is that still the case?

I think so. Cat 6 is significantly more difficult to install to specification with very strict rules on bending radius, proximity to mains cables, etc. and really needs to be in purpose designed trunking.

I'm installing Cat5e (rather badly in some cases) and hoping it'll last as long as I need it to.

Owain

On Wed, 08 Apr 2015 21:35:05 +0100, Tim Watts wrote:

So you can be bothered with a more difficult install, Cat6/6a may well
pay off in (guessing) 5-10 years.

The world's gone digital media. The media are getting fatter every year.

But not 10 Gig fat. B-)

Blueray as it come off the disc is only 40 Mbps. DSAT HD streams are
about 10 Mbps. 4k (2160 x 3840 pixels, HD is 1080 x 1920) capable is
starting to be the default for new Outside Broadcast trucks. 4k may
be routinely available to the public within ten years but even though
the raw bit rates are high 3 or 4 Gbps that doesn't get out of the
truck/studio at that rate, (lossy) compression is
used.

http://blog.streamingmedia.com/2015/...dwidth-problem.
html

Looks like Netflix 4k streams are a mere 15.6 Mbps, but 30+ Mbps is a
more realistic requirement for high quality 4k, with todays
compression technology. So yer bog standard 100 Mbps LAN will be
fine, though I'd still aim for Gigabit which is fine over Cat5e.

So future-resistance is a good plan, but tempered with not making things
unreasonable hard and/or expensive.

Gigabit LAN should ample, provided the switches and kit can actually
handle sustained gigabit speeds across multiple if not all ports.

And even if the LAN can handle it, you ain't likely to have a gigbit
feed that can also be filled. VDSL is capped at 76 Mbps for
technical, non-interfrence reasons, not that it can go much faster
anyway. FTTPoD is 330 Mbps, if BT ever sort that out, and customers
don't have need for their arms and legs.

--
Cheers
Dave.

On 08/04/2015 21:05, Adam Funk wrote:
Looking at the DIY wiki & some other stuff on the WWW, I see that Cat
6 wiring has its pitfalls, & that "cat5e is the current general
recommendation for home use in 2010".

Is that still the case?

CAT5e will run gigabit just fine - which is ok for hi-def streaming etc.
You can also run HD video over a pair of CAT5Es with appropriate baluns,
but distance is limited. CAT6e will let you go further for video apps
(but that may be a moot point in a home).

If you want some future proofing you may be better of laying in loads of
CAT5e and adding some (unlit) fibre for future expansion.


--
Cheers,

John.

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

On 08/04/15 22:26, Dave Liquorice wrote:
On Wed, 08 Apr 2015 21:35:05 +0100, Tim Watts wrote:

So you can be bothered with a more difficult install, Cat6/6a may well
pay off in (guessing) 5-10 years.

The world's gone digital media. The media are getting fatter every year.

But not 10 Gig fat. B-)

Yet. It is possible to get gig (flat out, not just burst speed) to the
home in some places, for a very reasonable £8582.76 per month *cough*.

Point being, what used to cost a bloody fortune, half the country's now
got. Soon enough a non trivial number of people are going to get gig.

And it won't stop there.

"64kB is enough for anyone" etc...

Blueray as it come off the disc is only 40 Mbps. DSAT HD streams are
about 10 Mbps. 4k (2160 x 3840 pixels, HD is 1080 x 1920) capable is
starting to be the default for new Outside Broadcast trucks. 4k may
be routinely available to the public within ten years but even though
the raw bit rates are high 3 or 4 Gbps that doesn't get out of the
truck/studio at that rate, (lossy) compression is
used.

http://blog.streamingmedia.com/2015/...dwidth-problem.
html

Looks like Netflix 4k streams are a mere 15.6 Mbps, but 30+ Mbps is a
more realistic requirement for high quality 4k, with todays
compression technology. So yer bog standard 100 Mbps LAN will be
fine, though I'd still aim for Gigabit which is fine over Cat5e.

So future-resistance is a good plan, but tempered with not making things
unreasonable hard and/or expensive.

Gigabit LAN should ample, provided the switches and kit can actually
handle sustained gigabit speeds across multiple if not all ports.

I don't disagree now and indeed for afair few years.

But if you are going to the bother of lifting floorboards, etc, the
amount of extra effort and dosh in putting in the next level may pale
into insignificance.

And even if the LAN can handle it, you ain't likely to have a gigbit
feed that can also be filled. VDSL is capped at 76 Mbps for
technical, non-interfrence reasons, not that it can go much faster
anyway. FTTPoD is 330 Mbps, if BT ever sort that out, and customers
don't have need for their arms and legs.

On 08/04/15 22:32, John Rumm wrote:
On 08/04/2015 21:05, Adam Funk wrote:
Looking at the DIY wiki & some other stuff on the WWW, I see that Cat
6 wiring has its pitfalls, & that "cat5e is the current general
recommendation for home use in 2010".

Is that still the case?

CAT5e will run gigabit just fine - which is ok for hi-def streaming etc.
You can also run HD video over a pair of CAT5Es with appropriate baluns,
but distance is limited. CAT6e will let you go further for video apps
(but that may be a moot point in a home).

If you want some future proofing you may be better of laying in loads of
CAT5e and adding some (unlit) fibre for future expansion.



The fibre is a good idea.

And whilst fibre testers are very expensive, you can, from personal
experience, get a very good idea of whether you damaged it or not during
installation but having someone point a torche down one and and look at
the other end. Certainly if you don#t see two equally bright ends, you
may have broken it. Leave a full loop in the box each end as you always
need to cut back to good clean cores when terminating later.

On Wed, 08 Apr 2015 22:32:26 +0100, John Rumm wrote:

If you want some future proofing you may be better of laying in loads of
CAT5e ...

That's what I did in the refurb. Each room has two Cat5 sockets &
Coax with double mains in diagonally oposite corners across the
corner that has the door. Mains also either side of any window or
door and no more than about 10' between mains sockets.

... and adding some (unlit) fibre for future expansion.

Didn't go for that but it might not have been a bad idea between the
central termination point fo all the Cat5/Coax and the "media center"
position. That has 6 Cat5 and 6 Coax, a four core fibre cable, media
convertors and small switch could do the lot.

--
Cheers
Dave.

On Wed, 08 Apr 2015 22:51:52 +0100, Tim Watts wrote:

Gigabit LAN should ample, provided the switches and kit can
actually
handle sustained gigabit speeds across multiple if not all ports.

I don't disagree now and indeed for afair few years.

But if you are going to the bother of lifting floorboards, etc, the
amount of extra effort and dosh in putting in the next level may pale
into insignificance.

Agreed, the cost of the physical installation work far out weighs the
cost of the cable/fibre. Don't know how much media convertors are
these days but bunging fibre in (single or multimode?) may well be a
very viable future proof solution.

BT are installing a brand new 96 fibre spine from Hexham to Alston to
support the FTTC service. It's 40 km. No new digging it's a conduit
to carry the blown fibre being shoved through existing ducts,
blockages permitting... At a *very* conserveative £10/m that's
£400,000, if they were digging and laying new ducting it would be
nearer £100/m = £4,000,000 ouch! The truth will be somewhere between
but I wouldn't be surprised at £1,000,000 (£25/m).

The 96 fibre cable costs about 75p/m or £30,000 for the 40 km run.

--
Cheers
Dave.

On Wed, 08 Apr 2015 22:54:24 +0100, Tim Watts wrote:

... adding some (unlit) fibre for future expansion.

Terminating fibre can be tricky but Corning (I think) has a neat
little termination system that is a doddle to use. No cleeveing,
polishing, staring through microscope, heat. Simply expose the fibre
and it's cladding, cut (cutter built into jointing gadget), insert
the connector, place fibre into guides, close gadget, I forget the
next operation but the whole process including cabe prep etc takes
less than 10 mins and you end up with a standard fibre connector
properly attached to the fibre.

Snag is the connectors are around £15.00 each and the gadget a couple
of hundred. They also do fibre "dropwires" that have a weatherproof
connector that simply plugs into a vacant socket on a fibre breakout
box in a hole or up a pole. The system is designed for installing PON
or GPON into peoples homes.

--
Cheers
Dave.

Dave Liquorice wrote:
Gigabit LAN should ample, provided the switches and kit can actually
handle sustained gigabit speeds across multiple if not all ports.

It really depends what you're doing. SSDs are hitting 1Gbyte/s these days,
and if you want to throw around big files then 10Gbit comes in handy. I'm
throwing about 100s GByte disc images and the port bandwidth ends up being
the bottleneck. Even a single HDD can saturate a 1Gbit port.

That's not an internet connection, but if you're doing remote storage then it
can come in handy. It does depend on 10Gbps switches, which aren't really
there yet for sensible prices, but they'll come. There is also 802.11ac
wifi which can do up to 6.77Gbps so it's not hard to see the bandwidth being
used.

So I might consider cat6 for internal wiring and maybe fibre for anything
outside (where getting copper wet is going to be a problem). But I might
choose cat 5e if cat 6 was too difficult. It appears cat5e is good for
2.5Gbps (when the standard gets finished) which might be a useful interim
- if nothing else, it'll burn less power than 10Gbps.

And even if the LAN can handle it, you ain't likely to have a gigbit
feed that can also be filled. VDSL is capped at 76 Mbps for
technical, non-interfrence reasons, not that it can go much faster
anyway. FTTPoD is 330 Mbps, if BT ever sort that out, and customers
don't have need for their arms and legs.

Comcast in the US are offering 2Gbps connections, Google Fiber 1Gbps
(subject to the messed up US broadband market). It'll come here, though
probably in only a few locations.

Theo

On 09/04/15 00:04, Theo Markettos wrote:
Dave Liquorice wrote:
Gigabit LAN should ample, provided the switches and kit can actually
handle sustained gigabit speeds across multiple if not all ports.

It really depends what you're doing. SSDs are hitting 1Gbyte/s these days,
and if you want to throw around big files then 10Gbit comes in handy. I'm
throwing about 100s GByte disc images and the port bandwidth ends up being
the bottleneck. Even a single HDD can saturate a 1Gbit port.

That's not an internet connection, but if you're doing remote storage then it
can come in handy. It does depend on 10Gbps switches, which aren't really
there yet for sensible prices, but they'll come. There is also 802.11ac
wifi which can do up to 6.77Gbps so it's not hard to see the bandwidth being
used.

You've just got to look at 802.11b vs n

The former was so damn slow it was painful at the time. "n" on the other
hand is quite impressive - 84 Mbit/sec with iperf just now.

I've love to try ac when I have devices that can speak it...

On Wednesday, 8 April 2015 22:51:57 UTC+1, Tim Watts wrote:
Yet. It is possible to get gig (flat out, not just burst speed) to the
home in some places, for a very reasonable £8582.76 per month *cough*.

Hyperoptic 1 GB is £50 a month, if you're in one of the comparatively few blocks of flats they cover.

Owain

In article , Tim Watts
writes

The fibre is a good idea.

And whilst fibre testers are very expensive, you can, from personal
experience, get a very good idea of whether you damaged it or not during
installation but having someone point a torche down one and and look at
the other end. Certainly if you don#t see two equally bright ends, you
may have broken it. Leave a full loop in the box each end as you always
need to cut back to good clean cores when terminating later.

Might be an idea to suggest eclipse viewing precautions for these kinds
of operations, prob not best to encourage looking down fibres.

--
fred
it's a ba-na-na . . . .

On 2015-04-08, John Rumm wrote:

On 08/04/2015 21:05, Adam Funk wrote:
Looking at the DIY wiki & some other stuff on the WWW, I see that Cat
6 wiring has its pitfalls, & that "cat5e is the current general
recommendation for home use in 2010".

Is that still the case?

CAT5e will run gigabit just fine - which is ok for hi-def streaming etc.
You can also run HD video over a pair of CAT5Es with appropriate baluns,
but distance is limited. CAT6e will let you go further for video apps
(but that may be a moot point in a home).

If you want some future proofing you may be better of laying in loads of
CAT5e and adding some (unlit) fibre for future expansion.

Thanks. Based on this (& others' similar points) I'll just get some
5e. I'm not actually laying in loads of anything, just connecting the
router cupboard to the study after rearranging stuff in the house.
The wi-fi works well enough for everything else.

On 09/04/15 11:39, fred wrote:
In article , Tim Watts
writes

The fibre is a good idea.

And whilst fibre testers are very expensive, you can, from personal
experience, get a very good idea of whether you damaged it or not during
installation but having someone point a torche down one and and look at
the other end. Certainly if you don#t see two equally bright ends, you
may have broken it. Leave a full loop in the box each end as you always
need to cut back to good clean cores when terminating later.

Might be an idea to suggest eclipse viewing precautions for these kinds
of operations, prob not best to encourage looking down fibres.


If you have one fibre and you know what's at the other end, where's the
problem?

I agree, in a datacentre it's silly to look down fibres that might be
being fed by a moderately powerful IR laser, but the OP is not in a
datacentre so I think he's safe...

On 08/04/15 21:35, Tim Watts wrote:

Off-Thread,

and by tomorrow (hopefully when Mr BT man comes) my DSL will be
near to using most of a hypothetical 100baseT link, at least downwards
(I'm all gig in the house).

http://www.speedtest.net/result/4276726923.png

But...

Boooyahh!

One more thing, sir [Columbo voice]

Am I right in thinking that the "IDC insertion tool" for RJ45 sockets
is the same as the one for phone sockets?

Gigabit LAN should ample, provided the switches and kit can actually
handle sustained gigabit speeds across multiple if not all ports.

And even if the LAN can handle it, you ain't likely to have a gigbit
feed that can also be filled. VDSL is capped at 76 Mbps for
technical, non-interfrence reasons, not that it can go much faster
anyway. FTTPoD is 330 Mbps, if BT ever sort that out, and customers
don't have need for their arms and legs.


FWIW we have a VM 100 meg service and it reports that speed of the VM
modem, however after the router, a decent draytek unit and a bit of LAN
CAT 5 cable, decent stuff mind, its already sagging down to 80 meg or
so..

In fact we didn't really notice that much difference between the 30 meg
and the 100 overall. It is better if you have a house full of users
tho...
--
Tony Sayer

In article , Theo Markettos
scribeth thus
Dave Liquorice wrote:
Gigabit LAN should ample, provided the switches and kit can actually
handle sustained gigabit speeds across multiple if not all ports.

It really depends what you're doing. SSDs are hitting 1Gbyte/s these days,
and if you want to throw around big files then 10Gbit comes in handy. I'm
throwing about 100s GByte disc images and the port bandwidth ends up being
the bottleneck. Even a single HDD can saturate a 1Gbit port.

That's not an internet connection, but if you're doing remote storage then it
can come in handy. It does depend on 10Gbps switches, which aren't really
there yet for sensible prices, but they'll come. There is also 802.11ac
wifi which can do up to 6.77Gbps so it's not hard to see the bandwidth being
used.

So I might consider cat6 for internal wiring and maybe fibre for anything
outside (where getting copper wet is going to be a problem). But I might
choose cat 5e if cat 6 was too difficult. It appears cat5e is good for
2.5Gbps (when the standard gets finished) which might be a useful interim
- if nothing else, it'll burn less power than 10Gbps.

And even if the LAN can handle it, you ain't likely to have a gigbit
feed that can also be filled. VDSL is capped at 76 Mbps for
technical, non-interfrence reasons, not that it can go much faster
anyway. FTTPoD is 330 Mbps, if BT ever sort that out, and customers
don't have need for their arms and legs.



Comcast in the US are offering 2Gbps connections, Google Fiber 1Gbps
(subject to the messed up US broadband market). It'll come here, though
probably in only a few locations.

Theo

And we're looking at a two hop microwave link to get hopefully 2 or 3
meg out to someone who isn't that far away from known civilisation in
Cambridgeshire, who is almost wetting themselves at the prospect of some
broadband!..

--
Tony Sayer

On Thu, 09 Apr 2015 10:41:12 +0100, Tim Streater wrote:

Agreed, the cost of the physical installation work far out weighs
the
cost of the cable/fibre. Don't know how much media convertors are
these days but bunging fibre in (single or multimode?) may well be
a
very viable future proof solution.

If it's going any sort of distance it'll be single-mode.

I was really thinking of around the home rather between towns/cities.

Don't know a great deal about fibre but can see why multi-mode
doesn't get very far at decent speeds.

I hope to catch the engineers as they blow the stuff in and maybe
find out if that 40 km run from each cabinet is straight back to
Hexham or if there are some repeators somewhere. The current fibre
connections carrying ADSL POTS traffic I think is straight back as we
have had issues on ADSL with border line light levels causing packet
loss and the engineer went straight to Hexham to check levels there,
not some intermediate point.

--
Cheers
Dave.

On 09/04/15 14:14, Huge wrote:
On 2015-04-09, Tim Watts wrote:
On 08/04/15 21:35, Tim Watts wrote:

Off-Thread,

and by tomorrow (hopefully when Mr BT man comes) my DSL will be
near to using most of a hypothetical 100baseT link, at least downwards
(I'm all gig in the house).

http://www.speedtest.net/result/4276726923.png

I hate you. Lots.


That's OK - I hate me too :-|

On 09/04/15 14:19, Adam Funk wrote:
One more thing, sir [Columbo voice]

Am I right in thinking that the "IDC insertion tool" for RJ45 sockets
is the same as the one for phone sockets?


More or less - but it's best to use a decent version for RJ54 where it
matters and not some bit of plastic crap (though I have used a crappy
plastic tool and got away with it).

Nice tools have a tiny set of scissor blades on the end, offset, and
trim the wire off after punching it down.

On 09 Apr 2015 00:04:40 +0100 (BST), Theo Markettos wrote:

I'm throwing about 100s GByte disc images and the port bandwidth ends up
being the bottleneck. Even a single HDD can saturate a 1Gbit port.

I don't think many home users are doing that on a regular enough
basis to justify anything above gigabit, which is not that much more
expensive than 100 Mbps.

There is also 802.11ac wifi which can do up to 6.77Gbps so it's not hard
to see the bandwidth being used.

For shifting gert lumps of data maybe but not for streaming even
multiple 4k streams at a mere 30 Mbps each.

Comcast in the US are offering 2Gbps connections, Google Fiber 1Gbps
(subject to the messed up US broadband market). It'll come here, though
probably in only a few locations.

And they might be odd locations depending on where the fibre spines
run.
We are well out of range for VDSL and remote and high on the North
Pennies, it's not called "Englands Last Wilderness" for nothing.

But the fibre spine feeding the FTTC in the village runs under our
forcourt, 10' from the front door and there is a chamber with it in
20 yds up the road. Of course there will be no slack in the fibre in
that chamber to break out a couple of fibres for us. But there might
be a fibre node/aggregation point in a hole 200 m further up and they
could put a FTTrN in that hole.

Possibly fine for us and farms not to far from the road but those the
otherside of valley won't be getting anything more than the current
ADSL2 (note 2 not 2+) and that struggles to deliver the 2 Mbps
"universal service" requirement.

--
Cheers
Dave.

On Thu, 09 Apr 2015 01:23:42 +0100, Tim Watts wrote:

You've just got to look at 802.11b vs n

The former was so damn slow it was painful at the time. "n" on the other
hand is quite impressive - 84 Mbit/sec with iperf just now.

I've just gone from b to n with a TP-Link WRN841N at £20 from Tesco
just used as an AP. The b would be under 1 M Bytes/sec to the phone
and be unstable (kept connecting/reconnecting, even when in the same
room). n to the same phone was up at nearly 4 M Bytes/sec both actual
throughput. Phone is a few years old and was connected at 54 Mbps so
it might not support the channel bonding required for the higher
speeds.

Well pleased for £20 though. B-)

--
Cheers
Dave.

On 2015-04-09, Tim Watts wrote:

On 09/04/15 14:19, Adam Funk wrote:
One more thing, sir [Columbo voice]

Am I right in thinking that the "IDC insertion tool" for RJ45 sockets
is the same as the one for phone sockets?


More or less - but it's best to use a decent version for RJ54 where it
matters and not some bit of plastic crap (though I have used a crappy
plastic tool and got away with it).

Nice tools have a tiny set of scissor blades on the end, offset, and
trim the wire off after punching it down.

Like this?

https://www.tlc-direct.co.uk/Products/GPT107.html

On Thursday, 9 April 2015 14:30:07 UTC+1, Adam Funk wrote:
Am I right in thinking that the "IDC insertion tool" for RJ45 sockets
is the same as the one for phone sockets?

Sometimes but not always.

UK and European data, and BT phone sockets, use a 'Krone' tool.

Americans use '110' tool.

Some punchdown blocks can work with either. Some tools come with both blades.

Owain

On Thursday, 9 April 2015 14:45:25 UTC+1, Tim Watts wrote:
Nice tools have a tiny set of scissor blades on the end, offset, and
trim the wire off after punching it down.

I always don't think they're so nice after I forget to reverse the tool to do the lower bank after doing the upper bank, and trim off the connection I want to keep.

Owain

On 09/04/15 15:04, Dave Liquorice wrote:
On Thu, 09 Apr 2015 01:23:42 +0100, Tim Watts wrote:

You've just got to look at 802.11b vs n

The former was so damn slow it was painful at the time. "n" on the other
hand is quite impressive - 84 Mbit/sec with iperf just now.

I've just gone from b to n with a TP-Link WRN841N at £20 from Tesco
just used as an AP. The b would be under 1 M Bytes/sec to the phone
and be unstable (kept connecting/reconnecting, even when in the same
room). n to the same phone was up at nearly 4 M Bytes/sec both actual
throughput. Phone is a few years old and was connected at 54 Mbps so
it might not support the channel bonding required for the higher
speeds.

Well pleased for £20 though. B-)


I've found the LAPAC1750 very good - I can get over 75Mbit/sec out of
that on either 2.4 or 5GHz. In fact I've ordered a 2nd to get proper
coverage and will replace my TPLink WA901N that seems to crap out at 40 odd.

On 09/04/15 15:36, Adam Funk wrote:
On 2015-04-09, Tim Watts wrote:

On 09/04/15 14:19, Adam Funk wrote:
One more thing, sir [Columbo voice]

Am I right in thinking that the "IDC insertion tool" for RJ45 sockets
is the same as the one for phone sockets?


More or less - but it's best to use a decent version for RJ54 where it
matters and not some bit of plastic crap (though I have used a crappy
plastic tool and got away with it).

Nice tools have a tiny set of scissor blades on the end, offset, and
trim the wire off after punching it down.

Like this?

https://www.tlc-direct.co.uk/Products/GPT107.html


Yes - those...

Actually the price is so reasonable it's a bargain - providing it's not
crap. I'd take a socket and cable into the branch and ask to try it.

On 09/04/15 16:26, wrote:
On Thursday, 9 April 2015 14:30:07 UTC+1, Adam Funk wrote:
Am I right in thinking that the "IDC insertion tool" for RJ45 sockets
is the same as the one for phone sockets?

Sometimes but not always.

UK and European data, and BT phone sockets, use a 'Krone' tool.

Americans use '110' tool.

110 has been used here too - but it's admittedly a little less common.


Some punchdown blocks can work with either. Some tools come with both blades.

Owain

On Thu, 09 Apr 2015 16:28:41 +0100, Tim Watts wrote:

Well pleased for £20 though. B-)

I've found the LAPAC1750 very good - ...

I should hope so at 5+ times more than the Tesco TP_link. B-)

I don't need to worry about a crowded 2.4 GHz band, nearest
neighbours are 1/2 a mile away and behind a hill. So 5 Ghz isn't a
requirement to get a bit of airtime.

--
Cheers
Dave.

On Thu, 09 Apr 2015 14:43:44 +0100, Tim Watts wrote:

http://www.speedtest.net

I hate you. Lots.

That's OK - I hate me too :-|

More than ten times what I have, I'd use the same site but it wants
javascript AND Flash... Maybe when I boot the window box.

--
Cheers
Dave.

On 09/04/15 17:11, Dave Liquorice wrote:
On Thu, 09 Apr 2015 16:28:41 +0100, Tim Watts wrote:

Well pleased for £20 though. B-)

I've found the LAPAC1750 very good - ...

I should hope so at 5+ times more than the Tesco TP_link. B-)

It has very good range too I live by Wifi (IPCams, moderate number of
pads and phones, Roku/Chromecast devices - I happy to pay double (I'd
normally pay £50-70 for a reasonable unit) for the solidness of this one.

But I might be selling my TP link in a couple of weeks, which is a
decent enough unit with some quite advanced features (multiple
VLANS/ESSIDS for one, local DHCP server) - it just can't haul above
about about 40Mbit/s.

It'll be going for practically nothing plus a bit of postage if anyone's
interested - let me know...

I don't need to worry about a crowded 2.4 GHz band, nearest
neighbours are 1/2 a mile away and behind a hill. So 5 Ghz isn't a
requirement to get a bit of airtime.


It's funny - one spot near here has a load of ESSIDS from different
people and half of them are on top of each other channel wise. Leaving a
nice clean gap just for me

I also notice people can't be arsed, or don't realise you can change the
ESSID to something fun. They're all SOMETHING-17827838 kind of names.

In article , Tim Watts
scribeth thus
On 09/04/15 15:04, Dave Liquorice wrote:
On Thu, 09 Apr 2015 01:23:42 +0100, Tim Watts wrote:

You've just got to look at 802.11b vs n

The former was so damn slow it was painful at the time. "n" on the other
hand is quite impressive - 84 Mbit/sec with iperf just now.

I've just gone from b to n with a TP-Link WRN841N at £20 from Tesco
just used as an AP. The b would be under 1 M Bytes/sec to the phone
and be unstable (kept connecting/reconnecting, even when in the same
room). n to the same phone was up at nearly 4 M Bytes/sec both actual
throughput. Phone is a few years old and was connected at 54 Mbps so
it might not support the channel bonding required for the higher
speeds.

Well pleased for £20 though. B-)


I've found the LAPAC1750 very good - I can get over 75Mbit/sec out of
that on either 2.4 or 5GHz. In fact I've ordered a 2nd to get proper
coverage and will replace my TPLink WA901N that seems to crap out at 40 odd.

Don't you live out in the sticks somewhere Tim?

The biggest problem with 2.4 Ghz wi-fi is now channel congestion which
of course affects speed!..
--
Tony Sayer

On 2015-04-09, Tim Watts wrote:

On 09/04/15 15:36, Adam Funk wrote:
On 2015-04-09, Tim Watts wrote:

On 09/04/15 14:19, Adam Funk wrote:
One more thing, sir [Columbo voice]

Am I right in thinking that the "IDC insertion tool" for RJ45 sockets
is the same as the one for phone sockets?


More or less - but it's best to use a decent version for RJ54 where it
matters and not some bit of plastic crap (though I have used a crappy
plastic tool and got away with it).

Nice tools have a tiny set of scissor blades on the end, offset, and
trim the wire off after punching it down.

Like this?

https://www.tlc-direct.co.uk/Products/GPT107.html


Yes - those...

Actually the price is so reasonable it's a bargain - providing it's not
crap. I'd take a socket and cable into the branch and ask to try it.

I've already ordered it & will report back later.

On 09/04/15 19:01, tony sayer wrote:
In article , Tim Watts

I've found the LAPAC1750 very good - I can get over 75Mbit/sec out of
that on either 2.4 or 5GHz. In fact I've ordered a 2nd to get proper
coverage and will replace my TPLink WA901N that seems to crap out at 40 odd.

Don't you live out in the sticks somewhere Tim?

The biggest problem with 2.4 Ghz wi-fi is now channel congestion which
of course affects speed!..


Even in the sticks most folk have some internet offering that comes with
a wifi router by default. That's why I've been playing with 5GHz a bit.
Very very poor penetration, 2-3 stud walls and it's gone, but almost
noone else is using the spectrum, so where you can get it through the
open it has an advantage.

On 10/04/2015 01:35, Tim Watts wrote:

Even in the sticks most folk have some internet offering that comes with
a wifi router by default. That's why I've been playing with 5GHz a bit.
Very very poor penetration, 2-3 stud walls and it's gone, but almost
noone else is using the spectrum, so where you can get it through the
open it has an advantage.

I use 5GHz.
It did have trouble getting through four brick/block walls so I put a
second access point in the garden to cover that and the conservatory.
Some builders use(d) foil backed plasterboard on internal walls and that
kills wifi in the next room.

In article , Tim Watts
scribeth thus
On 09/04/15 19:01, tony sayer wrote:
In article , Tim Watts

I've found the LAPAC1750 very good - I can get over 75Mbit/sec out of
that on either 2.4 or 5GHz. In fact I've ordered a 2nd to get proper
coverage and will replace my TPLink WA901N that seems to crap out at 40 odd.

Don't you live out in the sticks somewhere Tim?

The biggest problem with 2.4 Ghz wi-fi is now channel congestion which
of course affects speed!..


Even in the sticks most folk have some internet offering that comes with
a wifi router by default. That's why I've been playing with 5GHz a bit.
Very very poor penetration, 2-3 stud walls and it's gone, but almost
noone else is using the spectrum, so where you can get it through the
open it has an advantage.

Yep thats 5.8 Ghz. Ofcom did some research it's on their Web****e
somewhere but thats one thing that frequency range isn't too good at.

Its fine for such as long distance outdoor links but 2.4 G unless its
heavily congested is better for indoor use...

Just a pity there wasn't a bit more spectrum allocated to it but IIRC
they were constrained by what was above and below, but back in the days
when the so called "ISM" band was set up no one could have foresaw the
explosion in the Internet of things..


* (ISM) Industrial Scientific Medical, to save you looking it up....
--
Tony Sayer

In article . com,
Dennis@home scribeth thus
On 10/04/2015 01:35, Tim Watts wrote:

Even in the sticks most folk have some internet offering that comes with
a wifi router by default. That's why I've been playing with 5GHz a bit.
Very very poor penetration, 2-3 stud walls and it's gone, but almost
noone else is using the spectrum, so where you can get it through the
open it has an advantage.

I use 5GHz.
It did have trouble getting through four brick/block walls so I put a
second access point in the garden to cover that and the conservatory.
Some builders use(d) foil backed plasterboard on internal walls and that
kills wifi in the next room.


Sure does Den, that and mobile phones. I have a foil backed plasterboard
office and mobiles are almost unusable in there 'cos of that...

--
Tony Sayer