Does having multiple RJ45 jacks degrade the Internet signal a lot?

> I think you're over your head a little. Best to Google the internet
> for CAT5 and ethernet installation instructions and examples. Also,
> talk to a professional cable installer before you make a major
> mistake. The danger is that if you have a house fire, and the fire
> inspector finds non-code compliant creative wiring, you run the risk
> of having your insurance company declare that you were the cause of
> the fire.
>

Is there any code for wire beneath 48V? I though the whole idea behind
low voltage wiring is that it is code free. Otherwise you would need an
electrician to wiring up a new phone outlet.

The trouble with networking experts is these are all the guys who were
run out of the alarm business when ADT and others started their free
installations. They became networking experts, home theater experts,
etc. Not that I blame them for finding new jobs where they can be self
employed, but quality is all over the map.

Don't get me wrong. Some of these networking guys are really sharp. I
use a local guy for auto parts that is a CNI. Trouble is it is more
profitable to sell parts on the net than compete with the rest of the
networking firms. I have a friend that does networking strictly for
commercial and municipal jobs, and survives pretty much by having a long
list of jobs well done. Nobody in city hall wants to be the guy that
hired the clown network company, and so they write the bids with enough
legal mumbo jumbo that few first timers want to compete.

On Sat, 24 Dec 2011 16:23:26 -0800, miso <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:

>
>> All computer and Internet devices are wireless and the rest of the
>> electronic technology is close behind, such as TVs. Centralize a wireless
>> router and forego wiring the house.

>I do wireless now, but given my druthers, I'd do it up all wired and put
>a server/Drobo/whatever in that closet. New construction has structured
>wiring as an add-on.

I agree. Wireless should be used when other methods (CAT5 or fiber)
are not available. The reliability and speed of the connection is
well worth the effort running the wires or fiber. If speed is less of
an issue than convenience, consider using HomePlug or HomePNA.

For new installations, I usually recommend running conduit in the
walls from a central location (star topology). This is roughly the
way structured wiring is done. Bundles of CAT5, fiber, station wire,
alarm wire, intercom wire, thermocouple wire, and coax cable are
available for those who fail to appreciate conduit. Actually, it's
not the usual PVC electrical conduit but rather "smurf tube" or HDPE
(high density polyethylene) pipe:
<http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showthread.php?t=901909>
<http://store.cablesplususa.com/networking-infrastructure-premier-conduit-raceway.html>

However, if you enjoy dealing with interference from the neighbors,
municipal wi-fi, wireless security cameras, TIVO, wireless TV,
microwave ovens, etc, wireless is for you.


--
# Jeff Liebermann 150 Felker St #D Santa Cruz CA 95060
# 831-336-2558
# http://802.11junk.com (E-Mail Removed)
# http://www.LearnByDestroying.com AE6KS

On Sat, 24 Dec 2011 16:41:38 -0800, miso <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:

>Is there any code for wire beneath 48V?

Yep. It's called signaling or communications cable. Network wiring
and telco are covered as NEC article 800.
<http://ecmweb.com/nec/code-basics/electric_article_communications_circuits/>
The basic it is to keep the stuff away from power cables.

>I though the whole idea behind
>low voltage wiring is that it is code free. Otherwise you would need an
>electrician to wiring up a new phone outlet.

There's no such thing as code free. If the NFPA had its way, there
would be specifications for the toilet paper.

>The trouble with networking experts is these are all the guys who were
>run out of the alarm business when ADT and others started their free
>installations. They became networking experts, home theater experts,
>etc. Not that I blame them for finding new jobs where they can be self
>employed, but quality is all over the map.

Nope. Real cable experts are usually BICSI certified:
<https://www.bicsi.org/single.aspx?l=2464,4192,4194>
Note that BISCI also has a wireless designer certification:
<https://www.bicsi.org/double.aspx?l=2572&r=2574>
I'm tempted. Only $345... ouch.

However, I agree about the quality. I only got the jobs that no sane
and competent installer would accept. If I make a profit, I might
actually document my work or label a few things.

>Don't get me wrong. Some of these networking guys are really sharp. I
>use a local guy for auto parts that is a CNI. Trouble is it is more
>profitable to sell parts on the net than compete with the rest of the
>networking firms. I have a friend that does networking strictly for
>commercial and municipal jobs, and survives pretty much by having a long
>list of jobs well done. Nobody in city hall wants to be the guy that
>hired the clown network company, and so they write the bids with enough
>legal mumbo jumbo that few first timers want to compete.

Yep. However, the reason is different. The convoluted specs are
usually to avoid legal complications and to cover the customers ass
when the whole mess goes to litigation. I've been asked to carry
oversight insurance, with the customer as the sole beneficiary, just
in case they screwed up the job specifications. (Hint: I don't do
much wiring these daze).

--
# Jeff Liebermann 150 Felker St #D Santa Cruz CA 95060
# 831-336-2558
# http://802.11junk.com (E-Mail Removed)
# http://www.LearnByDestroying.com AE6KS

"Jeff Liebermann" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
news:(E-Mail Removed)...
>
> However, if you enjoy dealing with interference from the neighbors,
> municipal wi-fi, wireless security cameras, TIVO, wireless TV,
> microwave ovens, etc, wireless is for you.
>
>
I often hear/read about those rebuttals to wireless, but after many years of
using wireless, I have yet to have any major issues. In fact, I had several
machines connected. Some were wired and some wireless. I had more problems
with some of the wired than I did with wireless. It's not foolproof, but it
doesn't have the major interference problems you and many have stated.

On Sat, 24 Dec 2011 17:21:37 -0800, Jeff Liebermann <(E-Mail Removed)>
wrote:

>For new installations, I usually recommend running conduit in the
>walls from a central location (star topology). This is roughly the
>way structured wiring is done.

You've mentioned the star topology twice now. I agree it is the best
way to build the wired network. If one segment goes down, the rest of
the network is still up. Easier to trouble shoot a single segment.

Using a ring topology means more troubleshooting.

On Sat, 24 Dec 2011 21:48:06 -0500, "Justin Time" <(E-Mail Removed)>
wrote:

>"Jeff Liebermann" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
>news:(E-Mail Removed).. .
>>
>> However, if you enjoy dealing with interference from the neighbors,
>> municipal wi-fi, wireless security cameras, TIVO, wireless TV,
>> microwave ovens, etc, wireless is for you.
>>
>I often hear/read about those rebuttals to wireless, but after many years of
>using wireless, I have yet to have any major issues. In fact, I had several
>machines connected. Some were wired and some wireless. I had more problems
>with some of the wired than I did with wireless. It's not foolproof, but it
>doesn't have the major interference problems you and many have stated.

Well, what can I say? My experience has been quite the opposite. I
derive a fair part of my income from fixing wireless problems. Perhaps
I just see more wireless horror stories than you. Dunno.

It's not just the interference problems, some of which I itemized
above. There's also some rather strange wireless clients, buggy
wireless router firmware, compatibility issues, and just plain bad
design.

Here's an easy one, that I hear all to often. Customer has a wireless
PC laptop. He uses the laptop successfully on the office WLAN. He
slams the lid shut, putting the laptop into standby or hibernate. He
goes home, opens the lid, and the laptop resumes. One problem... he
can't connect. A bit of tinkering finds that the laptop still thinks
he's on the office WLAN, and is desperately looking for the office
wireless access point that's not there. If the IP address of the
office router and home router are the same, it's even more confusing
(ARP cache). The DHCP lease time hasn't expired yet, so the DHCP
client isn't going to break the RFC and initiate a premature DHCP
renewal. There are plenty of ways to fix this (IPCONFIG, reboot, turn
power on/off to the wireless card in the laptop), but it will usually
drive one into frustration mode the first time they see it. This
doesn't happen with a wired LAN.

Plenty of other ways to have wireless drive one nuts. I get a call
from a dentists office wondering if I could do something to make their
assorted wireless laptops work better. I arrive and find the outside
of the adjacent building festooned with wireless security cameras. As
long as they are running, Wi-Fi isn't working. I leave it to the
dentist to convince the neighbor to switch the cameras to wired.

Need more stories? Just ask.

However, you are correct that there are also plenty of wired issues.
I've had to deal with a few wiring and connector issues on network
hardware. Learning to crimp CAT5 into an RJ45 is fairly easy, but
does take some practice. I see far too many partial crimps and
creative wiring. Still, they're minor compared to the wireless
problems.

--
# Jeff Liebermann 150 Felker St #D Santa Cruz CA 95060
# 831-336-2558
# http://802.11junk.com (E-Mail Removed)
# http://www.LearnByDestroying.com AE6KS

On Sat, 24 Dec 2011 19:29:24 -0800, Oren <Oren@127.0.0.1> wrote:

>On Sat, 24 Dec 2011 17:21:37 -0800, Jeff Liebermann <(E-Mail Removed)>
>wrote:
>
>>For new installations, I usually recommend running conduit in the
>>walls from a central location (star topology). This is roughly the
>>way structured wiring is done.
>
>You've mentioned the star topology twice now. I agree it is the best
>way to build the wired network. If one segment goes down, the rest of
>the network is still up. Easier to trouble shoot a single segment.

Yep. That's the ONLY way to do ethernet over twisted pair. Bus
topology is for 10base2 coax and POTS phones. Ring is for fiber or
token ring.
<https://www.google.com/search?q=ethernet+topology&tbm=isch>

>Using a ring topology means more troubleshooting.

Not really. Ring topology is used for fiber because it offers
improved reliability. Break the ring at any point, and the data
simply goes around the long way until the break is fixed. Two breaks
just means a small section of the ring is inaccessible. The rest of
the ring still works. It really makes more sense over a large
distance, such as going around the entire SF Bay area, rather than
just around the house.

The problem with home networks and fiber rings is that there just
isn't any affordable hardware available to make it happen. It's also
not really necessary at home, unless you have kids, puppies, or rats
chewing on the cables and need improved uptime.

The reason I keep mentioning star topology is that many users are very
familiar with the common POTS (plain old telephone service) bus type
topology. Find the cable that's snaking through the walls, and just
tap in with the phone instrument. That's convenient, but doesn't work
with 10/100baseT ethernet. It DOES work with 10base2 coax cable
ethernet, but that's limited to 10Mbits/sec half-duplex. I just
wanted to make sure that the OP doesn't try to wire his house in the
style of the POTS phone.

--
# Jeff Liebermann 150 Felker St #D Santa Cruz CA 95060
# 831-336-2558
# http://802.11junk.com (E-Mail Removed)
# http://www.LearnByDestroying.com AE6KS

On Sat, 24 Dec 2011 19:29:24 -0800, Oren <Oren@127.0.0.1> wrote:

>On Sat, 24 Dec 2011 17:21:37 -0800, Jeff Liebermann <(E-Mail Removed)>
>wrote:
>
>>For new installations, I usually recommend running conduit in the
>>walls from a central location (star topology). This is roughly the
>>way structured wiring is done.
>
>You've mentioned the star topology twice now. I agree it is the best
>way to build the wired network. If one segment goes down, the rest of
>the network is still up. Easier to trouble shoot a single segment.
>
>Using a ring topology means more troubleshooting.
Cannot run ring topology ethernet except on Co-ax.. AKA Slo-ax

On Sat, 24 Dec 2011 20:02:09 -0800, Jeff Liebermann <(E-Mail Removed)>
wrote:

>On Sat, 24 Dec 2011 21:48:06 -0500, "Justin Time" <(E-Mail Removed)>
>wrote:
>
>>"Jeff Liebermann" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
>>news:(E-Mail Removed). ..
>>>
>>> However, if you enjoy dealing with interference from the neighbors,
>>> municipal wi-fi, wireless security cameras, TIVO, wireless TV,
>>> microwave ovens, etc, wireless is for you.
>>>
>>I often hear/read about those rebuttals to wireless, but after many years of
>>using wireless, I have yet to have any major issues. In fact, I had several
>>machines connected. Some were wired and some wireless. I had more problems
>>with some of the wired than I did with wireless. It's not foolproof, but it
>>doesn't have the major interference problems you and many have stated.
>
>Well, what can I say? My experience has been quite the opposite. I
>derive a fair part of my income from fixing wireless problems. Perhaps
>I just see more wireless horror stories than you. Dunno.
>
>It's not just the interference problems, some of which I itemized
>above. There's also some rather strange wireless clients, buggy
>wireless router firmware, compatibility issues, and just plain bad
>design.
>
>Here's an easy one, that I hear all to often. Customer has a wireless
>PC laptop. He uses the laptop successfully on the office WLAN. He
>slams the lid shut, putting the laptop into standby or hibernate. He
>goes home, opens the lid, and the laptop resumes. One problem... he
>can't connect. A bit of tinkering finds that the laptop still thinks
>he's on the office WLAN, and is desperately looking for the office
>wireless access point that's not there. If the IP address of the
>office router and home router are the same, it's even more confusing
>(ARP cache). The DHCP lease time hasn't expired yet, so the DHCP
>client isn't going to break the RFC and initiate a premature DHCP
>renewal. There are plenty of ways to fix this (IPCONFIG, reboot, turn
>power on/off to the wireless card in the laptop), but it will usually
>drive one into frustration mode the first time they see it. This
>doesn't happen with a wired LAN.
>
>Plenty of other ways to have wireless drive one nuts. I get a call
>from a dentists office wondering if I could do something to make their
>assorted wireless laptops work better. I arrive and find the outside
>of the adjacent building festooned with wireless security cameras. As
>long as they are running, Wi-Fi isn't working. I leave it to the
>dentist to convince the neighbor to switch the cameras to wired.
>
>Need more stories? Just ask.
>
>However, you are correct that there are also plenty of wired issues.
>I've had to deal with a few wiring and connector issues on network
>hardware. Learning to crimp CAT5 into an RJ45 is fairly easy, but
>does take some practice. I see far too many partial crimps and
>creative wiring. Still, they're minor compared to the wireless
>problems.


You want to try the job I had last year. Moved an insurance agency
into a new build ing that had been pre-wired by the original tennant -
who went bankrupt - and the IT guys that had not been paid for the
server etc came in and lopped off all the cables 2 feet from the
ceiling. 78 cable runs - undocumented - and half wired to "A" spec and
half to "B". I ended up putting a switch rack above the door to the
former server room, terminating all those cables - then tracing them
back to their end-points, testing them, and re-wiring all of them that
ended up "crossed".

Then running "home runs" from the switch rack to the relocated server
room.

Then we added another kilometer of cable into a trough in the floor to
serve another 12 workstations.

Half of the cables for corporate network - the other half for VOIP
phone system (with POE).

On Sat, 24 Dec 2011 20:15:12 -0800, Jeff Liebermann <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:

>On Sat, 24 Dec 2011 19:29:24 -0800, Oren <Oren@127.0.0.1> wrote:
>
>>On Sat, 24 Dec 2011 17:21:37 -0800, Jeff Liebermann <(E-Mail Removed)>
>>wrote:
>>
>>>For new installations, I usually recommend running conduit in the
>>>walls from a central location (star topology). This is roughly the
>>>way structured wiring is done.
>>
>>You've mentioned the star topology twice now. I agree it is the best
>>way to build the wired network. If one segment goes down, the rest of
>>the network is still up. Easier to trouble shoot a single segment.
>
>Yep. That's the ONLY way to do ethernet over twisted pair. Bus
>topology is for 10base2 coax and POTS phones. Ring is for fiber or
>token ring.
><https://www.google.com/search?q=ethernet+topology&tbm=isch>
>
>>Using a ring topology means more troubleshooting.
>
>Not really. Ring topology is used for fiber because it offers
>improved reliability. Break the ring at any point, and the data
>simply goes around the long way until the break is fixed. Two breaks
>just means a small section of the ring is inaccessible. The rest of
>the ring still works. It really makes more sense over a large
>distance, such as going around the entire SF Bay area, rather than
>just around the house.

"Rings" in reality, aren't. They're double "stars", with a pair of channels,
one each direction from a central hub to the points of the star. This is done
for serviceability. The network can be managed from a central point. The
original Token Ring was a true ring but it was quickly found that the network
got unmanageable. In fact, Token Ring over CAT-5 isn't uncommon at all (if
you can say Token Ring isn't "uncommon" anymore ;-).

>The problem with home networks and fiber rings is that there just
>isn't any affordable hardware available to make it happen. It's also
>not really necessary at home, unless you have kids, puppies, or rats
>chewing on the cables and need improved uptime.
>
>The reason I keep mentioning star topology is that many users are very
>familiar with the common POTS (plain old telephone service) bus type
>topology. Find the cable that's snaking through the walls, and just
>tap in with the phone instrument. That's convenient, but doesn't work
>with 10/100baseT ethernet. It DOES work with 10base2 coax cable
>ethernet, but that's limited to 10Mbits/sec half-duplex. I just
>wanted to make sure that the OP doesn't try to wire his house in the
>style of the POTS phone.

Most POTS is wired in a star, today. It's easier in new construction, to put
all the communications stuff together. Of course telephones don't care what
the wire looks like. If it made it the five miles from the CO, you could have
barbed wire in the house and it would work. ;-)