New homes lack wired ethernet

In spite of the FCC requirement that homes be built with structured
cabling, I still see it negleted in $300,000 - $500,000 homes. I asked
a contractor about it on one house and he said that everyone uses
wireless. The house was wired with 3-pair untwisted cable, one more
pair than the old 2-pair JK ("Jake") telephone wires from the '50s. In
another house the wall jacks were marked as CAT5, but the CAT5 cable
in the attic had wire nut splices.

These are the home owners that often post here about how they can't
get a wireless signal in their new house.

[Rant mode off]

(E-Mail Removed) hath wroth:

>In spite of the FCC requirement that homes be built with structured
>cabling, I still see it negleted in $300,000 - $500,000 homes. I asked
>a contractor about it on one house and he said that everyone uses
>wireless. The house was wired with 3-pair untwisted cable, one more
>pair than the old 2-pair JK ("Jake") telephone wires from the '50s. In
>another house the wall jacks were marked as CAT5, but the CAT5 cable
>in the attic had wire nut splices.
>
>These are the home owners that often post here about how they can't
>get a wireless signal in their new house.
>
>[Rant mode off]

Rant mode back on.

It's worse than you think. I got a call from a local electrician
asking what type of wire to install in a remodel. I think I repeated
CAT5e several dozen times. I supplied a printed list of connectors,
jacks, and wall plates. I supplied a diagram showing how to run the
wiring (home run where everything comes to one place). We discussed
the location of the "electronics cabinet", how not use a staple gun,
and code requirements. I was fairly sure he understood what I was
saying.

However, he sends some kid over to the local electrical supplier, who
decides that it's all being done wrong. He gets 6 pair telco wired
(forgot what it's called), SOIC RJ-45 alarm jacks, incompatible wall
and plates that don't fit the jacks. He then runs the cable in "daisy
chain" fashion, suitable for telephone wiring, and leaving perhaps a
2" service loop. Of course one can't waste wire by extra CAT5e
cables. All the junk wire is stapled to the studs in the wall. That's
being generous because they were stapled to the studs with flat
staples, which broke or shorted at least one wire in each section. Of
course nobody called me in to double check until after the drywall was
up. Naturally, the home owner considers it my responsibility to "make
it all work". Right.

I wouldn't complain too much except that variations on this disaster
have happened about 4 times in about 15 years to me, each with a
different electrician. Lack of networking knowledge may have been a
good excuse perhaps 10 years ago, but in these days of commodity home
electronics, it just doesn't cut it. Of course, none of the
electricians were BISCI certified or they might have known better.

These days, I'm sneaky. I specify corrugated electrical flexible
conduit (PEX, XLPE, or HDPE), with no wires installed. It's more
expensive, but far more versatile when the owner wants to change
everything and cram in CATV, fiber, telco, etc.


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

Jeff,

Is the OP correct in that the *FCC* requires new homes to be equipped with
Ethernet cabling? I find it hard to believe they would (or should) stick
their noses into that area

--
HTH,
Curt

Windows Support Center
www.aumha.org
Practically Nerded,...
http://dundats.mvps.org/Index.htm

"Jeff Liebermann" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
news:(E-Mail Removed)...
| (E-Mail Removed) hath wroth:
|
| >In spite of the FCC requirement that homes be built with structured
| >cabling, I still see it negleted in $300,000 - $500,000 homes. I asked
| >a contractor about it on one house and he said that everyone uses
| >wireless. The house was wired with 3-pair untwisted cable, one more
| >pair than the old 2-pair JK ("Jake") telephone wires from the '50s. In
| >another house the wall jacks were marked as CAT5, but the CAT5 cable
| >in the attic had wire nut splices.
| >
| >These are the home owners that often post here about how they can't
| >get a wireless signal in their new house.
| >
| >[Rant mode off]
|
| Rant mode back on.
|
| It's worse than you think. I got a call from a local electrician
| asking what type of wire to install in a remodel. I think I repeated
| CAT5e several dozen times. I supplied a printed list of connectors,
| jacks, and wall plates. I supplied a diagram showing how to run the
| wiring (home run where everything comes to one place). We discussed
| the location of the "electronics cabinet", how not use a staple gun,
| and code requirements. I was fairly sure he understood what I was
| saying.
|
| However, he sends some kid over to the local electrical supplier, who
| decides that it's all being done wrong. He gets 6 pair telco wired
| (forgot what it's called), SOIC RJ-45 alarm jacks, incompatible wall
| and plates that don't fit the jacks. He then runs the cable in "daisy
| chain" fashion, suitable for telephone wiring, and leaving perhaps a
| 2" service loop. Of course one can't waste wire by extra CAT5e
| cables. All the junk wire is stapled to the studs in the wall. That's
| being generous because they were stapled to the studs with flat
| staples, which broke or shorted at least one wire in each section. Of
| course nobody called me in to double check until after the drywall was
| up. Naturally, the home owner considers it my responsibility to "make
| it all work". Right.
|
| I wouldn't complain too much except that variations on this disaster
| have happened about 4 times in about 15 years to me, each with a
| different electrician. Lack of networking knowledge may have been a
| good excuse perhaps 10 years ago, but in these days of commodity home
| electronics, it just doesn't cut it. Of course, none of the
| electricians were BISCI certified or they might have known better.
|
| These days, I'm sneaky. I specify corrugated electrical flexible
| conduit (PEX, XLPE, or HDPE), with no wires installed. It's more
| expensive, but far more versatile when the owner wants to change
| everything and cram in CATV, fiber, telco, etc.
|
|
| --
| Jeff Liebermann (E-Mail Removed)
| 150 Felker St #D http://www.LearnByDestroying.com
| Santa Cruz CA 95060 http://802.11junk.com
| Skype: JeffLiebermann AE6KS 831-336-2558

"Curt Christianson" <(E-Mail Removed)> hath wroth:

>Is the OP correct in that the *FCC* requires new homes to be equipped with
>Ethernet cabling? I find it hard to believe they would (or should) stick
>their noses into that area

No. The FCC has very little to do with codes and construction[1]. The
local building codes and ordinances specify the type of wiring and how
something is to be safely installed (to prevent fires and shock
hazards), but nowhere is signaling and communications wiring
mandatory. The FCC does regulate active network devices for Part 15
(incidental radiation) requirements.

You might wanna ask in comp.dcom.cabling which deals in structured
wiring.

[1] The FCC is somewhat involved by demanding that local regulatory
agencies and CC&R contracts not ban satellite dishes. It also
provides a recommended structure, but not a ruling, that regulatory
groups not obstruct ham radio antennas (PRB1). There is also a rule
that prevents regulators from totally banning commercial radio towers,
and cell sites.

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

In article <(E-Mail Removed)>,
Jeff Liebermann <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:

>
> [1] The FCC is somewhat involved by demanding that local regulatory
> agencies and CC&R contracts not ban satellite dishes. It also
> provides a recommended structure, but not a ruling, that regulatory
> groups not obstruct ham radio antennas (PRB1). There is also a rule
> that prevents regulators from totally banning commercial radio towers,
> and cell sites.

It also has hand in general regulations of cable and teleco, some of
which would spill over into methods getting internet to the sidewalk.

Kurt Ullman <(E-Mail Removed)> hath wroth:

>In article <(E-Mail Removed)>,
> Jeff Liebermann <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>> [1] The FCC is somewhat involved by demanding that local regulatory
>> agencies and CC&R contracts not ban satellite dishes. It also
>> provides a recommended structure, but not a ruling, that regulatory
>> groups not obstruct ham radio antennas (PRB1). There is also a rule
>> that prevents regulators from totally banning commercial radio towers,
>> and cell sites.

> It also has hand in general regulations of cable and teleco, some of
>which would spill over into methods getting internet to the sidewalk.

Sure, but we're getting way off the topic of FCC *requiring*
structured wiring. I'll resist the temptation to rant endlessly on
FCC over-regulation, hair-splitting, bureaucracy, and creative
enforcement. Given the opportunity, I'm sure the FCC wouldn't mind
expanding their authority to include home wiring, but since there's no
licenses to be sold, errr... auctioned, it's unlikely to happen.

However, there are government standards for federal building
construction and equipment purchases. FTR are Federal Telecom
Recommendations and FIPS are Federal Information Processing Standards
Publications. Both include considerable detail on how to wired and
equip telco and datacomm facilities, but only for federal contractors,
not homes. Like structured cabling, these standards do not create
anything new, but simply specify existing industry standards for
connectors, wiring, and installation.

<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Structured_cabling>


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

In article <(E-Mail Removed)>,
Jeff Liebermann <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:

> Kurt Ullman <(E-Mail Removed)> hath wroth:
>
> >In article <(E-Mail Removed)>,
> > Jeff Liebermann <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
> >> [1] The FCC is somewhat involved by demanding that local regulatory
> >> agencies and CC&R contracts not ban satellite dishes. It also
> >> provides a recommended structure, but not a ruling, that regulatory
> >> groups not obstruct ham radio antennas (PRB1). There is also a rule
> >> that prevents regulators from totally banning commercial radio towers,
> >> and cell sites.
>
> > It also has hand in general regulations of cable and teleco, some of
> >which would spill over into methods getting internet to the sidewalk.
>
> Sure, but we're getting way off the topic of FCC *requiring*
> structured wiring. I'll resist the temptation to rant endlessly on
> FCC over-regulation, hair-splitting, bureaucracy, and creative
> enforcement. Given the opportunity, I'm sure the FCC wouldn't mind
> expanding their authority to include home wiring, but since there's no
> licenses to be sold, errr... auctioned, it's unlikely to happen.

As I should have mentioned in the last sentence I should have
included so you would not have to read what little mind I have, that
their domain over the wires leading to the house and to a certain extent
(modems for instance) inside could have lead to the confusion. (g). I
also think they have a standard as to what constitutes broadband.

Kurt Ullman <(E-Mail Removed)> hath wroth:

>I also think they have a standard as to what constitutes broadband.

<http://www.fcc.gov/cgb/consumerfacts/highspeedinternet.html>
<http://www.fcc.gov/broadband/>
Anything over 200Kbits/sec is considered "broadband" by the FCC. I'm
not sure the victims, er.... users, of such a slow broadband would
agree with their definition.

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

On Sep 16, 8:13 am, "Curt Christianson"
<curtchrist...@NOSPAM.Yahoo.com> wrote:
> Jeff,
>
> Is the OP correct in that the *FCC* requires new homes to be equipped with
> Ethernet cabling? I find it hard to believe they would (or should) stick
> their noses into that area

Yes, I (the original poster) am correct.

In January 2000, the FCC mandated that all new homes being built be
wired with Cat. 3 cable. In adopting Rule 99-405, the Commission,
"recognized the need to establish minimum quality standards for
telephone inside wiring to ensure consumer access to advanced
broadband services."

[[ Inserting a sarcastic note that the FCC considers anything over 200
Kbps to be "broadband ]]

Section 68.213(c) requires that inside wiring conductors shall be
solid, 24 gauge or larger, twisted copper pairs [marked to indicate
compliance with] the electrical specifications for Category 3 or
higher as defined in the ANSI/EIA/TIA Building Wiring Standards.

(E-Mail Removed) wrote:
> On Sep 16, 8:13 am, "Curt Christianson"
> <curtchrist...@NOSPAM.Yahoo.com> wrote:
>> Jeff,
>>
>> Is the OP correct in that the *FCC* requires new homes to be equipped with
>> Ethernet cabling? I find it hard to believe they would (or should) stick
>> their noses into that area
>
> Yes, I (the original poster) am correct.
>

I think you are mis-interpreting things. CAT3 is simply a cable quality
spec. Wiring with CAT3 cable doesn't in any way imply Ethernet.


> In January 2000, the FCC mandated that all new homes being built be
> wired with Cat. 3 cable. In adopting Rule 99-405, the Commission,
> "recognized the need to establish minimum quality standards for
> telephone inside wiring to ensure consumer access to advanced
> broadband services."
>
> [[ Inserting a sarcastic note that the FCC considers anything over 200
> Kbps to be "broadband ]]
>
> Section 68.213(c) requires that inside wiring conductors shall be
> solid, 24 gauge or larger, twisted copper pairs [marked to indicate
> compliance with] the electrical specifications for Category 3 or
> higher as defined in the ANSI/EIA/TIA Building Wiring Standards.
>