# Wiring Cat6 around the house



## GR33N (Apr 5, 2009)

So as per the title, Im planning on wiring some Cat6 cable around the house so that I can have a wireless repeater/extender, but I have a few questions for anyone in the know.

1) Do I need specific Cat6 faceplates?

2) Will I have to use Cat6 patch cables between the faceplate and extender/repeater?

probably got some more questions, but I cant think of them at the moment :lol:


----------



## Ads (Sep 23, 2006)

GR33N said:


> So as per the title, Im planning on wiring some Cat6 cable around the house so that I can have a wireless repeater/extender, but I have a few questions for anyone in the know.
> 
> 1) Do I need specific Cat6 faceplates?
> Nope, Just get some good quality CAT5e/CAT6 ones
> ...


See answers above


----------



## sinizter (Aug 28, 2011)

Just get cat5e. Cat6 has specific requirements such as bend radius, how it is secured, etc. 

You can still get gigabit connections with cat5e.


----------



## Ninja59 (Feb 17, 2009)

+1 on the above comment.


----------



## GR33N (Apr 5, 2009)

Now you say, after ive ordered Cat6  What kind of requirements are we talking about?

I should add, this is going into a new house so on the bending front I've got some flexibility.


----------



## dsolds (Feb 13, 2008)

The CAT6 requirements on bend radius etc are only to get a formal CAT6 certificate. Just don't bend in in half and you'll be fine.

Oh, and if it's the screened stuff you've ordered remember to only connect the screen at one end, or you will get earth loop noise.


----------



## GR33N (Apr 5, 2009)

dsolds said:


> The CAT6 requirements on bend radius etc are only to get a formal CAT6 certificate. Just don't bend in in half and you'll be fine.
> 
> Oh, and if it's the screened stuff you've ordered remember to only connect the screen at one end, or you will get earth loop noise.


This is beginning to sound more technical than I first imagined, this is the cable ive bought http://www.kenable.co.uk/product_info.php?products_id=3807

Ive just read about having the right amount of sheathing cut back when wiring into the back of faceplate being a critical amount?

Dont get me wrong, Im not a complete gimp :lol: Ive made Cat5 cables before built PCs etc.

Are these suitable for fixing the cable?

http://www.aerialsuperstore.co.uk/c...ork-cable-and-rg59-cctv-cable-black-387-p.asp


----------



## GR33N (Apr 5, 2009)

Right next question, its pretty much a star topology, router in the centre of the house with 3 runs of cable out (i may only use 2 ultimately) do I need to connect these 3 cable to a switch before running it to the router? or could i simply connect all 3 cables to the router for the purpose of extending the network range?


----------



## ardandy (Aug 18, 2006)

A router is a switch, just one that can do more to put it simply.


----------



## simonjj (Sep 25, 2010)

I ran all the cables back to a 12 way wall mount CAT 6 patch panel in an under stairs cupboard where my router, NAS and switches are.
I used CAT 6 through out and even tough it is less flexible didn't have any issues.
This is the patch panel i have:- http://www.tripplite.com/en/products/model.cfm?txtModelID=3323
Simon


----------



## s.bailey (Mar 2, 2012)

GR33N said:


> Right next question, its pretty much a star topology, router in the centre of the house with 3 runs of cable out (i may only use 2 ultimately) do I need to connect these 3 cable to a switch before running it to the router? or could i simply connect all 3 cables to the router for the purpose of extending the network range?


As said a router is a switch for what you are using it for. I'm assuming you intend to stick A.N.Other router at the end of each cable yes or just going to have a fixed endpoint plugged in via cable?

As an aside, how big is your house that your initial router isn't doing the business for you???!!!


----------



## GR33N (Apr 5, 2009)

s.bailey said:


> As said a router is a switch for what you are using it for. I'm assuming you intend to stick A.N.Other router at the end of each cable yes or just going to have a fixed endpoint plugged in via cable?
> 
> As an aside, how big is your house that your initial router isn't doing the business for you???!!!


Im planning on putting a wireless extender/ access point on the end of one of the cables, on the second (which runs to the office) ill just plug directly into my laptop when needed and the 3rd i might not use ultimately.

As for how large, its a largeish (4 bed) single storey oak framed cottage :lol: but even in our current house, normal 2 storey 5 bed house, I cant get the signal to reach across the house.

I was planning on buying one of these routers 




and getting some of these as extenders

TP-Link TL-WA901ND Advanced Wireless N Access Point: Amazon.co.uk: Computers & Accessories


----------



## Bero (Mar 9, 2008)

As i understand, it's unlikely your installation will conform to CAT6 - especially as you're terminating the connectors your self. However, it will work fine using CAT6 compliant components.


----------



## OvlovMike (Jul 19, 2011)

Ninja59 said:


> +1 on the above comment.


I disagree, always fit the highest standard that you can afford to throw at it.

Lack of technical foresight has failed many an individual, many a time - it's a **** load more expensive to upgrade afterwards than to do it the first time.


----------



## Rob_Quads (Jul 17, 2006)

Depending on what you are looking to use the cables for I would personally put 3/4 Cables to all the major rooms.

Reasoning.... 1 for Ethernet connectivity. 2 which could be used to send video around the house very cheaply, possdibly an extra one for a 2nd Ethernet connection/ future

Ideally in the future VideoOverIP will come down in price and then we can use the existing network but the pricesses seem to be staying fairly high, out of most consumer spacers (as opposed to Cat5e baluns which are around £50)

As for cable. Cat6 if you can afford it. OK it may not be installed to standard that will not matter much for a domestic install.
Cat5e is OK for short patch cables. Easily capable of 1Gb connections. (That said I have 20m lengths around my house also on Gb too)


----------



## GR33N (Apr 5, 2009)

Thanks for the info guys.

@OvoloMike, that was my reasoning behind buying Cat6, best I can afford.

@Rob_Quads, I understand what you mean about running several cables and ive toyed with the idea myself, but ultimately the only use for the cable is extending the internet range. I appreciate im not allowing myself any future proofing, but when I move out it will just be my parents, who arent particularly technically minded so wont have any need for 90% of it.


----------



## OvlovMike (Jul 19, 2011)

GR33N said:


> Thanks for the info guys.
> 
> @OvoloMike, that was my reasoning behind buying Cat6, best I can afford.
> 
> @Rob_Quads, I understand what you mean about running several cables and ive toyed with the idea myself, but ultimately the only use for the cable is extending the internet range. I appreciate im not allowing myself any future proofing, but when I move out it will just be my parents, who arent particularly technically minded so wont have any need for 90% of it.


If you're running it now, for aforementioned reasons of having to do it a second time and the sheer quantity of devices with network connections (Blu-ray players, DVD players, TVs, AV receivers, games consoles)... It'd be bonkers not to throw in a load of connections. I'll be getting 4 per room as per Rob's suggestion, 4 in the conservatory, 4 in the living room, 2 in the kitchen, 2 in the dining area, 4 in each bedroom and all terminating in the office... Never know what you might need!


----------



## ant_s (Jan 29, 2009)

I've run all cat5e cable around my house - 4 living room, 2 each bedroom an 4 in office.

I've done a complete refurb and rewire on my house so thought why I'm at it I may aswel shove in lol. I was told 5e would be fine for my requirements too.


----------



## OvlovMike (Jul 19, 2011)

Cat5E is 'fine' but with devices needing more and more bandwidth I can see it being months, not years, before there are consumer devices capable of exceeding the limitations of Cat5E cabling.


----------



## Rob_Quads (Jul 17, 2006)

intrigued to know what you might think will be pushing the boundaries so quickly. Apart from moving video around the house and even that can normally be done over 100Mbit what are you expecting to be the bandwidth hog?


----------



## OvlovMike (Jul 19, 2011)

Data, and it's movement within the home. The ability to play games on demand from storage devices, to stream 3D high definition films or 3D games using such devices as Teradici (PCoIP) which will require incredible amounts of throughput that before long 1Gb won't be sufficient and 10GBASE-T switching will become more and more prevalent, filtering down into cheaper gear over the next 18 months.


----------



## Rob_Quads (Jul 17, 2006)

Still think we are a long way off those becoming mainstream. They may be some VERY VERY high end in a few years but doubt it will be common place for 3/4.

Devices such as Teradici still support video encoding so that you could transmit i.e. a 30Mbit Blueray quality picture over a much smaller bandwidth that 30Mb. The thin clients are still powerful enough to decode the compressed video. 

I think more research will be spent on the compression etc side than getting the bandwidth capacity up.


----------



## Bero (Mar 9, 2008)

Rob_Quads said:


> intrigued to know what you might think will be pushing the boundaries so quickly. Apart from moving video around the house and even that can normally be done over 100Mbit what are you expecting to be the bandwidth hog?


I don't see anything pushing that in the near future - With current TV sizes and room dimensions 4k will probably not give any benefits over 1080i/p. If you have a big cinema room with projector and planning an 8k @ 120fps and 22.2 surround sound then you will be in the minority....and may need it!

There is no doubt more and more items will become connected, some of it very clever. Fridges that can be switch off their compressor if they are below X degrees and there is a big demand on the grid (people switching on their kettle after Eastenders) - but I don't see >1% of houses requiring anything more than CAT6 in the next 5, probably 10 years.


----------



## OvlovMike (Jul 19, 2011)

I'm not saying that I anticipate exceeding Cat6 limitations any time soon, but I do see Cat5E being restrictive in the next year or two - especially as 4K makes an impression.

Separate subject, but I don't buy the whole 1080p being plenty sufficient - people went mental at how fantastic a sodding tablet was because it had more pixels than a 1080p screen...


----------



## ardandy (Aug 18, 2006)

Retina resolution is the pinnacle as its the most a human eye can distinguish.


----------



## OvlovMike (Jul 19, 2011)

ardandy said:


> Retina resolution is the pinnacle as its the most a human eye can distinguish.


It may well be, but there's a decent overlap of the people who think that the iPad is fantastic for having that resolution BUT ALSO think that 1080p is as good as a TV ever needs to be as you will never be able to tell the difference. I like to refer to this overlap as 'iSheep', or 'Halfwits'.

Need I point out the maths... 50" 1080p TV's dot pitch of nearly 0.6mm - iPad dot pitch of just shy of 0.1mm. The pixels on a TV are 6 TIMES the size of those on an iPad. In each direction! So technically 36 times the size...

Myself I think it's excessive, as technically brilliant as it is it requires far too much processing power to render anything in 3D on that sort of scale. I have a liquid-cooled graphics card that struggles rendering stuff at 1920x1200, and whilst it's not the newest card in the world it's got lots more grunt than an iPad will have any time soon!


----------



## Rob_Quads (Jul 17, 2006)

OvlovMike said:


> Need I point out the maths... 50" 1080p TV's dot pitch of nearly 0.6mm - iPad dot pitch of just shy of 0.1mm. The pixels on a TV are 6 TIMES the size of those on an iPad!


That statement shows you have totally missed the whole concept of what Retina is being used to mean..

You eyes are much much closer to a ipad so can see more detail. The further back you go the less your eyes can detect that detail so while you can detect 0.1 pitch at 16 inches there is a distance that you cant distinguish beyond 0.6 pitch. You could have 0.1 pitch but your eyes would be loosing 80% of the detail.

There was a great article I read which gave you the actual distances for various sizes i.e. 32" TV, 55" TV and what they would need to be to be classed as 'retina'


----------



## OvlovMike (Jul 19, 2011)

Yes, there are also decent number of threads on various AV boards on the subject. The bottom line is even sitting 'close' to your 50" screen at 10ft, you're 3.5ft further away than what you're using Apple's branding to determine as the point where the average human is unable to identify details.

Bluntly, there's plenty more room for improvement on my 50" set before it becomes a technical improvement over a visual improvement.


----------



## Bero (Mar 9, 2008)

There comes a point where more pixels does not improve the eyes perception, in most rooms with most TVs 1080 will exceed this, just like the iPad and iPhone exceed this for 12-18" viewing distances.


----------



## OvlovMike (Jul 19, 2011)

Bero said:


> There comes a point where more pixels does not improve the eyes perception, in most rooms with most TVs 1080 will exceed this, just like the iPad and iPhone exceed this for 12-18" viewing distances.


I sit a slightly above average distance from my TV, with a slightly above average sized TV, and there is room for improvement according to every article and musing that I've come across.

Simple. There's room for improvement by everyone's standards.


----------

