ᐅ Number of RJ-45 Wall Sockets ("Network Outlets") – What Makes Sense?
Created on: 27 Nov 2017 21:39
B
baumhaus815B
baumhaus81527 Nov 2017 21:39Hello everyone,
A week ago, we met with the electrician to plan the electrical installations for our new build. Everything is clear regarding the sockets, switches, and lighting outlets. However, we are still considering the topic of communication outlets.
The situation is as follows: Fiber optic cables are being installed in our new development. We want to take advantage of this, but without having to install and pay for too many (unnecessary) RJ-45 (or even TAE) sockets.
As I understand it, in a three-story single-family house you could basically get by with only four RJ-45 network outlets:
Basement: one for the router
Ground floor: two — 1x telephone; 1x Wi-Fi access point
Upper floor: one for Wi-Fi access point.
This way, all end devices (computers, smartphones, TV) would connect via Wi-Fi without using LAN cables. The telephone connection could also be accessed on the ground floor through one of the four RJ-45 outlets.
So, throughout the whole house, we would only need these four RJ-45 outlets (plus 2 satellite sockets for TV). Telephone sockets could be omitted. We plan to do the wiring with CAT 7 cable. In the long term, the satellite TV sockets could be replaced by Wi-Fi TV, according to the plan.
From your point of view, is this planning reasonable? If so, why is it often recommended to install many more RJ-45 outlets when signals can also be accessed via Wi-Fi?
By the way, a home network with only one network printer or other "smart" applications is not currently planned.
Thanks in advance for your replies!
A week ago, we met with the electrician to plan the electrical installations for our new build. Everything is clear regarding the sockets, switches, and lighting outlets. However, we are still considering the topic of communication outlets.
The situation is as follows: Fiber optic cables are being installed in our new development. We want to take advantage of this, but without having to install and pay for too many (unnecessary) RJ-45 (or even TAE) sockets.
As I understand it, in a three-story single-family house you could basically get by with only four RJ-45 network outlets:
Basement: one for the router
Ground floor: two — 1x telephone; 1x Wi-Fi access point
Upper floor: one for Wi-Fi access point.
This way, all end devices (computers, smartphones, TV) would connect via Wi-Fi without using LAN cables. The telephone connection could also be accessed on the ground floor through one of the four RJ-45 outlets.
So, throughout the whole house, we would only need these four RJ-45 outlets (plus 2 satellite sockets for TV). Telephone sockets could be omitted. We plan to do the wiring with CAT 7 cable. In the long term, the satellite TV sockets could be replaced by Wi-Fi TV, according to the plan.
From your point of view, is this planning reasonable? If so, why is it often recommended to install many more RJ-45 outlets when signals can also be accessed via Wi-Fi?
By the way, a home network with only one network printer or other "smart" applications is not currently planned.
Thanks in advance for your replies!
Hi,
From my professional experience, this is often exactly the problem. Time and again, I visit new builds or older homes where cables are missing. In my opinion, there should be at least one double socket in every room. Sooner or later, TV will also be connected through it, and relying solely on Wi-Fi is, in my view, the wrong approach.
We probably went overboard with the network outlets in our house currently under construction, but we already have 4 on the TV wall, 2 opposite it, and 6 in the office, all of which I actually need. In total, we ended up with 26 double sockets. You don’t need one in every corner, but I would consider at least one per room.
Wi-Fi will never replace a LAN outlet. With 4 IP streams in 4K, the shared medium gets busy very quickly. By the way, I have often found that one access point per floor is not enough.
Regards
Sascha
From my professional experience, this is often exactly the problem. Time and again, I visit new builds or older homes where cables are missing. In my opinion, there should be at least one double socket in every room. Sooner or later, TV will also be connected through it, and relying solely on Wi-Fi is, in my view, the wrong approach.
We probably went overboard with the network outlets in our house currently under construction, but we already have 4 on the TV wall, 2 opposite it, and 6 in the office, all of which I actually need. In total, we ended up with 26 double sockets. You don’t need one in every corner, but I would consider at least one per room.
Wi-Fi will never replace a LAN outlet. With 4 IP streams in 4K, the shared medium gets busy very quickly. By the way, I have often found that one access point per floor is not enough.
Regards
Sascha
I have a socket wherever there is a TV, plus two in the office and one in the upstairs hallway.
I’ve already realized that I should have had one more in the living/dining room. I connected the PS4 (which we also use for streaming) via LAN. However, the Wi-Fi signal from the office is weak in the kitchen and dining area. Out of necessity, I had to install an access point with a long cable at the basement window.
Upstairs, the access point is sufficient. But when both kids start using the internet at the same time, this won’t be enough, and we will use LAN for watching TV.
Our house is 140 sqm (1,507 sq ft) across five rooms, and I now see our approach as the minimum requirement. Solid walls and reinforced concrete ceilings significantly worsen the Wi-Fi signal.
I’ve already realized that I should have had one more in the living/dining room. I connected the PS4 (which we also use for streaming) via LAN. However, the Wi-Fi signal from the office is weak in the kitchen and dining area. Out of necessity, I had to install an access point with a long cable at the basement window.
Upstairs, the access point is sufficient. But when both kids start using the internet at the same time, this won’t be enough, and we will use LAN for watching TV.
Our house is 140 sqm (1,507 sq ft) across five rooms, and I now see our approach as the minimum requirement. Solid walls and reinforced concrete ceilings significantly worsen the Wi-Fi signal.
You can already skip TAE sockets today. "RJ45" sockets come in versions for "network" or "ISDN," and electricians often still shamelessly install cables to sockets without proper knowledge. More important than Cat 7 for Gigabit Ethernet is that the structured cabling is fully and consistently installed. I would recommend at least one DECT base station per floor. Wi-Fi is often overrated; I would consider four sockets per floor to be quite minimal, but definitely necessary for the entire house. The idea of talking about copper cables and, at the same time, wanting to take advantage of fiber-optic benefits is exactly the kind of dry humor I prefer.
https://www.instagram.com/11antgmxde/
https://www.linkedin.com/company/bauen-jetzt/
https://www.instagram.com/11antgmxde/
https://www.linkedin.com/company/bauen-jetzt/
We use Wi-Fi only for browsing and streaming on phones and tablets, so every room has been equipped with a double socket. The router is installed in the open stairwell at about 1.80 meters (5 ft 11 in) height. It provides good Wi-Fi and excellent DECT signal strength on both the upper and ground floors (solid construction with Poroton). I can really recommend this setup….
Similar topics