ᐅ Number of RJ-45 Wall Sockets ("Network Outlets") – What Makes Sense?
Created on: 27 Nov 2017 21:39
B
baumhaus815
Hello 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!
Alex85 schrieb:
He is referring to IP telephony in the house, not DECT. Deliverer schrieb:
the phone/the charging stationhttps://www.instagram.com/11antgmxde/
https://www.linkedin.com/company/bauen-jetzt/
11ant schrieb:
I thought it was already hard to follow your posts with so many words. Without any words, it doesn’t get any easier.
What are you trying to say?
Since my previous comment was apparently deleted without any notice (very classy), I’ll say again to Knallkörper that the advantage lies in the range if you are already covering the entire house with Wi-Fi. Then you can skip the additional coverage with DECT inside the house.
Alex85 schrieb:
I thought it might be difficult to follow your posts with so many words. But going completely wordless doesn’t make it any easier. What are you trying to say? Not without words: I had highlighted in the quote that Deliverer mentioned a phone or the charging station. "Charging station" implies a handset.
Alex85 schrieb:
that the advantage is in the range, if you’re already providing Wi-Fi coverage throughout the house. Then you can save on additional DECT coverage inside the house. For voice devices, personally, the transmission quality is more important to me.
https://www.instagram.com/11antgmxde/
https://www.linkedin.com/company/bauen-jetzt/
K
Knallkörper30 Nov 2017 21:00Okay. I always thought DECT had a significantly better range. I need two access points for Wi-Fi to get coverage in every room. The DECT phone has full reception everywhere with just one base station (in the router).
11ant schrieb:
Speechless: I had highlighted in the quote that Deliverer wrote about a phone or the charging station. "Charging station" implies a handset.Apparently, tapatalk does not show bold formatting. Or at least not in quotes.
But that doesn’t exclude it. This device type is just apparently unfamiliar to you: handset, Wi-Fi with SIP client. Or alternatively, no additional device at all, just the smartphone with Wi-Fi and SIP client.
11ant schrieb:
For voice devices, I personally prefer transmission quality.HD telephony via DECT is certainly not bad. But the codec via VoIP can be freely chosen with at least equivalent quality, often even better. The real "bottleneck" will be the public network; no matter how good the codecs are in the local network.
Knallkörper schrieb:
Okay. I always thought DECT had significantly better range. For Wi-Fi, I need 2 access points to get reception in every room. The DECT phone has full reception everywhere with just one base station (in the router).The range is better, yes. But it was pointed out here that with reinforced concrete ceilings, the Fritzbox in the basement does not reach the upper floor, so it should be positioned on the ground floor (and the Internet connection routed back to the basement via a double outlet). One user even posted a picture of the box mounted high up on the hallway wall – yikes!
Solution 1: Use DECT repeaters
Solution 2: If the house is already covered by Wi-Fi (one access point per floor), skip DECT repeaters and connect the telephony devices via Wi-Fi.
Alex85 schrieb:
This type of device is only apparently unfamiliar to you: handset, Wi-Fi with SIP client. Or alternatively, no additional device at all but the smartphone with Wi-Fi and SIP client. Yes, I know it.
Alex85 schrieb:
HD telephony via DECT is certainly not bad. However, the codec over VoIP can be freely chosen with at least equivalent quality, if not better. The bottleneck will usually be the public network, no matter how good the codecs are in the local network. The codec, which is indeed shared by several protocols, is just one aspect. And the bottleneck often occurs even before the public network: namely in the form of consumer all-in-one boxes with mediocre electronics. But that is a broad topic on its own.
https://www.instagram.com/11antgmxde/
https://www.linkedin.com/company/bauen-jetzt/
Similar topics