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!
baumhaus815 schrieb:
However, I don’t understand why you would need outlets behind the refrigerator or in the bathroom (?!). For example, internet radio, TV in the spa area,...
baumhaus815 schrieb:
Can I then connect such a phone (via adapter) to the RJ-45 socket, or do we have to buy a digital IP phone? It depends on where your phone connection is. You can also transmit the signal over LAN cables, but it must be a separate cable/outlet, so, for example, two cables should run from the basement to the ground floor to allow parallel network distribution.
baumhaus815 schrieb:
Isn’t a double outlet with “cable sharing” sufficient for normal use, or is double wiring absolutely necessary? Then only 100 Mbit is possible, which might be insufficient depending on data traffic or, for example, for a NAS. (Theoretically) it only costs a few more meters of cable; the technology, connectors, and channels are already set up anyway.
K
Knallkörper28 Nov 2017 22:46Many modern routers, including those from Telekom, already have an integrated DECT base station. The question of the connection socket hardly arises.
With double sockets, you have the advantage that, for example, your signal from the fiber optic node can be patched to one socket, and the router “feeds” your network into the other socket. This way, you can connect your router to any double socket in the house. Also: A network device rarely comes alone.
100 Mbit in cable sharing is technology from 20 years ago. Today, the only question should be whether your cabling supports 1 Gbit or 10 Gbit.
Last but not least: Our electrician charged 95 euros net per double socket including wiring through the general contractor. I would have paid 200 euros as well…
With double sockets, you have the advantage that, for example, your signal from the fiber optic node can be patched to one socket, and the router “feeds” your network into the other socket. This way, you can connect your router to any double socket in the house. Also: A network device rarely comes alone.
100 Mbit in cable sharing is technology from 20 years ago. Today, the only question should be whether your cabling supports 1 Gbit or 10 Gbit.
Last but not least: Our electrician charged 95 euros net per double socket including wiring through the general contractor. I would have paid 200 euros as well…
baumhaus815 schrieb:
However, I don’t understand why you would need the sockets behind, for example, the fridge or in the bathroom (?!). Maybe you just don’t see the point yet. In ten years, you might feel differently, which is why a conduit should be installed there. Of course, it’s possible that you’ll understand this but still decide you don’t need or want it. Then the conduit simply remains empty. That is better than having to open up a wall later. In ten years, every milk carton will have an RFID 5.2 chip with its expiration date, which the fridge can read. Sour milk will then only be an issue for people whose fridge can’t communicate.
baumhaus815 schrieb:
Can I connect such a phone (via an adapter) to the RJ-45 socket, or will we have to buy a digital IP phone? Even with fiber optic, you could still use a rotary phone. TAE is just a standard whose obsolescence is already foreseeable.
baumhaus815 schrieb:
Is a double socket with cable sharing sufficient for normal use, or should there definitely be a double wiring? Yes and no. Cable sharing comes from the time before Gigabit. Back then, both IT and telecommunications devices only required four wires, so they could share eight wires amicably. An IP phone then only supports 100 Mbps Ethernet, which is sufficient for itself and doesn’t matter much if it doesn’t need to switch Gigabit devices. But installing the second cable costs little and takes no significant extra time or labor.
Personally, I nowadays recommend true “structured cabling” even to private homeowners, but I admit that it’s also possible to manage on a smaller scale.
My motto is: once the plaster is on, it should stay on. However, empty conduits are sufficient for now; you don’t need to rush to wire everything for the next decade immediately.
https://www.instagram.com/11antgmxde/
https://www.linkedin.com/company/bauen-jetzt/
One more thought about conduits. It’s worth considering how easy it really is to pull a cable—whether a thin green bus cable or a much thicker CAT 7 cable—through a conduit after installation, especially if it has more than one or even two 90-degree bends. Before risking ending up with a perfectly installed conduit hidden in the wall but no way to pull the cable through, I would have the cable installed right away if the bandwidth is really needed for, say, the refrigerator.
In my opinion, audio streams for background music in the shower through a Sonos, just like a fridge, do not necessarily require a wired connection. Wi-Fi is completely sufficient for that. Where it makes sense (multimedia, video streaming, workstations for photo/video editing), I would definitely go with wired connections. For occasional use with low traffic (audio streaming, refrigerator, mobile devices), Wi-Fi is enough.
The same applies to conduits: where it makes sense and you can actually pull the cable in and out, go for it. But definitely not if there are 25 corners... at that point, it’s almost certain that no network cable will go through—if you can get the pull wire through at all [emoji4].
In my opinion, audio streams for background music in the shower through a Sonos, just like a fridge, do not necessarily require a wired connection. Wi-Fi is completely sufficient for that. Where it makes sense (multimedia, video streaming, workstations for photo/video editing), I would definitely go with wired connections. For occasional use with low traffic (audio streaming, refrigerator, mobile devices), Wi-Fi is enough.
The same applies to conduits: where it makes sense and you can actually pull the cable in and out, go for it. But definitely not if there are 25 corners... at that point, it’s almost certain that no network cable will go through—if you can get the pull wire through at all [emoji4].
ruppsn schrieb:
One more thought about the conduit. [...] that in the end I have a beautiful empty conduit installed under the plaster, but I’m unable to pull anything through it, Thanks for the reminder – I keep forgetting that the term "conduit" is often imagined as the cheapest, smallest possible version. The more you rely on this type of conduit, the more essential junction boxes become in a conduit system, as they serve as crucial crossing points. The thinner the tube, the more critical it is to consider the bending radius carefully, or to provide an access opening at points where the conduit changes direction.
https://www.instagram.com/11antgmxde/
https://www.linkedin.com/company/bauen-jetzt/
Knallkörper schrieb:
Many modern routers, for example the one from Telekom, already have an integrated DECT base station. So the question of the wall socket hardly comes up. This might be true for houses without a basement, but in most other cases, the router is usually located there, and then DECT coverage from the router on the upper floor no longer works. This is exactly the issue we are currently facing after switching from radio link to VDSL, where the router moved from the upper floor to the basement, but the phone is supposed to stay in the living areas.
Similar topics