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!
D
Deliverer30 Nov 2017 13:22Alternatively, most people already use VoIP anyway. In that case, the phone or charging station simply connects to one of the many network outlets (which are abundant according to this thread) and handles the rest on its own. Whether it’s DECT, wired, Wi-Fi, or even an app doesn’t really matter.
It may require (partly) new devices, but the flexibility is appealing!
It may require (partly) new devices, but the flexibility is appealing!
Deliverer schrieb:
Or you can simply use VoIP as most people do anyway. Then the phone or charging station just connects to one of the (plentiful, as shown in this thread) network sockets and handles the rest by itself. Of course, you can assign each handset its own base station instead of registering it to a base integrated in the "router" (Fritz box or other entertainment device). The connection between the handset and the base—whether integrated or separate—is always via DECT, regardless of whether the line before it is VoIP, ISDN, or analog. So, in that respect, "IP telephony" makes no difference.
https://www.instagram.com/11antgmxde/
https://www.linkedin.com/company/bauen-jetzt/
11ant schrieb:
Of course, each cordless handset can also have its own base station instead of registering it to a base integrated into the "router" (Fritz or other entertainment box). The connection between handset and base station (whether integrated or separate) is always via DECT – regardless of whether it’s VoIP, ISDN, or analog beforehand. So “IP telephony” doesn’t make a difference here.He is referring to IP telephony in the house and not DECT. Transmission is either wired via Ethernet or wireless via Wi-Fi.
Take your smartphone and install a softphone app. Turn on Wi-Fi, connect to the Fritzbox, and you’re set. I believe AVM even has their own app for that.
K
Knallkörper30 Nov 2017 18:46What is supposed to be better about transmission via Wi-Fi compared to DECT?
T
toxicmolotof30 Nov 2017 20:27Fewer end devices scattered around the house.
Similar topics