Hello!
Our construction started about 2.5 weeks ago, and we are currently planning the electrical system. We are wondering how to install internet in the house.
About the house:
The house is built using solid construction methods from Viebrockhaus. Radio waves barely pass through the ceiling between the ground floor (GF) and the upper floor (UF). On the UF, the interior walls are drywall with metal elements, which also blocks radio waves significantly.
For the ground floor:
We want to set up Wi-Fi with the router located in the utility room. This should provide coverage throughout the entire ground floor and help reduce electromagnetic pollution to some extent.
For the upper floor:
This question is more complex. We lean toward a LAN solution to minimize electromagnetic pollution.
Option 1: Run LAN cables through the empty conduits from the utility room to each room on the upper floor.
Option 2: Use powerline adapters (network over the electrical wiring).
-> We tend to choose the second option because there are more power outlets than LAN ports in each room. It is also somewhat cheaper, though the price difference is minor in a project of this scale.
What do you think? Will this solution work without problems, or are there limitations? Have you had any experience with this?
Thank you very much for your input.
Our construction started about 2.5 weeks ago, and we are currently planning the electrical system. We are wondering how to install internet in the house.
About the house:
The house is built using solid construction methods from Viebrockhaus. Radio waves barely pass through the ceiling between the ground floor (GF) and the upper floor (UF). On the UF, the interior walls are drywall with metal elements, which also blocks radio waves significantly.
For the ground floor:
We want to set up Wi-Fi with the router located in the utility room. This should provide coverage throughout the entire ground floor and help reduce electromagnetic pollution to some extent.
For the upper floor:
This question is more complex. We lean toward a LAN solution to minimize electromagnetic pollution.
Option 1: Run LAN cables through the empty conduits from the utility room to each room on the upper floor.
Option 2: Use powerline adapters (network over the electrical wiring).
-> We tend to choose the second option because there are more power outlets than LAN ports in each room. It is also somewhat cheaper, though the price difference is minor in a project of this scale.
What do you think? Will this solution work without problems, or are there limitations? Have you had any experience with this?
Thank you very much for your input.
H
Hendrik00711 May 2017 09:28Wiki states the following:
The RJ-45 connector [] cannot meet these [Cat-7] specifications due to the tight arrangement of the contacts; all RJ-45 Cat 7 patch cables are misleadingly labeled (as are RJ-45 Cat 7 network outlets and panels). To produce network components that comply with Cat 7, new connectors have been specifically designed, which essentially increase the spacing between the wire pairs.
That’s why I was (and still am) confused, because I want RJ45...
The RJ-45 connector [] cannot meet these [Cat-7] specifications due to the tight arrangement of the contacts; all RJ-45 Cat 7 patch cables are misleadingly labeled (as are RJ-45 Cat 7 network outlets and panels). To produce network components that comply with Cat 7, new connectors have been specifically designed, which essentially increase the spacing between the wire pairs.
That’s why I was (and still am) confused, because I want RJ45...
When installing CAT7 cable, as far as I know, it is possible to terminate it with an RJ-45 connector.
The effect of this is that you only get the bandwidth that RJ-45 supports, so CAT7 is far from being used to its full potential.
The advantage of this approach is simply:
Once CAT7 becomes a widely adopted standard, you only need to replace the outlet sockets, without having to rewire the cables as well.
The effect of this is that you only get the bandwidth that RJ-45 supports, so CAT7 is far from being used to its full potential.
The advantage of this approach is simply:
Once CAT7 becomes a widely adopted standard, you only need to replace the outlet sockets, without having to rewire the cables as well.
It is correct that RJ-45 connectors do not meet the requirements of Category 7. Therefore, there are no CAT 7 outlets or patch panels. However, CAT 6a is available and guarantees 10 Gbps at 100 meters (328 feet) cable length.
That is "just" the specification. Don’t take it too literally. In practice, cables in single-family homes are much shorter, and specifications include a safety margin.
Of course, CAT 7 cable can be terminated with RJ-45 connectors. That is what everyone does worldwide, even in professional environments.
The recommendation is to install the better cable right away, since the additional cost is minimal. Upgrading the wiring later would be very expensive. This way, you can at least expect to be ready for the next jump in bandwidth. Most people today are more than satisfied with 1 Gbps. Why not? Where would the data streams come from with common internet speeds? Sure, there are exceptions, but they make up only about 0.0001% of users. With CAT 7, you will be able to run 10 Gbps easily in the future, even with RJ-45 connectors. That is a tenfold increase.
From today’s perspective, however, that is definitely the limit for RJ-45—at least according to the specifications—and other connectors and/or transmission methods will be required afterward. At that point, CAT 7 cabling will also be obsolete, as the industry moves to fiber optic or other copper media. (For 40 Gbps, CAT 8 has been proposed as a new standard with a 30 meter (98 feet) length limit. This seems rather limited, but who knows what developments will come.)
All these technologies have, of course, existed and been in use for years—but not in home environments, because there simply hasn’t been a need.
That is "just" the specification. Don’t take it too literally. In practice, cables in single-family homes are much shorter, and specifications include a safety margin.
Of course, CAT 7 cable can be terminated with RJ-45 connectors. That is what everyone does worldwide, even in professional environments.
The recommendation is to install the better cable right away, since the additional cost is minimal. Upgrading the wiring later would be very expensive. This way, you can at least expect to be ready for the next jump in bandwidth. Most people today are more than satisfied with 1 Gbps. Why not? Where would the data streams come from with common internet speeds? Sure, there are exceptions, but they make up only about 0.0001% of users. With CAT 7, you will be able to run 10 Gbps easily in the future, even with RJ-45 connectors. That is a tenfold increase.
From today’s perspective, however, that is definitely the limit for RJ-45—at least according to the specifications—and other connectors and/or transmission methods will be required afterward. At that point, CAT 7 cabling will also be obsolete, as the industry moves to fiber optic or other copper media. (For 40 Gbps, CAT 8 has been proposed as a new standard with a 30 meter (98 feet) length limit. This seems rather limited, but who knows what developments will come.)
All these technologies have, of course, existed and been in use for years—but not in home environments, because there simply hasn’t been a need.
P
Peanuts7411 May 2017 10:24I simply assume that someone who doesn’t know the difference between Cat 5, Cat 6, etc., is unlikely to set up a complex home network with NAS and so on. Considering that Cat 6a can handle 10,000,000,000 bits per second and fast internet offers 100,000,000 bits per second, which is a factor of 100, Cat 6a should be more than enough—and even excessive—for 99.999% of users, including most tech enthusiasts...
B
Bieber081511 May 2017 10:53Peanuts74 schrieb:
I simply assume that someone who doesn’t know the difference between Cat 5, Cat 6, etc., is unlikely to set up a complex home network with NAS and so on.Well, people who want a rain shower usually do so without knowing the typical or required pipe diameters for water supply.P
Peanuts7411 May 2017 11:02Bieber0815 schrieb:
Well, anyone who wants a rain shower usually does so without any real knowledge of the common or required water pipe diameters.Now, we are talking about a factor of 100 compared to what the cables can easily handle and what is among the fastest internet speeds available.
If the rain shower allows 20 liters per minute (5 gallons per minute), I don’t need a pipe that could carry 2,000 liters per minute (530 gallons per minute) to give a frame of reference...
And for in-house network traffic, 10 Gbit should be more than sufficient...
Similar topics