Velocity Reviews - Computer Hardware Reviews

Velocity Reviews > Newsgroups > Computing > Computer Support > Re: UK - running a braodband extension CAT5,5e,6

Reply
Thread Tools

Re: UK - running a braodband extension CAT5,5e,6

 
 
Whiskers
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      11-08-2010
On 2010-11-07, Information <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
> Ok , in the dining room is BT broadband router
>
> Id like to have a "faceplate" in same room , and use a
> patch network cable that leads from back of router to faceplate
>
> The faceplate has network cable that goes to loft
>
> In loft the cable goes to junction box , the junction box
>
> splits to send cable to
> livingroon
> two bedrooms
> garage
>
> and essentially a faceplate is there ready for cables
> to computers etc


That will not work. Each 'faceplate' must be wired directly to the router
- no 'junction boxes', no splits. You need a socket on the router for
each 'faceplate'. Most home-user routers can handle 4 wired ethernet
connections, but models are available with more sockets than that.

It may be more convenient to use a wireless router or 'access point' for
some or all of the computers. There are also gadgets for 'data over the
mains' that might be worth considering.

> what i dont understand i the differences in cable and which is
> is compatible with broadband etc
>
> and why is some talkingablut twisted pairs etc ... im lost
>
> please explain for me !


"Cat5" is probably OK, and is generally cheaper than "cat5e", but if
'speed' is important to you then pay for the 'better' cable. You don't
need to know about twisted-pair cables.

I suggest you pay a visit to one or two independent computer shops, and
chains such as Maplin and PC World, to get advice and see what's
available.

--
-- ^^^^^^^^^^
-- Whiskers
-- ~~~~~~~~~~
 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
 
PeeCee
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      11-09-2010
"Information" wrote in message
news:(E-Mail Removed)...

""That will not work. Each 'faceplate' must be wired directly to the router
- no 'junction boxes', no splits. You need a socket on the router for
each 'faceplate'. Most home-user routers can handle 4 wired ethernet
connections, but models are available with more sockets than that.""

THIS IS CONCERNING !

and involves a huge amount of extra work and cabling

any ideas to get it to work the way i expected





If you open this link http://www.gliffy.com/publish/2318437/
You will find a diagram I've created for your specific situation.

Points to note:

1. Each PC must have it's own Cat5 cable, you can not 'share' a cable by
joining the wires to the one coming from the dining room.
The only way to 'share' the cable coming from the dining room is to plug it
into one of the sockets of a 'Switch' (link given in other post)
The other PC's can then be plugged into any of the other sockets on the
switch and the switch will automatically switch the data coming up the
dining room cable to the PC that needs it.
(and vice versa for outwards data)

2. As I mention on the diagram while a proper drop cable, wall plate, cable
run, wall plate, drop cable construction is 'professional' and the the
preferred way to build it for robustness, running a long drop cable direct
is perfectly acceptable where it is installed and infrequently disturbed.
Building the cabling with wall plates etc is also the most expensive way to
go, each wall plate and its 8P8C socket on its own are probably going to
cost as much a a the drop cable to do the whole run.

3. If your BT Broadband Router has four LAN sockets on the back, it will be
cheaper to run 'one' of these to a switch in the Loft as I have drawn in my
diagram rather than running 4 leads up into the loft and down to each room.

Best
Paul.

 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
 
Whiskers
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      11-09-2010
On 2010-11-09, Information <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
> ""That will not work. Each 'faceplate' must be wired directly to the router
> - no 'junction boxes', no splits. You need a socket on the router for
> each 'faceplate'. Most home-user routers can handle 4 wired ethernet
> connections, but models are available with more sockets than that.""
>
> THIS IS CONCERNING !
>
> and involves a huge amount of extra work and cabling
>
> any ideas to get it to work the way i expected


As I already suggested, either WiFi or data-over-powerline. WiFi is
usually the easiest and cheapest and most flexible. Most home-user
wireless routers or access points can handle 'several' computers
connecting wirelessly at the same time. In most houses, a single WiFi
router or access point can cover all the rooms and a little beyond, if it
is placed carefully so as not to be blocked by kitchen equipment or
mirrors or cupboards full of 'stuff'. I can sometimes use mine (located in
a back room in a flat one floor up in a concrete building) from inside my
car parked in the street in front and about 20 yards away.

Do you need to have access to your network from all four rooms at the same
time, or do you want to be able to move one computer from room to room and
still have internet access? Are you trying to create a 'home
entertainment system'? Is there a particular reason you want to use a
wired system?

--
-- ^^^^^^^^^^
-- Whiskers
-- ~~~~~~~~~~
 
Reply With Quote
 
Jordon
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      11-09-2010
Whiskers wrote:
> On 2010-11-07, Information<(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>> Ok , in the dining room is BT broadband router
>>
>> Id like to have a "faceplate" in same room , and use a
>> patch network cable that leads from back of router to faceplate
>>
>> The faceplate has network cable that goes to loft
>>
>> In loft the cable goes to junction box , the junction box
>>
>> splits to send cable to
>> livingroon
>> two bedrooms
>> garage
>>
>> and essentially a faceplate is there ready for cables
>> to computers etc

>
> That will not work. Each 'faceplate' must be wired directly to the router
> - no 'junction boxes', no splits.


What's wrong with putting a 4 port switch at one end of one
of the cables (in the loft)?
 
Reply With Quote
 
Whiskers
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      11-09-2010
On 2010-11-09, Jordon <jordon@REMOVE~THISmyrealbox.com> wrote:
> Whiskers wrote:
>> On 2010-11-07, Information<(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>>> Ok , in the dining room is BT broadband router
>>>
>>> Id like to have a "faceplate" in same room , and use a
>>> patch network cable that leads from back of router to faceplate
>>>
>>> The faceplate has network cable that goes to loft
>>>
>>> In loft the cable goes to junction box , the junction box
>>>
>>> splits to send cable to
>>> livingroon
>>> two bedrooms
>>> garage
>>>
>>> and essentially a faceplate is there ready for cables
>>> to computers etc

>>
>> That will not work. Each 'faceplate' must be wired directly to the router
>> - no 'junction boxes', no splits.

>
> What's wrong with putting a 4 port switch at one end of one
> of the cables (in the loft)?


You mean leave the router (which the OP already has, apparantly, and which
probably has 4 ethernet ports available) in the Dining-room, run one
ethernet cable from it to a 'switch' (which the OP almost certainly hasn't
got yet) and then run 4 cables down from the loft into each of the other
three rooms? That probably would work, but I suspect the 'switch' would
cost more than the length of cable 'saved' (unless the loft is a long way
from the Dining-room).

But we haven't heard yet why the OP wants to have anything in the loft at
all, or how accessible the loft is, or if it's suitable for delicate
electronic equipment to operate in, or even has mains power available.

A good rule of thumb for any LAN cable run, is 'the shorter the better'.
Without seeing a plan of the OP's house, we can't suggest what the most
efficient wiring routes might be. Assuming that ethernet cabling is the
most appropriate arrangement at all.

--
-- ^^^^^^^^^^
-- Whiskers
-- ~~~~~~~~~~
 
Reply With Quote
 
Jordon
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      11-09-2010
Whiskers wrote:
> On 2010-11-09, Jordon<jordon@REMOVE~THISmyrealbox.com> wrote:
>> Whiskers wrote:
>>> On 2010-11-07, Information<(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>>>> Ok , in the dining room is BT broadband router
>>>>
>>>> Id like to have a "faceplate" in same room , and use a
>>>> patch network cable that leads from back of router to faceplate
>>>>
>>>> The faceplate has network cable that goes to loft
>>>>
>>>> In loft the cable goes to junction box , the junction box
>>>>
>>>> splits to send cable to
>>>> livingroon
>>>> two bedrooms
>>>> garage
>>>>
>>>> and essentially a faceplate is there ready for cables
>>>> to computers etc
>>>
>>> That will not work. Each 'faceplate' must be wired directly to the router
>>> - no 'junction boxes', no splits.

>>
>> What's wrong with putting a 4 port switch at one end of one
>> of the cables (in the loft)?

>
> You mean leave the router (which the OP already has, apparantly, and which
> probably has 4 ethernet ports available) in the Dining-room, run one
> ethernet cable from it to a 'switch' (which the OP almost certainly hasn't
> got yet) and then run 4 cables down from the loft into each of the other
> three rooms? That probably would work, but I suspect the 'switch' would
> cost more than the length of cable 'saved' (unless the loft is a long way
> from the Dining-room).
>
> But we haven't heard yet why the OP wants to have anything in the loft at
> all, or how accessible the loft is, or if it's suitable for delicate
> electronic equipment to operate in, or even has mains power available.


Probably because going down vertically through the inside of a wall
is a lot easier than going horizontally through the wall. I've installed
a few LAN's and it's pretty easy to drill a hole through
the header of the wall (from above) and drop the cable down to where
you want the faceplate, cut the hole and fish it out. Then put a
switch in the attic (or loft) and drop the other cables in the same
way.

> A good rule of thumb for any LAN cable run, is 'the shorter the better'.


With a powered switch in the middle of two long lengths of cable you
shouldn't have any problems. Where I'm at I have our main file server
about 120 feet from two 16 port switches, then about 20 cables to two
different buildings. Works quite well.
 
Reply With Quote
 
Whiskers
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      11-10-2010
On 2010-11-09, Jordon <jordon@REMOVE~THISmyrealbox.com> wrote:
> Whiskers wrote:
>> On 2010-11-09, Jordon<jordon@REMOVE~THISmyrealbox.com> wrote:
>>> Whiskers wrote:
>>>> On 2010-11-07, Information<(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:


[...]

>> But we haven't heard yet why the OP wants to have anything in the loft at
>> all, or how accessible the loft is, or if it's suitable for delicate
>> electronic equipment to operate in, or even has mains power available.

>
> Probably because going down vertically through the inside of a wall
> is a lot easier than going horizontally through the wall. I've installed
> a few LAN's and it's pretty easy to drill a hole through
> the header of the wall (from above) and drop the cable down to where
> you want the faceplate, cut the hole and fish it out. Then put a
> switch in the attic (or loft) and drop the other cables in the same
> way.


That supposes hollow walls with easy access to the cavity at the top, and
no blockages by inconvenient things such as (for example) floors. I've
never lived in a house that didn't have solid masonry walls (apart from an
occasional partition, usually sub-dividing a large room). Where I live
now the floors are all solid concrete too. Post-construction cable runs
have to go through doorways or windows, unless some heavy drilling can be
done (and any such holes are meant to be made fire-proof afterwards).

A continuous vertical cavity from ground to roof-space sounds to me like a
fire-hazard; I don't think such a construction would be permitted here.

>> A good rule of thumb for any LAN cable run, is 'the shorter the better'.

>
> With a powered switch in the middle of two long lengths of cable you
> shouldn't have any problems. Where I'm at I have our main file server
> about 120 feet from two 16 port switches, then about 20 cables to two
> different buildings. Works quite well.


And is very different from a small house!

--
-- ^^^^^^^^^^
-- Whiskers
-- ~~~~~~~~~~
 
Reply With Quote
 
Jordon
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      11-10-2010
Whiskers wrote:
> On 2010-11-09, Jordon<jordon@REMOVE~THISmyrealbox.com> wrote:
>> Whiskers wrote:
>>> On 2010-11-09, Jordon<jordon@REMOVE~THISmyrealbox.com> wrote:
>>>> Whiskers wrote:
>>>>> On 2010-11-07, Information<(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:

>
> [...]
>
>>> But we haven't heard yet why the OP wants to have anything in the loft at
>>> all, or how accessible the loft is, or if it's suitable for delicate
>>> electronic equipment to operate in, or even has mains power available.

>>
>> Probably because going down vertically through the inside of a wall
>> is a lot easier than going horizontally through the wall. I've installed
>> a few LAN's and it's pretty easy to drill a hole through
>> the header of the wall (from above) and drop the cable down to where
>> you want the faceplate, cut the hole and fish it out. Then put a
>> switch in the attic (or loft) and drop the other cables in the same
>> way.

>
> That supposes hollow walls with easy access to the cavity at the top, and
> no blockages by inconvenient things such as (for example) floors. I've
> never lived in a house that didn't have solid masonry walls


I could be wrong but I don't think the OP has masonry walls. Adding
a "face plate" would be sort of difficult without major work. Maybe
plasterboard?

> (apart from an
> occasional partition, usually sub-dividing a large room). Where I live
> now the floors are all solid concrete too. Post-construction cable runs
> have to go through doorways or windows, unless some heavy drilling can be
> done (and any such holes are meant to be made fire-proof afterwards).
>
> A continuous vertical cavity from ground to roof-space sounds to me like a
> fire-hazard; I don't think such a construction would be permitted here.


Where's here?

Ground to roof? I'm just talking from one floor to the loft or attic
above it. In an attic it's easy to find the walls below and in millions
of residences in the states there are no horizontal studs to deal with,
just insulation. But if you come across them, find it on the exterior
of the wall, use a large bit and drill a hole at a steep enough angle
above the stud to go through the wallboard and the stud and come out
the other side of the stud on the inside of the wall. Fish the cable
through the hole in the stud and patch the wall. Anyone that's worked
with wallboard would find it easy. It's how many professional cabling
companies wire existing buildings. I've done it several times.

>>> A good rule of thumb for any LAN cable run, is 'the shorter the better'.

>>
>> With a powered switch in the middle of two long lengths of cable you
>> shouldn't have any problems. Where I'm at I have our main file server
>> about 120 feet from two 16 port switches, then about 20 cables to two
>> different buildings. Works quite well.

>
> And is very different from a small house!


How so? A $20 four port switch in the loft accomplishes the same thing.
You mentioned keeping cable runs short. You don't have to. Using cat 6
the maximum single cable length is longer than a football field, that
is, if we're talking American football.

I do agree with you though, going wireless is much easier but for
whatever reason, the OP doesn't (or hasn't or is reluctant to) consider
it.
 
Reply With Quote
 
Whiskers
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      11-11-2010
On 2010-11-10, Jordon <jordon@REMOVE~THISmyrealbox.com> wrote:
> Whiskers wrote:
>> On 2010-11-09, Jordon<jordon@REMOVE~THISmyrealbox.com> wrote:
>>> Whiskers wrote:
>>>> On 2010-11-09, Jordon<jordon@REMOVE~THISmyrealbox.com> wrote:
>>>>> Whiskers wrote:
>>>>>> On 2010-11-07, Information<(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:

>>
>> [...]
>>
>>>> But we haven't heard yet why the OP wants to have anything in the loft at
>>>> all, or how accessible the loft is, or if it's suitable for delicate
>>>> electronic equipment to operate in, or even has mains power available.
>>>
>>> Probably because going down vertically through the inside of a wall
>>> is a lot easier than going horizontally through the wall. I've installed
>>> a few LAN's and it's pretty easy to drill a hole through
>>> the header of the wall (from above) and drop the cable down to where
>>> you want the faceplate, cut the hole and fish it out. Then put a
>>> switch in the attic (or loft) and drop the other cables in the same
>>> way.

>>
>> That supposes hollow walls with easy access to the cavity at the top, and
>> no blockages by inconvenient things such as (for example) floors. I've
>> never lived in a house that didn't have solid masonry walls

>
> I could be wrong but I don't think the OP has masonry walls. Adding
> a "face plate" would be sort of difficult without major work. Maybe
> plasterboard?


The surface mounting box was invented for this.

A modern building here, or one that has been extensively re-furbished,
might have plasterboard fixed to the masonry walls (either by dabs of
plaster or by nailing to bits of wood fixed to the wall) which does leave
a narrow cavity between the plasterboard and the masonry - but the cavity
doesn't extend beyond that room. Plaster applied directly to the masonry
is more 'traditional' though. If new cable or pipe runs are to be
concealed, the walls have to be 'chased out' to carve a groove into which
the cable or pipe is fitted and then plastered over. In such a case,
chasing out space for a wall-box for fitting a 'flush' faceplate is a
minor consideration.

>> (apart from an
>> occasional partition, usually sub-dividing a large room). Where I live
>> now the floors are all solid concrete too. Post-construction cable runs
>> have to go through doorways or windows, unless some heavy drilling can be
>> done (and any such holes are meant to be made fire-proof afterwards).
>>
>> A continuous vertical cavity from ground to roof-space sounds to me like a
>> fire-hazard; I don't think such a construction would be permitted here.

>
> Where's here?


Like the OP's indication in the Subject - UK.

> Ground to roof? I'm just talking from one floor to the loft or attic
> above it.


The OP hasn't suggested that his house is a bungalow.

> In an attic it's easy to find the walls below and in millions
> of residences in the states there are no horizontal studs to deal with,
> just insulation.


No wonder so many US buildings blow away in hurricanes, collapse in
floods, or go up like torches if there's a fire.

> But if you come across them, find it on the exterior
> of the wall, use a large bit and drill a hole at a steep enough angle
> above the stud to go through the wallboard and the stud and come out
> the other side of the stud on the inside of the wall. Fish the cable
> through the hole in the stud and patch the wall. Anyone that's worked
> with wallboard would find it easy. It's how many professional cabling
> companies wire existing buildings. I've done it several times.


Electricians and plumbers over here usually come equipped with masonry
drills. Buildings that have to be 'retro-fitted' with lots of cables for
using as offices often end up with 'false floors' and suspended ceilings
to create space for them.

>>>> A good rule of thumb for any LAN cable run, is 'the shorter the better'.
>>>
>>> With a powered switch in the middle of two long lengths of cable you
>>> shouldn't have any problems. Where I'm at I have our main file server
>>> about 120 feet from two 16 port switches, then about 20 cables to two
>>> different buildings. Works quite well.

>>
>> And is very different from a small house!

>
> How so? A $20 four port switch in the loft accomplishes the same thing.
> You mentioned keeping cable runs short. You don't have to. Using cat 6
> the maximum single cable length is longer than a football field, that
> is, if we're talking American football.


You might get it to work, but if you're trying to connect adjoining rooms
it wouldn't work as well as a 6' cable going straight through the wall.

> I do agree with you though, going wireless is much easier but for
> whatever reason, the OP doesn't (or hasn't or is reluctant to) consider
> it.


What happened to the OP?

--
-- ^^^^^^^^^^
-- Whiskers
-- ~~~~~~~~~~
 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
Reply

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are Off


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Re: UK - running a braodband extension CAT5,5e,6 PeeCee Computer Support 3 11-14-2010 08:16 AM
Re: UK - running a braodband extension CAT5,5e,6 Desk Rabbit Computer Support 0 11-09-2010 09:10 AM
Re: UK - running a braodband extension CAT5,5e,6 Jordon Computer Support 0 11-08-2010 10:09 PM
Re: UK - running a braodband extension CAT5,5e,6 Disbelief Computer Support 1 11-08-2010 12:05 AM
Logging a Shared a Braodband connection Chris Computer Support 1 09-27-2003 07:02 AM



Advertisments