Alternatives for house rewiring

[Stan The Man]

How viable is it to lay Cat 5 ethernet cables to telephone points in a
house rewiring project? I have also seen advertised some deal where an
ethernet connection can be made by plugging into a mains wall socket.
Neither of these concepts seems to be widely adopted here in the UK
yet. Are the way ahead? I'm about to spend thousands on a domestic
re-wire and don't want to rip it up again next year to retrofit Cat 5
if it's an option today. TIA.

Stan

[Tom Harrington]

In article <110820031448054726%macho@mac.com>,
Stan The Man <macho@mac.com> wrote:

> How viable is it to lay Cat 5 ethernet cables to telephone points in a
> house rewiring project? I have also seen advertised some deal where an
> ethernet connection can be made by plugging into a mains wall socket.
> Neither of these concepts seems to be widely adopted here in the UK
> yet. Are the way ahead? I'm about to spend thousands on a domestic
> re-wire and don't want to rip it up again next year to retrofit Cat 5
> if it's an option today. TIA.

Before doing anything, consider using wireless links. They're a lot
easier, quicker, and cheaper to set up than Cat 5 would be.

--
Tom "Tom" Harrington
Macaroni, Automated System Maintenance for Mac OS X.
Version 1.4: Best cleanup yet, gets files other tools miss.
See [url]http://www.atomicbird.com/[/url]

[Thomas Reed]

In article <110820031448054726%macho@mac.com>, Stan The Man
<macho@mac.com> wrote:

> How viable is it to lay Cat 5 ethernet cables to telephone points in a
> house rewiring project?

I'm sure that would be expensive, and chances are you may wish the
wiring went to different locations in the room at a later date. With
the current level of wireless technology, I'm not sure it's worth the
time and expense (for most uses).

--
-Thomas

<http://www.bitjuggler.com/>

[NeoLuddite]

In article <110820031448054726%macho@mac.com>,
Stan The Man <macho@mac.com> wrote:

> How viable is it to lay Cat 5 ethernet cables to telephone points in a
> house rewiring project? I have also seen advertised some deal where an
> ethernet connection can be made by plugging into a mains wall socket.
> Neither of these concepts seems to be widely adopted here in the UK
> yet. Are the way ahead? I'm about to spend thousands on a domestic
> re-wire and don't want to rip it up again next year to retrofit Cat 5
> if it's an option today. TIA.

One thing you should know is that Ethernet only uses 4 of the 8 wires in
the cable. The other 4 are intended for phone wiring. Something I
learned only *AFTER* I ran both Ethernet and new phone wiring to several
rooms in the house.

I guess it also depends on how difficult it is to lay the wire. You can
buy what's call Plenum safe cable for running inside ductwork. I has a
special insulation that doesn't give off toxic gas when it burns so if
there is a fire you don't have fumes spread through the building via the
ventilation system.

The big advantage of hard wiring is it's cheap (usually), reliable and
secure. Not that wireless can't be made reliable and secure, but you
might have to fiddle around with it while hard wire Ethernet just works.
Downside is you have to run wire to every room you want it in and you
have to wire it correctly. I used a system called QuickPort by Leviton.
there are similar systems available by other manufacturers.

[url]http://www.levitonvoicedata.com/connectors/default.asp#QuickPortUTPCopper[/url]
Connectors

The nice thing is that you can have Ethernet, phone, audio, video etc.
in one wall plate or box.

--
Real Address-> neoluddite0comcast.net <- replace 0 with @
Bill Gates couldn't innovate his way out of a paper bag.

[Mike Cohen]

In article <110820031448054726%macho@mac.com>,
Stan The Man <macho@mac.com> wrote:

> How viable is it to lay Cat 5 ethernet cables to telephone points in a
> house rewiring project? I have also seen advertised some deal where an
> ethernet connection can be made by plugging into a mains wall socket.
> Neither of these concepts seems to be widely adopted here in the UK
> yet. Are the way ahead? I'm about to spend thousands on a domestic
> re-wire and don't want to rip it up again next year to retrofit Cat 5
> if it's an option today. TIA.
>
> Stan

Why not just use 802.11g? I have Ethernet in only one room of my condo,
with only my G3 minitower connected directly to my D-Link DI-624 & DSL
modem. The rest of my machines, including the PowerBook G4 I'm now using
in the opposite end of the house, are all connected wirelessly.

--
Mike Cohen - mike3k <at> onepost <dot> net
Personal: [url]http://www.mc-development.com/[/url]
Mac News: [url]http://www.macmegasite.com/[/url]

[ldgage]

Stan The Man <macho@mac.com> wrote in message news:<110820031448054726%macho@mac.com>...

> How viable is it to lay Cat 5 ethernet cables to telephone points in a
> house rewiring project? I have also seen advertised some deal where an
> ethernet connection can be made by plugging into a mains wall socket.
> Neither of these concepts seems to be widely adopted here in the UK
> yet. Are the way ahead? I'm about to spend thousands on a domestic
> re-wire and don't want to rip it up again next year to retrofit Cat 5
> if it's an option today. TIA.
>
> Stan

I've wired 2 homes, existing construction, with Cat 5 and would
consider the wireless alternatives as last resorts. Cat 5 wiring is
not difficult, almost an adventure in mapping out the routes through
the attic, the walls, and the crawlspace and finding creative ways to
conceal the wires. I see the advantages to hardwire Cat 5 as:
1. blazing 100mhz speeds between Macs
2. reliable connections unaffected by weather, walls, microwaves, and
whatever
3. flexibility in adding PCs or printers without concern for wireless
cards
4. plug-n-play for visitors that bring their laptops
5. never having to post in this newsgroup for trouble-shooting
solutions to my wireless problems

[Stan The Man]

In article <87671a01.0308111914.5d146809@posting.google.com >, ldgage
<ldgage@aol.com> wrote:

>Stan The Man <macho@mac.com> wrote in message
>news:<110820031448054726%macho@mac.com>...

>> How viable is it to lay Cat 5 ethernet cables to telephone points in a
>> house rewiring project? I have also seen advertised some deal where an
>> ethernet connection can be made by plugging into a mains wall socket.
>> Neither of these concepts seems to be widely adopted here in the UK
>> yet. Are the way ahead? I'm about to spend thousands on a domestic
>> re-wire and don't want to rip it up again next year to retrofit Cat 5
>> if it's an option today. TIA.

>
>I've wired 2 homes, existing construction, with Cat 5 and would
>consider the wireless alternatives as last resorts. Cat 5 wiring is
>not difficult, almost an adventure in mapping out the routes through
>the attic, the walls, and the crawlspace and finding creative ways to
>conceal the wires. I see the advantages to hardwire Cat 5 as:
>1. blazing 100mhz speeds between Macs
>2. reliable connections unaffected by weather, walls, microwaves, and
>whatever
>3. flexibility in adding PCs or printers without concern for wireless
>cards
>4. plug-n-play for visitors that bring their laptops
>5. never having to post in this newsgroup for trouble-shooting
>solutions to my wireless problems

These are all sound reasons. I might add:

6. Older machines, eg PCI Powermacs, should really be hard-wired to the
LAN since patching them up as wireless machines can be flaky

7. Troubleshooting, eg resetting, an Airport base station requires an
ethernet connection anyway

8. It's easier and more reliable to run a print server over ethernet

9. Repeat 1. Even 'g'-speed wireless won't get close to ethernet
filesharing speed.

10. I'm guessing that the way ahead for using the Mac as a computerised
phone system will require ethernet wires. I just tried to integrate a
wireless pabx phone system with a wireless LAN and they don't want to
party.

Btw, I'm thinking of just running cable behind the skirting boards for
most of the route. But it's difficult to find any professional outfit
in the UK that knows what I'm talking about. No surprise there, I
guess.

Stan

[Alan Charlesworth]

In article <110820031859500987%macho@mac.com>,
Stan The Man <macho@mac.com> wrote:

> In article <tph-394308.09501911082003@localhost>, Tom Harrington
> <tph@pcisys.no.spam.dammit.net> wrote:
>

> >In article <110820031448054726%macho@mac.com>,
> > Stan The Man <macho@mac.com> wrote:
> >

> >> How viable is it to lay Cat 5 ethernet cables to telephone points in a
> >> house rewiring project? I have also seen advertised some deal where an
> >> ethernet connection can be made by plugging into a mains wall socket.
> >> Neither of these concepts seems to be widely adopted here in the UK
> >> yet. Are the way ahead? I'm about to spend thousands on a domestic
> >> re-wire and don't want to rip it up again next year to retrofit Cat 5
> >> if it's an option today. TIA.

> >
> >Before doing anything, consider using wireless links. They're a lot
> >easier, quicker, and cheaper to set up than Cat 5 would be.

>
> I have a Wireless LAN and use it all the time for internet sharing -
> but, at real world speeds of around 3-6MB/minute it's definitely a poor
> choice for file transfer between local machines. I would use ethernet
> for this if it was readily available in several rooms without surface
> wires.
>
> Stan

File sharing is much faster with wired Ethernet. I see 6-8 Mbytes/sec
between an iBook and an eMac both running 10.2.6 using wires, and only
about 0.4 MByles/sec using Airport from the iBook to a snow basestation.
Wires are on the order of 20x faster, which is noticeable. Don't know
how muich faster the real-world speed of Aurport Extreme is, but it is
no where near 20x faster than Airport.

[Tom Harrington]

In article <120820031040109763%macho@mac.com>,
Stan The Man <macho@mac.com> wrote:

> >1. blazing 100mhz speeds between Macs
> >2. reliable connections unaffected by weather, walls, microwaves, and
> >whatever

Once set up, wirless is just as reliable.

> >3. flexibility in adding PCs or printers without concern for wireless
> >cards

I guess it depends on your network topology. I have a couple of Macs
that are too old to have wireless capability. I've got them in the same
room as my base station, wired into it via a hub. So I can share files
with them over Airport even though they're wired.

> >4. plug-n-play for visitors that bring their laptops

Heh. In my experience, Airport gives you this as well, only without the
"plug" part. Sit down somewhere, open up the laptop, and you're online.

> >5. never having to post in this newsgroup for trouble-shooting
> >solutions to my wireless problems

Instead you can post asking for trouble-shooting solutions to your wired
problems. Many do, after all.

> These are all sound reasons. I might add:
>
> 6. Older machines, eg PCI Powermacs, should really be hard-wired to the
> LAN since patching them up as wireless machines can be flaky

Not if you know what you're doing; see #3 above.

> 7. Troubleshooting, eg resetting, an Airport base station requires an
> ethernet connection anyway

BS, this is simply not true.

> 8. It's easier and more reliable to run a print server over ethernet

See #3 again, my printer's shared from a wired Mac.

> 9. Repeat 1. Even 'g'-speed wireless won't get close to ethernet
> filesharing speed.

Well, then, why not just upgrade all the Macs to Gigabit Ethernet and
get it even faster? How fast is fast enough?

--
Tom "Tom" Harrington
Macaroni, Automated System Maintenance for Mac OS X.
Version 1.4: Best cleanup yet, gets files other tools miss.
See [url]http://www.atomicbird.com/[/url]

[Stan The Man]

In article
<spelloutmyname-96504A.06555112082003@news.comcast.giganews.com>, Alan
Charlesworth <spelloutmyname@sun.com> wrote:

>In article <110820031859500987%macho@mac.com>,
> Stan The Man <macho@mac.com> wrote:
>

>> In article <tph-394308.09501911082003@localhost>, Tom Harrington
>> <tph@pcisys.no.spam.dammit.net> wrote:

>> >
>> >Before doing anything, consider using wireless links. They're a lot
>> >easier, quicker, and cheaper to set up than Cat 5 would be.

>>
>> I have a Wireless LAN and use it all the time for internet sharing -
>> but, at real world speeds of around 3-6MB/minute it's definitely a poor
>> choice for file transfer between local machines. I would use ethernet
>> for this if it was readily available in several rooms without surface
>> wires.

>
>File sharing is much faster with wired Ethernet. I see 6-8 Mbytes/sec
>between an iBook and an eMac both running 10.2.6 using wires, and only
>about 0.4 MByles/sec using Airport from the iBook to a snow basestation.
>Wires are on the order of 20x faster, which is noticeable. Don't know
>how muich faster the real-world speed of Aurport Extreme is, but it is
>no where near 20x faster than Airport.

I wish I could get close to 0.4MB/sec wirelessly via my snow BS. I
wonder what the secret is.

Stan

[NeoLuddite]

In article <agorskiNOSPAM-C3097D.09300812082003@joe.rice.edu>,
Art Gorski <agorskiNOSPAM@rice.edu> wrote:

> In article <110820031859500987%macho@mac.com>,
> Stan The Man <macho@mac.com> wrote:
>

> >>Before doing anything, consider using wireless links. They're a lot
> >>easier, quicker, and cheaper to set up than Cat 5 would be.

> >
> >I have a Wireless LAN and use it all the time for internet sharing -
> >but, at real world speeds of around 3-6MB/minute it's definitely a poor
> >choice for file transfer between local machines. I would use ethernet
> >for this if it was readily available in several rooms without surface
> >wires.

>
> Agreed. Wireless is fine for broadband internet surfing, as the cable
> modem or DSL is always the bottleneck. But it's really insufficient for
> any intra-home services. By the time you fire up that home media
> server, file sharing, and who knows what next year, you'll be sorry if
> you went wireless.
>
> The only hope is that because SO many existing homes don't have
> structured wiring, someone will invent a better mousetrap to take
> advantage of this market.
>
> I'm getting ready to wire a new home with Cat5E. I know I'm doomed to
> have stone age wiring in about 5 years, but it'll be better than
> nothing. What I am doing for insurance is to run a conduit with pull
> string between critical areas like the wiring closet and the living room.

My dream house would have a "Jeffries Tube" like on star trek so I could
run and service new audio/video/data/power wiring and maybe even
plumbing and ventilation.
I consider myself lucky. I can access most rooms in the house from
either the basement or attic. Too bad there isn't a big or even little
shaft or conduit between the two.
I'd like to add cable TV access through the house but my first encounter
with the cable guy with his power drill, stapler and strange ideas about
how to run the cable has left me gun shy.

--
Real Address-> neoluddite0comcast.net <- replace 0 with @
Bill Gates couldn't innovate his way out of a paper bag.

[Art Gorski]

In article <BB5E8B4D9668CF7BB@u179n194.hfx.eastlink.ca>,
[email]g.sande@worldnet.att.net[/email] (Gordon Sande) wrote:

>In article <agorskiNOSPAM-C3097D.09300812082003@joe.rice.edu>,
>Art Gorski <agorskiNOSPAM@rice.edu> wrote:
>

>>I'm getting ready to wire a new home with Cat5E. I know I'm doomed to
>>have stone age wiring in about 5 years, but it'll be better than
>>nothing. What I am doing for insurance is to run a conduit with pull
>>string between critical areas like the wiring closet and the living room.

>
>Why not make sure you have conduit everywhere when you "rewire"?
>Then fill it with what you want when you want it.

Cost. Plus you don't have to weaken the whole structure by punching
monster holes for conduit through load bearing beams. :-)

--
Art Gorski * Mac Integration Staff * Rice University * Houston, Texas
Remember to remove NOSPAM from address when replying via email

[Matthew Russotto]

In article <see_signature_for_address-3C07DE.17550812082003@news.comcast.giganews.com>,
NeoLuddite <see_signature_for_address@invalid.com> wrote:

>I consider myself lucky. I can access most rooms in the house from
>either the basement or attic. Too bad there isn't a big or even little
>shaft or conduit between the two.

I used to live in a house which had such shafts -- the A/C for the second
floor went from the coil in the basement to a distribution box in the
attic, and of course there was a return as well. I did run cable
along them.

>I'd like to add cable TV access through the house but my first encounter
>with the cable guy with his power drill, stapler and strange ideas about
>how to run the cable has left me gun shy.

They like to run it on the outside, staple the cable to the wall, and
then run it inside, sealing the holes with black goop. Works, but
definitely not an elegant solution. I usually used baseboards and
closets -- put the cable through the floor in the closet to go level
to level, run it beneath or behind the baseboard molding when possible.
--
Matthew T. Russotto [email]mrussotto@speakeasy.net[/email]
"Extremism in defense of liberty is no vice, and moderation in pursuit
of justice is no virtue." But extreme restriction of liberty in pursuit of
a modicum of security is a very expensive vice.

[Loren Finkelstein]

In article <120820031040109763%macho@mac.com>,
Stan The Man <macho@mac.com> wrote:

> 7. Troubleshooting, eg resetting, an Airport base station requires an
> ethernet connection anyway

I'll jump in here with an "Um. No it doesn't."

Resetting an Airport base station requires pressing something on the
Base Station. I have fixed, reset, and maintained several, and never
needed an ethernet connection. In fact, I didn't know you could do it
via ethernet. How?

[Tom Harrington]

In article <170820031445075970%macho@mac.com>,
Stan The Man <macho@mac.com> wrote:

> In article <Loren-A201FD.09151217082003@reader1.panix.com>, Loren
> Finkelstein <Loren@Finkelstein.Net> wrote:
>

> >In article <120820031040109763%macho@mac.com>,
> > Stan The Man <macho@mac.com> wrote:
> >

> >> 7. Troubleshooting, eg resetting, an Airport base station requires an
> >> ethernet connection anyway

> >
> >I'll jump in here with an "Um. No it doesn't."
> >
> >Resetting an Airport base station requires pressing something on the
> >Base Station. I have fixed, reset, and maintained several, and never
> >needed an ethernet connection. In fact, I didn't know you could do it
> >via ethernet. How?

>
> If you had read the whole thread, you would have seen:
>

> >>>>BS, this is simply not true.
> >>>
> >>>Thanks for telling me. Did you let Apple know - because their
> >>>instructions for a hard reset in
> >>>[url]http://docs.info.apple.com/article.html?artnum=106602[/url] must therefore be
> >>>wrong.

No, they're not wrong, you are. If you'll read that page, you'll see
that what it does is tell you how to press the reset button on the base
station. They don't indicate that this is possible via either Ethernet
or wireless connections. Doing this does not require any connections of
any kind at all.

Rebooting the base station can be done using either wired or wireless
links; just use Airport Admin Utility.

--
Tom "Tom" Harrington
Macaroni, Automated System Maintenance for Mac OS X.
Version 1.4: Best cleanup yet, gets files other tools miss.
See [url]http://www.atomicbird.com/[/url]

[Stan The Man]

In article <newsgroups-401CAF.12564919082003@reader1.panix.com>, Loren
Finkelstein <newsgroups@lrf.net> wrote:

>In article <180820030834031377%macho@mac.com>,
> Stan The Man <macho@mac.com> wrote:
>

>> Did you read the article? After a hard reset, the base station is
>> invisible to the wireless network and can only be accessed via the
>> ethernet port...... Iow, you can't complete a hard reset without making
>> a wired connection to the base station to reconfigure it.

>
>I haven't read the article, but if it says that, it's wrong. I have
>reset several airport base stations, and the hard reset sends them back
>to the factory default, which is not invisible. Easily found and
>configured with the Airport Admin Utility. Remember, the original base
>stations only came with one ethernet port and that was for internet
>access. It wasn't even meant to be plugged into by a local machine.

Neither my comments nor the article referenced apply to the original
base station. This is about the snow BS. I suggest you read the
article. System administrators, electricians, plumbers, wi-fi engineers
and many more are always too knowledgeable to read the manual or to
follow the rules - which is why too many electricians succeed in
killing themselves.

Stan

[Stan The Man]

In article <newsgroups-C2F81C.17334726082003@reader2.panix.com>, Loren
Finkelstein <newsgroups@lrf.net> wrote:

>If I were you, I would try the
>reset and see what happens, and have a wire with you. That way, whether
>I am right or wrong, you are covered.

A year ago I was having problems with my wireless LAN and a senior
Apple specialist Airport technician stayed on the phone with me while I
ran through a firm reset to the specific instructions I was being
given. Those instructions included the plugging in of an ethernet cable
so that I could see and reconfigure the BS. Apple weren't about to
waste their time and mine by taking me the long way around if it wasn't
necessary to get the job done properly.

Stan

[Tom Stiller]

In article <newsgroups-401CAF.12564919082003@reader1.panix.com>,
Loren Finkelstein <newsgroups@lrf.net> wrote:

> In article <180820030834031377%macho@mac.com>,
> Stan The Man <macho@mac.com> wrote:
>

> > Did you read the article? After a hard reset, the base station is
> > invisible to the wireless network and can only be accessed via the
> > ethernet port...... Iow, you can't complete a hard reset without making
> > a wired connection to the base station to reconfigure it.

>
> I haven't read the article, but if it says that, it's wrong. I have
> reset several airport base stations, and the hard reset sends them back
> to the factory default, which is not invisible. Easily found and
> configured with the Airport Admin Utility. Remember, the original base
> stations only came with one ethernet port and that was for internet
> access. It wasn't even meant to be plugged into by a local machine.

Who says? From day one my daughter's base station has connected to the
internet via the modem while her housemate's computers were connected to
the base station's ethernet port via a simple hub. Her's was the only
wireless connection.

--
Tom Stiller

PGP fingerprint = 5108 DDB2 9761 EDE5 E7E3
7BDA 71ED 6496 99C0 C7CF

[David Lesher]

NeoLuddite <see_signature_for_address@invalid.com> writes:

>One thing you should know is that Ethernet only uses 4 of the 8 wires in
>the cable. The other 4 are intended for phone wiring. Something I
>learned only *AFTER* I ran both Ethernet and new phone wiring to several
>rooms in the house.

Not true. The spec is 4-pair. With 10/100Baste T you MIGHT get by with stealing
unused piars, but it's not a great idea.

With GigB, you won't get away with it.



--
A host is a host from coast to coast.................wb8foz@nrk.com
& no one will talk to a host that's close........[v].(301) 56-LINUX
Unless the host (that isn't close).........................pob 1433
is busy, hung or dead....................................20915-1433

[David Lesher]

Stan The Man <macho@mac.com> wrote in message news:<110820031448054726%macho@mac.com>...

> How viable is it to lay Cat 5 ethernet cables to telephone points in a
> house rewiring project?

It's easy if the walls are open; and goes the gamut from easy to
impossible if not.


As for why... Well wired is the standard from which all others are graded.
A wired cable will work with any system, any OS, any revision.

Sure, you can try wireless but it has lots of minuses as well as
the benefits...
--
A host is a host from coast to coast.................wb8foz@nrk.com
& no one will talk to a host that's close........[v].(301) 56-LINUX
Unless the host (that isn't close).........................pob 1433
is busy, hung or dead....................................20915-1433