Does having multiple RJ45 jacks degrade the Internet signal a lot?

Page 1 of 12  
This is my first time installing cat5 cable in my house and I am unsure how to connect to RJ45 jacks that I need to put in the wall.
I've installed a WISP antenna 75 feet from the house & will be routing the outdoor cat5 cable into the middle of the house (another 25 or so feet) - but I have a few 'design' questions I'd like to ask those more experienced than I am.
Pictured here is what I have in the wall in the middle of the house: http://picturepush.com/public/7212874 or www1.picturepush.com/photo/a/7212874/1024/Anonymous/cat5-questions.gif
I'm not sure if it's best to route the wire all the way from the antenna to the middle of the house (about 75 feet to the house and another 25 or 30 feet zig-zagging to the crawl space and then up to the newly drilled hole at the wall).
I'm going to put a wall plate at the wall in the middle of the house; but should I also put a wall plate where the wire enters the house?
Does breaking the line into sections degrade the signal?
If I do put a wall plate at the entrance to the house, I'll likely put the POE (power over ethernet) at the wall inside the house (otherwise it will go in the middle of the house next to the WRT54G router).
When I put a wall plate in the middle of the house, would you add a second female jack (just in case for future use?). Or does that also degrade the signal?
In summary, I'm not sure if I should strive to keep the line intact and how I should terminate it.
Any advice?
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On 12/24/2011 12:04 AM, Chuck Banshee wrote:

I'm a bit confused here. It should be one device per line, so what are you paralleling?
I'd put the router someplace like a closet in the middle of the house and run wires to each room as needed. There are "structured" wiring bays if you want to get fancy, rather than have wires dangling in the closet.
Kind of old school here. I think today you would just wire data. Forget the RF unless you insist on cable.

I've only see these in rack mounts, i.e. office environments. Wall mounts is what would make more sense for a house.
I'd put in the highest speed wire and patch you can afford. Also, there are issues with how you radius the wire. I don't think this is rocket science, but you do need to be scientific about it.
Your AM radio may hear these wires sing, but streaming radios are the way to go. I haven't used a broadcast radio other than shortwave in 4 or 5 years.
There are shielded cables to reduce the EMI. Probably OK for a short distance. There are ground mismatch issues with shielded cables.
Cat 6 is commonplace. Cat 7 is out there, though I don't recall seeing it in stores. A twisted pair guru told me (and I have no way to verify this) that once a company can do cat X, eventually everything the sell is Cat X, even if it is labeled Cat (X-1). Once you have the twist (balance) down, you eventually make everything to that grade as machinery gets fixed.
Some of the cat 7 wire has teflon insulation. I'd certainly rest easier at night knowing the wires in the wall are good for high temperature.
Incidentally I have a very old Zircon stud finder. They called it the video sensor. It works well. But your magnet trick looks good to me.

This device even found a shallow buried pipe that some rancher gypsy installed.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Cat 5 or 6 cannot be made on the same machinery as cat7 because cat7 uses individually shielded wires, twiisted together into a sheilded cable. REALLY nasty stuff to work with. And 3 standards - cat7, cat7a and cat7f.

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

With electronics, sometimes items are truly different and sometimes they are tested and selected for grade. If the construction is different, they can't be the same obviously. If the components are selected for grade, then often they sell "A" grade on the "B" grade line just to fill orders. In the IC business, the procedure is known as "paint and remark".
Now if 7, 7a, and 7f use the same materials, then there is a chance at some point they are the same quality.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

electronic technology is close behind, such as TVs. Centralize a wireless router and forego wiring the house.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

a server/Drobo/whatever in that closet. New construction has structured wiring as an add-on.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

I agree. Wireless should be used when other methods (CAT5 or fiber) are not available. The reliability and speed of the connection is well worth the effort running the wires or fiber. If speed is less of an issue than convenience, consider using HomePlug or HomePNA.
For new installations, I usually recommend running conduit in the walls from a central location (star topology). This is roughly the way structured wiring is done. Bundles of CAT5, fiber, station wire, alarm wire, intercom wire, thermocouple wire, and coax cable are available for those who fail to appreciate conduit. Actually, it's not the usual PVC electrical conduit but rather "smurf tube" or HDPE (high density polyethylene) pipe: <http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showthread.php?t 1909> <http://store.cablesplususa.com/networking-infrastructure-premier-conduit-raceway.html
However, if you enjoy dealing with interference from the neighbors, municipal wi-fi, wireless security cameras, TIVO, wireless TV, microwave ovens, etc, wireless is for you.
--
# Jeff Liebermann 150 Felker St #D Santa Cruz CA 95060
# 831-336-2558
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

using wireless, I have yet to have any major issues. In fact, I had several machines connected. Some were wired and some wireless. I had more problems with some of the wired than I did with wireless. It's not foolproof, but it doesn't have the major interference problems you and many have stated.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
wrote:

Well, what can I say? My experience has been quite the opposite. I derive a fair part of my income from fixing wireless problems. Perhaps I just see more wireless horror stories than you. Dunno.
It's not just the interference problems, some of which I itemized above. There's also some rather strange wireless clients, buggy wireless router firmware, compatibility issues, and just plain bad design.
Here's an easy one, that I hear all to often. Customer has a wireless PC laptop. He uses the laptop successfully on the office WLAN. He slams the lid shut, putting the laptop into standby or hibernate. He goes home, opens the lid, and the laptop resumes. One problem... he can't connect. A bit of tinkering finds that the laptop still thinks he's on the office WLAN, and is desperately looking for the office wireless access point that's not there. If the IP address of the office router and home router are the same, it's even more confusing (ARP cache). The DHCP lease time hasn't expired yet, so the DHCP client isn't going to break the RFC and initiate a premature DHCP renewal. There are plenty of ways to fix this (IPCONFIG, reboot, turn power on/off to the wireless card in the laptop), but it will usually drive one into frustration mode the first time they see it. This doesn't happen with a wired LAN.
Plenty of other ways to have wireless drive one nuts. I get a call from a dentists office wondering if I could do something to make their assorted wireless laptops work better. I arrive and find the outside of the adjacent building festooned with wireless security cameras. As long as they are running, Wi-Fi isn't working. I leave it to the dentist to convince the neighbor to switch the cameras to wired.
Need more stories? Just ask.
However, you are correct that there are also plenty of wired issues. I've had to deal with a few wiring and connector issues on network hardware. Learning to crimp CAT5 into an RJ45 is fairly easy, but does take some practice. I see far too many partial crimps and creative wiring. Still, they're minor compared to the wireless problems.
--
# Jeff Liebermann 150 Felker St #D Santa Cruz CA 95060
# 831-336-2558
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
wrote:

You want to try the job I had last year. Moved an insurance agency into a new build ing that had been pre-wired by the original tennant - who went bankrupt - and the IT guys that had not been paid for the server etc came in and lopped off all the cables 2 feet from the ceiling. 78 cable runs - undocumented - and half wired to "A" spec and half to "B". I ended up putting a switch rack above the door to the former server room, terminating all those cables - then tracing them back to their end-points, testing them, and re-wiring all of them that ended up "crossed".
Then running "home runs" from the switch rack to the relocated server room.
Then we added another kilometer of cable into a trough in the floor to serve another 12 workstations.
Half of the cables for corporate network - the other half for VOIP phone system (with POE).
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Agree with your comments about wireless. Wireless is great when it's impractical for a wired connection and it works. But it's no subsitute for a direct wired connection. My experience with both in several environments is consistent with yours.
To the points you've already covered, I'd add the issue of security. That's one more layer of stuff to deal with for wirless that you don't have to worry about with wired. If you have no security, then anyone within range can access your network. If you use encryption, not only does it usually impact performance, but it also adds another issue everytime you add or replace a device on the network. Add a Tivo or PC and now you have to remember and find the encryption key. Sounds easy, but I've seen folks who spent hours trying to find the key, get it entered correctly, etc.
With wired I can do a 1 gig Ethernet connection that is reliable and inherrently secure. High end wireless routers, ie 802.11N that are "gigabit" actually only support that rate on the wired connections. For wireless the theoretical data rate is 300Mbits. And you might get near that if the two points are in the same room. Across the house, it's doubtful.
So, if I had an easy wire run, no question I'd do it.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Sun, 25 Dec 2011 05:56:53 -0800 (PST), " snipped-for-privacy@optonline.net"

Cringe. I promised myself that I would not get involved in any more security discussions. However, since this is a holiday...

The real problem with Wi-Fi security is the shared key. All wireless clients on your network use the same shared key. If the key is compromised, so is the entire network. There are complex ways to sniff the traffic and recover the WEP/WPA key, but it's much easier to simply borrow a laptop on the network, and recover a hashed key from the registry: <http://www.nirsoft.net/utils/wireless_key.html In other words, the very concept of a shared key is lacking.
What's needed is a one time key, which does not need to be remembered. This is accomplished with WPA-RADIUS. The user is presented with a unique per-user login and password. The RADIUS server then delivers a one-time, per session, and unique key. You could sniff the key, but it would only be good for that session. Few home networks offer this level of key management, although it's common in corporate networks.

Chuckle. I've been tempted to offer a prize to anyone that can demonstrate a streaming wireless connection that will do 300Mbits. I know that it's been done in the lab (controlled environment) and with dual band channel bonding, but I seriously doubt it can be done in the presence of interference and uncontrolled reflections. The only reason manufacturers offer gigabit ethernet ports is that they would look rather foolish offering 100Mbits/sec ports on a router theoretically capable of 300Mbits/sec wireless.
As for wired being more secure, I beg to differ. I have a small collection of ethernet taps, that I use to sniff traffic for network troubleshooting. If I wanted to sniff your network, I would install one between your broadband connection and router. Taping a single ethernet LAN port won't work because it will only see traffic on that port and broadcast traffic. <http://www.netoptics.com/products/network-taps

I've done about 700Mbits/sec. I forgot the exact hardware but I do recall that I had to tune both the client and server computers IP stack to get decent performance. Out of the box, I think it was about 300Mbits/sec. For testing, I use iPerf and JPerf. <http://www.smallnetbuilder.com/lanwan/lanwan-howto/30408-measuring-network-performance-jperf

I've never seen an easy run on a rework job. There's always some complication involved. The easier it looks, the more complicated it will become.
--
Jeff Liebermann snipped-for-privacy@cruzio.com
150 Felker St #D http://www.LearnByDestroying.com
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

No question that wired can be compromised too. But installing a tap in a wired line is IMO a big step beyond connecting to a wireless LAN. If you put up a wireless LAN with no security enabled, it can be accessed by anyone within the wireless range. Like the kid in the apartment next door. For that kid to install a tap would not only require a lot more effort, but I think in most hackers minds, actually attaching something to someone's network is something they would not do for a variety of reasons. Being a physical thing, if found, there's direct evidence of tapping, which everyone knows is a crime and more likely to get police attention. Also, while it's not true, folks have a sense that anything they can connect to wirelessly is open territory.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Since you're in the business, I can't dispute your experience and I'm sure you've had your fair share. Perhaps my location provides an interference free area thus serving my satisfaction of wireless. Being I work within a University, the connection is fairly sound as well, though, don't get me wrong, has had it's fair share of problems. Overall, I think it's safe to assume the location plays a role when going wireless and I won't dispute wired having a greater advantage over wireless. I just didn't think it was as bad as the rebuttal. It won't be the first time I'm wrong. ;)
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Yep. That's the ONLY way to do ethernet over twisted pair. Bus topology is for 10base2 coax and POTS phones. Ring is for fiber or token ring. <https://www.google.com/search?q=ethernet+topology&tbm=isch

Not really. Ring topology is used for fiber because it offers improved reliability. Break the ring at any point, and the data simply goes around the long way until the break is fixed. Two breaks just means a small section of the ring is inaccessible. The rest of the ring still works. It really makes more sense over a large distance, such as going around the entire SF Bay area, rather than just around the house.
The problem with home networks and fiber rings is that there just isn't any affordable hardware available to make it happen. It's also not really necessary at home, unless you have kids, puppies, or rats chewing on the cables and need improved uptime.
The reason I keep mentioning star topology is that many users are very familiar with the common POTS (plain old telephone service) bus type topology. Find the cable that's snaking through the walls, and just tap in with the phone instrument. That's convenient, but doesn't work with 10/100baseT ethernet. It DOES work with 10base2 coax cable ethernet, but that's limited to 10Mbits/sec half-duplex. I just wanted to make sure that the OP doesn't try to wire his house in the style of the POTS phone.
--
# Jeff Liebermann 150 Felker St #D Santa Cruz CA 95060
# 831-336-2558
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

"Rings" in reality, aren't. They're double "stars", with a pair of channels, one each direction from a central hub to the points of the star. This is done for serviceability. The network can be managed from a central point. The original Token Ring was a true ring but it was quickly found that the network got unmanageable. In fact, Token Ring over CAT-5 isn't uncommon at all (if you can say Token Ring isn't "uncommon" anymore ;-).

Most POTS is wired in a star, today. It's easier in new construction, to put all the communications stuff together. Of course telephones don't care what the wire looks like. If it made it the five miles from the CO, you could have barbed wire in the house and it would work. ;-)
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Sun, 25 Dec 2011 00:19:16 -0500, snipped-for-privacy@snyder.on.ca wrote:

Well, not exactly:
Methods of using Ethernet in a ring topology <http://www.networkworld.com/community/node/43116 There's also RRPP (Rapid Ring Protection Protocol), RRST (Rapid Ring Spanning Tree), and others designed to facilitate ethernet rings. However, they are all intended for metro LAN's and large server farms, not for home use.
Incidentally, don't under estimate coax cable. I've run 10base2 (10Mbits/sec) for about 1500ft using RG6a/u coax and a pair of dedicated transceivers. Yes, it's 75 ohms, not 50 ohms. With 10base2, it's called CheaperNet.
--
Jeff Liebermann snipped-for-privacy@cruzio.com
150 Felker St #D http://www.LearnByDestroying.com
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Sun, 25 Dec 2011 00:19:16 -0500, snipped-for-privacy@snyder.on.ca wrote:

Well - only if you define the domain as a single segment - and star based Ethernet these days uses switches, and i think you are explaining about topology in a single wiring closet, where a star on 1 switch is the easiest way to set it up.
But the topology between Ethernet switches can be pretty arbitary once you hvae nore than 1 device - as long as you stay with a tree, or run 1 of the protocols designed to make sure any loops do not cause problems (spanning tree, 802.1s/w RPR, etc)
--
Regards

stephen snipped-for-privacy@xyzworld.com - replace xyz with ntl
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Sat, 24 Dec 2011 12:10:20 -0500, Justin Time wrote:

That's essentially what I'm attempting.
I'll wire from the WISP antenna to the house (~ about 75') and then from the house to the center of the house (~ another 25') where I'll put a Linksys WRT54G wireless router.
I was mostly wondering if it was a good idea to BREAK the line at the point where it entered the house (and put a jack there plus the POE power supply) ... or ... if I should strive to keep the line intact up to the router in the center of the house.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Related Threads

    HomeOwnersHub.com is a website for homeowners and building and maintenance pros. It is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.