If it's the old red/green/yellow/black wire (not twisted as
two pairs) it would be questionable for use as door bell
If it is used for two phone lines (one on r/g and second on
y/b) it will have a bad case of "crosstalk". You will hear
conversation from the other line on the line you are using.
If you plan on adding adsl internet service, it would be
best to run a cat 5 cable from the telco network interface
to your computer (dsl modem). Cat 5 cable is twisted-pair
and will have minimum loss and interference to the dsl
signal. Place a dsl filter at the interface that feeds the
telephone voice service wires (your existing rg/yb cable).
The dsl modem will "train" for the best speed it can pass
thru the cable you are using, which could be 1/10 of the
speed that is available at the network interface. If there
are many jacks on the old cable, the extra "open-ended"
cable will look like a short circuit to the RF signal that
10/100/1000 baseT network cards are not as forgiving, if the
signal has loss or distortion from the unpaired cable, they
just won't communicate or will have many errors. Use cat 5
or better for computer network cabling, end-to-end, no
splices or taps, not even crushed or kinked cable is allowable.
If you can get access, replace the old station cable with
goof cat five cable, and pull a second cable as well if you
plan on voice and data everywhere. It will serve you well
for years to come, for new services like video.
-larry / dallas
That's quickly becoming old school. Wireless is getting faster, more
reliable, and, arguably, more secure than cable. And it's way easier
to pull through walls. Granted, you'll need high quality cable to
get the signal to the WAP but, once there, you're done.
You're out of your mind. Wireless has always been much less reliable,
much slower, and much less secure than cable.
Wireless makes it possible to connect to the household LAN without ever
entering the residence. Connecting to the wired lan would require breaking
Wireless is prone to signal degredation and dropouts. Wired is rock solid
Wireless is limited to 20-50mbps unless you join channels (read: expensive
proprietary single manufacturer solutions). Wired networks can do gigabit
with inexpensive hardware without proprietary hacks.
The only thing you got right is that wireless is easier than pulling cable
Even 100 Mbit wired Ethernet is in practice much faster than wireless if
you have more than one computer.
For example, 802.11g has 54 Mbps total bandwidth to share among all
users, not counting the amount that's lost to protocol overhead. When
one computer is transmitting, no others can. It's like an old
single-segment Ethernet using coaxial cable, or a bunch of computers
wired together using a dumb hub where every computer's output is sent to
every other computer, whether they care or not.
But no recently-installed 100 Mbps hardwared network is likely to have a
hub on it. Instead, it will have a switch that routes packets only
to the computer that is interested in receiving them. If you have a
4-port switch and 4 computers, computer A may be sending data to
computer B at 100 Mbps, and computers C and D will see none of that
traffic. Meanwhile, computers C and D can be talking at 100 Mbps
between themselves without affecting A and B.
And, in fact, the links are 100 Mbps in each direction, so A and B may
be talking at 100 Mbps both ways simultaneously, if they have traffic
going both ways. The typical 4-port 100 Mbps switch actually has 800
Mbps internal bandwidth so all ports can be running in both directions
at 100 Mbps without the switch being a bottleneck. If you have more
than 4 computers and buy a larger switch, it will have more internal
bandwidth, up to 1600 Mbps for 8 ports.
Meanwhile, wireless-G has only 54 Mbps to share among all computers no
matter how many there are. And if some of the computers are far enough
away that the signal rate drops down below 54 Mbps, then there is even
less bandwidth available.
On Thu, 15 Feb 2007 05:34:28 +0000 (UTC), email@example.com (Dave
Which is more of the total bandwidth than with wired. If you want to
check it, measure ACTUAL transfer speeds.
Also, wireless can have much less bandwidth than 54M. It operates at
lower speeds when the signal is weaker. Expect falloff is much lower
distances than under those "ideal conditions" they use to for testing.
From what I hear, that new "n" wireless standard offers (in some
cases) better speed and range, with significantly increases risk of
interference. You could actually get worse instead of the better you
I notice the manuals for wireless devices normally have something
about repositioning the antennas in the event of interference. This
condition is more likely to get worse than to get better (increasing
complexity of networks, more networks in area, etc...). You may have
to reposition those devices several times a day (maybe you haven't had
to YET. You never know when you'll have to). This problem is a lot
less frequent with a wired network.
You're crazy.. Unless by 'arguably' you mean 'freakin impossible',
then I agree.. Wireless can NEVER be more secure than a hardwired
connection. The only difference between wire and wireless is the
physical medium. You can run the same encryption over either medium.
WEP/WEP2 are easily crackable compared to SSL, no matter how strong
your WEP key is.. WPA and WPA2 are a lot better but far less common,
and still not up to SSL standards..
With a wired connection I'm not broadcasting my traffic to everyone
within x feet, I can guarantee than nobody even knows there IS traffic
unless you are physically in my house. In my neighborhood I can see a
half dozen wireless networks, most using WEP, one wide open.
Not even considering the fact that the encryption scheme sucks, and
that they're set up EXTREMELY insecure by default most of the time..
Just the fact that your packets are available for everyone to see
makes it less secure by definition. The physical security is gone,
and that's the only real difference.
Ok, maybe I didn't think my response through before I posted it. Let
me correct and qualify some of what I said.
While wireless may not be faster, more secure, or more reliable than
wired, in the context of home installations, it's fast enough, secure
enough, and reliable enough for virtually any application, including
video. In terms of speed, a wireless LAN far exceeds any mainstream
broadband connection you're likely to encounter today (that's
significant if we're talking about video delivery). In terms of
reliability, I assume that we're talking about error recovery
(dropped packets, etc). Over the past three years or so, my $10
router has *never* reported more than zero. With regard to security
- if my neighbor is anal enough to crack my encryption so he can
watch 24 without an antenna - that's his problem, not mine.
You make an interesting, almost comical observation of 'other'
networks in your neighborhood. I typically see about six, one of
which was unsecured, and called "Smith Family Network" (name changed
to preserve Jim's reputation). And, yes, I could see his C:\\ drive,
to the extent that Windows permitted. I sent a letter to him via his
printer and he's since fixed it :)
My bottom line opinion hasn't changed. Even if I was building a new
home from scratch, I probably wouldn't bother running cat5. I don't
need it today, and the continuous advance of technology suggests that
I'm even less likely to need it tomorrow.
I know this will sound like I'm up to no good but that really isn't the
case. I have too unsecured networks in my neighborhood and I'd like to
warn them before someone uses there network to do something that the
Feds might take exception to. I don't need anyone breaking down doors
in my neighborhood looking for criminals that were just driving by and
spotted an open FIOS connection. Oh hell my son set up the wireless
access for his sisters laptop on a different subnet and using the best
encryption currently available to people who don't have control of
Taxpayer purchased Crays. I'll just ask him to do it.
Strangely, those 2 little words, "SO FAR" get left out all the time.
Also, some people's wireless networks may work fine. Others are a
continuing source of problems. Something to consider when you're
thinking about setting one up.
And insignificant for anyone who has more than one computer (that's
increasingly common) and wants to transfer a file from one computer to
another. If this doesn't apply to you NOW, will it EVER? No one can
Notice how that word is totally inappropriate most of the time. Does
anyone actually want to take a shit on your computer network?
It's often business-oriented cracking now. They could want to use YOUR
network to send spam for something you'd find totally offensive.
Somewhat. Although it is an observed fact (any comedy was not of my
creation). BTW, since then one of those networks has been shut down.
It could have been something serious.
Oh contrarie mon frere. WEP is more security than ethernet which has NO
encryption. Of course with ethernet you need physical access. So the
security question is, is it harder to gain physical access to Ethernet, or
to crack WEP?!
Either way, Ethernet was not designed to be secure. Wifi more than likely
was also not designed to be secure. Undoubtidly some genious decided it
was a good idea to make wifi 'secure...'
Given physical access to ethernet, it becomes less secure than WEP. A
corporation can not assume nobody can gain physical access.
Ethernet has no encryption.
You can have just as lame passwords in ssh if you wish. And some fool was
brute forcin my sshd for years before I finally changed the port...
I run an "open" connection mostly. WEP/WPA is too much of a headache for
me. My network is protected by a firewall, and any access to resources
from the wifi connection must be through ssh.
I have to believe wifi was never intended to be secure. Ethernet is
certainly not secure. And all wifi was designed to do is provide the same
thing ethernet provides.
I'm actually running gigabit Ethernet over Cat3. It's a short run, about 20'
and nothing likely to interfere nearby. I made the mistake in the mid 90's of
saying "10 megabits is plenty, I don't need to spend the extra money for Cat5."
Not recommended, but it works for me in this case.
What actually matters is how much the signal is distorted at the
receiver, and whether it can reliably recover the data bits.
You could use speaker wire or alarm cable or just about anything else if
the run is short enough. But if you want to transmit gibabit data 100 m,
the right cable becomes important.
I once had to connect three workstations that used "vampire tap"
transceivers that mount on coax, without any coax. I jury-rigged
something out of a few inches of wire, sub-D connector female sockets,
and two 50-ohm resistors. It wasn't shielded and it wasn't a cable, but
it had the correct DC resistance and the total length was far shorter
than the wavelength of the data bits on the cable, so the AC impedance
didn't matter. It worked fine, until the coax showed up several months
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.