What's wrong with this picture?

I am guessing you have an issue with the bundle of ethernet cables running next to the Romex but the reality is ethernet has a very good ability to reject 60hz inputs. I understand it is a "practice" not to do that but we could never reproduce the alleged problems. We also coiled ethernet cables on top of fluorescent luminaires and ran them in an elevator shaft next to the power conductors and could not identify any reduction in performance there either. It was actually a little disappointing because the initial objective was to demonstrate the problems these are supposed to cause and provide the troubleshooting experience.

My guess is this legend came from less capable wiring methods and more primitive adapters. I put it right up there with the ancient "isolated ground" legends.

From my back-in-the-80's computer repair days, I think I recall that as long as the network cables ran parallel to the electrical wires, the world was a happy place. It was the crossover at angles that (supposedly) caused the interference. I could be mis-remembering.

However, even though the OP mentioned "network/computer repair people" the thing I question has nothing to do with that arena:

What about the white wire used on what appears to be a ganged breaker on the lower left? Shouldn't that be red or at least wrapped to identify it as hot? It's certainly not a pigtail for a GFCI or AFCI breaker.

It's the other way around.

Note that Cat 5 network cables are twisted differential pairs and generally immune to externally induced crosstalk and EMI.

Earlier ethernet cables (e.g. 10base5) were shielded.

Therte WERE problems with the old ArcNet ans 10B2 co-ax based networks running parallel to current carrying power conductors - and also problems with long co-ax cables coiled up under desks etc instead of using appropriate length cables. Properly installed twisted pair networks are pretty resistant to electromagnetic interference - particularly the lastest Cat7 and up sheilded twisted pair cables.

There have been problems with higher speed (Gigabit and above)internet cables picking up high frequency (RF) interference, which is why cat5E, cat 6, Cat6E and Cat7 cabling now exist, but to those systems

I see:

-- an unterminated network cable

-- several power adapters just hanging there without being strain relief

-- network cables wrapping around a router's antenna

-- no cover on the breaker panel

-- a ground wire not within conduit

Those hurt my eyes.

Good point.

I wonder if the big problem referred to is the 110AC going next to what seem to be wifi antennas.

As an aside when I first got cable, I wanted the installer to put the box not under the 14" tv, but in the closet 6 feet away. He said, Well, I don't know if it it will work but he did it and it was fine of course.

Later when I was running an extension, it had to go down two floors, from the back to the front of the house and up 6 feet, and for some reason I've forgtten, while I was installing it, it was actually three times that long, down, back and down again, so it was about 150 feet and it still worked fine.

To a point and depending on the gear yes. Those are utp cat5e cables running a gigabit network. And those are multiple home runs of romex they were running alongside. Heavy load carrying ones in this case. Heaters and melters of various kinds which are always on. They work like a water heater though so only pull to maintain set temp.

We also took issue with the fact that is a subpanel in the picture with the neutral and ground bus bars bonded. They shouldn't have been left in that configuration. The bridge at the bottom of the panel should have been removed.

We've been able to reproduce some of the reported issues to varying degree in the lab. That particular job we were able to show considerable packet loss along the network which is why we were called in. We relocated all of the network gear and cabling. It's entirely possible that we cleared the issue by properly terminating everything and that the relocation step wasn't necessary.

Possibly.

Are you writing about the isolated ground for supposed rf reduction? Otherwise as far as we understand it it's just a ground wire that's insulated and only makes contact with metal at the panel ground bar and the device. Are you writing about the same thing here?

If you are we haven't decided which camp were in yet. We haven't had time to run any experiments for that.

But what about the white wire into the breaker on the lower left?

Am I wrong that that should be taped as red or is something else going on there?

If you're writing about the last double pole breaker on the left then yes the white wire should have been marked to indicate it's a hot wire and not a neutral. We used red tape. A red sharpie would have worked as well.

As we wrote when we shared the pic - the company that did the work is a "pro" on paper - In real life they're asshats. On google they've got xx reviews that aren't good.

Grounding Electrode Conductors 4ga or larger are not required to be in a raceway. I assume the cover was off to show us the neat wiring inside. The picture is gone now (404) so I can't look at it more.

Thanks. That's actually the first thing I noticed when you asked "can any of you see a problem in that picture?" but when you added that "network/computer repair people" should know about it, I didn't know why you would say that about an unmarked neutral. ;-)

My son had a similar but different issue. He found a 4 wire drier circuit in the garage of a house he bought. Whoever wired it used the black and white as the hots and the red as the neutral. I mean, I can see maybe not knowing what you are doing and using the white as a hot, but wouldn't you wonder why you were attaching the only red wire to a bar full of nothing but white wires? Wouldn't that make *anybody* step back for a second and say "This just doesn't seem right."?

The page is gone. I guess he was embarrassed.

I noticed that but forgot to mention it. I'll probably be fired.

We weren't called there for panel issues. The problems with the panel itself are bonus points.

Sadly no. Too many people ignore the obvious or what should be. Your sons issue is a perfect example of that.

We didn't remove the picture from either of the sites we uploaded it to. The 404 error is either a temporary database problem or an individual by the name of snit filed a bogus complaint to down the pic.

The company that did that work should be - but the fact they presently use that pic on their main page of their company website tells us they are proud of the s*it job they did.

And we didn't remove the pic from the site. It's either a temp database issue or a notorious usenet troll filed a false complaint to have the pic they have no rights to downed. Our signature contains details on this troll.

The site was returning 404 several times yesterday too. Then it would come back to life. The other site didn't do that when we checked it but it's now doing a 404 as well - we suspect we've been snitted.

I saw the red button on that breaker and assumed it was a GFCI.

It is back.

I just saw the one on the left and you are right. It should have been reidentified if they are on the 2002 or later when 200.7 was changed