CAT5e junction boxes

Anyone ever used anything like:
formatting link
so, what were results like on data (100Mb)?
Reliable etc?
What about on voice?
(for background, I went to quote an exiting client on a IT fit for a new
office. The initial pleasant surprise was that it already had a full
structured cabling system in place - concentrated in a nice big
equipment cupboard. then I noticed in decommissioning the previous
owners kit some muppet had hacked through all the CAT5 cable about 2"
above where it went down through the concrete floor, with not quite
enough slack to get a patch panel in at a low level. Hence it means
either re-cable the lot (which seems like an expensive waste of effort),
or find a way to splice on extensions to the cut cables)
Reply to
John Rumm
It does say "Cat 5E" so I would assume it is rated as per Cat5E, and is therefore perfectly fine to use and should have no negative effects on 100Mb ethernet. (I assume that putting in a coupler like this reduces the maximum length of Cat5E you can use, but I wouldn't have thought it would affect you significantly.)
We use Cat 5E rated couplers at work all over the places. These ones have RJ-45 sockets at each end, so let you connect 2 existing Cat5 cables together to make a longer one. Work a treat. Got them from Screwfix IIRC.
We did originally use non-Cat5 rated couplers. You wouldn't believe some of the problems I've seen from using non-Cat5 rated couplers on 100Mb ethernet. I once ended up missing a great party at the House of Blues in Chicago having to fly to LA to help a customer out with some problems in their network - turned out they have one of said non-Cat5 rated bastards connecting two pieces of Cat 5E together. I had hoped never to have to go to LA, now I hope never to have to go back.
Reply to
Piers Finlayson
Fine, as far as I can tell. I changed my mind about where the rack was to go, some time after I'd laid the first few cables! I'm using them at 100Mb/s and have had no problems (but have done no detailed measurements).
Not tried. I used phone cable for that!
Reply to
Bob Eager
Length won't be a problem - can't see any run being over 20m
Yeh, thought about those, but that would mean terminating all the cut ends in RJ45s. It would be much simpler to punch them down to a some form of IDC strip as in those couplers.
Well, this gig is not quite so far to travel, but all the same I don't want to be going there that often either!
Reply to
John Rumm
I raised a similar query earlier this year
formatting link
following a reorganisation of my study (which houses a 24/7 server) - I didn't want cables crossing the room from the existing network socket and so, with the carpet up, I extended the the cable to a new socket on the other side of the room and used a coupler inside the old backbox with a blanking plate. Another advantage doing it this way is that I can revert the old socket back to its former use with ease.
It worked, but still not fully relaxed about it (I'm fussy about these things) I ran some tests with 'iperf' and, from my notes at the time, saw that it was quite happy transferring UDP packets at 80mbps (it's a Full Duplex Fast Ethernet LAN) with 0% packet loss and this was through ~7 plug/socket interfaces, a router and a switch. For some reason my notes don't mention anything >80mbps so either I ran short of time, got bored, or higher was not possible. Either way the figures suggest there are no grounds for concern.
Reply to
Mathew Newton
They're absolutely fine. I buy them from Solwise and used them for pretty much the same reason you're wanting to use them.
Tested using my Fluke lan meter and the cables I used them on passed with no problems.
Reply to
I'm pretty sure that this is allowed for in the cat5e spec - it's known as a consolidation point. I'll leave it up to you to Google for a definitive answer, but provided the patch-panel to outlet is no more than 90m, and the external patching is
Reply to
Since this will be a structured system (i.e. won't choose what sockets do what until later), I might give that a miss ;-)
Reply to
John Rumm
Yes these work well - I've used them in a few places in the house where it was impossible to run a single length of cable through.
I also used some Krone consolidation points, which are effectively pretty much the same thing except with multiple terminations in a larger box. You might want to look at these as well. There is basically a box with a frame inside, and modules are clipped onto that. Modules are available to connect 10 telephone pairs and IIRC 4 CAT5e cables. The telephone ones are generally used with a 10 or 20 pair cable on one side and then normal 2 pair cables to extensions from there. In the house I used several of these boxes in different places and ran a bundle of CAT5es and 2 10 pair phone cables to each. Then as I decorate rooms and fit outlets, they can be cabled back a short distance rather than having to home run the whole lot to the equipment cabinet each time.
In effect these are like a patch panel. I've tested them at gigabit with streamed UDP packets, counting losses and there was no issue with introducing the transition point.
Reply to
Andy Hall
Why not use ethernet over powerline ?
Reply to
That and wireless have a place, but probably not for this application. We are probably talking about 16 - 20 ports in total; for which a good proportion of the wiring and sockets are already in place in sectioned trunking (the building formally was a branch of Woolwhich). Using power line would mean either lots of mains connections required (i.e. just shifting the problem) or a messy need for extra switches local to desks etc. These connections will also be need to carry voice connections from the digital PBX to the desks as well - so joining to a reusing the existing cables is my favoured approach if possible.
Reply to
John Rumm
Yup will do. Part of the attraction of the small boxes was the low physical space requirements.
ok, won't actually need phone pairs as such (will use cat5 for both).
Good. Seems like the consensus is these work ok then. Just thought I had better check before wading in with them and finding out the hard way. ;-)
Reply to
John Rumm
In article , snipped-for-privacy@nowhere.null says...
Or you could use jelly crimps on each individual wire, less neat, but maybe quicker...
Reply to
Alex Threlfall
I did actually have to do that once... seemed like rather a bodge, but to be fair it did work ok (although that may haver only been a 10Mb network). Something punchdown should be a bit quicker though.
Reply to
John Rumm

Site Timeline Threads

  • Soooooo since no one is mentioning building something I'll mention the POS I...
  • site's last updated in


HomeOwnersHub website 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.