Re: Cat5e and rg6 for newbuild

["nicecorrado" <gormleyd@xxxxxxxxxx>]

Thanks for that, thats exactly what I was looking for, no point in=20
paying a load more if the cheaper one is fine. Thanks also for the=20
heads up on the ct125 beign hard to work with if its not needed.
Why do so many people talk about rg6?
Dave

--- In ukha_d@xxxxxxx, "Phil Harris" <phil@...> wrote:
>
>=20
> Can I break the habits of a lifetime and be the voice of reason=20
here and
> point out that the "performance" of any cable which is
certified as
> complying to the CAT5e standard will be the same no matter what=20
price it is
> - because the kit you'll be using it with will also be designed to=20
adhere to
> the capabilities of CAT5e...
>=20
> ...now, whether you want *ADDITIONAL* "features" such as an
outer=20
sheath
> that is certified as being mains rated, stranded core over solid=20
core or a
> veritable rainbow of sheathing colours is up to you as to whether=20
you
> consider the additional cost worthwhile.
>=20
> If you *NEED* better performing cable then CAT5e (for whatever=20
reasons) then
> use whatever cabling you actually *NEED* to use. I'm pretty sure=20
that all
> CAT5e has to be tested to 350MHz as I'm sure that's part of the=20
standard. If
> there's a CAT5e cable that is tested beyond that but costs twice=20
as much
> then what's the point of paying the extra for that when you're=20
never going
> to use it (as the kit you'll be using on it will be tested for use=20
with
> "standard" CAT5e).
>=20
> Surely you'd be better making sure that your cabling is properly=20
terminated
> and the cables aren't subjected to too tight a bend radius or too=20
great a
> pulling force when installed which seem to be far easier ways to=20
screw up an
> install than worrying whether one CAT5e cable is better than=20
another?
>=20
> As for the choice between CT100 and CT125 then CT100 should be=20
more than
> adequate for any uses as long as your signals are any kind of a=20
reasonable
> quality - if they're not then don't fanny about and just get a=20
good local
> aerial installer to get you a decent and clean source signal=20
sorted out.
>=20
> CT125 by the way is an absolute b*st*rd to work with - it's thick,=20
stiff and
> getting it back into a standard UK backbox behind an F-connector=20
plate or a
> UHF outlet is nigh on bloody impossible. I live in a *REALLY* bad=20
reception
> area for terrestrial analogue and digital and the only CT125 that=20
I'm using
> is in the run down from the aerial into the loft where it hits a=20
splitter -
> everywhere else is CT100 or PF100. There really should be no=20
reason to
> subject yourself to the pain of installing and termninating CT125=20
in any
> domestic RF install.
>=20
> As usual - just my =A30.02 worth and please feel free to shoot me=20
down in
> flames if you think one brand of CAT5e certified cabling is better=20
or worse
> performing than another ... However I'll expect you to provide=20
supporting
> proof that the cable itself is batter / worse than the standard=20
and not that
> any problems have been due to incorrect termination or=20
installation...
>=20
> Phil
>=20
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: ukha_d@xxxxxxx [mailto:ukha_d@xxxxxxx]=20
> > On Behalf Of nicecorrado
> > Sent: 06 November 2006 14:12
> > To: ukha_d@xxxxxxx
> > Subject: [ukha_d] Re: Cat5e and rg6 for newbuild
> >=20
> >=20
> >=20
> > Thanks for all the replys
> >=20
> > I will just be distributing tv from the sky box at the moment=20
> > but want to allow for future upgrades/technologies, I am not=20
> > sure which will be the most future proof  rg6 or ct100/125
> >=20
> > I can get cat5e from my local eletrical wholesale for =A330=20=20
> > for 305m but am not sureof the quality? I dont mind spending=20
> > a few extra pounds now, just don't want to be caught down the=20
> > road with a cable that doesnt have good enough performance,
> >=20
> > The expensive one is tested to 350mhz and 1000 megabit data=20
> > rate where the cheaper is tested to just 16mhz. Will this=20
> > make a difference?
> >=20
> > Thanks again
> > Dave
> >  --- In ukha_d@xxxxxxx, "Chris White" <chrisw@>
wrote:
> > >
> > > As with CAT5e, there are massive differences in good
quality=20
RG6
> > and
> > > Poor quality RG6. Mainly used for the CCTV and Cable TV=20
markets.
> > >=20
> > > I notice the website is in Ireland, if this is where you
are=20
based
> > and
> > > you plan to use cable TV then RG6 is fine and approved.
> > >=20
> > > If you are planning to use Sky I would go for an  approved
/=20
> > > benchmarked CT100 type cable, Approved ones should have an
CAI=20
> > > refference number printed on it.
> > >=20
> > > HTH
> > >=20
> > > Chris
> > >=20
> > > - In ukha_d@xxxxxxx, "nicecorrado"
<gormleyd@> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > What quality cat5 should I go for in my newbuild? How
about=20
this=20
> > > > ,http://www.platinumhome.ie/shop/product_info.php?
> > > > cPath=3D95_99&products_id=3D414   or is it too
good? I like the=20
fact=20
> > that=20
> > > > it comes in several colours,
> > > >=20
> > > > Is it best to go for rg6 or will the likes of ct100 or
ct125=20
be
> > ok?
> > > >=20
> > > > Any sugestions or links to good suppliers would be
great
> > > >=20
> > > > Thanks
> > > > Dave
> > > >
> > >
> >=20
> >=20
> >=20
> >=20
> >=20
> >=20
> > ** Sponsored by http://www.BERBLE.com ** all the Cool
Stuff,=20
> > in one Place=20
> >=20
> >=20
> >=20
> >=20
> >=20
> >
>






** Sponsored by http://www.BERBLE.com **
all the Cool Stuff, in one Place=20