On Mon, 26 May 2003 13:30:15 GMT
> > On Mon, 26 May 2003 11:43 +0100 (BST), Stuart Robinson
> > >> Does anyone here know any good technical reason not to use an RJ45
> > >> socket intended for ISDN for CAT5 ethernet instead?
> > > Yes, it might not work.
> > :-) Well, that's more a result than a reason for the result.
> > The hardware store have an nice ISDN RJ45 plus analogue telephone combo-
> > socket (the sub-sockets can be isolated from each other natch) that would
> > save me knocking another hole in the wall at home. (Especially since I've
> > already fed the CAT5 cable though the phone ducts).
> > > If you have a Cat5 tester, you could try one and see how it compares to
> > > proper Cat5 socket.
> > Well, I guess the home LAN is going to be my CAT5 tester, because I'm
> > to have to try it. What's the worst that could happen?
> > Regards, Ralph.
> > --
> > Using M2, Opera's revolutionary e-mail client: http://www.opera.com/m2/
> I'd strongly discourage you from taking this route. There an many sources of
> and 8-position modular jacks designed for LAN use.
> The worst that can happen is it wont work at all. Most likely your LAN will
> not work at 100 Mbps (Fast Ethernet) but only at 10 (Ethernet), and it will
> radiate and be susceptible to interference. Sending high-speed data over
> copper twisted pair is an exacting task. If existing jacks were up to the
> task TIA would have used them when they wrote the spec.
The right way to do this is to use a two-hole wall plate with RJ-11 and RJ-48
keystone jacks. Don't know where the OP is located, but in the US these are
available from any of the major home improvement chains.
Reply to jclarke at ae tee tee global dot net
(was jclarke at eye bee em dot net)