Ethernet cable

[cookiemonster]

Hi I was thinking of running an Ethernet cable from my router to my new TV as I am getting problems with the wifi my internet speed is usually between 135mbps and 145mbps will this cable be okay

World of Data 10m White Network Cable CAT5e (enhanced) - RJ45 - Ethernet - Patch - LAN - Router - Modem - 10/100 : Amazon.co.uk: Computers & Accessories

If my ISP gives me the opportunity in the future to increase the speed I will.

 

[Solaris17]

yup thats fine. no idea why they put 10/100 but that cable will handle gig just fine. not that it would ever be needed for a TV lol

 

[Bill_Bright]

As Solaris17 suggests, it is odd how it says only 10/100. For that reason, while probably okay, I would not get it. Instead go with one that says 10/100/1000 (or 1Gbps) - like this one.

Also, it is best to keep the cable as short as possible. While 10m is not too long, if you can get by with shorter, do it. This is one reason I always make my own. If I need a 14" cable, I make one instead of having to buy a 3' or even 6' cable.

You might even consider having a local shop make one for you the exact length you need. One advantage to having a shop make one is they will surely test it before selling it to you.

And white is nice - but will soon show the dirt.

 

[Shrek]

Hi I was thinking of running an Ethernet cable from my router to my new TV as I am getting problems with the wifi my internet speed is usually between 135mbps and 145mbps will this cable be okay

World of Data 10m White Network Cable CAT5e (enhanced) - RJ45 - Ethernet - Patch - LAN - Router - Modem - 10/100 : Amazon.co.uk: Computers & Accessories

If my ISP gives me the opportunity in the future to increase the speed I will.

I know reviews need to be taken with a grain of salt, but


1.0 out of 5 stars Worst patch cable I've ever seen
Reviewed in the United Kingdom on 22 February 2014
Size Name: 30mVerified Purchase
High quality? 26 5 star reviews? Hooray for fake reviews.

First of all, the cable is not even twisted pair. This cable is not 'cat 5'.

No shielding, the insulation is extremely flimsy and breaks with minor stress.

Avoid this cable.

 

[VulkanBros]

I know it is a bit of - like religion - I work with servers and backbone infrastructure - I always use Systimax / CommScope ethernet cables.
High quality cables, I know they are not cheap - but they are always tested and have 20 years guarantee.
I have seen many odd network failures, low speed, random failures, working half of the times etc......
Maybe I am "work damaged" - but none of the less - I have never experienced any failures with these cables in 25 years.....

 

[FreedomEclipse]

yup thats fine. no idea why they put 10/100 but that cable will handle gig just fine. not that it would ever be needed for a TV lol

Game streaming services are going to run on smart tvs apparently. (edited)

 

[Bill_Bright]

I know reviews need to be taken with a grain of salt, but

Need to do your homework, Andy.

And, for sure, in this case, it is a big block of rock salt. I mean, we have to get real Andy. You took one review out of 137 where a full 88% were 4 - 5 stars.

First of all, the cable is not even twisted pair. This cable is not 'cat 5'.

Of course they are twisted. All CAT5, CAT5e and CAT6 use twisted pairs. If it was not twisted, it could not say it was CAT5e as that is a requirement and industry standard for CAT5, CAT5e and CAT6 and above. In fact, the standard calls for CAT5e to have 1.5 to 2 twists per centimeter. CAT6 has at least 2. Surely, if not twisted, the reviews would show it is not.

But you are right, it is not CAT5 and does not claim to be CAT5. It is CAT5e. There is a significant difference - namely bandwidth capability.

No shielding

Of course no shielding. CAT5 and CAT5e are not shielded. You don't need shielding with CAT5e for residential use. That is one of the primary reasons for using twisting pairs. If you want shielding, go with CAT6 Shielded or above. But note even some CAT6 is not shielded. If you are running a bunch of Ethernet cables next to each other (as commonly found in a data center), shielding is essential. But in most residential and small office environment, shielded Ethernet is not normally needed.

CAT5e is UTP (unshielded twisted pair) and is perfectly suitable for what the OP wants.

 

[Shrek]

Twisted pair - Wikipedia
seems to suggest Cat5e can be shielded

but I don't pretend to understand the standards. Not saying you don't, just that I don't.

 

[Bill_Bright]

It can be. But that is not UTP, nor is it commonly used in residential environments.

In any case, with one cable run that short of distance, you don't need shielded - except in extreme EMI/RFI environments, which, again, would not be typical of a residential environment.

And again, the wires are twisted to attenuate or cancel out interference.

And actually, one of the most common causes for EMI/RFI problems are damaged or poorly crimped connectors - just another reason to build (and test) your own.

 

[cookiemonster]

Hi thanks for all the help and advice but I could do with some more help. The pc tower I run through the TV is only about 4ft away and is wifi so I was wondering could I use a splitter and connect to both of them, is this what I am looking for or could you suggest one.

Maxhood Ethernet Splitter 1 to 2 Adapter, RJ45 Splitter Network Adapter, RJ45 1 Female to 2 Port Female Adapter for CAT 5/CAT 6 LAN Splitter Ethernet Extender Socket Connector 8P8C Network Adapter: Amazon.co.uk: Computers & Accessories

 

[elghinnarisa]

Hi thanks for all the help and advice but I could do with some more help. The pc tower I run through the TV is only about 4ft away and is wifi so I was wondering could I use a splitter and connect to both of them, is this what I am looking for or could you suggest one.

Maxhood Ethernet Splitter 1 to 2 Adapter, RJ45 Splitter Network Adapter, RJ45 1 Female to 2 Port Female Adapter for CAT 5/CAT 6 LAN Splitter Ethernet Extender Socket Connector 8P8C Network Adapter: Amazon.co.uk: Computers & Accessories

You can use splitters to connect several devices over a single cable, yes. But it also means you limit the pairs used, since you split them between both heads. So you would be limited to 10/100. You also need two splitters, on one side for both devices, on the other side for two ports in your switch/router.
It's just easier to get another cable and run them individually.

 

[ArdWar]

Do NOT use splitter. They usually make your ethernet nonstandard by using unused pairs of cables for the second signal. That might sounds neat, but the potential confusion it will create down the line in the future is not worth the saving. It only need a confused PoE device to wreak havoc on a spliced ethernet. Splitter also don't work with gigabit ethernet anyway since gigabit use all of the pairs.

Just pull a new cable for each device. It keeps your network standard while shouldn't cost you that much more anyway. If you insist to reduce cable clutter, use a switch instead. Gigabit switches now can be had for very cheap not much more than a splitter.

---

Edit:

As for the cable, It's not uncommon for very cheap cable to be straight up noncompliant. It's also not uncommon for a poorly made cable to come with last few feet undone, making them look untwisted.

 

[TheLostSwede]

Just get a cheap network switch and place it close to the two devices and then run one cable to each device from there.
You can get a five or eight port switch for less than £20.
In fact, this one is less than £10.

https://www.amazon.co.uk/TRENDnet-Unmanaged-Gigabit-GREENnet-Desktop/dp/B002HH0W5W/

 

[cookiemonster]

Hi TheLostSwede using the network switch can I use the pc and the tv together as I use the TV as a monitor.

 

[Bill_Bright]

I agree that (1) a splitter is not a good idea and (2) a switch, like the one TheLostSwede suggested, is a great ideal. Note it claims to be a 5-port switch but that is really a marketing gimmick to make it sound more capable. Yes, it has 5 ports or RJ-45 connections, but one must be used to connect the switch to your network. So technically, IMO, it should be called a 4-port switch because you can only connect 4 devices (4 computers or a combination of computers, networked printers, NAS, smart TV, etc.) to it.

Hi TheLostSwede using the network switch can I use the pc and the tv together as I use the TV as a monitor.

With a 4-port switch, you can use 4 computers at the same time - without worries of conflicts.

To use your TV as a monitor for your computer, the TV does not need an Ethernet connection. The only reason you might need a network connection for your TV too is if you want to use its "smart" features like Netflix streaming, for example. Or if you need to update the TV's firmware - if not supported via USB. If the TV is only to be used to watch TV from an antenna, cable box or DVD player, and/or as a monitor for your computer, it does not need a network connection.

 

[cookiemonster]

Thanks all again for the very helpful advice items are ordered and on the way. thankyou.

 

[cvaldes]

I agree that (1) a splitter is not a good idea and (2) a switch, like the one TheLostSwede suggested, is a great ideal. Note it claims to be a 5-port switch but that is really a marketing gimmick to make it sound more capable. Yes, it has 5 ports or RJ-45 connections, but one must be used to connect the switch to your network. So technically, IMO, it should be called a 4-port switch because you can only connect 4 devices (4 computers or a combination of computers, networked printers, NAS, smart TV, etc.) to it.

Nah, it's still 5 ports. You can use them to set up a local network that isn't connected to the Internet, e.g., five computers talking to each other (like an old school LAN party).

I used these types of devices back in the Nineties for purposes such as training, workshops and at tradeshows (when Internet connectivity was frequently not necessary).

The naming is not a marketing gimmick. You just have to understand the history of the device. There is no hardware requirement to connect these to the Internet and they function as designed (per various network standards agencies) and advertised without an uplink.

 

[Bill_Bright]

Okay, fair enough. But as you said, they would not have Internet (or WAN) access and IMO, today, that is a significant distinction.

I do fully understand the history - having been around since before the Internet. I still consider the naming a marketing gimmick since the vast majority of networks that would use such a switch are setup with Internet access, or to extend the wired range of a current network. Both uses would require the uplink (5th) port.

So yes, again, you are correct. But IMO, it is like advertising a refrigerator has 25 cubic feet of storage space. Yes it does have 25 cu feet - but only after you remove all the shelves, drawers and ice maker.

 

[cvaldes]

Okay, fair enough. But as you said, they would not have Internet (or WAN) access and IMO, today, that is a significant distinction.

I do fully understand the history - having been around since before the Internet. I still consider the naming a marketing gimmick since the vast majority of networks that would use such a switch are setup with Internet access, or to extend the wired range of a current network. Both uses would require the uplink (5th) port.

So yes, again, you are correct. But IMO, it is like advertising a refrigerator has 25 cubic feet of storage space. Yes it does have 25 cu feet - but only after you remove all the shelves, drawers and ice maker.

They were called 5-port, 10-port, 20-port, 40-port hubs in the Nineties. When do you think the marketing departments of network device manufacturers should have redesignated these devices? When the World Wide Web was invented? When Facebook was founded? When the millionth notebook PC was sold in the USA?

And clearly you don't work in marketing because redesignation would "remove" one port.

It's still a five-port device and all the ports are equal. Whether or not the end user wants to uplink to the Internet is up to them. That said, these devices were invented, named, and sold long before broadband connectivity became mainstream.

Note that I have zero idea about your knowledge of the history of these devices. I just based my response on your comment which showed zero acknowledgement of the history of these network devices.

If you want to teach networking fundamentals in a workshop/lab setting, you might use one of these devices. Grab 4-5 PCs (Windows, Linux, whatever) and get people to edit /etc/hosts, set up NFS, NIS, DNS, Samba, a mail server, etc. They still function as they would have been frequently used three decades ago.

The refrigerator comparison is bad. There is nothing requiring the end user to use any or all of the inserts. Note that if you don't install the ice maker, you still have 25 cubic feet on interior space capacity. Whether or not you want to stuff it full of square containers or volume-wasting cylindrical containers is up to you. It's still 25 cubic feet of interior space whether or not you decide to put 25 cubic feet of contents in it.

Have you ever been in a restaurant's walk-in refrigerator? Likely not. It's typically a big rectangular closet. It's up to the restaurateur to decide what to install. Wire racks are possible, speed racks on wheels, etc. Hell, you could just stack up boxes to the ceiling for maximum usage.

The difference is between capacity and usage. You don't seem to understand this difference either instance: networking hub or refrigerator. Should American car manufacturers starts advertising less seating capacity because of runaway obesity? So a Camry in Japan is advertised as seating 5 and a Camry in the USA advertised as seating 3-4? That's hilariously grim.

 

[Bill_Bright]

Fine. Since it seems to make you feel superior to pick apart my comments on the minutia even after I readily acknowledged you were right, have at it.

It still does not change the fact these switches, clearly designed for small home or small office use, are most frequently used by the vast majority of users to provide Internet access to distant devices on their network. And since the OP did express concerns about "Internet" speeds, it would seem the OP is no exception. I note the OP didn't ask for a history lesson either.

Note that I have zero idea about your knowledge of the history of these devices.

No you don't. But you can follow the link in my sig if you wish to see if I might have a little.

 

[R-T-B]

Maybe my old cisco CCNA knowledge creeping in here, but old school dumb hubs are not "switches" at all. Hubs repeat out every port, unlike a switch.

 

[Bill_Bright]

Yeah, a hub is definitely not the same as a switch - though in some small network scenarios, serve the same purpose.

 

[eidairaman1]

Yeah, a hub is definitely not the same as a switch - though in some small network scenarios, serve the same purpose.

Hubs back then had package collision, Id be using a switch

 

[Bill_Bright]

Hubs back then had package collision, Id be using a switch

"Back then", yes. But before "then" hubs were often all many budgets allowed. And since back "then" networks were just local and most computers acted primarily as connected stand alone systems, a collision here or there was no big deal.

But I agree - if given a choice, I'd use a switch every time.

 

[cvaldes]

No you don't. But you can follow the link in my sig if you wish to see if I might have a little.

I have sigs turned off. This is not specific to TPU. I turn off forum sigs everywhere. I'm not going to follow every hyperlink after hyperlink to see if Participant X actually isn't an idiot. They need to demonstrate a reasonable amount of acumen in the discussion itself.

Forum participants must put an indication of their wisdom in their commentary, not some alleged hyperlink.

I will point out that there were unmanaged hubs and managed switches in the Nineties (the latter were FAR more expensive than the former). Today's consumer hubs are still unmanaged by the Ethernet protocol does better data handling. That doesn't really change the electrical capability of these devices. Nor should it change the way the manufacturers describe these units.

This isn't specific to PC knowledge.

If you want to go on camera espousing some super awesome way of emulsifying egg-based sauces, you should give some sort of backing during your description of the process. Note that there are quacks in every industry. The US Congress has several even if they point to their "credentials."