Which is better? Long ADSL or Cat 5?

W00dy · 11 Jul 2007 at 20:11

I am just getting set up after moving house and need to run around 10m of cable from the master socket to where the PC will sit.

Am I better to run 10m of ADSL cable to the router by the PC, or place the router by the phone socket and run 10m of CAT5 Ethernet to the Router? Or does is make little difference?

Have tried wireless but signal strength is poor.

Any idea which would be better?

Thanks

Trifid · 11 Jul 2007 at 20:14

It's best to have very little phone line to router (RJ11) and very long Ethernet cable (up to 100m) to the destination.

Indy500 · 11 Jul 2007 at 20:14

Just use CAT5 cable with RJ11 connectors.

oddjob62 · 11 Jul 2007 at 20:26

sr4470 said:
Just use CAT5 cable with RJ11 connectors.

Agreed with Trifid. Keep the phone line as short as possible.

BenST · 11 Jul 2007 at 20:27

sr4470 said:
Just use CAT5 cable with RJ11 connectors.

You got the wrong end of the stick, Trifid is correct.

dovey · 11 Jul 2007 at 20:33

Yep keep the cable to the router as short as possible

Duke · 11 Jul 2007 at 20:38

Trifid said:
It's best to have very little phone line to router (RJ11) and very long Ethernet cable (up to 100m) to the destination.

W00dy · 11 Jul 2007 at 20:57

Cheers for the fast responses

Cat 5 it is, then

tolien · 11 Jul 2007 at 21:24

sr4470 said:
Just use CAT5 cable with RJ11 connectors.

Correct too. Cat5e + RJ11 connectors = decent "ADSL cable".

Provided the cable between the filter and router is decent quality and you filter at the master socket (i.e. the rest of your extensions are already eliminated), it doesn't make a bit of difference. Pick whichever is most convenient.

Indy500 · 11 Jul 2007 at 22:15

BenST said:
You got the wrong end of the stick, Trifid is correct.

I know what they were getting at, but I suggested an alternative type of cable to cover the whole distance.

sja360 · 11 Jul 2007 at 22:49

sr4470 said:
I know what they were getting at, but I suggested an alternative type of cable to cover the whole distance.

thats what i'd do to, make up a RJ11 CAT5 Cable. saves hassle and that.

BenST · 12 Jul 2007 at 00:45

What hassle? If anything your way is more hassle as you'll have to make up another lead. Any extra length added to the phone line is not good IMO, follow Trifid's method.

sja360 · 12 Jul 2007 at 08:18

BenST said:
What hassle? If anything your way is more hassle as you'll have to make up another lead. Any extra length added to the phone line is not good IMO, follow Trifid's method.

well for in my instance the router cant sit beside the wall socket, as there is no electrical socket there, so i have to have a long lead.

tolien · 12 Jul 2007 at 10:19

BenST said:
Any extra length added to the phone line is not good IMO, follow Trifid's method.

All fine and well, but if the cable's decent it's not adding anything. Neither way is wrong.
You can buy cable with cat5e and RJ11s on both ends too, so you don't have to make them up.

marmalade · 12 Jul 2007 at 11:46

As stated it don't matter much provided the ADSL cable is of good quality and sheilded. Naturally a nice Filtered faceplate should be in place on the master socket such as a XTE-2005 Master Faceplate - then all further distrubution to other puters via the mains sockets.

BenST · 12 Jul 2007 at 12:33

tolien said:
All fine and well, but if the cable's decent it's not adding anything. Neither way is wrong.
You can buy cable with cat5e and RJ11s on both ends too, so you don't have to make them up.

Neither way is wrong, but Trifids method is better. I'm of the opinion that any added length to the PSTN side of the modem is not good and should be avoided if possible.

sja360 said:
well for in my instance the router cant sit beside the wall socket, as there is no electrical socket there, so i have to have a long lead.

Well that's in your instance, I was referring to the OP's situation.

tolien · 12 Jul 2007 at 12:53

BenST said:
Neither way is wrong, but Trifids method is better.

Barely, and cat5e isn't adding to the PSTN side if you've already filtered...

BenST · 12 Jul 2007 at 12:56

tolien said:
Barely, and cat5e isn't adding to the PSTN side if you've already filtered...

But it's still better, even if barely

If you want to get that technical then yes you're not adding to the PSTN side but it's the same difference - you know what I meant

.

tolien · 12 Jul 2007 at 13:02

BenST said:
But it's still better, even if barely

That's a circular argument to justify the "must be at the master socket" bandwagon - is it worth the hassle (and potentially extra cost) if the difference is a millionth on your SNR margin?
Your line's picked up easily a thousand times the noise on it's journey from the exchange to your house.

The difference between cat5e from router to machines and cat5e from master socket to router is negligible, if you filter at the master socket.

We could go round in circles with this, so here's the potted summary: neither way is wrong, and if you use decent cable and filter at the master socket, there's no (worthwhile) difference between either so neither is better than the other. Use whichever is most convenient.

Teal · 12 Jul 2007 at 16:47

Tolien is right.

It is perverse to agonise about 10m of cable inside the house when you have a kilometer or two of cable outside the house

In a lot of houses the location of the master socket is a pretty poor spot to put the router so running a high quality CAT 5 cable with RJ11 ends is the best way to go unless you really want the router put there where you can't see it.