Sharing data and voice through a cat5 cable revisited
Sony Antony
Since conductors 1,2,3,6 are used for ethernet/data and since 4,5 are
used for phone, if the phone jack ( RJ11 ) is pushed into the RJ45 end
of the cat5 cable, I thought the following should be an easy way of
sharing a single cat5 cable for both data and voice.
1. Get an RJ45 Y splitter and plug this into both ends of the female
RJ45 wall socket.
2. Plug in the ethernet cable to one port of the splitter. ( This uses
1,2,3,6 )
3. Plug the RJ11 from the phone, to the other port of the splitter (
This uses 4,5 )
4. Do this on both sides of the cat5 cable.
If this works the beauty of this plan is that this requires zero
rewiring. A RJ45 splitter costs just 4 $.
But when I tried this out, it did not work. The phone remained dead.
Is this something possible. Has this been done before.
--sony
Isaac Wingfield
sonya...@hotmail.com (Sony Antony) wrote:
Should work. The wires do not go where you think they go. Check
specifically to see if the "RJ-45 splitter" does what you think it does.
Isaac
1
> I have been reading some messages on this topic, from google.
>
> Since conductors 1,2,3,6 are used for ethernet/data and since 4,5 are
> used for phone, if the phone jack ( RJ11 ) is pushed into the RJ45 end
> of the cat5 cable, I thought the following should be an easy way of
> sharing a single cat5 cable for both data and voice.
This is a hack way of doing things, it's not recommended to share a cable
for data/voice. The splitter you got was most likely intended to carry two
ethernet connections on one Cat5 cable (also hackish and not recommended),
and therefore had no connections on pins 4/5, where you were looking for a
phoen signal.
Sony Antony
I have a pair of Belikins economizer' that looks exactly like a splitter,
but is wired differently inside so that both ports work as totally
independent ethernet cables. This has been in use for a while and I m
totally happy with its performance. I have measures its performance, and
its exactly same as if they were connected using a single cable.
Since they are not able to mass market, they are selling it for 20$
(
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/B00004Z65E/qid=1054208786/sr=8-1/ref=sr_8_1/102-5778016-5204958?v=glance&s=electronics&n=507846
). I dont think this is actually from Belikin, since it looked so cheap. It
shouldn t have costed more than 3-4 $ from its looks. But at that time I
didn t know of another source and it worked. So I was happy.
Later I found a cheaper source http://www.connectworld.net/iec/l6004.html
I placed the order 2 weeks back for a pair and is still waiting for the
shipment. So I dont know how the quality will be. I think it will work,
since the technique employed is very simple.
That much was written since you said 'it's not recommended'
What I used for phone & data together is a spiltter. They have all the 8
conductors duplicated for both the ports. It can be found in micro centre
for 3 $. They sell it by saying 'connect both the computers - but only one
can be used at teh same time'
--sony
Sony Antony
I have a pair of Belikins economizer' that looks exactly like a splitter,
BruceR
"hackish" but sensible where the need arises. Manufacturers may say it's
not recommended so they don't have to support it. Specs are published by
manufacturers as a benchmark for what they are prepared to warranty and
support. There's nothing wrong with going beyond a spec as long as
safety isn't compromised and you're satisfied with the performance. That
practice is referred to as "permissive" meaning that as long as you're
happy with the performance have fun but don't call for help if it stops
working.
"1" <noe...@for.me.com> wrote in message
news:pan.2003.05.29....@for.me.com...
Sony Antony
> Not recommended by whom? Using the extra pairs in a cable is not
> "hackish" but sensible where the need arises. Manufacturers may say it's
> not recommended so they don't have to support it. Specs are published by
> manufacturers as a benchmark for what they are prepared to warranty and
> support. There's nothing wrong with going beyond a spec as long as
> safety isn't compromised and you're satisfied with the performance. That
> practice is referred to as "permissive" meaning that as long as you're
> happy with the performance have fun but don't call for help if it stops
> working.
Agree with this completely.
--sony
Sony Antony
> Not recommended by whom? Using the extra pairs in a cable is not
> "hackish" but sensible where the need arises. Manufacturers may say it's
> not recommended so they don't have to support it. Specs are published by
> manufacturers as a benchmark for what they are prepared to warranty and
> support. There's nothing wrong with going beyond a spec as long as
> safety isn't compromised and you're satisfied with the performance. That
> practice is referred to as "permissive" meaning that as long as you're
> happy with the performance have fun but don't call for help if it stops
> working.
I agree with this completely. However sometimes you have to be careful about
things like surge/ bandwidth etc.
For instance when phone rings the voltage jumps to 60 or something. There is
a chance that this will induce some transients in the data cable. The
result might be that the network might 'stop' mementarily. UDP packets will
simply be dropped by the OS's adapter buffer.
Similarly I saw a adapter that connects an RJ45 and gives a BNC connector -
like the ones behind your TV - for cable television. But I wonder how the
bandwidth will be. The product didn t specify that. I suspect that if you
try to run your coaxial cable from the satellite dish, through cat5 using
this adapter, it might not work. ( I haven t tested it though )
The great thing about the above adapter is that it uses pins 7,8. This means
that if you can find an RJ45 3 way splitter, you can run all data, voice,
and cable TV through the same cat5 wire.
data will use 1,2,3,6
voice will use 4,5
cable will use - 7,8
Here s a picture of what I m talking about. Look for the picture named TP50.
http://www.calcentron.com/Pages/TestUmHome/TestUm_LanRover_TP500.htm
--sony
Robert L. Bass
It's around 90 VAC IIRC. TP cable usually isn't bothered by AC induction
though.
Regards,
Robert
=============================>
Bass Home Electronics
www.Bass-Home.com
2291 Pine View Circle
Sarasota, FL 34231
877-722-8900 Sales & Support
941-232-0791 Mobile
=============================>
Isaac Wingfield
"1" <noe...@for.me.com> wrote:
Funny; the IEEE specs for Ethernet specifically mention doing both of
the things you "don't recommend". What did you think they put that other
two pairs in there for?
Isaac
Lancer
Sony Antony <sonya...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>Since conductors 1,2,3,6 are used for ethernet/data and since 4,5 are
>used for phone, if the phone jack ( RJ11 ) is pushed into the RJ45 end
>of the cat5 cable, I thought the following should be an easy way of
>sharing a single cat5 cable for both data and voice.
In have, in a pinch, done what you are suggesting. I've used a single
4-pair cable to carry two Ethernet or Ethernet and two phone. Of course,
it's probably a better idea, if possible, to run a "real" cable separately
for each (mostly to avoid hair-pulling moments when trying to figure it out
a year later) it most certainly does work and is not all that strange. Lots
of commercial installations use many-pair bundles to carry dozens or LAN or
phone connections with no problems.
It would be preferable, if you're intent on doing this, to hardwire the drops
instead of relyiong on a breakout device like you mention. A few jacks from
Home Depot cost less than the $20 splitter, and that way you can make it more
idiot-proof. Get an RJ45 jack and an RJ11 and wire it up behind a two-place
plate. Then you don't have to worry about accidentally plugging in the wrong
thing. I never like plugging an RJ11 into an RJ45 drop... Old memories of
frying modems, I guess...
Ped Xing
Matt
<sfoskett....@sidehack.sat.gweep.net>:
I have done this successfully also. But I would argue that all permanent
hardwire jacks should be standard and that break out boxes be used at both
ends. The reason for this, is if you change you mind later, you don't need a
puch down tool, or if you sell the house, the new owner doesn't have to
figure out why it's special.
If a location is currently 1 ethernet, and 1 or 2 phones and you want to
change it to either 2 ethernet or say 2 two line phone jacks. With breaks
out boxes/smart splitter, you just change the boxes at both ends and re-patch
accordingly. If you wired 1 cable to 2 jacks at a single end, you need to
cut the jacks off and puch down new jacks to change the configuration. You
would also need to do this at the patch panel, since a wall jack doesn't
really mean anything without knowing what's at the other end.
Matt
J. Clarke
sfos...@sidehack.sat.gweep.net (Lancer) wrote:
> In article <3eb007f1.03052...@posting.google.com>,
> Sony Antony <sonya...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> >Since conductors 1,2,3,6 are used for ethernet/data and since 4,5 are
> >used for phone, if the phone jack ( RJ11 ) is pushed into the RJ45 end
> >of the cat5 cable, I thought the following should be an easy way of
> >sharing a single cat5 cable for both data and voice.
>
> In have, in a pinch, done what you are suggesting. I've used a single
> 4-pair cable to carry two Ethernet or Ethernet and two phone. Of course,
> it's probably a better idea, if possible, to run a "real" cable separately
> for each (mostly to avoid hair-pulling moments when trying to figure it out
> a year later) it most certainly does work and is not all that strange. Lots
> of commercial installations use many-pair bundles to carry dozens or LAN or
> phone connections with no problems.
>
> It would be preferable, if you're intent on doing this, to hardwire the drops
> instead of relyiong on a breakout device like you mention. A few jacks from
> Home Depot cost less than the $20 splitter, and that way you can make it more
> idiot-proof. Get an RJ45 jack and an RJ11 and wire it up behind a two-place
> plate.
If you're suggesting running 2 separate cables, that would be the ideal
solution. If you're suggesting connecting one CAT5E cable to 2 jacks,
that's not a good idea. The standards suggest that for this sort of service
a splitter external to the permanently installed cabling be used--that way
the general-purpose nature of the cabling is not altered.
> Then you don't have to worry about accidentally plugging in the wrong
> thing. I never like plugging an RJ11 into an RJ45 drop... Old memories of
> frying modems, I guess...
> Ped Xing
--
--John
Reply to jclarke at ae tee tee global dot net
(was jclarke at eye bee em dot net)