I am planning to connect my PC to the router using an ethernet cable.
Length required is 10 metres. My broadband speed is 100 Mbps. Does it
matter whether I buy a Cat 5e, Cat 6 or Cat 8 patch lead? Also, can I
assume that for a new router and relatively new PC, RJ45 to RJ45 would
work? All assistance appreciated.

On 2024-02-22, Scott <newsgroups@gefion.myzen.co.uk> wrote:
> I am planning to connect my PC to the router using an ethernet cable.
> Length required is 10 metres. My broadband speed is 100 Mbps. Does it
> matter whether I buy a Cat 5e, Cat 6 or Cat 8 patch lead? Also, can I
> assume that for a new router and relatively new PC, RJ45 to RJ45 would
> work? All assistance appreciated.

Cat 5e will do 100M or 1G ethernet at those distances.
Wired ethernet will work - better than a WiFi connection.

Scott wrote:

> My broadband speed is 100 Mbps. Does it
> matter whether I buy a Cat 5e, Cat 6 or Cat 8 patch lead?

No, cat5 ill be fine ...

On Thu, 22 Feb 2024 22:13:18 +0000, Andy Burns <usenet@andyburns.uk>
wrote:

>Scott wrote:
>
>> My broadband speed is 100 Mbps. Does it
>> matter whether I buy a Cat 5e, Cat 6 or Cat 8 patch lead?
>
>No, cat5 ill be fine ...

Thanks. One supplementary please: is a patch lead the same as an
ethernet cable?

Scott <newsgroups@gefion.myzen.co.uk> wrote:
> I am planning to connect my PC to the router using an ethernet cable.
> Length required is 10 metres. My broadband speed is 100 Mbps. Does it
> matter whether I buy a Cat 5e, Cat 6 or Cat 8 patch lead? Also, can I
> assume that for a new router and relatively new PC, RJ45 to RJ45 would
> work? All assistance appreciated.
>

Plan for 1G in the future.

I wired our house over the years - starting in about 1997.

I only just got (nearly) 1G fibre.

True, I needed to change some of the hardware which was only 100M, but
ripping out the wiring to replace with 1G capable would be a nightmare.

On 23/02/2024 09:35, Brian wrote:
> Scott <newsgroups@gefion.myzen.co.uk> wrote:
>> I am planning to connect my PC to the router using an ethernet cable.
>> Length required is 10 metres. My broadband speed is 100 Mbps. Does it
>> matter whether I buy a Cat 5e, Cat 6 or Cat 8 patch lead? Also, can I
>> assume that for a new router and relatively new PC, RJ45 to RJ45 would
>> work? All assistance appreciated.
>>
>
> Plan for 1G in the future.
>
> I wired our house over the years - starting in about 1997.
>
> I only just got (nearly) 1G fibre.
>
> True, I needed to change some of the hardware which was only 100M, but
> ripping out the wiring to replace with 1G capable would be a nightmare.
>

I'm not sure if there is a future of wired.

People say wired is better than wireless, and that was true in most
circumstances, and is still true in some circumstances, but wireless is
getting very impressive.

Brian wrote:

> Scott <newsgroups@gefion.myzen.co.uk> wrote:
>
>> I am planning to connect my PC to the router using an ethernet cable.
>> Length required is 10 metres. My broadband speed is 100 Mbps. Does it
>> matter whether I buy a Cat 5e, Cat 6 or Cat 8 patch lead?
>
> Plan for 1G in the future.

Cat5e *is* planning for 1Gbps (it will also work with 2.5Gbps and 5Gbps,
though maybe not to the full 100m length, you can probably even get
10Gbps at up to 40m length).

> I wired our house over the years - starting in about 1997.
>
> I only just got (nearly) 1G fibre.
>
> True, I needed to change some of the hardware which was only 100M, but
> ripping out the wiring to replace with 1G capable would be a nightmare.

Scott wrote:

> One supplementary please: is a patch lead the same as an
> ethernet cable?

A patch lead is stranded cable with plugs already fitted, ethernet cable
fitted in a building will have solid copper wires.

Scott <newsgroups@gefion.myzen.co.uk> wrote:
> I am planning to connect my PC to the router using an ethernet cable.
> Length required is 10 metres. My broadband speed is 100 Mbps. Does it
> matter whether I buy a Cat 5e, Cat 6 or Cat 8 patch lead? Also, can I
> assume that for a new router and relatively new PC, RJ45 to RJ45 would
> work? All assistance appreciated.

At that length it doesn't matter at all. It's probably worth going to
Cat6 in case you want it to work faster some time in the future.
However I have lots of quite old Cat5e strung around the house and 30
metre plus lengths to outbuildings and it all 'just works' at 1000Mbs.

--
Chris Green
·

Scott <newsgroups@gefion.myzen.co.uk> wrote:
> On Thu, 22 Feb 2024 22:13:18 +0000, Andy Burns <usenet@andyburns.uk>
> wrote:
>
> >Scott wrote:
> >
> >> My broadband speed is 100 Mbps. Does it
> >> matter whether I buy a Cat 5e, Cat 6 or Cat 8 patch lead?
> >
> >No, cat5 ill be fine ...
>
> Thanks. One supplementary please: is a patch lead the same as an
> ethernet cable?

Yes

--
Chris Green
·

On 23/02/2024 09:35, Brian wrote:
> Scott <newsgroups@gefion.myzen.co.uk> wrote:
>> I am planning to connect my PC to the router using an ethernet cable.
>> Length required is 10 metres. My broadband speed is 100 Mbps. Does it
>> matter whether I buy a Cat 5e, Cat 6 or Cat 8 patch lead? Also, can I
>> assume that for a new router and relatively new PC, RJ45 to RJ45 would
>> work? All assistance appreciated.
>>
>
> Plan for 1G in the future.
>
> I wired our house over the years - starting in about 1997.
>
> I only just got (nearly) 1G fibre.
>
> True, I needed to change some of the hardware which was only 100M, but
> ripping out the wiring to replace with 1G capable would be a nightmare.
>

I could get 1GB, but why?

--
For every complex problem there is an answer that is clear, simple, and
wrong.

H.L.Mencken

On 23/02/2024 09:55, Pancho wrote:
> On 23/02/2024 09:35, Brian wrote:
>> Scott <newsgroups@gefion.myzen.co.uk> wrote:
>>> I am planning to connect my PC to the router using an ethernet cable.
>>> Length required is 10 metres. My broadband speed is 100 Mbps. Does it
>>> matter whether I buy a Cat 5e, Cat 6 or Cat 8 patch lead? Also, can I
>>> assume that for a new router and relatively new PC, RJ45 to RJ45 would
>>> work? All assistance appreciated.
>>>
>>
>> Plan for 1G in the future.
>>
>> I wired our house over the years - starting in about 1997.
>>
>> I only just got (nearly) 1G fibre.
>>
>> True, I needed to change some of the hardware which was only 100M, but
>> ripping out the wiring to replace with 1G capable would be a nightmare.
>>
>
> I'm not sure if there is a future of wired.
>
Oh dear.

> People say wired is better than wireless, and that was true in most
> circumstances, and is still true in some circumstances, but wireless is
> getting very impressive.

Wifi cant do an unlimited number of 1GB peer to peer connections

--
For every complex problem there is an answer that is clear, simple, and
wrong.

H.L.Mencken

On 23/02/2024 10:01, Andy Burns wrote:
> Scott wrote:
>
>> One supplementary please: is a patch lead the same as an
>> ethernet cable?
>
> A patch lead is stranded cable with plugs already fitted, ethernet cable
> fitted in a building will have solid copper wires.
+1.
And punched down onto RJ45 sockets

--
For every complex problem there is an answer that is clear, simple, and
wrong.

H.L.Mencken

On 23/02/2024 10:53, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
> On 23/02/2024 09:55, Pancho wrote:
>> On 23/02/2024 09:35, Brian wrote:
>>> Scott <newsgroups@gefion.myzen.co.uk> wrote:
>>>> I am planning to connect my PC to the router using an ethernet cable.
>>>> Length required is 10 metres. My broadband speed is 100 Mbps. Does it
>>>> matter whether I buy a Cat 5e, Cat 6 or Cat 8 patch lead? Also, can I
>>>> assume that for a new router and relatively new PC, RJ45 to RJ45 would
>>>> work? All assistance appreciated.
>>>>
>>>
>>> Plan for 1G in the future.
>>>
>>> I wired our house over the years - starting in about 1997.
>>>
>>> I only just got (nearly) 1G fibre.
>>>
>>> True, I needed to change some of the hardware which was only 100M, but
>>> ripping out the wiring to replace with 1G capable would be a nightmare.
>>>
>>
>> I'm not sure if there is a future of wired.
>>
> Oh dear.
>
>> People say wired is better than wireless, and that was true in most
>> circumstances, and is still true in some circumstances, but wireless
>> is getting very impressive.
>
> Wifi cant do an unlimited number of 1GB peer to peer connections
>

This from a man who has a 100Mb/s LAN?

My point was that in the past, wireless was shit, it had slow speeds,
poor range, high latency, and random disconnections. So you wanted every
important device wired to the LAN.

Nowadays you can have many cooperating Wi-Fi access points in the home.
In mine they are wired together, but I find myself not bothering to wire
in new devices like TV/HTPCs.

Eventually I think the need for wires will disappear. So planning for
the future is YAGNI.

Andy Burns <usenet@andyburns.uk> wrote:
> Brian wrote:
>
> > Scott <newsgroups@gefion.myzen.co.uk> wrote:
> >
> >> I am planning to connect my PC to the router using an ethernet cable.
> >> Length required is 10 metres. My broadband speed is 100 Mbps. Does it
> >> matter whether I buy a Cat 5e, Cat 6 or Cat 8 patch lead?
> >
> > Plan for 1G in the future.
>
> Cat5e *is* planning for 1Gbps (it will also work with 2.5Gbps and 5Gbps,
> though maybe not to the full 100m length, you can probably even get
> 10Gbps at up to 40m length).

For infrastructure like wiring up a house, I'd put in the best quality you
can afford. The labour of installing it dwarfs a slightly higher outlay on
materials. OTOH higher categories are more awkward to install (bend radii,
shielding foil) so it isn't quite as cut and dried.

However for a random patch cable strung across the carpet there's not a
great deal of point, because the labour to replace it is minimal so no need
to buy a fancier thing which you may or may not want to upgrade later.

Also to note there's 'cat inflation' on places like Amazon - sellers are
advertising cat7, cat8... At present there is no equipment that uses this
in common use - almost everything for higher speeds uses fibre. So not much
advantage to going that high, and it's quite possible their cables aren't
actually tested to those specs (ie they're lying).

Theo

In article <v-e*UdIDz@news.chiark.greenend.org.uk>, Theo
<theom+news@chiark.greenend.org.uk> wrote:
> Andy Burns <usenet@andyburns.uk> wrote:
> > Brian wrote:
> >
> > > Scott <newsgroups@gefion.myzen.co.uk> wrote:
> > >
> > >> I am planning to connect my PC to the router using an ethernet
> > >> cable. Length required is 10 metres. My broadband speed is 100 Mbps.
> > >> Does it matter whether I buy a Cat 5e, Cat 6 or Cat 8 patch lead?
> > >
> > > Plan for 1G in the future.
> >
> > Cat5e *is* planning for 1Gbps (it will also work with 2.5Gbps and
> > 5Gbps, though maybe not to the full 100m length, you can probably even
> > get 10Gbps at up to 40m length).

> For infrastructure like wiring up a house, I'd put in the best quality
> you can afford. The labour of installing it dwarfs a slightly higher
> outlay on materials. OTOH higher categories are more awkward to install
> (bend radii, shielding foil) so it isn't quite as cut and dried.

> However for a random patch cable strung across the carpet there's not a
> great deal of point, because the labour to replace it is minimal so no
> need to buy a fancier thing which you may or may not want to upgrade
> later.

> Also to note there's 'cat inflation' on places like Amazon - sellers are
> advertising cat7, cat8... At present there is no equipment that uses
> this in common use - almost everything for higher speeds uses fibre. So
> not much advantage to going that high, and it's quite possible their
> cables aren't actually tested to those specs (ie they're lying).

What a terrible suggestion

--
from KT24 in Surrey, England - sent from my RISC OS 4té²
"I'd rather die of exhaustion than die of boredom" Thomas Carlyle

On 23 Feb 2024, Pancho wrote

> On 23/02/2024 09:35, Brian wrote:
>> Scott <newsgroups@gefion.myzen.co.uk> wrote:
>>> I am planning to connect my PC to the router using an ethernet
>>> cable. Length required is 10 metres. My broadband speed is 100
>>> Mbps. Does it matter whether I buy a Cat 5e, Cat 6 or Cat 8
>>> patch lead? Also, can I assume that for a new router and
>>> relatively new PC, RJ45 to RJ45 would work? All assistance
>>> appreciated.
>>>
>>
>> Plan for 1G in the future.
>>
>> I wired our house over the years - starting in about 1997.
>>
>> I only just got (nearly) 1G fibre.
>>
>> True, I needed to change some of the hardware which was only
>> 100M, but ripping out the wiring to replace with 1G capable would
>> be a nightmare.
>>
>
> I'm not sure if there is a future of wired.
>
> People say wired is better than wireless, and that was true in
> most circumstances, and is still true in some circumstances, but
> wireless is getting very impressive.

I'm sure you're right, and agree wireless is getting very impressive,
but (switches on "old guy mode"), I still feel happier when I've got
cables running between stuff - internet, printer, keyboard, mouse -
than when it's wireless.

--
Cheers, Harvey

On 2/23/2024 6:30 AM, Pancho wrote:
> On 23/02/2024 10:53, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
>> On 23/02/2024 09:55, Pancho wrote:
>>> On 23/02/2024 09:35, Brian wrote:
>>>> Scott <newsgroups@gefion.myzen.co.uk> wrote:
>>>>> I am planning to connect my PC to the router using an ethernet cable.
>>>>> Length required is 10 metres. My broadband speed is 100 Mbps. Does it
>>>>> matter whether I buy a Cat 5e, Cat 6 or Cat 8 patch lead? Also, can I
>>>>> assume that for a new router and relatively new PC, RJ45 to RJ45 would
>>>>> work? All assistance appreciated.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Plan for 1G in the future.
>>>>
>>>> I wired our house over the years - starting in about 1997.
>>>>
>>>> I only just got (nearly) 1G fibre.
>>>>
>>>> True, I needed to change some of the hardware which was only 100M, but
>>>> ripping out the wiring to replace with 1G capable would be a nightmare.
>>>>
>>>
>>> I'm not sure if there is a future of wired.
>>>
>> Oh dear.
>>
>>> People say wired is better than wireless, and that was true in most circumstances, and is still true in some circumstances, but wireless is getting very impressive.
>>
>> Wifi cant do an unlimited number of 1GB peer to peer connections
>>
>
> This from a man who has a 100Mb/s LAN?
>
> My point was that in the past, wireless was shit, it had slow speeds, poor range, high latency, and random disconnections. So you wanted every important device wired to the LAN.
>
> Nowadays you can have many cooperating Wi-Fi access points in the home. In mine they are wired together, but I find myself not bothering to wire in new devices like TV/HTPCs.
>
> Eventually I think the need for wires will disappear. So planning for the future is YAGNI.

The wired offerings might go like this. At some point, the cards either have modules
that allow selecting wired or fibre, or it is fibre-module-only. The 10GbE is still a wired one.

100 BT <=== You can still occasionally find new kit with this!
1 GbE
2.5 GbE <=== RealTek, new build motherboards have this
10 GbE <=== AQuantic (Marvell) AQC107 wired output (addin card, or soldered to motherboard)

100 GbE <=== Used cards on Ebay or whatever
400 GbE <=== What your ISP has now

Generally, you want a switch, a higher speed one,
situated off a LAN port on the router. So even if your
broadband rate was 100, the machines could connect at 1000 to each other (the GbE type).

100 100 1000
BB ---- router ----- switch --- \
--- \___ 4 ports, high speed between machines in the room
--- /
--- /

When you get the whizzy fibre package, now the router needs to be better.
You do that, so a single computer can use the entire link bandwidth
(for the bandwidth test, to impress your friends). The switch could
continue to be used. It really all depends on what exact rates come from
the fibre (some providers pick nasty rates just to annoy you).
Like making the ONT run at 1500 or 3000, is just meanness.

1000 1000 1000
Fibre ----- router ------ switch --- \
--- \___ 4 ports, also available as 8 port boxes
--- /
--- /

The best fibre offered right now, is from Google in Kansas City,
and uses a 20 Gbit/sec ONT module of some sort. We don't know
what rate that really offers, as they only got the optics modules,
to cover a "range" of broadband services. There may not be
sufficient upstream bandwidth for that rate to be "real" in a sense.

If you were to put AQuantic cards in the four PCs, it is not the expense
at the PC level that's interesting, it's the cost of the switch and
who has silicon for that application. Once you get close to "commercial"
bandwidth levels, the air is let out of your tyres. And of course,
your friends will ask you why you think you need that (1250MB/sec).

1000 1000 10000
Fibre ----- router ------ switch ---- \
---- \___ 4 ports (could easily be 500+ for switch)
---- /
---- /

That's why some might opt for a cheaper setup.

1000 1000 1000 10000
Fibre ----- router ------ switch --------- PC - AQuantic ---+ High speed between
--- | just two particular machines
--- | 1250 MB/sec p2p
--------- PC - AQuantic ---+

Anything faster than that would be fun, but then the computer
guts need to be more expensive, to get the slots for the hardware.
There is one motherboard with seven x16 slots in it, but it
might be 1200 or so, instead of the usual 200 for a home build.

The best wireless, is 60GHz WiGiG at 700MB/sec at a distance
of about 10 feet or so. And no signal goes further than 25 feet,
and the signal refuses to leave the room (whether the door frame
is wood or metal). Wifi is already out of steam, compared to an AQC107 wired.
The "other" Wifi, the heavily marketed stuff, is asymptotic
and keeps offering people 100MB/sec in their room, no matter
what new constellation they claim the latest one uses.

In an anechoic chamber, I bet the new Wifi is bloody amazing :-)
When they have done testing like that, they use RF absorptive matting,
because the signal is too strong otherwise.

This is 4096 QAM or a 32x32 I-Q display. The latest wireless might
be max 1024 QAM. Using QAM is a diminishing return, as in an urban
setting, the noise level is just too high to expect stuff like this
to keep scaling. It's more fun to watch the dynamic display output
showing one of the older (smaller) QAM matricies, as you watch the decision
maker ("slicer") adjust for DC offset on the two axis, plus identify what the
likely bit pattern is that some thing has transmitted. Denser schemes
need DSP and error correction, to achieve a result. A Google search
got me no videos (so I "must be using the wrong keyword"). The video
of one of these, is much more interesting than a static display. It
just doesn't get across the chaos in there :-)

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/0/03/Different_views_showing_a_QAM_4096_constellation_diagram.jpg

What will Wifi offer us in the future ? A higher version number ??? :-) OK.

Technology to the rescue I guess. But FSO was already done.

https://www.androidauthority.com/light-wireless-technology-3345477/

"While the potential for Li-Fi is exciting, it’s important to stay grounded for now.

the release of the new IEEE 802.11bb standard is a big step forward.
"

Like solid state lithium batteries I suppose.

Paul

On 23/02/2024 11:30, Pancho wrote:
> On 23/02/2024 10:53, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
>> On 23/02/2024 09:55, Pancho wrote:
>>> On 23/02/2024 09:35, Brian wrote:
>>>> Scott <newsgroups@gefion.myzen.co.uk> wrote:
>>>>> I am planning to connect my PC to the router using an ethernet cable.
>>>>> Length required is 10 metres. My broadband speed is 100 Mbps. Does it
>>>>> matter whether I buy a Cat 5e, Cat 6 or Cat 8 patch lead? Also, can I
>>>>> assume that for a new router and relatively new PC, RJ45 to RJ45 would
>>>>> work? All assistance appreciated.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Plan for 1G in the future.
>>>>
>>>> I wired our house over the years - starting in about 1997.
>>>>
>>>> I only just got (nearly) 1G fibre.
>>>>
>>>> True, I needed to change some of the hardware which was only 100M, but
>>>> ripping out the wiring to replace with 1G capable would be a nightmare.
>>>>
>>>
>>> I'm not sure if there is a future of wired.
>>>
>> Oh dear.
>>
>>> People say wired is better than wireless, and that was true in most
>>> circumstances, and is still true in some circumstances, but wireless
>>> is getting very impressive.
>>
>> Wifi cant do an unlimited number of 1GB peer to peer connections
>>
>
> This from a man who has a 100Mb/s LAN?
>
> My point was that in the past, wireless was shit, it had slow speeds,
> poor range, high latency, and random disconnections. So you wanted every
> important device wired to the LAN.
>
> Nowadays you can have many cooperating Wi-Fi access points in the home.
> In mine they are wired together, but I find myself not bothering to wire
> in new devices like TV/HTPCs.
>
> Eventually I think the need for wires will disappear. So planning for
> the future is YAGNI.
>
>
Well if you want to go back to insecure congested local area networking,
be my guest

I suggest you also study Shannon's law.

No way are you going to get gigabit speeds over the frequencies
allocated for wifi.

--
"Anyone who believes that the laws of physics are mere social
conventions is invited to try transgressing those conventions from the
windows of my apartment. (I live on the twenty-first floor.) "

Alan Sokal

On 23/02/2024 12:57, HVS wrote:
> I'm sure you're right,

I'm sure he isn't. There is a reasons people are installing fibre
everywhere, not radios

--
Religion is regarded by the common people as true, by the wise as
foolish, and by the rulers as useful.

(Seneca the Younger, 65 AD)

On 23/02/2024 10:53, The Natural Philosopher wrote:

>
> Wifi cant do an unlimited number of 1GB peer to peer connections
>

Isn't there already problems in a office environment with contention?

--
mailto : news {at} admac {dot} myzen {dot} co {dot} uk

On 23/02/2024 09:55, Pancho wrote:
> On 23/02/2024 09:35, Brian wrote:
>> Scott <newsgroups@gefion.myzen.co.uk> wrote:
>>> I am planning to connect my PC to the router using an ethernet cable.
>>> Length required is 10 metres. My broadband speed is 100 Mbps. Does it
>>> matter whether I buy a Cat 5e, Cat 6 or Cat 8 patch lead? Also, can I
>>> assume that for a new router and relatively new PC, RJ45 to RJ45 would
>>> work? All assistance appreciated.
>>>
>>
>> Plan for 1G in the future.
>>
>> I wired our house over the years - starting in about 1997.
>>
>> I only just got (nearly) 1G fibre.
>>
>> True, I needed to change some of the hardware which was only 100M, but
>> ripping out the wiring to replace with 1G capable would be a nightmare.
>>
>
> I'm not sure if there is a future of wired.
>
> People say wired is better than wireless, and that was true in most
> circumstances, and is still true in some circumstances, but wireless is
> getting very impressive.

Wireless is getting very fast, but wired is getting faster too (2.5G is
getting reasonably common and 10G is available) and, more importantly,
wired allows full bandwidth per device, whereas wireless shares it
between numerous devices and can suffer from interference from
neighbours too. Probably not that much of a problem for many, but maybe
for someone editing large files directly to and from the storage on
their home server, while their satellite boxes were recording multiple
channels to networked storage, their wife was watching streamed UHD
video and all three kids were playing online games, over a shared wifi band.

On 23/02/2024 13:32, alan_m wrote:
> On 23/02/2024 10:53, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
>
>>
>> Wifi cant do an unlimited number of 1GB peer to peer connections
>>
>
> Isn't there already problems in a office environment with contention?
>
One of my hospitals has at leats 15 wifi nodes visible on a scanner
..
Shannon tells us that maximum bit rate is bandwidth times signal to
noise. When you are essentially not using dish aerials you are
broadcasting power to every place it *might* be needed. Down a cable you
only transmit the power needed at the far end. And your bit rate tends
to be more limited by propagation delay than power or noise. At least
with Ethernet protocols.

A cable will always be higher bit rate, lower power and 100 times more
secure than wifi.
If those are not problems for you, use wifi.

--
Labour - a bunch of rich people convincing poor people to vote for rich
people by telling poor people that "other" rich people are the reason
they are poor.

Peter Thompson

On 23/02/2024 13:32, alan_m wrote:
> On 23/02/2024 10:53, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
>
>>
>> Wifi cant do an unlimited number of 1GB peer to peer connections
>>
>
> Isn't there already problems in a office environment with contention?

In my experience, most offices only use wifi for visitors and where
mobile phones can't get a signal, with the company's own computers using
wired networks.

In my current and previous offices, we plug(ged) our laptops into small
boxes with USB-C and those boxes power the laptop and connect mouse,
keyboard, two monitors and wired ethernet.

On 23/02/2024 13:41, SteveW wrote:
> On 23/02/2024 09:55, Pancho wrote:
>> On 23/02/2024 09:35, Brian wrote:
>>> Scott <newsgroups@gefion.myzen.co.uk> wrote:
>>>> I am planning to connect my PC to the router using an ethernet cable.
>>>> Length required is 10 metres. My broadband speed is 100 Mbps. Does it
>>>> matter whether I buy a Cat 5e, Cat 6 or Cat 8 patch lead? Also, can I
>>>> assume that for a new router and relatively new PC, RJ45 to RJ45 would
>>>> work? All assistance appreciated.
>>>>
>>>
>>> Plan for 1G in the future.
>>>
>>> I wired our house over the years - starting in about 1997.
>>>
>>> I only just got (nearly) 1G fibre.
>>>
>>> True, I needed to change some of the hardware which was only 100M, but
>>> ripping out the wiring to replace with 1G capable would be a nightmare.
>>>
>>
>> I'm not sure if there is a future of wired.
>>
>> People say wired is better than wireless, and that was true in most
>> circumstances, and is still true in some circumstances, but wireless
>> is getting very impressive.
>
> Wireless is getting very fast, but wired is getting faster too (2.5G is
> getting reasonably common and 10G is available) and, more importantly,
> wired allows full bandwidth per device, whereas wireless shares it
> between numerous devices and can suffer from interference from
> neighbours too. Probably not that much of a problem for many, but maybe
> for someone editing large files directly to and from the storage on
> their home server, while their satellite boxes were recording multiple
> channels to networked storage, their wife was watching streamed UHD
> video and all three kids were playing online games, over a shared wifi
> band.

Wireless is convenient for portable devices. Or where there is no easy
Ethernet.
But all my fixed kit is wired for reliability. Expect a couple of Pi
zeros running low bandwith and tucked in places where Ethernet would be
a pain to run.

Obviously phones and laptops use wifi.

I don't need blazing speeds, but I do need relaibility.

--
Truth welcomes investigation because truth knows investigation will lead
to converts. It is deception that uses all the other techniques.