# Looking for recommendations for new home wiring plans and ideas



## smoberly (Jul 6, 2004)

We are in the planning stages of building a home. We will be meeting with the builder's 3rd party home automation company to develop our plan for wiring.

I currently have three TiVo's and a MOCA network, use VoIP for my home phone, and a wireless router for internet.

This all works well in a small two bedroom apartment, but given that I have the opportunity to design my own wiring plan...I was looking for any feedback or recommendations for things I need to consider.

I know I want to pre-wire for speakers on the patio, master bedroom, and game room. The house includes pre-wirng for 7.1 surround in the family room (we are not adding a media room).

I am sure the home automation will have lots of recommendations...but I'd like to go in to the meeting with a plan, and avoid their efforts to up sell me on everything.

What experience and recommendations do you have?

Thanks.


----------



## trip1eX (Apr 2, 2005)

cable and cat6 to every room. And really 2 of each to each room. 

Do it yourself to save money because it is easy to do with just the framing up.


----------



## tarheelblue32 (Jan 13, 2014)

trip1eX said:


> cable and cat6 to every room. And really 2 of each to each room.
> 
> Do it yourself to save money because it is easy to do with just the framing up.


+1

Two Cat6 and two RG-6 (preferably quad shielded, but not totally necessary) to every room is pretty much the gold standard right now in home wiring.


----------



## Grakthis (Oct 4, 2006)

I see no benefit to running two Cat6a cables to each room. Cat6a can carry 10G Ethernet. Any notion that you'd need 20G of data going to a single room in your house is nutso. Unless you're running a business out of your house, just run Cat6a to each room, one cable, and maybe 2 to an office. Then use switches if you have more devices in the room than one.

Obv do the shielded wall-runable stuff.

edit: same with co-ax. I see no benefit to running two of them... what is the second one for? You're not doing MoCa if you're running Cat6. Split the cable if you have two Tvs.


----------



## tarheelblue32 (Jan 13, 2014)

Grakthis said:


> I see no benefit to running two Cat6a cables to each room. Cat6a can carry 10G Ethernet. Any notion that you'd need 20G of data going to a single room in your house is nutso. Unless you're running a business out of your house, just run Cat6a to each room, one cable, and maybe 2 to an office. Then use switches if you have more devices in the room than one.
> 
> Obv do the shielded wall-runable stuff.
> 
> edit: same with co-ax. I see no benefit to running two of them... what is the second one for? You're not doing MoCa if you're running Cat6. Split the cable if you have two Tvs.


Having 2 RG-6 runs can allow you to do several different things. You can dedicate 1 coax to cable TV and the other to data/MoCA, or you could have 1 coax be CATV and the other Satellite TV, or you could use one for CATV (or Satellite) and the other for OTA TV. And I think some satellite systems used to need 2 coax runs to work correctly, so you never know when a second coax line will come in handy.

And as far as 2 cat6 runs, that could come in handy too. One can be dedicated to internet data and the other one can be used for the home telephone system. Redundancy is also nice in case one line stops working for some reason. I have had a phone jack mysteriously stop working in my house before. To this day it still does not work because I really don't want to rip the wall open to see what the problem is.

Can most people get by with 1 RG-6 and 1 Cat6 in every room? Sure, but having 2 is not that uncommon in high-end installs.


----------



## Jonathan_S (Oct 23, 2001)

tarheelblue32 said:


> And as far as 2 cat6 runs, that could come in handy too. One can be dedicated to internet data and the other one can be used for the home telephone system. Redundancy is also nice in case one line stops working for some reason. I have had a phone jack mysteriously stop working in my house before. To this day it still does not work because I really don't want to rip the wall open to see what the problem is.


And a second line could delay you having to add a switch if you end up with a second Ethernet device in the same room.

If you're going to the trouble of running one wire it almost always makes sense to spend in effort to run a second one with it.


----------



## trip1eX (Apr 2, 2005)

Jonathan_S said:


> And a second line could delay you having to add a switch if you end up with a second Ethernet device in the same room.
> 
> If you're going to the trouble of running one wire it almost always makes sense to spend in effort to run a second one with it.


Exactly on both accounts.

It's about future proofing. You'll be glad you ran two cables if one goes bad. Also you don't necessarily have to run the duplicates to the same location in each room. You could run the 2nd set to an opposite wall to give you more flexibility in setting up each room now and in the future. That's how you sell the wife on it. Hey honey if you decide to rearrange the furniture 5 years down the road we can easily relocate our tv etc to another wall in the same room.


----------



## tarheelblue32 (Jan 13, 2014)

trip1eX said:


> Exactly on both accounts.
> 
> It's about future proofing. You'll be glad you ran two cables if one goes bad. Also you don't necessarily have to run the duplicates to the same location in each room. You could run the 2nd set to an opposite wall to give you more flexibility in setting up each room now and in the future. That's how you sell the wife on it. Hey honey if you decide to rearrange the furniture 5 years down the road we can easily relocate our tv etc to another wall in the same room.


Good point. In the future, more and more devices will need an internet connection, just like 100 years ago more and more devices were coming along that needed electricity, which is why we now have power receptacles every 6 feet along a wall. 50 years from now we may have ethernet jacks every 6 feet along a wall. I know, I know, internet can be wireless, so every 6 feet would probably be overkill, but I don't think 2 ethernet jacks on opposite sides of a room is at all unreasonable.


----------



## Sixto (Sep 16, 2005)

When I rewired the house in 2000, I ran Cat5e and quad shield RG6 to every spot, some rooms with more then one outlet. All home run to a patch panel in a wiring closet. Best investment I ever made. I've changed things a zillion times in 14 years, but it's usually just a visit to the outlet and the wiring closet.


----------



## Dan203 (Apr 17, 2000)

Running two of each to the same plate seems like overkill. Gigabit switches cost like $15 and MoCa operates on frequencies outside the range of TV so there is no chance of conflict there. While I understand the instinct to "future proof" there really is no scenario I can see where you'd need multiple runs of either to the same plate. Almost everything these days is transitioning to IP, so in the future you'll likely only need the Cat6. 

Now having multiple runs to each room on opposing walls IS a good idea. Having the flexibility to rearrange things without having to run wires under the carpet, or around the baseboards, would be worth the expense in my book.


----------



## kherr (Aug 1, 2006)

I have 6 Cat, 1 coax and a telephone to each TV location in the living/bedrooms.. I use 4 CAT outlets and 1 coax with my Premieres. You never know what the next 10 years in the future will bring and I despise using switches at such locations. In bedrooms I have 2 CAT and 1 telephone on each side of the bed. The living room has the same on either ends of the line of couch/recliner chairs. To each their own. I did all this with 2 boxes of wire and my own time. In my office I have a 16 port switch with a 2 gig (LACP trounking) link to my main switch in the basement. Everybody touts the 10 gig link everywhere. Have you priced a good size 10 gig switch??? I don't think so .....


----------



## das335 (Feb 8, 2006)

I would make sure to have conduit run in the wall for each location. I did not do this when my house was built (in 1987) and it has created some challenges and limitations for setting up TiVo's and PC's. If you have attic access to the conduit, you can always run additional cables as needed.


----------



## astrohip (Jan 7, 2003)

Went thru this a couple years ago. Decided on one Ethernet and two Coax to each outlet (and phone lines to some, depending on location). All runs came back to a patch panel (AKA wiring closet). I have cable coax coming into the panel, and an antenna feed, from a real on-the-roof antenna. And of course the Internet stuff (cable modem, router) are all in this closet.

I can feed cable TV, OTA and Internet to any location. And the one spot where I ended up having four Internet sucking devices? Simply installed a switch.

Easy peasy.


----------



## leswar (Apr 14, 2005)

HDMI Over CAT as another possiblity.

Resale value.


----------



## mr.unnatural (Feb 2, 2006)

The most important thing I can recommend is that you make sure you have some sort of cable raceway between floors that can be accessed after the house is built in order to run more cables at a later date. No matter how you configure the house now there will always be something down the road that may require new or different cabling.

I had my house built back in 1986. I initially wired every room with RG59 coax for cable TV and ran phone lines to each room. Since then I have upgraded the coax to RG6 twice (1st time was using copper-clad steel for DirectTV; second time was using solid copper core for digital cable) and ran CAT5 ethernet cabling (later upgraded to CAT6 for gigabit) to each room. 

I have a two story house and had to run cables between a wire room on the 2nd floor (it was actually an open area behind the wall that was part of the air return system for the heat pump) up through the attic and down to the basement. I could come up through the basement ceiling to access rooms on the 1st floor and come down through the attic to get into walls on the 2nd floor. I installed a drop ceiling when I finished the basement so I could access the floor above for running cables. I have dual coax runs to each room for the days when I had dual tuner DVRs in many rooms for DirecTV. Some rooms have as many as four ethernet runs.

Two coax and two ethernet cables to each room should suffice for now. I recommend going with a single switch (e.g., 24-port unmanaged switches aren't all that expensive) rather than daisy-chaining smaller switches off of a single ethernet cable. Use keystone wall plates and jacks with 4 to 6 ports in each room. Use low voltage outlets for coax and ethernet (they're basically just a frame that attaches to the opening in the drywall that allows you to attach the wall plate). 

You can mix and match whatever jacks you need for that particular room. The low voltage outlets allow you to easily reach into the wall and grab whatever cables you need. Just attach the necessary keystone feedthrough adapter or ethernet jack to the cable and plug it into the wall plate.

Monoprice.com is a great source for keystone jacks and wall plates. For ethernet cabling use CAT6 riser cable. Buy it in bulk in 1000' rolls so you'll always have some on hand. I like to buy remnant rolls on ebay for a fraction of what it usually goes for. Contractors will buy bulk rolls for a job and then sell what's left on the roll dirt cheap. I've bought 500-600' rolls for $35-40.

Solid copper core RG6 coax will provide you with the best signal transmission and the lowest loss, but it can be expensive. Shop around for the best deal and definitely buy it in bulk. YOu can use it for making short patch cables as well as long runs behind the walls. Don't even bother trying to make your own ethernet patch cables as it simply isn't worth the time and effort and the end results aren't guaranteed. Monoprice.com sells CAT6 patch cables in all lengths and colors at dirt cheap prices.

You'll need a punchdown tool for making your ethernet connections. Don't scrimp and use the cheap plastic ones. Splurge and get a quality tool and the job will go much easier and you'll also make better connections. For coax, get a compression tool and some bulk connectors. A good stripping tool is also a must. Don't even bother using the old style crimp connectors for coax as they are unreliable and a pain to work with. Get a good coax connector tool for inserting the connectors on the end of the cables and also for tightening the cables to the jacks. 

You should also invest in an ethernet cable tester. They're not all that expensive and make life much easier if you need to do any troubleshooting. It comes in two pieces and they plug into opposite ends of a cable. It has LEDs that indicate if the cable is good.

Above all, label everything. Trying to sort out your wiring later is a huge PITA.

One last thing. If you're considering a whole house alarm system at some point, do the wiring now. Run a 2-4 conductor cable from each door and window (2 wires if they're double hung) to a central location where you can install a main alarm panel. Run a multi-conductor wire between the main panel and anywhere you intend to install a keypad for arming the system, usually in the master bedroom and also beside each entry door. You may also need a phone line run to the panel if you intend to use a monitoring service. Other types of wiring may be required for motion sensors, pressure sensors in hallways, etc. Proximity sensors and outlets for outdoor lighting can also be installed at this time.

Check with local regulations to see if you need to submit any wiring plans or get a permit. If the electrical inspector sees wiring that's not on the builder's plans he probably won't pass the inspection. Mine didn't and I had to run around the day before settlement to get everything straightened out before I could close on the house. You can run all of the low voltage wiring yourself, but I recommend having your builder or electrical contractor run any higher voltage wiring. They'll include it on the plans and also have it wired into the main electrical panel for you so there won't be any issues with the inspector. You might also want to wire rooms for ceiling fans if they're not included.


----------



## unitron (Apr 28, 2006)

CONDUIT!

If you really want to future-proof, lots of conduit.

People who installed lots of RG-59 back when could easily replace with RG-6 if they'd run it in conduit.

People who installed CAT5 could replace with CAT6 or whatever the latest and hottest Ethernet cable is if they'd run it in conduit.

And consider adding a wiring closet to the plans as well.

Figure out all the places where you're going to want a TV, stuff that needs Ethernet, speakers, et cetera, then figure out what alternative locations you might want later on for those same things so that the TV isn't tied to just one wall and so on.

Figure out if your horizontal runs are going to be in the attic or the crawl space and plan accordingly--if you have vertical conduit sticking up or down and terminated in a device box (like a switch box), you can go back and connect them horizontally later on if you've made allowances for them.

See if your local codes and zoning and whatever will allow Electrical Non-Metallic Tubing, or ENT, colloquially called "Smurf Pipe" because of the blue color of one brand, Carlon.

It's a sort of ribbed, flexible, plastic tubing generally less costly and easier to run than the gray rigid Schedule 40 stuff, and there are snap-together end pieces that let you attach it to boxes or couple two pieces together.

Don't use the 1/2" stuff, go with the 3/4".

(those are nominal or "trade" sizes, and not what they measure using an actual ruler or calipers, anymore than a 2x4 is actually 2" by 4")

Just be sure it doesn't get confused with places for running 120V or 240V electrical wire (although it's designed and rated for that, you can't run low voltage stuff like TV cable in the same tubes, where can't means it's a code violation and if the building inspector doesn't catch it and make you rip it all out and start over your insurance company can use it as an excuse not to pay up).

Speaking of electrical outlet wiring, you're going to want to allow for a lot more of that than the usual minimums that are designed for as well, like more outlets per room, since there are always new things to be plugged in coming along, and I'd suggest using 12 gauge wire instead of 14 even if it's coming from a 15 amp breaker, just to give you less chance of voltage drop and overheating, and also a bigger box with more breakers so you can divide those extra outlets between more branch circuits.

Anywhere you've got a box for stuff like cable and Ethernet and speakers nailed to one side of a stud you should probably have an outlet box nailed to the other side or to the next stud over.

You can also use conduit to make it possible to add more electrical wiring in the future more easily than trying to fish more Romex through already finished walls.


----------



## mr.unnatural (Feb 2, 2006)

Conduit = raceway. The only reason to install any sort of conduit for low voltage wiring is if you're dealing with insulation or barriers that don't allow wires to easily pass between walls or floors. The only obstructions you may run into with interior walls is if a horizontal brace is installed between the studs. Interior walls are nothing but open spaces between studs so it's easy to replace or add wiring at any later date. I replaced all of my wiring quite easily without using conduit anywhere in my house.

If you need to run any wiring horizontally then conduits are a good choice, but usually not necessary. OTOH, there may be situations where you can't get to a space between the studs any other way so it might be your only option. Survey your house structure and lay out the wiring accordingly. Just make sure you have some way to access it after the walls go up.

The horizontal runs should be done below the floor or above the ceiling and then dropped down the wall where the outlet is located. Any high voltage electrical wiring should be run before the walls go up. If you're concerned that you may need more outlets in a room down the road then have the electrical contractor put them in when he wires the house. He'll charge you extra, but it will be cheaper and easier to do it now rather than later.

The situation I described in my house has dozens of cables running from the 2nd floor to the basement via a raceway, which is nothing more than an open space behind walls between floors. I'd need a couple dozen conduits like the ones unitron described to accommodate all of them. Once you get the wires up to the attic you can drop them down between the interior walls through the plate that's easily visible in the attic. Coming up through the basement ceiling can be a little trickier, but you can usually spot where the baseplate is for the walls by looking for other wiring or plumbing that is located behind the 1st floor walls and extends through the basement ceiling.

BTW, 1/2" or 3/4" conduit is really only good for one or two wires. If you run a bundle to each room you'll need several conduits.


----------



## dswallow (Dec 3, 2000)

Build all walls with a 2-3 foot access way inbetween each side.

I say this as someone who has placed thousands upon thousands of feet of coax, ethernet, audio, electric and other cables every time I've had occasion to open up the walls for a big remodeling project. My current project even has me running an extra gas line . (Conduit has never been practical.)

When I have a house built to spec it'll have hidden passages between most every wall.

In all seriousness, plan your overall layout to give you at least a way to get from any room/floor to any room/floor. Think in terms of both horizontal and vertical paths for anything you might later want to add... piping, wiring, conduit. Simple things, like just having closets in certain positions floor-to-floor or room-to-room can give you easier paths through areas you don't have as much to be concerned over if there is a need to break into a wall/ceiling. And for the most part a home-run concept is probably best overall -- all wiring/piping runs from endpoints to a central location.


----------



## Bigg (Oct 31, 2003)

Dan203 said:


> Running two of each to the same plate seems like overkill.


2 3000mhz RG-6 and 2 CAT-6 UTP per room (ideally per room side) is the bare minimum for a decent structured wiring system. Some people are running up to 4 per location, although that is probably overkill. At a minimum, with 2 you could run gigabit ethernet and HDBaseT. With 3, you could add analog phone as well, although that's handled just as well by a DECT phone system these days.

There's tons of articles out there about structured wiring. For low-voltage, you may also want to look at running the following to the wiring "closet" (in no particular order):

1. CAT-5e or better for security cameras.
2. CAT-5e or better for HA keypads (audio or other)
3. Alarm system pre-wiring
4. CAT-6 for wireless AP
5. A couple of CAT-3 or better dedicated phone outlets
6. 14/2 or 12/2 speaker wire for whole-home audio
7. Several RG-6 cables to the roof or attic for OTA or satellite
8. At least two RG-6 and a CAT-5 to the utility de-marc. This may somewhat depends on what providers are available, i.e. FIOS can use Ethernet in addition to the RG-6 from the ONT, GPON U-Verse requires Ethernet only, cable needs just an RG-6. Consider that if you have multiple providers, you may at some point want one service through one, and another through a different one.


----------



## Grakthis (Oct 4, 2006)

tarheelblue32 said:


> Having 2 RG-6 runs can allow you to do several different things. You can dedicate 1 coax to cable TV and the other to data/MoCA, or you could have 1 coax be CATV and the other Satellite TV, or you could use one for CATV (or Satellite) and the other for OTA TV. And I think some satellite systems used to need 2 coax runs to work correctly, so you never know when a second coax line will come in handy.
> 
> And as far as 2 cat6 runs, that could come in handy too. One can be dedicated to internet data and the other one can be used for the home telephone system. Redundancy is also nice in case one line stops working for some reason. I have had a phone jack mysteriously stop working in my house before. To this day it still does not work because I really don't want to rip the wall open to see what the problem is.
> 
> Can most people get by with 1 RG-6 and 1 Cat6 in every room? Sure, but having 2 is not that uncommon in high-end installs.


Yeah, I mean, I get what you're saying. You're basically saying "why not?"

But I think, in reality, while you can come up with things you might maybe possibly do with the second run sometimes, in reality, what you're saying is "because I can." And that's fine. But if it costs more than a few hundred bucks for the second run, I'd skip it.


----------



## Grakthis (Oct 4, 2006)

Dan203 said:


> Running two of each to the same plate seems like overkill. Gigabit switches cost like $15 and MoCa operates on frequencies outside the range of TV so there is no chance of conflict there. While I understand the instinct to "future proof" there really is no scenario I can see where you'd need multiple runs of either to the same plate. Almost everything these days is transitioning to IP, so in the future you'll likely only need the Cat6.


Right. This is kinda what I was saying. I get why you would want it, but in practical reality, I just don't see the second one ever being used.



> Now having multiple runs to each room on opposing walls IS a good idea. Having the flexibility to rearrange things without having to run wires under the carpet, or around the baseboards, would be worth the expense in my book.


But this is a good point.


----------



## brewman (Jun 29, 2003)

Don't know if this was said, but home run everything to your "wiring closet". No daisy chaining phone or cable.


----------



## Dan203 (Apr 17, 2000)

Bigg said:


> 2 3000mhz RG-6 and 2 CAT-6 UTP per room (ideally per room side) is the bare minimum for a decent structured wiring system. Some people are running up to 4 per location, although that is probably overkill. At a minimum, with 2 you could run gigabit ethernet and HDBaseT.


Still seems excessive. Why would you need HDBaseT when you've got devices like the Mini, Joey or Genie that can extend your viewing experience to other rooms via your gigabit network or MoCa? If you really need HDMI distribution there are also HDMI over IP devices that can convert an HDMI signal to regular TCP/IP packets and send them over your standard network.

It seems these "minimums" are based on old assumptions. The future is all IP. In reality you could probably get away with just one Cat6 to each room. Although I think RG6 is still a good idea for flexibility and potentially future proofing. (we're reaching the limits of twisted pair, coax may be required to the next big bandwidth jump after 10Gbps)

Running speaker wire for whole home audio would be nice if you like to listen to music, but pre-running it for your HT system would lock you into a single configuration for your living/family room which you may regret later.

I don't know, I'm kinda of cheap though so I'd hate to waste money on running a bunch of wires that probably will never get used just in case.


----------



## evanborkow (Mar 17, 2008)

As mentioned before, conduit is the best idea. The wire, fiber, or whatever you may need 10 years from now may not exist yet.


----------



## Bigg (Oct 31, 2003)

Dan203 said:


> Still seems excessive. Why would you need HDBaseT when you've got devices like the Mini, Joey or Genie that can extend your viewing experience to other rooms via your gigabit network or MoCa? If you really need HDMI distribution there are also HDMI over IP devices that can convert an HDMI signal to regular TCP/IP packets and send them over your standard network.


Those don't work well in residential applications. CAT-6 is by far the most versatile type of cable, and it's cheap, so it makes sense to run some extra. Gigabit, HDBaseT, and phone are just three common uses for it, and there are tons of other applications for it.



> It seems these "minimums" are based on old assumptions. The future is all IP. In reality you could probably get away with just one Cat6 to each room. Although I think RG6 is still a good idea for flexibility and potentially future proofing. (we're reaching the limits of twisted pair, coax may be required to the next big bandwidth jump after 10Gbps)


Sure, eventually, yes, everything is going IP, but the 2 and 2 requirement still makes perfect sense for today's world, and any future application is either going to use RG-6 or CAT-6, since there is so much of it out there installed. You absolutely cannot get away with not running RG-6, because that's the established standard for TV, and will be well into the future. If you run only one wire to each room, you run RG-6, because that's what the systems are set up for, and that's what everyone else has. That's been that way for more than a decade, and that won't change.

What in a home application is going to need more than 10gbps? 4K video takes 16mbps. Even if you're streaming at much higher bitrates, gigabit is more than fast enough. Of course, you have to have RG-6 anyways, so whatever is developed for it in the future will be available to you as well, so either way, with an RG-6/CAT-6 prewire, you win.



> Running speaker wire for whole home audio would be nice if you like to listen to music, but pre-running it for your HT system would lock you into a single configuration for your living/family room which you may regret later.


HUH? 5.1 was the original standard, and it's still the basic standard, and it always will be. You could wire for 7.4.4 or something like that. What's the worst that happens, Atmos is a flop and you still can use the 7.2 wiring for a 7.2 setup capable of really good DTS 7.1? And what are you going to do without speaker wiring? Just run them on the floor? That's what I have now, but I'm renting, so I don't have any options. I'd rather have them all hidden, although it works fine for 7.1 for the time being.



> I don't know, I'm kinda of cheap though so I'd hate to waste money on running a bunch of wires that probably will never get used just in case.


It's better to have extra sit unused than it is to have to tear up walls later to run them, unless you know you will have relatively easy access. If you're spending big bucks to build a house or tear your house apart for a renovation or addition anyways, why not add some extra wiring for as many potential future uses as you can imagine today? The key is to follow what other people are doing, as products are developed for the wiring that has some critical mass (even if it's relatively small compared to all households).



evanborkow said:


> As mentioned before, conduit is the best idea. The wire, fiber, or whatever you may need 10 years from now may not exist yet.


It's certainly not a bad idea, but CAT-6 and RG-6 are the two common types of cabling, so everything in the future will be developed to work with them.


----------



## Dan203 (Apr 17, 2000)

Bigg said:


> Those don't work well in residential applications.


From what I found they can send 3 HDMI signals over a gigabit network, which means that one only requires about 330Mbps. That should be fine for any gigabit network with plenty of spare bandwidth for everything else. Although I really don't even see a need for transmitting HDMI at all. All major MSOs have an option for multi-room viewing without having to result to HDMI mirroring. And since they send around the compressed signal, they only require like 15Mbps.



Bigg said:


> Sure, eventually, yes, everything is going IP, but the 2 and 2 requirement still makes perfect sense for today's world, and any future application is either going to use RG-6 or CAT-6, since there is so much of it out there installed. You absolutely cannot get away with not running RG-6, because that's the established standard for TV, and will be well into the future. If you run only one wire to each room, you run RG-6, because that's what the systems are set up for, and that's what everyone else has. That's been that way for more than a decade, and that won't change.


Actually TV is transitioning to IP fast, there is even a requirement in place that makes it so all cable boxes will have to output a standards compliant IP signal soon. (DLNA CPV-2 most likely) So you'll be able to put the box anywhere and stream video from it using your home network.

Although I wasn't really advocating against RG6, I was just saying that you "could" get away without it. In my original post I suggested 1 Cat6 and 1 RG6 to each outlet.



Bigg said:


> What in a home application is going to need more than 10gbps? 4K video takes 16mbps. Even if you're streaming at much higher bitrates, gigabit is more than fast enough. Of course, you have to have RG-6 anyways, so whatever is developed for it in the future will be available to you as well, so either way, with an RG-6/CAT-6 prewire, you win.


Who knows, we always find ways to use bandwidth. That's why 10Gbps even exists.

And for the record 4k is going to require about 30Mbps, not 16Mbps. H.265 allows you to reduce the bitrate by about 4x compared to MPEG-2 but 4K has 8x as many pixels as 1080i. (4x the resolution and 2x the frame rate) So if it currently requires ~15Mbps for 1080i MPEG-2 it's going to require about 30Mbps for 4k H.265. That's why they can't broadcast 4k in this country, each ATSC channel only has 19.2Mbps of bandwidth. A switch to ATSC 3.0 would be required to support bandwidths high enough for 4k.



Bigg said:


> HUH? 5.1 was the original standard, and it's still the basic standard, and it always will be. You could wire for 7.4.4 or something like that. What's the worst that happens, Atmos is a flop and you still can use the 7.2 wiring for a 7.2 setup capable of really good DTS 7.1? And what are you going to do without speaker wiring? Just run them on the floor? That's what I have now, but I'm renting, so I don't have any options. I'd rather have them all hidden, although it works fine for 7.1 for the time being.


I was referring to location. If you run speaker wire to a specific location you're going to lock yourself into a specific orientation for your furniture. Unless you put in multiple drops to every potential location. Although that really depends on the design of the room. Some rooms are designed so that there is really only one viable orientation anyway, so in that case I would definitely do it.



Bigg said:


> It's better to have extra sit unused than it is to have to tear up walls later to run them, unless you know you will have relatively easy access. If you're spending big bucks to build a house or tear your house apart for a renovation or addition anyways, why not add some extra wiring for as many potential future uses as you can imagine today? The key is to follow what other people are doing, as products are developed for the wiring that has some critical mass (even if it's relatively small compared to all households).


I'm not sure I agree. Spending money to buy and install a bunch of unused wire seems like a waste. I would rather apply that money to other upgrades. Like you said the technology is designed around what most people have in their house now, and in most cases that's a single RG6, or even RG59, cable to each room.


----------



## lessd (Jan 23, 2005)

In 1996 I ran Cat5 home runs to each potential phone jack and home runs from each room of RG6 quad, that been a good investment, except maybe for the Cat 5 as I now have a wireless phone system that can have up to 10 handsets so I don't need hard wired phones except at the base unit, but I did not know that at the time. With MoCA my home can have hard wire IP in each room if needed, but our notebooks, Kindles, smart HDTVs, and BD players all use my WiFi. Hard to know the future so I do have a 3" open pipe from each attic to the cellar so if any other type of wiring is needed I can drill down or up any wall.


----------



## mr.unnatural (Feb 2, 2006)

Dan203 said:


> Still seems excessive. Why would you need HDBaseT when you've got devices like the Mini, Joey or Genie that can extend your viewing experience to other rooms via your gigabit network or MoCa? If you really need HDMI distribution there are also HDMI over IP devices that can convert an HDMI signal to regular TCP/IP packets and send them over your standard network.
> 
> It seems these "minimums" are based on old assumptions. The future is all IP. In reality you could probably get away with just one Cat6 to each room. Although I think RG6 is still a good idea for flexibility and potentially future proofing. (we're reaching the limits of twisted pair, coax may be required to the next big bandwidth jump after 10Gbps)
> 
> ...


I'd have to agree that two RG6 and two CAT6 cables per room should be considered the minimum. Cost isn't that much of an issue when you buy in bulk. A 1000' roll of CAT6 won't break the bank and it will easily supply two runs to every room in most homes with cable to spare. Solid copper RG6 with either dual or quad shield will satisfy even the most bandwidth hungry setups and should future-proof your home for any digital cable advancements for quite some time. Like I said previously, it isn't cheap, but buying in bulk will get you the best deal and you'll have ample quantity to do your whole house and still have plenty left over for patch cables between your components and the wall outlets.

I've never been a fan of whole house audio and prefer individual setups for each room. Speakers in every room with music piped in makes me think of shopping at a local WalMart with a Muzak sound system.

I'm not sure why there's a discussion of HDMI over CAT6 since a central server with a gigabit network will supply HD content to any PC or other compatible device quite nicely.


----------



## Bigg (Oct 31, 2003)

Dan203 said:


> From what I found they can send 3 HDMI signals over a gigabit network, which means that one only requires about 330Mbps. That should be fine for any gigabit network with plenty of spare bandwidth for everything else. Although I really don't even see a need for transmitting HDMI at all. All major MSOs have an option for multi-room viewing without having to result to HDMI mirroring. And since they send around the compressed signal, they only require like 15Mbps.


Are you talking about JustAddPower? From what I've heard, due to the audio support, it's ill-suited for home use, and intended for digital signage. They are about 140mbps, unless you're talking about a different system. The main application would be for centralization of all the equipment, but that's usually for high-end setups. The other potential I could see would be for something like a security DVR, where it needs to be centrally located to be connected to all the cameras, although some are supporting IP cameras now, which can be aggregated with PoE switches, and then run over a single gig connection.



> Actually TV is transitioning to IP fast, there is even a requirement in place that makes it so all cable boxes will have to output a standards compliant IP signal soon. (DLNA CPV-2 most likely) So you'll be able to put the box anywhere and stream video from it using your home network.


Cable is still extremely QAM dependant, and even the IP portions of cable (MoCA) and DirecTV (DECA) are done with coax.



> Although I wasn't really advocating against RG6, I was just saying that you "could" get away without it. In my original post I suggested 1 Cat6 and 1 RG6 to each outlet.


NO! RG-6 is an absolute must, no two ways about it. Anything after that is nice to have. I wouldn't wire without 2 and 2 in each room, although I'd probably be happy with 1 and 1. Most people don't care about Ethernet at all.



> Who knows, we always find ways to use bandwidth. That's why 10Gbps even exists.


10gbps exists for a few specialized applications, i.e. network cores, virtualization and SANs, and digital content creation (mostly video). It has no use in a home network. Maybe, eventually, it will become cheap, and start being used, and somebody will figure out what to do with it but until then, there's no big clamor for it.



> And for the record 4k is going to require about 30Mbps, not 16Mbps. H.265 allows you to reduce the bitrate by about 4x compared to MPEG-2 but 4K has 8x as many pixels as 1080i. (4x the resolution and 2x the frame rate) So if it currently requires ~15Mbps for 1080i MPEG-2 it's going to require about 30Mbps for 4k H.265. That's why they can't broadcast 4k in this country, each ATSC channel only has 19.2Mbps of bandwidth. A switch to ATSC 3.0 would be required to support bandwidths high enough for 4k.


Well actually, 4K content is currently 15.6mbps or 15.9mbps. Maybe someone will provide higher bitrates, but that is what the actual content available today is encoded at in H.265. Maybe realtime encoding won't get as low as the offline encoding that Netflix and Amazon use, although we don't know yet, since online encoders don't even exist for H.265 yet. I'm not saying it's good practice, because it is not good practice at all, but Comcast is broadcasting 1080i HD at bitrates varying anywhere from 8mbps (yes, 8mbps, it looks HORRIBLE) to 17mbps on their systems, with most channels around 12. Somehow, they've actually managed to make 12mbps MPEG-2 look decent, although it's still not as sharp as HD is supposed to be. The few channels that are running 16-17mbps look a LOT better.

4K could be broadcast via cable systems, which have up to 38mbps per QAM, although most don't have QAMs available for 4K, so it's going to be interesting.



> I was referring to location. If you run speaker wire to a specific location you're going to lock yourself into a specific orientation for your furniture. Unless you put in multiple drops to every potential location. Although that really depends on the design of the room. Some rooms are designed so that there is really only one viable orientation anyway, so in that case I would definitely do it.


True. Most rooms have one decent way to do things. However, one set of wiring is better than none, and most "alternate" setups are twisting things 1/8 to 1/4 of the way around the room, with everything still on the same side, in which case, the speaker wire can just run along the baseboard to the connections.



> I'm not sure I agree. Spending money to buy and install a bunch of unused wire seems like a waste. I would rather apply that money to other upgrades. Like you said the technology is designed around what most people have in their house now, and in most cases that's a single RG6, or even RG59, cable to each room.


RG59 is a big no-no at this point. RG-6 is the bare minimum. Wire is cheap, and it's good to future proof as much as you know how. The good part about this stuff is that there are pretty much established standards of what goes where, since manufacturers in the future are going to make equipment that works with the wiring plans that have been in use for over a decade now.



lessd said:


> In 1996 I ran Cat5 home runs to each potential phone jack and home runs from each room of RG6 quad, that been a good investment, except maybe for the Cat 5 as I now have a wireless phone system that can have up to 10 handsets so I don't need hard wired phones except at the base unit, but I did not know that at the time. With MoCA my home can have hard wire IP in each room if needed, but our notebooks, Kindles, smart HDTVs, and BD players all use my WiFi. Hard to know the future so I do have a 3" open pipe from each attic to the cellar so if any other type of wiring is needed I can drill down or up any wall.


You could re-terminate all your CAT-5 for Ethernet. Even non-e CAT-5 should be able to handle gigabit. Conduit is good, as long as it is in a good spot. My parents put conduit in their house when they built it, but it's at the extreme wrong end of the house, so now there's a couple of CAT-5e lines that run across the basement, up, and back across the attic, for a total length of probably 120-150'. It's OK for CAT cable, but it won't work for RG-6, which they only installed in 3 of the 15 or so rooms, and they refuse to wrap any wiring on the outside. It's not impossible to run more RG-6, but it would take some construction work on the inside to make an interior chase-way on the correct end of the house (or they could just deal with wiring on the outside of the house like most people do).



mr.unnatural said:


> I'd have to agree that two RG6 and two CAT6 cables per room should be considered the minimum. Cost isn't that much of an issue when you buy in bulk. A 1000' roll of CAT6 won't break the bank and it will easily supply two runs to every room in most homes with cable to spare. Solid copper RG6 with either dual or quad shield will satisfy even the most bandwidth hungry setups and should future-proof your home for any digital cable advancements for quite some time. Like I said previously, it isn't cheap, but buying in bulk will get you the best deal and you'll have ample quantity to do your whole house and still have plenty left over for patch cables between your components and the wall outlets.


Yup. Compared to the cost of building a house, wiring for the future is really cheap, and is a really good investment.



> I've never been a fan of whole house audio and prefer individual setups for each room. Speakers in every room with music piped in makes me think of shopping at a local WalMart with a Muzak sound system.


HAHA. It can be done nicely with a bunch of SONOS units in a central location and in-ceiling speakers. I usually think of it as a premium feature, since usually high-end houses have WHA...



> I'm not sure why there's a discussion of HDMI over CAT6 since a central server with a gigabit network will supply HD content to any PC or other compatible device quite nicely.


Two different things, two different applications. I'm not a huge fan of HDMI over CAT, but there are uses for it, very high end installations use a ton of it, and if you put CAT cable in, there are lots of things you can use it for if you don't want HDMI over CAT. Ethernet, phone, more Ethernet.


----------



## trip1eX (Apr 2, 2005)

lessd said:


> Hard to know the future so I do have a 3" open pipe from each attic to the cellar so if any other type of wiring is needed I can drill down or up any wall.


This sort of idea is a good idea. Conduit of some sort. But it requires some thought and planning. Running a string with your cable lets you pull a new wire through easily btw.

The reason to run spare wires isn't just for future use, but in case you have a problem wire. But depending on your layout it might be easy enough to add a wire in the future. Some rooms more than others.

And as someone said the way to buy wire is in bulk in 1000' lengths. You might already have enough for 2 wires to every room depending on home size. Or at least 2 wires to key rooms or to rooms that look like they would be trouble to run a spare wire to in the future.


----------



## wwu123 (May 15, 2008)

I think labor costs are going to dominate over the cost of the cabling in most cases, unless you DIY, so the contractor would prefer to homerun a single structured cable (everything in a single jacket) than multiple individual cables. So most commonly you're going to get 2 Cat5e/6 and 2 RG6 in the bundle anyway. Maybe even fiber-optic as well since the labor cost will be the same, and maybe just a few hundred more for the cable to futureproof. Though I agreed with my contractor that fiber-optic seemed like overkill for the home, and so opted out even though it would have been a very modest cost. 

I do have a couple of conduit runs as well, just in case, to a couple of key rooms - the family room and master bedroom.


----------



## Bigg (Oct 31, 2003)

wwu123 said:


> I think labor costs are going to dominate over the cost of the cabling in most cases, unless you DIY, so the contractor would prefer to homerun a single structured cable (everything in a single jacket) than multiple individual cables. So most commonly you're going to get 2 Cat5e/6 and 2 RG6 in the bundle anyway. Maybe even fiber-optic as well since the labor cost will be the same, and maybe just a few hundred more for the cable to futureproof. Though I agreed with my contractor that fiber-optic seemed like overkill for the home, and so opted out even though it would have been a very modest cost.
> 
> I do have a couple of conduit runs as well, just in case, to a couple of key rooms - the family room and master bedroom.


DIY is so easy with this stuff. It's also not harder to run 2 or 4 than one, you just tape them together and thread/pull them together out of 2 or 4 boxes of cable at once. Not sure the draw of the structured cable when you can just have a row of boxes of the various cables that you want anyway.

There is no use in a home for fiber, and there won't be anytime in the foreseeable future, since CAT cable can easily do anything that needs to be done in a home, and there isn't an install base out there with fiber to use in the first place like there is for RG and CAT cable.

Depending on the construction, it can be anywhere from easy to impossible to preserve access for future wiring. In a 2-story colonial with a full basement, you have full access to basically every room for wiring, once you get into capes and other styles, it gets harder. Finished basements are easy, just use a drop ceiling, third floors are harder, since you lose access to the second floor, and then in some parts of the country they do weird stuff like not building basements.


----------



## tarheelblue32 (Jan 13, 2014)

Bigg said:


> and then in some parts of the country they do weird stuff like not building basements.


LOL, yeah like my house! That's when you get to explore the "crawl space". And just like the name suggests, you are literally crawling on your hands and knees in dirt, with poor lighting and the ever-present danger of running into an ornery rat, wolf spider, or Mr. Snake at every turn.


----------



## Bigg (Oct 31, 2003)

tarheelblue32 said:


> LOL, yeah like my house! That's when you get to explore the "crawl space". And just like the name suggests, you are literally crawling on your hands and knees in dirt, with poor lighting and the ever-present danger of running into an ornery rat, wolf spider, or Mr. Snake at every turn.


GROSS! Our unfinished basements are often semi-livable space if done right here in the northeast. I can't imagine a house without a basement!


----------



## mr.unnatural (Feb 2, 2006)

Bigg said:


> GROSS! Our unfinished basements are often semi-livable space if done right here in the northeast. I can't imagine a house without a basement!


Pretty much anywhere in the southwest or deep south and Florida homes don't have basements unless you want to blast through solid rock or go swimming.


----------



## HarperVision (May 14, 2007)

mr.unnatural said:


> Pretty much anywhere in the southwest or deep south and Florida homes don't have basements unless you want to blast through solid rock or go swimming.


Or in my case.......Molten Magma!!!


----------



## astrohip (Jan 7, 2003)

Bigg said:


> I can't imagine a house without a basement!


I can't imagine a house with a basement. Never lived in one. Certainly never spent any time in one.


----------



## nooneuknow (Feb 5, 2011)

tarheelblue32 said:


> LOL, yeah like my house! That's when you get to explore the "crawl space". And just like the name suggests, you are literally crawling on your hands and knees in dirt, with poor lighting and the ever-present danger of running into an ornery rat, wolf spider, or Mr. Snake at every turn.


Wolf spiders are your friend. They don't make webs, but find a place to hide, and literally jump other insects, thus the name for them. Just like some will intentionally infest their yards and such spaces with praying mantises, some will do the same with wolf spiders (some even keep either one as pets).

Unless you are worried about the loss of some benign insect species, you have nothing to gain by eliminating such insects (or snakes) that hunt and eat other pests. I'd be much more worried about black widows, brown recluses, and venomous snakes (even though the non-venomous ones can still bite you, though).

I've brought in a few wolf spiders and mantises, as temporary pets, never being bitten by the spiders, nor pierced by the spikes a mantis has. Watching a mantis (they like to be watched, behaving differently if they know they are being watched, than if left alone), can be quite interesting. I liked snakes, too, until I moved to a desert, where most are venomous.

I guess the most scary thing I can think of would be running into an escaped boa constrictor, that used to be somebody's pet. Although, raccoons and other mammals or rodents, are not something it is fun to find yourself in a crawl space with (I know this from experience)...


----------



## ej42137 (Feb 16, 2014)

nooneuknow said:


> I guess the most scary thing I can think of would be running into an escaped boa constrictor, that used to be somebody's pet.


Really? When I lived in Ladoga, California we had rattlesnakes living under the house. They would come out in the afternoon to sun themselves on the lawn. You couldn't have paid me any amount of money to go into that crawlspace.


----------



## tarheelblue32 (Jan 13, 2014)

ej42137 said:


> Really? When I lived in Ladoga, California we had rattlesnakes living under the house. They would come out in the afternoon to sun themselves on the lawn. You couldn't have paid me any amount of money to go into that crawlspace.


Sweet Jesus. If I knew I had poisonous snakes living under my house, I would have called out the exterminator. Non-venomous snakes are one thing, but snakes that can kill you living under your roof is an entirely different story.


----------



## nooneuknow (Feb 5, 2011)

ej42137 said:


> Really? When I lived in Ladoga, California we had rattlesnakes living under the house. They would come out in the afternoon to sun themselves on the lawn. You couldn't have paid me any amount of money to go into that crawlspace.


I guess you missed this part:


nooneuknow said:


> I liked snakes, too, until I moved to a desert, where most are venomous.


While a venomous snake can kill you, you are pretty likely to know you have been bitten by one, and be able to seek medical attention promptly.

Poisonous spider bites (of the deadly to humans kind), OTOH, can go unnoticed, and lead to amputations, or death, by the time you seek medical attention.

Some people might be far more scared of a mammal or rodent with sharp claws and/or teeth, which are less likely to kill you (rabies aside), than a species with venom.

Where I live, black widows are common, and they just love nesting inside utility junction boxes. I was opening up the sidewalk junction box for a Cox tech, and was about to grab my lateral to make sure he tested the right one. He stopped me, right before I almost put my hand right in front of a black widow.

I'm sure some people might die of a heart attack, just upon sight of a mature wolf spider. YFMV (your fear may vary), I guess...

If you are in a crawl space, and a boa constrictor gets around you, what do you figure the odds are that you will ever get back out to even seek medical attention?


----------



## tarheelblue32 (Jan 13, 2014)

nooneuknow said:


> If you are in a crawl space, and a boa constrictor gets around you, what do you figure the odds are that you will ever get back out to even seek medical attention?


Depends on how big it is, how strong/fast you are, and what you have handy to use as a weapon. If you have a good sized pocket knife on you, then you have a decent chance of cutting the bastard's head off before it finishes you off.


----------



## nooneuknow (Feb 5, 2011)

tarheelblue32 said:


> Depends on how big it is, how strong/fast you are, and what you have handy to use as a weapon. If you have a good sized pocket knife on you, then you have a decent chance of cutting the bastard's head off before it finishes you off.


Sounds like the old "Who would win a fight, caveman or astronaut?" paradox.

The next question always is "Do they have weapons?", then every possible tactical advantage comes up. I've never heard anybody ask "Would they be in space?" 

Back to our regular scheduled programming...


----------



## Bigg (Oct 31, 2003)

Oh god, I totally got this OT. Basements and snow. Two of the many reasons I need to stay in the Northeast. Preferably move a bit north. I can't imagine a winter without at least a foot or two of snow, preferably more than that!


----------



## ej42137 (Feb 16, 2014)

tarheelblue32 said:


> Sweet Jesus. If I knew I had poisonous snakes living under my house, I would have called out the exterminator. Non-venomous snakes are one thing, but snakes that can kill you living under your roof is an entirely different story.


Wouldn't have done a bit of good. For some reason that part of the country was just lousy with snakes. You'd see them everywhere. If we killed the ones that lived under the house next week a new set would just move in.

What did work was what my mother did in a different time, in different part of the country. Whenever she saw a king snake when she was out riding, she would put it in her saddle bag and throw it in the barn when she got home. King snakes kill rattlers and enjoyed living in the barn with the abundant mice and such; we much preferred the company of king snakes over rattlers. (Don't try this at home kids! Most people that walk up to a horse with a snake in their hands will be lucky if all that happens is that they have to walk home. My mother knew what she was doing.)


----------



## ej42137 (Feb 16, 2014)

nooneuknow said:


> If you are in a crawl space, and a boa constrictor gets around you, what do you figure the odds are that you will ever get back out to even seek medical attention?


The only way a someone's pet boa constrictor is going to harm you is either:

1) Gives you a bite that gets infected because they have very dirty mouths.

2) Scares you to death because you have a morbid fear of death and a weak heart.

Really, you're too big to swallow and probably taste bad too.


----------



## Grakthis (Oct 4, 2006)

ej42137 said:


> The only way a someone's pet boa constrictor is going to harm you is either:
> 
> 1) Gives you a bite that gets infected because they have very dirty mouths.
> 
> ...


Boa constrictor killed 2 like 6 year olds this year... in a pretty big city too. Maybe not too dangerous for an adult, but could potentially grab you in a bad spot and do some real damage. They squeeze when panic'd, not just to eat.


----------



## wwu123 (May 15, 2008)

Bigg said:


> DIY is so easy with this stuff. It's also not harder to run 2 or 4 than one, you just tape them together and thread/pull them together out of 2 or 4 boxes of cable at once. Not sure the draw of the structured cable when you can just have a row of boxes of the various cables that you want anyway.
> 
> There is no use in a home for fiber, and there won't be anytime in the foreseeable future, since CAT cable can easily do anything that needs to be done in a home, and there isn't an install base out there with fiber to use in the first place like there is for RG and CAT cable.
> 
> Depending on the construction, it can be anywhere from easy to impossible to preserve access for future wiring. In a 2-story colonial with a full basement, you have full access to basically every room for wiring, once you get into capes and other styles, it gets harder. Finished basements are easy, just use a drop ceiling, third floors are harder, since you lose access to the second floor, and then in some parts of the country they do weird stuff like not building basements.


That's why my post said "unless you DIY". In my case, the main low-voltage wiring was already part of a larger contract per plans drawn up by the architect, and the subcontractor used structured wiring to each location regardless of whether the plans called for a telephone jack, cable outlet, or Ethernet at the wallplate. You don't need rows of boxes - modular wallplates with Quickports can be easily modified to handle 2, 4, 6 different connectors in a single-gang space - I've added additional jacks numerous times.

But for DIY, I agree with you, and I actually additionally ran about 30 additional runs of Cat5e (really 4 pairs of generic twisted wiring) to door jambs, rafters, and other in-wall non-jack locations, to future-proof for home security sensors, PoE cameras, whole-house audio, and other home automation.

I agreed about the fiber-optic, that's why in my first post I mentioned opting-out - that was the only decision I needed to make from the subcontractor, was whether to pay a few hundred more for him to use the more expensive structured wiring bundle.


----------



## s10023 (Nov 12, 2013)

i just wired my house after a major renovation. one regret i have is not adding ethernet/coax/power jacks inside some closets. obviously not all closets need it but it would have been nice to be able to put a wifi router or some other home automation things in a closet. 

also... and these are not really tivo related... 
- consider running low voltage wires to each window frame in case you want to add remote control shades in the future.
- doorjamb switches on each closet to turn on a light when closet door is opened 
- definitely hardwire your alarm system.
- for speakers you need to decide if you want a volume control on the wall of each room before wiring it. with sonos but there is no way to restrict zones. so for example, if volume is on in master BR, kids can accidentally turn on music. if volume at wall is off, they can't
- having two cat6 at each location makes sense. i think people here are underestimating the cost though. it's not just a little extra wire, it's also putting the ends on the wire, testing, etc
- if you have any built in bookcases... think about putting power somewhere on one of the shelves
- we use lutron radio RA light switches and they are great.
- if you have kids, tamper resistant outlets
- consider running a large (100amp) cable to your garage for electric car charging. just roughing should be fine, doesn't have to be hooked up to anything now. depending on where your electrical panel and garage are in house, could be dificult to run such a thick cable later.
- consider wiring for security cameras. outdoors and any indoor locations


----------



## Bigg (Oct 31, 2003)

wwu123 said:


> That's why my post said "unless you DIY". In my case, the main low-voltage wiring was already part of a larger contract per plans drawn up by the architect, and the subcontractor used structured wiring to each location regardless of whether the plans called for a telephone jack, cable outlet, or Ethernet at the wallplate. You don't need rows of boxes - modular wallplates with Quickports can be easily modified to handle 2, 4, 6 different connectors in a single-gang space - I've added additional jacks numerous times.


Oh, if they won't let you do any of your own work, then you're kind of screwed. I was referring to having a row of 1000' boxes of wire when you're doing the wiring and pulling all of them at once. Like 2 boxes of CAT-6 and 2 boxes of RG-6.



> But for DIY, I agree with you, and I actually additionally ran about 30 additional runs of Cat5e (really 4 pairs of generic twisted wiring) to door jambs, rafters, and other in-wall non-jack locations, to future-proof for home security sensors, PoE cameras, whole-house audio, and other home automation.
> 
> 
> > That's good.
> ...


----------



## Bigg (Oct 31, 2003)

s10023 said:


> i just wired my house after a major renovation. one regret i have is not adding ethernet/coax/power jacks inside some closets. obviously not all closets need it but it would have been nice to be able to put a wifi router or some other home automation things in a closet.


That's actually a good idea. If just for wifi, you could put a single CAT-5 line and use PoE access points, but if you wanted to put other stuff in there, CAT/RG/Mains would be good.



> - consider running low voltage wires to each window frame in case you want to add remote control shades in the future.


They showed some really cool ones on the last epsiode of TOH that used little solar panels to recharge batteries and a wireless remote...



> - doorjamb switches on each closet to turn on a light when closet door is opened


Really? I have a couple closets with lights, and I haven't really figured out why they even have lights yet!!



> - consider running a large (100amp) cable to your garage for electric car charging. just roughing should be fine, doesn't have to be hooked up to anything now. depending on where your electrical panel and garage are in house, could be dificult to run such a thick cable later.


That's either code, or being discussed to be code in some towns in California now. If you can, having a route to put it in or conduit is probably the better (cheaper) bet for now, especially if you end up putting a 100A line in and putting a 30A or 50A charger on it later... You also have to start thinking about the whole house's electric service for that kind of amperage too. That's half of the standard 200A electric panel. Future-proofing isn't a bad idea, although even the most powerful electric car today (the Tesla) doesn't really need more than 50A. It can use 100A with the HPWC, but if you can let it charge overnight, even the heaviest drivers would be fine at 50A/27mph charging. And the PHEVs are still running off of regular 15A circuits...


----------



## trip1eX (Apr 2, 2005)

s10023 said:


> - doorjamb switches on each closet to turn on a light when closet door is opened


Or use some motion control lights instead. They even have battery powered overhead LED lights that (are) geared towards this type of purpose.



s10023 said:


> - having two cat6 at each location makes sense. i think people here are underestimating the cost though. it's not just a little extra wire, it's also putting the ends on the wire, testing, etc


You can just leave the 2nd wire in the walls.


----------



## nooneuknow (Feb 5, 2011)

I had bought a house (my 1st and only owned, by me, home) that the prior owners had put grounded outlets onto old cloth, no ground, wiring. I did not know this until I plugged in my surge protector, and the fault light came on. No basement (concrete slab), no crawl space, no attic (not even enough roof slope to be a crawl space), and 2x2s in the walls, with horizontal 2x2s in the internal walls (making wire drops impossible in inside walls).

The roof was shot, and the plywood rotted to dust (but somehow looked fine). I was lucky enough to have a contractor doing the roof, willing to let me be up there, while they were using just their hands to remove it all. I realized all the wiring ran along the outer edges of the roof, made a run to Home Depot, and made as many romex drops as I could, without holding up the roof work. After that, getting grounded outlets, and having each room on it's own breakers was as simple as connecting to the panel, and reaching inside where I dropped the romex. At the time I sold the house, there were still drops I made, still left inside walls, and rolled up above the breaker panel.

I paid $77,000 for that house, quit-claimed it over to a refinance business I had done computer work for, and walked away with just enough to move to another state, far way. I had no choice, or default, due to the tech bubble, and some idiocy on my part, but to bail and leave. They sold that house, doing nothing more than a cosmetic makeover, for $153,000, just a few years later, right before the first housing bubble burst. I feel sorry for whoever paid that much. But, at least they got a house with proper wiring, new HE furnace & AC, new water heater, new roof, and detached garage with it's own cental heating and AC, and enough capacity to run a full-fledged wire welder, plus both the house and garage being fully CAT5, with triple runs, one being set up as a 4-line phone system.

Back then, I didn't watch TV, didn't have cable, and the house never had cable before me. So, there was no coax, nor did I install any.

I always wonder if the right person bought that house. It would be every mechanic/welder/IT person's dream home (small home), with a garage you could live in as well, (2 car wide, divided into garage and workshop, with underground 24-pair UTP between house and garage)...

I guess this could be a cautionary tale, against doing all that work, assuming you are going to live there forever, when it could only be a few years. If a copper thief needed a wet-dream, that house would be the one to tear it out of.

When I had tried to sell the house, before ending in a quit-claim, nobody cared about any of the things being discussed here, and nobody wanted to hear about it, or the garage. I mean, nobody, not the multiple real-estate companies I consulted with, nor any potential buyers, when I listed it myself. When I picked up a call, asking price, and I said $97,500, everybody hung up, based on the houses in the area usually being in the $60,000-$80,000 range.

It's somewhat parallel to how I had a car that you had to see, and drive, to appreciate. But, in the end, it was just what bluebook and condition said it was worth. Just a few, of many, "investments" I thought I was making, that wound up being some of the biggest losses in my whole life...

It doesn't seem like all this stuff being discussed here, is even something that today's housing market takes into consideration, when it comes to value. It all still seems to be square footage, condition, location, neighborhood prices, and the damn kitchen and bathrooms (the least of my concerns in a house)...

Besides reminiscing about my failed "investments" in things, which were made post-build, I think there may be a few things in this post that might make some stop to think about ROI, and if there will be any, when the day comes your wired home, new or retrofitted, will go on the market. While built in wiring for everything, even if it can all be used for security and/or automation, may be great for you, how much does it (realistically, in the real world) add to the value?


----------



## trip1eX (Apr 2, 2005)

nooneuknow said:


> While built in wiring for everything, even if it can all be used for security and/or automation, may be great for you, how much does it (realistically, in the real world) add to the value?


Yeah you don't want to get too fancy. I bought a house with an intercom system in nearly every room including a bathroom that is useless in today's world.

The home automation stuff of the future seems like a gimmick/frivolous to me.

Attaching sensors to closet doors is just another thing that will break in my mind.

I wouldn't outfit your garage to charge a car unless you are actually going to get one in the next year.

....


----------



## Bigg (Oct 31, 2003)

nooneuknow said:


> Besides reminiscing about my failed "investments" in things, which were made post-build, I think there may be a few things in this post that might make some stop to think about ROI, and if there will be any, when the day comes your wired home, new or retrofitted, will go on the market. While built in wiring for everything, even if it can all be used for security and/or automation, may be great for you, how much does it (realistically, in the real world) add to the value?


True. Going way above the standards or "normal" things that people like to see generally doesn't provide a good ROI. Even things that are semi-common like swimming pools can be a negative to some buyers.



trip1eX said:


> Yeah you don't want to get too fancy. I bought a house with an intercom system in nearly every room including a bathroom that is useless in today's world.


Yeah, a lot of the stuff seems like an answer to a problem that no one asked. It also depends on the market segment. Some of that stuff is expected in a multi-million dollar house, whereas anything more than the basics add no value in a small/cheap house, even something that a lot of people have and like, like central AC (here in the Northeast anyways, where a lot of people don't have central AC).

Conduit might be a better bet for the car, it's a lot cheaper, and could be re-used for something else down the road if the electric car charging is not needed.


----------



## mr.unnatural (Feb 2, 2006)

No home improvement will ever net you a return on investment greater than the original cost. In fact, most improvements, while they may improve the resale value, will never get you back what you put into it. You can also go overboard with upgrades and end up pricing yourself right out of the market. I've got a neighbor that did just that by putting an addition on the back of the house as well as an upgraded kitchen and many other upgrades. They've been asking about $150-175K more than what the other homes in the neighborhood are being appraised for. Needless to say it's still for sale.

Home improvements should mostly be done for your benefit, not the buyer's. Certain things should be upgraded prior to selling a house to improve the chances of selling (i.e., replacing those nasty stained carpets or kitchen cabinets with the doors falling off), but you'll probably lose money overall. OTOH, you may not get nearly what you're asking for the house if you don't make certain improvements.

Home automation is a gimmick and not really worth the investment unless you just like toys to play with. Whole house alarm systems may not necessarily improve the resale value all that much unless you point out that it will also lower your insurance rates. Wiring the house for cable and Ethernet is a much bigger selling point than it used to be, although a lot of people are equally happy going with a wireless setup these days.


----------



## tarheelblue32 (Jan 13, 2014)

mr.unnatural said:


> No home improvement will ever net you a return on investment greater than the original cost.


This is usually true, but not always. If it were always true, then people who flip homes after doing home improvements would always lose money, and that's not the reality.


----------



## lrhorer (Aug 31, 2003)

wwu123 said:


> I agreed about the fiber-optic, that's why in my first post I mentioned opting-out - that was the only decision I needed to make from the subcontractor, was whether to pay a few hundred more for him to use the more expensive structured wiring bundle.


I disagree. If one has an opportunity to install a multimode fiber infrastructure at minimal cost, I would definitely go for it. 'Zero interference issues and unlimited bandwidth. 'Best of all, the ability to multiplex. A single pair of fibers can carry many different applications at up to 100Gbps each. Much more with singlemode, but at a higher cost. Gigabit fiber adapters are currently inexpensive, and there is no limit to the number or type of potential future applications.


----------



## Grakthis (Oct 4, 2006)

mr.unnatural said:


> Home automation is a gimmick and not really worth the investment unless you just like toys to play with.


No, things that improve your daily life are not "gimmicks." They are material life improvements. I'm sorry that you don't like technology, but could you try not to get your Luddite on the rest of the thread? We are, after all, in a technology focused forum.


----------



## nooneuknow (Feb 5, 2011)

lrhorer said:


> I disagree. If one has an opportunity to install a multimode fiber infrastructure at minimal cost, I would definitely go for it. 'Zero interference issues and unlimited bandwidth. 'Best of all, the ability to multiplex. A single pair of fibers can carry many different applications at up to 100Gbps each. Much more with singlemode, but at a higher cost. Gigabit fiber adapters are currently inexpensive, and there is no limit to the number or type of potential future applications.


As somebody who used to install fiber as part of my job description, I can say your points and sentiment are valid, if leaving out most hope it will wow a buyer of the home later on. In my installation days, older techs said I had it easy, compared to how hard it used to be (and how long it took to terminate and polish). If it has become even easier, I'd consider it myself, especially if modem fiber is less susceptible to accidental breakages of a run.


----------



## Bigg (Oct 31, 2003)

tarheelblue32 said:


> This is usually true, but not always. If it were always true, then people who flip homes after doing home improvements would always lose money, and that's not the reality.


Right. There's a lot of cosmetic stuff that can have ROI's well north of 100%, especially stuff like some simple landscaping, new carpet and paint, etc. Usually kitchens and bathrooms aren't a very good bet unless you're doing a flip and re-doing the whole house, although that's not always the case...



lrhorer said:


> I disagree. If one has an opportunity to install a multimode fiber infrastructure at minimal cost, I would definitely go for it. 'Zero interference issues and unlimited bandwidth. 'Best of all, the ability to multiplex. A single pair of fibers can carry many different applications at up to 100Gbps each. Much more with singlemode, but at a higher cost. Gigabit fiber adapters are currently inexpensive, and there is no limit to the number or type of potential future applications.


It's unlikely that home products will ever use fiber, due to the chicken and egg problem, expense of termination, and extra expense of turning electrical signals into light and then back again, when you can just send them as electrical signals with no degradation to performance on <100m runs like Ethernet.

Fiber is being marketed to people who don't know what they are talking about in terms of home wiring. The only place fiber makes sense is from the ISP to the house. After that, copper is king.


----------



## lessd (Jan 23, 2005)

Bigg said:


> That's either code, or being discussed to be code in some towns in California now. If you can, having a route to put it in or conduit is probably the better (cheaper) bet for now, especially if you end up putting a 100A line in and putting a 30A or 50A charger on it later... You also have to start thinking about the whole house's electric service for that kind of amperage too. That's half of the standard 200A electric panel. Future-proofing isn't a bad idea, although even the most powerful electric car today (the Tesla) doesn't really need more than 50A. It can use 100A with the HPWC, but if you can let it charge overnight, even the heaviest drivers would be fine at 50A/27mph charging. And the PHEVs are still running off of regular 15A circuits...


*WOW* 100 amp system to charge an all electric car, when I built my home in 1996 I put in a 7,500 watt (30 amps at 250 VAC) wiring to my garage for charging the car of the future, I guess I was way off the mark, as of now I would like to get one for around town in the next 3 to 4 years, if they can get the price down, and the charging time to use 7,500 watts for an overnight charge.


----------



## nooneuknow (Feb 5, 2011)

lessd said:


> *WOW* 100 amp system to charge an all electric car, when I built my home in 1996 I put in a 7,500 watt (30 amps at 250 VAC) wiring to my garage for charging the car of the future, I guess I was way off the mark, as of now I would like to get one for around town in the next 3 to 4 years, if they can get the price down, and the charging time to use 7,500 watts for an overnight charge.


Perhaps you might decide to learn how to weld, and make use of that amperage?


----------



## lessd (Jan 23, 2005)

nooneuknow said:


> Perhaps you might decide to learn how to weld, and make use of that amperage?


Ah, if only I had something to weld


----------



## nooneuknow (Feb 5, 2011)

lessd said:


> Ah, if only I had something to weld


With some practice on scrap metal, you can start welding to make things. Not everybody is up to learning stick welding. But MIG or flux-core wire welding is pretty easy to learn. With that amperage, I'd get a nice MIG wire welder with an Argon tank, and enjoy the satisfaction of making things.


----------



## Bigg (Oct 31, 2003)

lessd said:


> *WOW* 100 amp system to charge an all electric car, when I built my home in 1996 I put in a 7,500 watt (30 amps at 250 VAC) wiring to my garage for charging the car of the future, I guess I was way off the mark, as of now I would like to get one for around town in the next 3 to 4 years, if they can get the price down, and the charging time to use 7,500 watts for an overnight charge.


Well, the Tesla is sort of an exception to the rule, and even a Tesla would be fine on a 10-30 or 14-30, charging at 17mph. If you have 10 hours to charge, and drive less than 170 miles a day, then you'd be in good shape with that. Plus, most other cars are maxing out around 30A through Level 2 chargers with J1772's. Since most cars have a similar efficiency, maybe even a bit better than the Tesla, most would be fine with 30A. Heck, the Chevy Volt, while it can quick charge on 30A, is the most economical (in terms of TCO) just charging off of a regular 5-15 for about 10 hours.

The only combo that really doesn't work is a Tesla on a 5-15, since it would charge at 3mph, which even with 12 hours of charging, would only give you 36 miles a day. The Chevy Volt, OTOH, only has 38 miles of electric range before it switches to gas, so the numbers work out fine for it charging around 4mph, assuming it is slightly more efficient than a Tesla just because it's a much smaller, lighter vehicle.



nooneuknow said:


> Perhaps you might decide to learn how to weld, and make use of that amperage?


Most welders that a home user would use (and even many in industrial settings) use NEMA 5-50's, so a 50A breaker would be all you'd need. And that circuit could easily be shared with a Tesla or other electric car. Even if you welded for a few hours after work, the Tesla would still have enough time to recharge over night.


----------



## ej42137 (Feb 16, 2014)

Grakthis said:


> Boa constrictor killed 2 like 6 year olds this year... in a pretty big city too. Maybe not too dangerous for an adult, but could potentially grab you in a bad spot and do some real damage. They squeeze when panic'd, not just to eat.


Are you planning to send your 6 year-old under the house to do your wiring?


----------



## Worf (Sep 15, 2000)

nooneuknow said:


> With some practice on scrap metal, you can start welding to make things. Not everybody is up to learning stick welding. But MIG or flux-core wire welding is pretty easy to learn. With that amperage, I'd get a nice MIG wire welder with an Argon tank, and enjoy the satisfaction of making things.


A couple of years ago they had a trades competition here, where up and coming best-of-the-best students would compete in their trades for prizes and all that. One part that was unique was that it wasn't just all students competing - they invited the public as well and each trade had a "try-a-trade" booth where you could try your hand at the trade. So while students were busy competing, the public was watching them and often giving it a go (much simplified).

One of the more popular booths was the welding one - they had setup 4 booths so 8 people could go and try their hand at welding. There were plenty of elementary kids there trying it (I was curious, I've never welded before so I was in line, too) whom I presume were on a field trip. So if pre-teens can go and try welding, it can't be all THAT difficult. At least at the level of demonstration.

Yes, it was a MIG welding, not stick. And yes, the public used autodark helmets.

Anyhow, while 100A may seem excessive, I'm sure years ago having several 20A runs to a room would've made people wonder. But if you want to set up a reasonably powerful home theatre system, 3 20A runs isn't too unusual. One powers the lights/projector/TV/source equipment and audio processor, while the other two runs go for the amplifiers.

100A to a garage may be excessive now, but maybe in a few years it can be used for quick-charging EVs. Even Teslas scale back their charger because of thermal issues (the plug gets too hot!). And by quick-charging, I mean you're home from work, put it on charge knowing you're going to head out later in the evening for a drive or something. So drawing 100A to charge ensures you can get your range back up.

Though, I think instead of 100A service, they'll actually raise the voltage first from 220V to 480V or higher. It's harder to deal with higher amperage than higher voltages - even at 100A, a speck of dirt can ensure you can never remove the plug again because the contacts could weld themselves together.


----------



## unitron (Apr 28, 2006)

ej42137 said:


> Are you planning to send your 6 year-old under the house to do your wiring?


There's a place under an addition over what was a carport where a 7 year old won't fit.


----------



## mr.unnatural (Feb 2, 2006)

tarheelblue32 said:


> This is usually true, but not always. If it were always true, then people who flip homes after doing home improvements would always lose money, and that's not the reality.


The reality is that most home improvements are done to increase the resale value. A house that has upgrades and improvements is going to be more attractive than one that has none. The fact is that the seller will rarely recoup 100% of the expense of the upgrade. The upside is that the house will likely sell quicker so they'll save on the mortgage payments and possibly recoup some of the expenses that way.



Grakthis said:


> No, things that improve your daily life are not "gimmicks." They are material life improvements. I'm sorry that you don't like technology, but could you try not to get your Luddite on the rest of the thread? We are, after all, in a technology focused forum.


I have nothing against technology. I'm just being realistic. They're not gimmicks to the person that installed them. They will appear as gimmicks to most potential buyers that aren't as technically inclined. Most people fail to realize that things they feel are important to them aren't as important to everyone else. A house that has home automation upgrades will appeal to a relatively smaller market than a standard house with more common upgrades, such as a new kitchen or bath. A lot of people will look at things like automated drapes and just see them as something else that can go wrong. OTOH, there are other home automation upgrades that may appeal more to the masses than others.


----------



## Bigg (Oct 31, 2003)

Worf said:


> One of the more popular booths was the welding one - they had setup 4 booths so 8 people could go and try their hand at welding. There were plenty of elementary kids there trying it (I was curious, I've never welded before so I was in line, too) whom I presume were on a field trip. So if pre-teens can go and try welding, it can't be all THAT difficult. At least at the level of demonstration.


It's not hard to strike an arc, but it's really, really hard, and takes months or years of training to actually make good quality welds. Of course most hobbyists who are doing their own welding don't need good quality welds, just something that's mediocre.



> Anyhow, while 100A may seem excessive, I'm sure years ago having several 20A runs to a room would've made people wonder. But if you want to set up a reasonably powerful home theatre system, 3 20A runs isn't too unusual. One powers the lights/projector/TV/source equipment and audio processor, while the other two runs go for the amplifiers.


You'd have to have one heck of an amplifier setup to need that kind of power. Many houses have lights and plugs sharing 15A circuits, but the right way to do it is really have a ton of lights on a 15A circuit (preferably spread out semi-randomly throughout the house, so that a breaker going won't make one part of the house totally dark) and then have one 20A circuit per room for plugs and switched lamp plugs. These days, if you have hardwired LED lights, you could probably run an entire house off of 15A. I suppose you have to plan for some idiot putting incandescent bulbs into Edison sockets, although if code allowed it, you could put 100+ sockets on a single circuit, and if some idiot did put incandescents in that they found Grandma's closet, it would just pop the breaker. Even planning for a reasonable worst case scenario, all 26W daylight CFLs would get you around 60-65 sockets on a 15A circuit. With all LED, you could get well over 100 and stay within the limits of a 15A circuit.

Adding an extra 20A circuit here or there isn't going to cost a lot, and no one would probably notice in the future, and would just use them like regular plugs anyway.



> 100A to a garage may be excessive now, but maybe in a few years it can be used for quick-charging EVs. Even Teslas scale back their charger because of thermal issues (the plug gets too hot!). And by quick-charging, I mean you're home from work, put it on charge knowing you're going to head out later in the evening for a drive or something. So drawing 100A to charge ensures you can get your range back up.


The nice part about the Tesla is that it has so much range, you don't need to recharge like that. You can just charge overnight. It can be helpful for the Chevy Volt, but very few users have driving patterns where a 30A Level 2 charger would ever pay for itself in gas savings by quick-charging over just letting it charge off of a regular 15A plug.



> Though, I think instead of 100A service, they'll actually raise the voltage first from 220V to 480V or higher. It's harder to deal with higher amperage than higher voltages - even at 100A, a speck of dirt can ensure you can never remove the plug again because the contacts could weld themselves together.


I don't believe that will be the case. 240V single phase power is so entrenched in the US. If anything, the very few houses that need it, as is done today, will go to 400A service with multiple 200A power panels. But even today, I can't imagine even houses that are double the size of a typical house needing more than 200A. Even if you have a large house with AC, a heat pump pool heater, electric resistance hot tub, electric dryer, and a pair of electric cars, I can't see the need for more than 200A of power coming in. Sure, you might have to limit the rate of charging for the electric cars, but that's an extreme case during a short period of extreme use.

Also, there are no standard plugs for household use over 50A. The Tesla HPWC has it's own plug, and it is hard wired into the building's electrical. A range (50A) and dryer (30A) are the highest you'd typically see on a plug, and the Tesla can't pull more than 50A off of a plug (NEMA 14-50 or NEMA 5-50).


----------



## lrhorer (Aug 31, 2003)

Bigg said:


> It's unlikely that home products will ever use fiber, due to the chicken and egg problem, expense of termination, and extra expense of turning electrical signals into light and then back again, when you can just send them as electrical signals with no degradation to performance on <100m runs like Ethernet.


First of all, some homes have runs greater than 100m. Some of the runs in my house are right on the edge. Secondly, electrical connections can be problematical - although far, far less frequently than wireless. It is not at all unheard of for one to come across a bad jumper. I've had two in my house. Thirdly, it's not necessarily required to jump back and forth between electrical and optical signals. The price of optical equipment - particularly optical switches, is dropping fast. I'm not saying optical core equipment is cost-effective for home deployments today, but then neither was 1000BaseT 15 years ago. Even today, optical transceivers are reasonably inexpensive. Various models sell for under $50.



Bigg said:


> Fiber is being marketed to people who don't know what they are talking about in terms of home wiring. The only place fiber makes sense is from the ISP to the house. After that, copper is king.


You are making some assumptions that are very narrow in scope. First of all, you are assuming we are only talking about Ethernet and TCP/IP. Fiber allows for the transmission of much, much more than just that, *SIMULTANEOUSLY* with Ethernet services. It also allows for much more than just 1G or 10G transport. Optical fibers can transport many, many terabits of data per second. Is that an advantage for a homeowner today? No, but then neither was gigabit Ethernet when the Series I TiVo was introduced.

We are approaching the limits of the bandwidth capabilities of copper infrastructure. We are not approaching the limits of the need for additional bandwidth. Due primarily to cost considerations, copper transport is sufficient and often the best value for most homeowners today. Twenty years from now, it is liable not to be the case.


----------



## lrhorer (Aug 31, 2003)

mr.unnatural said:


> The reality is that most home improvements are done to increase the resale value.


The reality is all home improvements are done to suit the desires of the homeowner. I definitely do *NOT* want to increase the appraised value of my house, and the appraised value usually has a strong relationship to the ultimate sale value. I'm paying over $10,000 a year in taxes on my house, and no conceivable increase in resale value would ever offset the additional taxes on the house. Add to that I have no intention of ever selling the house, and then the best possible advantage to me would be to reduce the resale value as much as possible.



mr.unnatural said:


> A house that has upgrades and improvements is going to be more attractive than one that has none.


While often true, it is by no means always so.



mr.unnatural said:


> The fact is that the seller will rarely recoup 100% of the expense of the upgrade.


The fact is, unless the homeowner sells the house very quickly after the upgrade, then they will virtually never recover the expense. Taxes and devaluation will essentially always more than offset any additional revenue from the sale of the house.


----------



## lrhorer (Aug 31, 2003)

Bigg said:


> It's not hard to strike an arc, but it's really, really hard, and takes months or years of training to actually make good quality welds.


Depending on the material and type of welding, it's not quite that hard. Any reasonably dexterous and diligent individual with proper training and moderately extensive practice should be able to obtain an AWS or ASME certificate.



Bigg said:


> Of course most hobbyists who are doing their own welding don't need good quality welds, just something that's mediocre.


How do you figure? Just because a device is built and used by a hobbyist does not mean it is necessarily subjected to any less stress than an industrial device. Indeed, some industrial devices are subjected to very minimal loads, while some hobbyist's machines are subjected to positively horrendous punishment. Many off-road enthusiasts, for example, do their own welding to modify their vehicles. My underwater camera gear is subjected to precisely the same stresses as professional gear working at the same depths, so my welds have to be just as reliable as theirs.



Bigg said:


> You'd have to have one heck of an amplifier setup to need that kind of power. Many houses have lights and plugs sharing 15A circuits, but the right way to do it is really have a ton of lights on a 15A circuit


Not a "ton". Specifically, not more than 1.4 KW of lighting on a single circuit. My house has 135 lamp sockets, not including low voltage lighting or table / floor lamps, almost all of which are 800 lumens or above. That equates to 8.1 KW of incandescent lights, requiring no fewer than six 15A circuits.



Bigg said:


> (preferably spread out semi-randomly throughout the house, so that a breaker going won't make one part of the house totally dark) and then have one 20A circuit per room for plugs and switched lamp plugs. These days, if you have hardwired LED lights, you could probably run an entire house off of 15A.


Certainly not mine. If they were all CFL bulbs, it would require almost 1.8 KW. Even if they were 100% LED, it would be right on the edge to wire them all into a single 15A circuit, and in fact probably over the edge if the exterior lights are included.



Bigg said:


> I suppose you have to plan for some idiot putting incandescent bulbs into Edison sockets


It is not idiotic to install an Edison base bulb (of whatever type) into a socket rated to accept said bulb. Yes, all electrical wiring must be designed to handle the maximum possible sensible load. That means assuming incandescent lighting.


----------



## mr.unnatural (Feb 2, 2006)

lrhorer said:


> The reality is all home improvements are done to suit the desires of the homeowner. I definitely do *NOT* want to increase the appraised value of my house, and the appraised value usually has a strong relationship to the ultimate sale value. I'm paying over $10,000 a year in taxes on my house, and no conceivable increase in resale value would ever offset the additional taxes on the house. Add to that I have no intention of ever selling the house, and then the best possible advantage to me would be to reduce the resale value as much as possible.


I agree up to a point. Some improvements may be necessary based upon the condition of the house. The need to sell is always a strong motivation to add improvements. In most cases, improvements may just amount to replacing something that has just been excessively worn or damaged over time, such as cabinets, carpets, tile or other flooring, etc. Sometimes a coat of paint is all you need to spruce things up. Other improvements, such as adding a swimming pool, enclosed porch, deck, etc., are usually done to suit the homeowner.



> The fact is, unless the homeowner sells the house very quickly after the upgrade, then they will virtually never recover the expense. Taxes and devaluation will essentially always more than offset any additional revenue from the sale of the house.


Absolutely true. OTOH, trying to sell a house as is tends to prolong the sale even more, especially if the house shows appreciable wear and tear. Most realtors will make recommendations for things to repair, replace, or upgrade, based on current market trends and local resale values. The last thing you want to do is price yourself right out of the market with excessive upgrades.


----------



## Bigg (Oct 31, 2003)

lrhorer said:


> First of all, some homes have runs greater than 100m. Some of the runs in my house are right on the edge. Secondly, electrical connections can be problematical - although far, far less frequently than wireless. It is not at all unheard of for one to come across a bad jumper. I've had two in my house. Thirdly, it's not necessarily required to jump back and forth between electrical and optical signals. The price of optical equipment - particularly optical switches, is dropping fast. I'm not saying optical core equipment is cost-effective for home deployments today, but then neither was 1000BaseT 15 years ago. Even today, optical transceivers are reasonably inexpensive. Various models sell for under $50.


Very, very few homes have runs longer than 100M. I've put in some wiring at my parents' place, and some of those runs might be in the ~75M range, but they are an extreme case scenario making a serpentine run on the longest possible path through the house due to the location of a wiring conduit in a ginormous 3,800 sq. ft. house. A more direct run would be well south of 50M. Anyone who has a house so large that it has runs over 100M can well afford to set up a second set of switches in another switching closet. And at that size, the coax distribution would be a nightmare, and would require professional help.

Optical terminations can go bad too, and are a LOT harder to work with than copper.

Even fiber switches are still converting the fiber back to copper internally to switch, and then converting back to fiber. And there aren't devices on the other end to accept the fiber connection, except a few fiber NICs in desktop PCs that, again, just convert back to copper.



> You are making some assumptions that are very narrow in scope. First of all, you are assuming we are only talking about Ethernet and TCP/IP. Fiber allows for the transmission of much, much more than just that, *SIMULTANEOUSLY* with Ethernet services. It also allows for much more than just 1G or 10G transport. Optical fibers can transport many, many terabits of data per second. Is that an advantage for a homeowner today? No, but then neither was gigabit Ethernet when the Series I TiVo was introduced.


What are we going to do with terabits of bandwidth? Coax is capable of carrying more than 5gbps, and CAT-6 can carry 10gbps. There is a limit to how much UHD video we can watch in one day, and to how this data is going to get to our homes.



> We are approaching the limits of the bandwidth capabilities of copper infrastructure. We are not approaching the limits of the need for additional bandwidth. Due primarily to cost considerations, copper transport is sufficient and often the best value for most homeowners today. Twenty years from now, it is liable not to be the case.


On the WAN side, fiber is great, because we're talking distances way over 100M, sometimes many km to the CO/headend. Most homes today probably have 20-100mbps of LAN bandwidth available. primarily via wireless. The most advanced homes have 1gbps home runs that are capable of upgrading to 10gbps, and beyond that doing link aggregation to 20-40gbps. Considering what's coming into the house, the limitations of that infrastructure, and better compression coming in the future, it's highly unlikely that any applications will develop in the foreseeable future for fiber in the home.

As it is, everything is designed for what people have, which is usually RG-6, and nothing else of use (CAT-3 telephone is pretty much useless for anything except telephone at this point). That's why wireless and MoCA are so common, and future home networking will mostly happen over coax, since that is what available. Maybe coax will eventually catch up to twisted pair, but until then, twisted pair is king, and homes with CAT-5e or better twisted pair will have a huge LAN bandwidth advantage over those that don't. There is no installed base of fiber to tap into, and no one wants to run fiber, even those that are already way ahead of the curve and have CAT cable, so there is no way for fiber to take root in the home.



lrhorer said:


> Depending on the material and type of welding, it's not quite that hard. Any reasonably dexterous and diligent individual with proper training and moderately extensive practice should be able to obtain an AWS or ASME certificate.


Well, the quality needed varies based on the application. The stuff I've seen is for military use, and has very high standards.



> How do you figure? Just because a device is built and used by a hobbyist does not mean it is necessarily subjected to any less stress than an industrial device. Indeed, some industrial devices are subjected to very minimal loads, while some hobbyist's machines are subjected to positively horrendous punishment. Many off-road enthusiasts, for example, do their own welding to modify their vehicles. My underwater camera gear is subjected to precisely the same stresses as professional gear working at the same depths, so my welds have to be just as reliable as theirs.


Typically hobbyists aren't engineering stuff as far as they safely can, and have huge factors of safety. But that might not always be the case.



> Not a "ton". Specifically, not more than 1.4 KW of lighting on a single circuit. My house has 135 lamp sockets, not including low voltage lighting or table / floor lamps, almost all of which are 800 lumens or above. That equates to 8.1 KW of incandescent lights, requiring no fewer than six 15A circuits.


That's true for houses that were built back in the day of incandescent lights. I'm not sure if building codes still require circuits with Edison sockets to be sized for some idiot putting incandescents in them or if they can be sized for CFLs, and let the circuit breakers deal with the idiot that found a box of old light bulbs in grandma's attic.



> Certainly not mine. If they were all CFL bulbs, it would require almost 1.8 KW. Even if they were 100% LED, it would be right on the edge to wire them all into a single 15A circuit, and in fact probably over the edge if the exterior lights are included.


Ok, so maybe larger houses would need TWO circuits.



> It is not idiotic to install an Edison base bulb (of whatever type) into a socket rated to accept said bulb. Yes, all electrical wiring must be designed to handle the maximum possible sensible load. That means assuming incandescent lighting.


As long as the wiring can handle what the circuit breaker can handle, it would be fine. For today's wiring, it's safe to assume that the biggest bulb that would be used would be a 26W daylight CFL, which would put you at 69 sockets per 15A circuit.

Although both my house and my parents' house, both of which were built in 1999, have a few old incandescents left in closets or other rarely-used locations, it would be idiotic to install old incandescent bulbs in new construction/renovation. If some idiot puts a bunch of bulbs out of grandma's attic in a new construction/renovation, then they sure as heck deserve a popped breaker.

CFL isn't a bad bet, although these days, LED is top dog. I rent, so a year and a half ago, when I moved in there was a mixture of working incandescents and dead incandescents, because apparently no one had bothered to change a lightbulb in years, so we put in CFLs, because we're renting, and they're super cheap and good enough, but when I own a house, I will be putting as many LED bulbs in as I can buy.

If I was building today, I'd assume 26W/socket as a conservative measure for current draw. The reality is that modern LED lighting is in the 10-15W average per socket.

Lastly, wiring cannot be made to accommodate the maximum possible load. If that were the case, every 15A socket would have to have it's own circuit breaker. If you plug a toaster, a microwave, and a griddle into a 20A circuit in the kitchen and operate all 3 simultaneously, you will most likely pop the breaker within a couple of seconds, since you will put somewhere in the neighborhood of 3900W on a circuit that can only handle 2400W. Look at space heaters, hair dryers, vacuum cleaners, air conditioners, and dehumidifiers, and you can see how easy it is to overload a circuit. That's why we have circuit breakers. And that's all doing normal day-to-day things, not digging a box of old lightbulbs out of grandma's attic and actually using them.


----------



## lessd (Jan 23, 2005)

Bigg said:


> Very, very few homes have runs longer than 100M. I've put in some wiring at my parents' place, and some of those runs might be in the ~75M range, but they are an extreme case scenario making a serpentine run on the longest possible path through the house due to the location of a wiring conduit in a ginormous 3,800 sq. ft. house. A more direct run would be well south of 50M. Anyone who has a house so large that it has runs over 100M can well afford to set up a second set of switches in another switching closet. And at that size, the coax distribution would be a nightmare, and would require professional help.
> 
> Optical terminations can go bad too, and are a LOT harder to work with than copper.
> 
> ...


Poor grandma


----------



## Bigg (Oct 31, 2003)

lessd said:


> Poor grandma


I think she'd benefit by having some crap cleaned out of her attic!


----------



## Grakthis (Oct 4, 2006)

ej42137 said:


> Are you planning to send your 6 year-old under the house to do your wiring?


Do you think she could pull it off? If so, then yes.


----------



## ej42137 (Feb 16, 2014)

Grakthis said:


> Do you think she could pull it off? If so, then yes.


Well, then I guess the thing a responsible parent would do would be to give her a small knife to discourage any escaped boa constrictors.

(Don't give her a large knife, she'll cut you if she makes it back out.)


----------



## Pacomartin (Jun 11, 2013)

1) The technicians from my cable company recommend using two MOCA filters. The first and primary is on the Point of Entry. But the second is to block off the cable going into the Modem.

While I can't verify that this helps in my home, they said that it cleared up a lot of their noise problems. As it is very inexpensive to add a second filter if you have access to the wires, I don't see how it can hurt.

In my photo, my line from the street comes to a three way with splitter, with one strong -3.5 dB leg. That also has a MOCA filter and leads to the Modem. The other two legs (-7 dB) go to the TiVo box, and to the secondary Television with a TiVo PREVIEW (PREVIEWS are like TiVo minis with a built in tuner that require a cablecard).

2) Power over Ethernet may become a big thing in the future. Engineers are struggling to bring all monitors designs to work with 100 Watts or less.

Aquavision uses HDBASE-T as you can imagine it is better to have a lot less power to equipment for use in wet environments. But there is a consortium that is hoping to make HDBASE-T more common in all units. The ethernet may require special shielding in a conduit if it will someday have 100 Watts of power going through the cable.


----------



## Bigg (Oct 31, 2003)

What cable company? RCN?

Aquavision. Solving truly American problems like how to put a TV in the crapper!


----------



## Pacomartin (Jun 11, 2013)

Yes, RCN. To date I have never seen this advice on any forum, that is why I am posting it here.

I think most of Aquavision's customers are in hot tubs watching porn, but the concept of a TV that you can plug into an etherhnet port and it takes care of all you audio video and power needs is very appealing. For instance a Samsung LED H6400 Series Smart TV - 40&#8221; Class weighs 20 lbs and uses 108 Watts maximum (8 watts over the limit of HDBASE-T). I think every homeowner that designs a room doesn't want to design around a television. The idea of being able to pull a decent TV out of the closet and plug it in when you want to watch TV is very appealing. That way in more formal situations you can simply put it back in the closet. It is much cheaper than the elaborate costs that designers go through to blend televisions into the decor.


----------



## Bigg (Oct 31, 2003)

Pacomartin said:


> Yes, RCN. To date I have never seen this advice on any forum, that is why I am posting it here.
> 
> I think most of Aquavision's customers are in hot tubs watching porn, but the concept of a TV that you can plug into an etherhnet port and it takes care of all you audio video and power needs is very appealing. For instance a Samsung LED H6400 Series Smart TV - 40 Class weighs 20 lbs and uses 108 Watts maximum (8 watts over the limit of HDBASE-T). I think every homeowner that designs a room doesn't want to design around a television. The idea of being able to pull a decent TV out of the closet and plug it in when you want to watch TV is very appealing. That way in more formal situations you can simply put it back in the closet. It is much cheaper than the elaborate costs that designers go through to blend televisions into the decor.


Many people, particularly with Cox have posted recommending putting a MoCA filter on the modem. Properly designed modems have no need for a MoCA filter, but there are some modems out there that are out of spec and misbehave with the higher frequency signals, which a MoCA filter cleans up.

Most people just have a TV in their room, and it's just there. If they really want to hide it, there's furniture to do that. Also, far more people have coax jacks and power plugs than power over HDBaseT. The applications where it might be useful, like wall mounting larger screens would be way over the power limitations of the current spec, and likely of CAT-x cable anyways.

Back to your original post about shielding, I wouldn't be concerned about that fringe use case. The existing PoE applications (APs, IP cameras, VOIP phones) work fine over UTP, and even if a TV offers a way to do PoE, there will always be the option of plugging it in locally, whether directly, or by locating the PoE injector with the TV, and using a short STP cable that carries the higher voltage/power.

I do, however, like the idea of using PoE and a centralized rack that can provide power to all security cameras and APs in a house, as then everything can be backed up on one set of UPSes and a generator backed up circuit to keep everything running, and it cuts way down on cable clutter in the house. If I were doing a pre-wire in a renovation or new construction, I would install CAT-6 jacks in the ceiling of strategically placed closets and locations where I want security cameras, and power everything via PoE.


----------



## nooneuknow (Feb 5, 2011)

Now we've crossed into the abbreviation issue I am shocked hasn't come up yet (or much)...

PoE = "Point of Entry" or "Power over Ethernet", and as the last post shows, the two completely different things can wind up being in the same discussion.

A quick Google search shows that both use the lower case O.

Might want to consider spelling them out, when discussing PoE filters and PoE injectors, in the same post (for the sake of those who don't know better).

It seems like it would make more sense to just refer to MoCA PoE filters as "Moca Filters", which a Google search yields better results on, anyway, as a few have noticed when looking to buy a "PoE Filter", and Google latches onto the "PoE", already showing Power over Ethernet results, before you can type the rest in...

At the same time, my thoughts seem like changing horses, mid-race, as I've probably typed "PoE Filter", more times than many other things, without putting "MoCA" in front of it... So I guess I'll have to make an effort to say "MoCA PoE Filter", which is always so fun getting the upper and lower case right with...

Just some thoughts, not trying to change how anybody chooses to state things, just trying to make it easier as the two different technologies collide.


----------



## Pacomartin (Jun 11, 2013)

Bigg said:


> Many people, particularly with Cox have posted recommending putting a MoCA filter on the modem. Properly designed modems have no need for a MoCA filter, but there are some modems out there that are out of spec and misbehave with the higher frequency signals, which a MoCA filter cleans up.


Thank you for that clarification. The technician didn't give me details, just that policy had changed.



Bigg said:


> I do, however, like the idea of using PoE and a centralized rack that can provide power to all security cameras and APs in a house, as then everything can be backed up on one set of UPSes and a generator backed up circuit to keep everything running, and it cuts way down on cable clutter in the house. If I were doing a pre-wire in a renovation or new construction, I would install CAT-6 jacks in the ceiling of strategically placed closets and locations where I want security cameras, and power everything via PoE.


You are correct that security cameras are the number one use for "power over ethernet". There is much less likely to be easily accessible power. And I think Aquavision probably helped their liability insurance. Although you can still get electrocuted with 1 Amp, it is much less likely than 15 Amps.

I also think that hidden internal equipment to monitor activity within a home will be more common, and batteries will not always be reliable. Some of it will be legitimate, like easing care for elderly relatives and keeping track of babysitters, but some of it will be soon to be divorced spouses looking for video evidence over long periods of time.

I think there may come a day when homes are wired for power over ethernet. Tablets can be plugged in for reliable video connection and power instead of relying on batteries and wireless. I admit that the consortium predicted that such devices would be common already. Most of the existing equipment is bulky and expensive.


----------



## Bigg (Oct 31, 2003)

nooneuknow said:


> Just some thoughts, not trying to change how anybody chooses to state things, just trying to make it easier as the two different technologies collide.


It should be fairly easy to tell which one someone is talking about by the context...


----------



## Pacomartin (Jun 11, 2013)

Bigg said:


> It should be fairly easy to tell which one someone is talking about by the context...


It's the scourge of the modern world.

I need money from an ATM.
He'll have sex with ATM.
We dove to three ATMs.
Pedro Infante was in ATM.

Atmosphere
Automated Teller Machine
A Toda Maquina
Anything that moves


----------



## HarperVision (May 14, 2007)

Pacomartin said:


> It's the scourge of the modern world. I need money from an ATM. He'll have sex with ATM. We dove to three ATMs. Pedro Infante was in ATM. Atmosphere Automated Teller Machine A Toda Maquina Anything that moves


Say what?


----------



## Bigg (Oct 31, 2003)

Pacomartin said:


> It's the scourge of the modern world.
> 
> I need money from an ATM.
> He'll have sex with ATM.
> ...


What? I've only ever heard of ATM meaning At The Moment, Automated/Automatic Teller Machine, and Asynchronous Transfer Mode.


----------



## HarperVision (May 14, 2007)

Bigg said:


> What? I've only ever heard of ATM meaning At The Moment, Automated/Automatic Teller Machine, and Asynchronous Transfer Mode.


And don't forget the illustrious All-Terrain Motorhome!


----------



## Pacomartin (Jun 11, 2013)

Bigg said:


> What? I've only ever heard of ATM meaning A...


[media]http://www.tikihumor.com/wp-content/uploads/sites/37/2013/09/captain-jack-harkness-anything-that-moves-300x240.jpg[/media]

1 *Atm* = 14.6959488 Psi
http://www.asknumbers.com/atm-to-psi.aspx
[media]http://sabitnyc.files.wordpress.com/2010/12/atm_92.jpg[/media]

Automatic is a frequently used incorrect translation. Your money does not "automatically" come from the machine. It is an "automated" teller machine.

automatic *1812*, "moving or acting on its own," from Gk automatos
automation *1948*, coined by Ford Motor Co. Vice President Harder
automated *1952*, American English, adjective based on automation.


----------



## Bigg (Oct 31, 2003)

Pacomartin said:


> 1 *Atm* = 14.6959488 Psi


Good point. I forgot about that one.


----------



## Pacomartin (Jun 11, 2013)

Bigg said:


> Good point. I forgot about that one.


Technically, *"Atm"* is an abbreviation, and not an ACRONYM. The word "acronym" is from WWII when the practice started becoming extremely common.

Ancient acronyms were not existent, and were invented as jokes. Surprisingly many people believe the etymology. Examples are "ship high in transit", "for unlawful carnal knowledge", or "fornication under consent of the king".


----------



## unitron (Apr 28, 2006)

Bigg said:


> What? I've only ever heard of ATM meaning At The Moment, Automated/Automatic Teller Machine, and Asynchronous Transfer Mode.


Well, I suppose sex counts a sort of asynchronous transfer mode.


----------



## bfollowell (Aug 24, 2013)

tarheelblue32 said:


> Having 2 RG-6 runs can allow you to do several different things. You can dedicate 1 coax to cable TV and the other to data/MoCA, or you could have 1 coax be CATV and the other Satellite TV, or you could use one for CATV (or Satellite) and the other for OTA TV. And I think some satellite systems used to need 2 coax runs to work correctly, so you never know when a second coax line will come in handy.
> 
> And as far as 2 cat6 runs, that could come in handy too. One can be dedicated to internet data and the other one can be used for the home telephone system. Redundancy is also nice in case one line stops working for some reason. I have had a phone jack mysteriously stop working in my house before. To this day it still does not work because I really don't want to rip the wall open to see what the problem is.
> 
> Can most people get by with 1 RG-6 and 1 Cat6 in every room? Sure, but having 2 is not that uncommon in high-end installs.


I agree with tarheelblue32 on all counts. My wife and I just moved into our new home. We had a drop in every room we may ever conceivably need or want cable or Internet, two to some, and we put two RG-6 and two CAT6 lines at every drop. Most of these are currently unused. Many of them will likely never be used. The thing is, is won't be sitting back five to ten years from now complaining and berating myself because I didn't run them when I could and when it was easy. Bulk cable is cheap and easy to run.

Also, to trip1eX's comment to do it yourself, unless you're running all of the electric yourself, or you just don't trust the electrician to put in what you want the way you want it, I'd probably let them do it all. What little bit you'd save is miniscule and isn't likely worth your time. Different areas and different builders/contractors charge differently though so your experience may be different than ours. The only thing I did on our build was run the 5.1 surround in the great room and setup everything that was ran back to our network closet. It's so cool to actually have a dedicated network closet now!

Good luck smoberly and congratulations on your new home. I hope you love yours as much as we love ours.

- Byron


----------



## Bigg (Oct 31, 2003)

unitron said:


> Well, I suppose sex counts a sort of asynchronous transfer mode.


Oh man. I was specifically referring to Asynchronous Transfer Mode lines...



bfollowell said:


> Also, to trip1eX's comment to do it yourself, unless you're running all of the electric yourself, or you just don't trust the electrician to put in what you want the way you want it, I'd probably let them do it all. What little bit you'd save is miniscule and isn't likely worth your time. Different areas and different builders/contractors charge differently though so your experience may be different than ours. The only thing I did on our build was run the 5.1 surround in the great room and setup everything that was ran back to our network closet. It's so cool to actually have a dedicated network closet now!


Yeah, it depends on how much they are charging! And that can vary widely. If I were renovating a house, I'd have a dedicated low-voltage contractor do the low-voltage work, which would cost a pretty penny, but they would have the experience to know what to run where, and be able to do it all neatly and quickly. OTOH, for adding lines to an existing house, I've done that myself, and can continue to do so.


----------



## trip1eX (Apr 2, 2005)

Bigg said:


> Yeah, it depends on how much they are charging!


Exactly.


----------



## Pacomartin (Jun 11, 2013)

unitron said:


> Well, I suppose sex counts a sort of asynchronous transfer mode.


In R-rated movies, the sex scenes are always synchronous - both partners are extremely desirous, and highly aroused. A psychiatrist tells couples if they synchronous sex once a month, they beat 95% of American couples. The trick is not to have asynchronous sexual experiences with other people.


----------

