Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
A single run to each room that would require Internet/Ethernet and a double run to any room that would have a tv.
All runs are homeruns to a distribution/switch panel. The more centrally located the better. Pretty much every device that would require a connection has cat/type connections.
RG6 cable would only be required from the service entrance to the distribution panel. With the speed of technology changing- wireless seems to be the overwhelming leader in residential use. But, at the same time we're getting bombarded with hacking. So, the more secure you can keep you LAN the better off you'll be.
No matter what cable you install, it will be "wrong".
When we popped the top in 1987, I ran multiple twisted pairs and RG59 to every room.
24 years later when we sold, all was obsolete.
Status:
"In the words of Steve Winwood, Roll With It!"
(set 22 days ago)
Location: State of the closed-minded
296 posts, read 217,211 times
Reputation: 580
I would say wired instead of wireless voice, video and data, for the simple reason that if neighbors are using wireless systems, perhaps on the same frequency, there is the chance of interference, and would-be hackers have an easier time getting in or on, too.
Run RG6 and Cat6 to all the rooms now. You say you don't need it but things change and it is better and cheaper to have it done now as apposed to later.
I would still run cable throughout the house even if you don't subscribe to cable tv. Reason being is if you want to get over the air tv with an antenna you need to buy an antenna for every tv in the house. You can buy roof top antennas and ones that mount inside the attic if you don't like the look. Those gimmick hd antennas that screw onto the tv won't work well if you are surrounded by trees or far away from where the station transmits from.
If you have cable routed to all rooms you only need one antenna.
Who buys antennas today? If one is looking at running cable wire through their house, wouldn't it be safe to assume that cable is available?
Do it if you will actually use it regularly. Don't do it if you're going to expect it to be a selling feature later or worth money. It won't.
You'll find an antennae on my house. The wife and I usually are too busy to sit in front a light bulb, night after night. We get over 40 channels and it cost me nothing but the antennae, a wireless transmitter, and a receiver box on each TV. That's a one time cost of about 500 bucks but we don't have any monthly payments and yes, I get 4 movie channels, vintage TV on 4 channels, 2 sci-fi channels, all of the major networks, a car racing channel, PBS, among others. If I have a cable show I want to watch, there's internet TV that costs nothing but the high speed internet that I have to have for business anyway. Why would anybody pay to watch TV is beyond me except they have far too much money and have no clue what to do with it or they're so bored with life that cable TV is all they have.
Who buys antennas today? If one is looking at running cable wire through their house, wouldn't it be safe to assume that cable is available?
Not everyone wants to blow $100/month to watch TV, and cable is not always immediately available. I don't want to blow money every month to sit on my butt and watch TV, and even if I did CableCo wants a massive amount of money to hook me up (they would need to run over 1,000 feet of cable from the street). Apparently you didn't read the OP and subsequent posts very well.
OTA broadcast TV still exists, and there are still people who watch it instead of signing up to pay a monthly nut to CableCo or SatCo.
If you want to watch OTA TV, you need an antenna, so people still buy them. If you want to have TVs in multiple rooms, you need to have either multiple antennas or a system to distribute the signal from a single antenna, which means running RG-6Q cable to the various rooms and tying it in to a distribution hub.
All coaxial cable experiences signal loss, both due to the length of the run and due to the number of devices attached. For short runs in strong signal areas, standard RG-6 may be acceptable. However, longer runs, with more devices attached (and especially with weaker received signal strength) require a lower loss cable. Quad Shield RG-6Q does not cost much more than standard cable (especially when purchased on a 500' reel- @$75) and the substantial performance gain is well worth the money. (And in my case, as I run a high-power radio transmitter, 6Q prevents interference and dropouts where standard cable does not.)
I am a firm believer of running cable and wire even when you don't think you will need them.
Maybe the room without wiring now, will become a guest room later, or potentially one of the cables pulled will fail, so instead of running a new line, you can pull it from the room that was wired but never used.
I also leave a "drag" or a strong nylon cord in the wall to pull cable to that point in the future. This has saved me numerous times when I needed to add a line somewhere in the house.
Just my 2 cents
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
