Technical Discussion
  >> Home Networking, Internet Connection Sharing, etc.


Register (or login) on our website and you will not see this ad.


Pages in this thread: 1 | 2 | 3 | (show all)   Print Thread
Standard User oldskool
(member) Sat 11-Jan-20 19:36:13
Print Post

Cat6 vs wifi6


[link to this post]
 
Iíve been thinking of getting someone in to run cat6 for me.

Itís a 3 storey house and despite an open stairwell with the router being on the middle landing we struggle with WiFi signal especially in the corners.

5ghz is preferred as there is a lot of 2.4 traffic and noise

So. Cat6 is a bit of a pain. It may have to be several external runs which I would ideally like to avoid.

Today I read about wifi6 which would backhaul at pretty decent speeds, maybe around the 2-4Gbps mark.

Would Wi-Fi 6 be a good replacement for the cat6 route which Iím sure is 5x faster right? But even still WiFi 6 is the only option to get anywhere close to that speed.

So just wondering what the pros and cons are for this cabling of each floor?
Administrator MrSaffron
(staff) Sat 11-Jan-20 19:54:01
Print Post

Re: Cat6 vs wifi6


[re: oldskool] [link to this post]
 
How does 802.11ac perform today? WiFi 6 is not going to lots of speed to you if 802.11ac is not working at all.

Ethernet cabling always beats wi-fi.

The author of the above post is a thinkbroadband staff member. It may not constitute an official statement on behalf of thinkbroadband.
Standard User oldskool
(member) Sat 11-Jan-20 20:10:07
Print Post

Re: Cat6 vs wifi6


[re: MrSaffron] [link to this post]
 
WiFi at the moment wonít maintain 5ghz especially in the corners which includes several key locations

2.4ghz is there, just, in some cases but itís terribly noisy with plenty of jitter and inconsistent speeds due to interference.

5ghz close is good, 200-350Mbps. I would ideally like 200Mbps+ minimum and no interference or latency increases.

So maybe a mesh point on each floor, linked by wifi6 was my thinking.

I do stream some media over the network but itís going to be mainly by WiFi so I wasnít sure if cat6 at 10Gbps really gave me any advantage?


Register (or login) on our website and you will not see this ad.

Standard User jchamier
(eat-sleep-adslguide) Sat 11-Jan-20 20:31:11
Print Post

Re: Cat6 vs wifi6


[re: oldskool] [link to this post]
 
Iíd get an AC mesh system with two out points and one attached to original router.

If your broadband is faster than 200 Mbps. consider those that use a second 5GHz channel for the link between nodes. These are more expensive.

The majority of AX routers do not yet actually use the new AX features such as OFDMA. The ASUS AX88U only just has a software release that promises

Have a look at the tests on small net builder site for real throughput tests in lab conditions.

VirginMedia 200/20 (22 Nov 19). Was FTTC for 7 years (55/12 to 46/5)
20 years of broadband connectivity since 1999 trial - Live BQM
Standard User PhilipD
(experienced) Sun 12-Jan-20 10:34:51
Print Post

Re: Cat6 vs wifi6


[re: oldskool] [link to this post]
 
Hi

Ethernet is always going to be better in numerous ways than Wi-Fi, and Wi-Fi 6 is using the same frequencies (or higher on a yet to be released incremental version so donít buy yet) so no improvement in physical range, although at the edges you might see faster speeds perhaps. Also to get the real benefit of Wi-Fi 6 you need to replace your devices for new ones that also support Wi-Fi 6.

Mesh networks only really compound the issues for everyone, the more mesh networks your neighbours add, the more interference you see, so the more you add. The ISPs and hardware manufacturers love it of course, they are following the marketing of the washing powders with "Our best ever yet" mantras, and just keep selling more of the same.

My recommendation, given how important the Internet is to us in this day and age is to get Ethernet cabling installed in rooms mostly likely to benefit from a fixed Ethernet connection. Then get it run into the loft (if practical in your property) and install a ceiling mounted access point, which likely will cover the entire house given a high central location. Power isnít needed in the loft as you power it over the Ethernet wire simplifying installation. Once the wire is there you can always upgrade just the access point later yourself. We did this after moving into a new house (new to us), once a ceiling mounted access point was installed on the landing, not only is 2.4GHz available in all rooms where it wasn't before, 5GHz was usable as well everwhere in the house. It is for a good reason antenna and transmitters are always mounted high up, typically less obstacles to go through.

Regards

Phil
Standard User jchamier
(eat-sleep-adslguide) Sun 12-Jan-20 12:23:08
Print Post

Re: Cat6 vs wifi6


[re: PhilipD] [link to this post]
 
In reply to a post by PhilipD:
Mesh networks only really compound the issues for everyone, the more mesh networks your neighbours add, the more interference you see, so the more you add. The ISPs and hardware manufacturers love it of course, they are following the marketing of the washing powders with "Our best ever yet" mantras, and just keep selling more of the same.

I'm not sure this is correct. Mesh networks are access points (AP) that share the client table between them, so that instead of the decision to connect being primarily that of that station (STA), in a mesh the AP has a chance to say "don't talk to me, talk to my colleague instead". Even in an isolated farmhouse a mesh network solves the problems of radio transmission from a single point.

If you have a traditional UK house (wooden floorboards) then an AP in the loft pointing downwards is likely to have the best coverage. In some US homes (typically north east) with basements, there is a similar recommendation, pointing up. However most US homes have wooden walls, rather than block, and are more RF transparent.

However UK homes are often a problem for coverage, even 2.4 GHz.

VirginMedia 200/20 (22 Nov 19). Was FTTC for 7 years (55/12 to 46/5)
20 years of broadband connectivity since 1999 trial - Live BQM
Standard User PhilipD
(experienced) Sun 12-Jan-20 13:23:51
Print Post

Re: Cat6 vs wifi6


[re: jchamier] [link to this post]
 
Hi

In reply to a post by jchamier:
I'm not sure this is correct. Mesh networks are access points (AP) that share the client table between them, so that instead of the decision to connect being primarily that of that station (STA), in a mesh the AP has a chance to say "don't talk to me, talk to my colleague instead". Even in an isolated farmhouse a mesh network solves the problems of radio transmission from a single point.


The more transmitting devices the more RF is leaking out causing interference with neighbouring devices. As soon as a next door neighbour peppers their own home with more access points, it leaves anyone suffering interference from those new access points no option but to up their game as well.

Just because the AP has a list of clients in a table doesn't stop the radio waves from going where they shouldn't. 2.4GHz band for Wi-Fi only allows for 3 non-overlapping channels, it is a very congestion space https://www.metageek.com/training/resources/why-chan...

Rather than trying to fix the problem of poor Wi-Fi by relocating the transmitter somewhere more appropriate and central to the area it needs to serve, people are being encourage to make the situation worse by just trying to shout louder. Once everyone is shouting at the same level, they are back where they started.

Regards

Phil

Edited by PhilipD (Sun 12-Jan-20 13:24:56)

Standard User jchamier
(eat-sleep-adslguide) Sun 12-Jan-20 13:58:30
Print Post

Re: Cat6 vs wifi6


[re: PhilipD] [link to this post]
 
In reply to a post by PhilipD:
Rather than trying to fix the problem of poor Wi-Fi by relocating the transmitter somewhere more appropriate and central to the area it needs to serve, people are being encourage to make the situation worse by just trying to shout louder. Once everyone is shouting at the same level, they are back where they started.

Not everyone can relocate, given the costs Openreach charge for relocating the socket. I also thought that stations reduced power the closer they were to the AP?

VirginMedia 200/20 (22 Nov 19). Was FTTC for 7 years (55/12 to 46/5)
20 years of broadband connectivity since 1999 trial - Live BQM
Standard User candlerb
(experienced) Mon 13-Jan-20 08:22:48
Print Post

Re: Cat6 vs wifi6


[re: oldskool] [link to this post]
 
In reply to a post by oldskool:
I do stream some media over the network but itís going to be mainly by WiFi so I wasnít sure if cat6 at 10Gbps really gave me any advantage?


APs connected over a wired backbone will give you a much more stable and reliable network than APs connected by wireless backhaul.

A wired link gives you fixed, guaranteed speeds, and it works in both directions simultaneously. With wifi, every device takes it in turns to transmit, and they can accidentally stomp on each other (as can interfering devices). The wired backhaul reduces wireless issues to just the main client to AP link, which is easier to debug.

Note that cat6 won't run at 10Gbps unless the equipment at both ends is 10GBASE-T: and today, very little is.

For 1Gbps, technically you only need cat5e, which will do 1Gbps up to 100m. Cat6 is a bit more rigid and a little harder to terminate, but is "future proofed" in the sense that it can do 10Gbps over 27m (if you later upgrade your equipment). For longer distances you would need Cat6A, which works up to 100m for 10Gbps.

Therefore, if you can get cat6 at roughly the same price as cat5e, you might as well take the cat6; but don't pay a huge premium.

The best way to design this is a "star" topology: each floor has its own separate Cat5e/Cat6 cable to a central area, and you put a switch there. This means that each floor's access point has a direct connection to the switch, not going through multiple hops (aka "daisy chain"). Daisy chain networks are less reliable and harder to debug. Also, if you put a PoE switch at the centre, you can directly power all your APs from it, avoiding the need for power bricks on each floor.

I found Netgear GS110TP works very well - 8 ports of PoE, although not PoE+ which some APs require. They have some other models with PoE+ but more expensive.

Edited by candlerb (Mon 13-Jan-20 08:24:44)

Standard User alexatkin
(member) Tue 14-Jan-20 04:59:48
Print Post

Re: Cat6 vs wifi6


[re: oldskool] [link to this post]
 
WiFi 6 is primarily designed around increasing efficiency across multiple clients, not speed. You have to eat a significant amount of WiFi spectrum to get 1Gbit short-range, its absolutely not going to maintain that at a distance, and 2-4Gbit is pure fantasy, you'd need the ENTIRE 5Ghz spectrum!

Using WiFi for backhaul just reduces the channels you have available for the main WiFi, its best avoided unless there is absolutely no other option.
Standard User jabuzzard
(committed) Tue 14-Jan-20 10:52:12
Print Post

Re: Cat6 vs wifi6


[re: jchamier] [link to this post]
 
There is no need to relocate the socket, just relocate the WiFi access point(s). If the router is in a poor location just disable the WiFi in the router and backhaul the access points with actual ethernet.

With careful planning I can cover my entire house with a good WiFi signal with a single access point. However it is located on a ceiling and powered using PoE, backhauled with Cat6a cable.

A properly planned install with the WiFi access points placed at optimum locations backhauled with ethernet will be much more reliable than mucking about with mesh systems. WiFi is here for the long haul, investing today in providing the infrastructure for a quality solution (aka ethernet backhaul) is a sound investment. It's not like in 5 years time you are not going to want WiFi anymore.
Standard User jchamier
(eat-sleep-adslguide) Tue 14-Jan-20 20:13:50
Print Post

Re: Cat6 vs wifi6


[re: jabuzzard] [link to this post]
 
Many of my friends would have major domestic hassles running cables and affixing ďnasty technologyĒ to the ceiling.

A complete no brainer in a commercial office.

VirginMedia 200/20 (22 Nov 19). Was FTTC for 7 years (55/12 to 46/5)
20 years of broadband connectivity since 1999 trial - Live BQM
Standard User joconnell
(experienced) Wed 15-Jan-20 10:26:52
Print Post

Re: Cat6 vs wifi6


[re: jchamier] [link to this post]
 
In reply to a post by jchamier:
Not everyone can relocate, given the costs Openreach charge for relocating the socket. I also thought that stations reduced power the closer they were to the AP?

If your home has ethernet cabling installed around the house you can put the modem and router wherever there's an Ethernet socket as long as there's an Ethernet socket near the master BT faceplate socket supplying the DSL signal and you've connected the master socket DSL output to that nearby Ethernet socket, which is then connected to an ethernet socket (via the patch panel) in another part of the house where you've plugged in your modem or router.
Standard User jchamier
(eat-sleep-adslguide) Wed 15-Jan-20 12:01:35
Print Post

Re: Cat6 vs wifi6


[re: joconnell] [link to this post]
 
Of course. But plenty of people rent, and are not permitted to make changes to walls, and have rental agreements that prevent tacking cables to skirting boards. If you own, have money, and time, you can do a really neat structured cabling installation with RJ45 wall points behind the TV etc. One of my friends has turned his loft into an IT room with patch panel, and cable modem etc. I think this is the exception rather than the rule.

VirginMedia 200/20 (22 Nov 19). Was FTTC for 7 years (55/12 to 46/5)
20 years of broadband connectivity since 1999 trial - Live BQM
Standard User oldskool
(member) Wed 15-Jan-20 12:20:13
Print Post

Re: Cat6 vs wifi6


[re: jchamier] [link to this post]
 
I think it may just be the right thing to bite the bullet and try and get cat6 put in.

Just to clarify my current wifi router an apple AirPort Extreme is cabled on the middle floor of the 3 storey, in a central location. With a cat5 cable crudely under the carpet.

The walls are breeze block and therefore, despite this central location, 5ghz struggles in the corners. I had tried an Orbi solution previously but speed gains across wifi were minimal for some reason. 2.4gh is just too congested which is why I'm very keen for strong 5ghz everywhere.

I naively thought with a dedicated cat6 backhaul of over 1Gbps this would somehow solve the issue.

Cat6 cabling is a pain. But, having read this thread, maybe worth persevering with. I have an airing cupboard on the middle floor which sits directly under a similar cupboard on the top floor so I could hide the cabling in these cupboards between floors. The middle floor cupboard also happens to be next to the room with the WAN connection so easy job there.

So this will only work if somehow the installer can hide the cables in these cupboards and the middle floor cupboard

1) routes a cable through the floor for positioning in the hall ceiling below
2) routes a cable up the cupboard for a middle floor ceiling
3) routes a cable up the cupboard into the cupboard above and into the top floor ceiling

I just have no idea if an installer can somehow thread a pick a cable through the floor (joists etc)

These will all be POE from a switch and probably be Ubiquiti or maybe TP-Link POE AC wifi APs
Standard User joconnell
(experienced) Wed 15-Jan-20 13:09:31
Print Post

Re: Cat6 vs wifi6


[re: jchamier] [link to this post]
 
In reply to a post by jchamier:
One of my friends has turned his loft into an IT room with patch panel, and cable modem etc. I think this is the exception rather than the rule.

Unless your friend lives somewhere where summer temperatures are relatively cool, Iím not sure having IT gear in the loft is a good idea, unless there are cooling fans up there. I have a digital thermometer in the loft of my Home Counties home which reports max temperatures just over 40 degrees centigrade in July/August, though that said, I do have a pair of cat5e cables up there (which Iíve yet to terminate in an RJ45 faceplate) so I guess anything plugged into them in future will need have their operating environment specs checked beforehand.
Standard User jchamier
(eat-sleep-adslguide) Wed 15-Jan-20 14:25:24
Print Post

Re: Cat6 vs wifi6


[re: oldskool] [link to this post]
 
From personal experience the Apple Airport units had significantly lower floor space coverage than competitors. Replacing with an ASUS AC68U recommended. It now seems obvious why Apple gave up the Airport range.

VirginMedia 200/20 (22 Nov 19). Was FTTC for 7 years (55/12 to 46/5)
20 years of broadband connectivity since 1999 trial - Live BQM
Standard User jchamier
(eat-sleep-adslguide) Wed 15-Jan-20 14:25:47
Print Post

Re: Cat6 vs wifi6


[re: joconnell] [link to this post]
 
Yes it wouldn't be my choice either!

VirginMedia 200/20 (22 Nov 19). Was FTTC for 7 years (55/12 to 46/5)
20 years of broadband connectivity since 1999 trial - Live BQM
Standard User zzing123
(learned) Wed 15-Jan-20 15:30:35
Print Post

Re: Cat6 vs wifi6


[re: MrSaffron] [link to this post]
 
Lets reinforce this point.

First understand how Wifi works:
1. Spectrum is contended. Only 1 device, client or AP can talk on a specific channel, and they do this by a mechanism called Carrier Sense Multiple Access with Collision Avoidance (CCMA/CA). Not only does a device have to wait for other devices in your home, but any neighbours that are using the same channel too (within specific dB noise parameters).
2. Mesh wifi will require a dedicated channel, preferably a wide channel to do 'backhaul'. This means a large chunk of the capacity of the AP is dedicated to backhaul, while the other half is dedicated to clients. So effectively total bandwidth is halved, though as you'll never see max Wifi PHY bandwidth, it's not really a big problem, and why Mesh systems 'work OK'.
3. Clients that have a weak signal will use significantly more airtime since bandwidth has to be reduced. Wifi performs at the speed of the worst client of the network.

For more info you can read quite a good guide here: https://arstechnica.com/gadgets/2020/01/how-ars-test...

Now with Ethernet backhaul:
- APs can run on independent clear channels, which means you can make use of even more spectrum for clients, and if you have 3 APs in 2.4GHz with 20MHz channels and about 5 in 5GHz with 80MHz channels you can get full spectrum coverage of the entire wifi spectrum.
- Because backhaul is handled by Ethernet, you're not lopping off a significant amount of radios in APs to handle backhaul. It's entirely devoted to clients.
- This can be tuned for capacity (100s to 1000s of clients) or performance (wider channels)
- There is no interference on Ethernet backhaul, and with a switched backhaul, you have clear point-to-point uninterfered-with gigabit+ pure bandwidth. Let the switches and routers handle traffic, and APs solely for bridging radio and Ethernet. Really the biggest problem you have with Ethernet backhaul is mitigating broadcast and multicast (another issue entirely).

As for Wifi 6 or Wifi 5, remember the point that Wifi will work at the speed of the slowest device. If you have a Wifi 6 (802.11ax) network, but one Wifi 3 (802.11g) device, then all those Wifi 6 devices have to operate at Wifi 3 speeds for that specific channel.

This is why we try to segregate spectrum and put old devices on 2.4GHz on a small 20MHz channel and then have all our shiny stuff on 80MHz channels in the 5GHz superhighway.

So if you want the best, invest in putting CAT6 or 7 to every room, and have an AP on the lowest power possible in each room covering different channels and giving a very hot coverage in the room, and very cold coverage outside the room. That way, client devices will roam from one AP to the other, and always choose to pick the strongest signal.

For the same reason a mesh system even though you're sacrificing half the bandwidth will still be better than a Big Box parked in the corner of a house serving everything, which is the worst option.

There are many other factors like DFS (Wifi kit has to give way to radar), and other quirks about RF that matter, but the basic points are as above. Ethernet will ALWAYS win as backhaul. Same reasons in the 5G vs FTTP argument: it's no contest.
Standard User jchamier
(eat-sleep-adslguide) Wed 15-Jan-20 18:03:13
Print Post

Re: Cat6 vs wifi6


[re: zzing123] [link to this post]
 
and some good WiFi 6 testing of the new (expensive) routers:
https://www.smallnetbuilder.com/wireless/wireless-re...

Plus the problem that the new feature of WiFi 6 is not actually enabled on most of the new routers:
https://www.smallnetbuilder.com/wireless/wireless-fe...

Ethernet always wins, but most people's broadband is slower than the performance they can get through WiFi. This will change as more people get 500 Mbps or faster connections. Poor N or AC wifi often can handle 80 Mbps which is the fastest FTTC.

VirginMedia 200/20 (22 Nov 19). Was FTTC for 7 years (55/12 to 46/5)
20 years of broadband connectivity since 1999 trial - Live BQM

Edited by jchamier (Wed 15-Jan-20 18:04:10)

Standard User zzing123
(learned) Thu 16-Jan-20 02:05:34
Print Post

Re: Cat6 vs wifi6


[re: jchamier] [link to this post]
 
In reply to a post by jchamier:
Plus the problem that the new feature of WiFi 6 is not actually enabled on most of the new routers:
https://www.smallnetbuilder.com/wireless/wireless-fe...


Yes, but the thread is about Wifi6 vs CAT6.

When you compare wifi standards, we have seen big increases (say from g to n) but the difference between ac Wave 1 and ac Wave 2 (which is MU-MIMO) is almost negligible. OFDMA is pretty much the same thing. Physics-wise it's properly interesting tech, and it goes to the previous argument I laid out, that it's all about spectrum management.

For a quick recap, MIMO is 'Multiple in-Multiple Out', which means that in a specific timeslot (remember each device can only shout at a single time only: think of a field of people holding megaphones), what MIMO does is that someone shouts at a high-pitched voice and someone else shouts at a low-pitched voice and using a DSPs doing FFTs you can get two perfectly distinct 'sounds' from the same noise, and thus deduce a message. The physics of the same noise being made in the same timeslot however, remains the same, but through proper engineering you get multiple clients talking at the same time.

OFDMA is slightly different, in that you spread across different frequencies. So while everyone knows channel 1, 6 and 11 is used in Wifi 2.4GHz (each being 20MHz bands), 5GHz has much more bandwidth, but at those frequencies, channels don't go through walls as easily (this is why 7-800MHz 5G using the old TV bands really matters and why many £billions are spent btw), but generally 5Gz wifi is operating at 20, 40, 80, or 160 MHz channel widths, with most choosing contiguous 40 or 80MHz, and operating at channels 52-64 and 100-128 across the EU (You ain't got contiguous spectrum cos ETSI and Ofcom said so). OFDMA allows you to use non-contiguous channels, meaning an AP can use channel 52, 100, 104 and 128 for example to form 4x20MHz channels and an 80MHz as a whole, giving more performance. Of course any Wifi 5 device or below will only see a 20MHz channel, so meh. It's complex, and involves even more DSP that I can only surmise in a metaphor as a person broadcasting an interleave of 4 different letters of a word at very inaudibly different pitches at the same time and the receiver deciphering it together to form a word at the end of it.

Evenso, there's a commercial argument and a chicken/egg argument. As the SNB article states, OFDMA is about RU's which corresponds to DSP capacity. That means silicon and chip design in laymans terms. Radio chips aren't entirely dissimilar to GPUs in that they're massive arrays of Execution Units each covering and coalescing areas of spectrum as quickly and efficiently as possible. Just like a GPU driver can only do so much to rendering performance, it's the same with this ethereal 'Wifi Firmware'. So why would you build a new chip when you don't have a standard ready? Because muppets will buy it. So current Wifi 6 is pie in the sky for all we know, but at least it's a Proper Engineer's best guess as to what the standard will be, and so long as the chip has enough leeway and the firmware programmers are smart enough, a 'Wave 1' device can be estimated. So basically OFDMA will be 'ax Wave 2' just like MU-MIMO was 'ac Wave 2'. MU-MIMO was always baked into the ac standard, but Wave 1 was the modem maker's best guess of what the standard would be prior to the standard's ratification, while Wave 2 is the full implementation of the standard. Same shenanigans with AX.

Either way, the thread is about Wifi 6 and CAT6. Increases in the science and engineering of managing RF (Radio Frequency) are all well and good, and this is by no means faulting the scientists. This really is Proper Engineering with capital P and E, but there is one constant: the spectrum hasn't changed. So while different Wifi standards will give a measurable, benchmarkable performance uplift that many, many column inches will be written about, pretty much all the low-hanging fruit has been solved already in Wifi 5, and the increases are really about capacity and working the spectrum as hard, fast and efficiently as it can be. At best, you will really only see a modest real-world uplift in ideal performance of Wifi 6 over Wifi 5, and then only if all client devices are shiny new, and in an area with no interference (so not urban) until the TalkTalks of this world decide their 802.11n router is really a pile of *ahem* even for them.

The fact of the matter, is the single best step you can do, to get the most linear benefit (as in +100% for each AP you add up till you cover every last Hz of spectrum reserved for WiFi) is to wire your backhaul and invest in a proper network topology with a good switch and router. Only then, as you swap APs in and out you can harvest the +15% or so every time the IEEE decides to ratify a new standard, but even then, wait until the standard is ratified, and the chipmakers have baked a fresh set of silicon.

In the meantime, Wifi 5, or 802.11ac "Wave 2" devices are the current standard, until this page goes green, and it's still only half-baked: http://ieee802.org/11/Reports/tgax_update.htm
Standard User jabuzzard
(committed) Thu 16-Jan-20 11:02:28
Print Post

Re: Cat6 vs wifi6


[re: jchamier] [link to this post]
 
I would suspect that is mostly out of ignorance. Properly done a ceiling WiFi access point should just look like s smoke alarm with no wires visible at all. They are very unobtrusive, I had mine up for over a year and my mother stayed several times before she noticed it. At which point she wanted to know why the access point in her house was not the same. It's on a to do list of things to change now.

I would note living in Scotland from February next year it will be law to have a range of smoke, heat and CO alarms installed in *EVERY* house (yep it's retrospective and applies to every house without exception)

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-43443725

So one or more unobtrusive WiFi access points is neither hear nor there. I would point out lots of advantages around being out the way of children and pets, not requiring dusting and not taking up any space. That's all before we get into better WiFi. I have personally never met a person who having seen a proper install would throw a wobbly about having one installed.
Standard User jchamier
(eat-sleep-adslguide) Thu 16-Jan-20 14:17:38
Print Post

Re: Cat6 vs wifi6


[re: jabuzzard] [link to this post]
 
In reply to a post by jabuzzard:
(yep it's retrospective and applies to every house without exception)

I agree a proper install is very discrete. I'm also glad I don't live in scotland, retrospective legislation is not good.

VirginMedia 200/20 (22 Nov 19). Was FTTC for 7 years (55/12 to 46/5)
20 years of broadband connectivity since 1999 trial - Live BQM
Standard User jabuzzard
(committed) Thu 16-Jan-20 16:35:26
Print Post

Re: Cat6 vs wifi6


[re: jchamier] [link to this post]
 
Sure but would you actually want to live in a property that didn't have proper fire and CO alarms? Given that the majority of fire deaths occur in homes without working smoke alarms, I sure as hell would not?

I would also add the fire/CO alarm standards required in the rest of the UK outside Scotland are an absolute joke. I mean no requirement for a heat detector in a kitchen, where the majority of domestic fires start for crying out loud.
Standard User ian72
(eat-sleep-adslguide) Thu 16-Jan-20 16:51:40
Print Post

Re: Cat6 vs wifi6


[re: jabuzzard] [link to this post]
 
My fire alarms in my old house were a little hit and miss and I could be generally poor at replacing batteries when they were low. That would probably give you palpitations but I suspect is the case in a number of houses around the country.

The house I am currently in has mains powered alarms that are reasonably new so the problem has been solved, for now.
Pages in this thread: 1 | 2 | 3 | (show all)   Print Thread

Jump to