Template talk:Twisted-pair cables

This template does not require a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Computing: Networking This template is within the scope of WikiProject Computing, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of computers, computing, and information technology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ComputingWikipedia:WikiProject ComputingTemplate:WikiProject ComputingComputing articles This template is supported by Networking task force. Telecommunications This template is within the scope of WikiProject Telecommunications, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Telecommunications on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.TelecommunicationsWikipedia:WikiProject TelecommunicationsTemplate:WikiProject TelecommunicationsTelecommunications articles

On 25 January 2024, it was proposed that this page be moved from Template:UTP cables to Template:Twisted-pair cables. The result of the discussion was moved.

The list of "network cables" is practically as long as the list of cables. I wonder if we could find a better title for this useful template.

It currently mentions coax, and details unshielded twisted pair. It doesn't list any cables associated with fiber optics, wide area networking, power line networking, etc. Perhaps it would be best to drop "coax" cables and rename to Unshielded Twisted Pair Cabling Standards. dpotter 01:07, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

What about Fiber Cables (eg: OM3)? --Pinnecco 11:00, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

What about them? I suspect that if we renamed the template to UTP Cabling Standards, then we wouldn't include fiber. dpotter 06:41, 23 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

1000baseT was after all designed for cat5. I don't see what cat5e will gain you either as 10GbaseT needs cat6. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 86.16.135.53 (talk • contribs) .

I modified the text to "may be unsuitable", as this is probably the most accurate description of a complicated situation. Here are the details of the situation: When 802.3ab (1000BASE-T) was released, it did - as you mention - support the use of category 5 cable. Unfortunately, it required new performance standards for cat-5 cabling - standards that had never been published before and against which legacy cat 5 cable had not been tested.

These standards were published by TIA/EIA in September 1999 in technical service bulletin TSB95, titled "Additional Transmission Performance Guidelines for 4-pair 100 W Category 5 Cabling." TSB95 specified new channel return loss and ELFEXT transmission specs. This provided a specification that would allow facility owners to test their Cat-5 cable for suitability for use with 1000BASE-T, and modify the cable (or replace it) if needed.

Thus, it's not really fair to say the all cat-5 cable is suitable for 1000BASE-T... only cat-5 cable that meets the 1999-released TSB95 specification is likely to work well. I hope that clears things up a bit. I think the new language is the best way to condense this situation into a short sentence. You can read more about this here.

dpotter 20:46, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ah I see, 1000baseT only works on existing cat-5 if it works; it was never tested. Your contractors will test new cat-5 to make sure it works, and label it cat-5e so they can charge you for it. Thankyou that clears it up.

Thinking about it it would probably be a good idea to add something to expand on that 'may be unsuitable' to the CAT-5 entry; I think the existing entry still feels like "1000baseT was designed to work on cat-5 but the messed up and it doesn't" rather than my current understanding that it's a formalisation of something that would naturally be a property of most existing installations of cat-5 86.16.135.53 09:13, 28 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Careful - retroactively testing cat-5 with the TSB95 extensions doesn't qualify your cable as Cat 5e. They are still different cables and different test standards - but both suitable for 1000BASE-T. The best, most succinct explanation of the relationship of 1000BASE-T and Cat-5/5e cable (that I can think of) is this: 1000BASE-T is specified for use with TIA/EIA-568B compliant cable systems implemented with Cat 5e cable, or with Cat 5 cable that has also passed the extended TSB95 tests.

And certainly, if your cat-5 was installed prior to 1999, your contractors are not to blame. Without a test specification, there was no way that they could have validated your cat-5 cable system for use with 1000BASE-T.

dpotter 02:43, 29 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Does anyone else think this template is a bit text-heavy? Repeating "Currently ______ by TIA/EIA" eight times is somewhat redundant. I think this kind of data would work better in a table without the redundancy:

Anyone disagree with changing it to a table? --Lost-theory 22:41, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I like it. I think you could even extend this by adding a "maximum performance" column (and leave it as 'undefined' for Cat-1. dpotter 02:03, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Originally posted to Talk:Category 6 cable --Kvng (talk) 18:43, 10 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The section of the article (at the end, after External Links) that lists UTP and STP cable standards (Cat1, Cat2, etc.) states that Cat5 was used for 100BASE-TX and 1000BASE-T Ethernet. That should be 10BASE-T and 100BASE-TX. (I'll ignore the obsolete HP 100BASE-T4 "standard.") Cat5 was never appropriate, nor used, for 1000BASE-T, as that speed did not even exist when Cat5 cable was in vogue. 64.192.2.189 (talk) 17:02, 10 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I believe the description is correct. 1000BASE-T was designed to work on Cat5 because there was a lot of it sitting in cable plants at the time 1000BASE-T was developed. One thing that is possibly unclear is the fact that 10BASE-T can be run on Cat3 and higher. Should we add 10BASE-T to Cat5, Cat5e, etc? --Kvng (talk) 18:48, 10 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Gnevin (talk · contribs) has edited the template to confrom to Standard look. Where is this Standard look defined. --Kvng (talk) 00:58, 20 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]