Re: Cable

["Christopher Purves" <CHRIS_PURVES@xxxxxxx>]

The only difference I have found in cat5e cables is the easyness of the
cab=
le to lay. The cheap =A320 a box stuff was always getting snagged while
the=
=A350 per box stuff was a pleasure to work with. If I was buying again I w=
ould go for the more expensive stuff for sure.

C
----- Original Message -----=20
From: Phil Harris<mailto:phil@xxxxxxx>=20
To: ukha_d@xxxxxxx<mailto:ukha_d@xxxxxxx>=20
Sent: 07 January 2006 21:14
Subject: RE: [ukha_d] Cable



Why a minefield?

If they want to sell a quad twisted pair cable that complies to the CAT5
specs under the label of CAT5 then that's fine (as long as it does) - if
they want to sell a cable that varies from the minimum CAT5 specs by a
significant margin at twice the price but still under the label of CAT5 t=
hen
that too is OK as long as it still meets the minimum specs for CAT5.

Similarly with CAT5E and CAT6 ... as long as the cable meets the spec the=
n
you shouldn't need to worry. Unless you have a specific requirement then =
if
what you want is CAT5E then any CAT5E cable should be fine. I don't see w=
hy
there should be any need to create minefields than don't have to exist?

Phil



> -----Original Message-----
> From: ukha_d@xxxxxxx<mailto:ukha_d@xxxxxxx> [mailto:ukh=
a_d@xxxxxxx] On Behalf Of
> Chris Hunter
> Sent: 07 January 2006 21:00
> To: ukha_d@xxxxxxx<mailto:ukha_d@xxxxxxx>
> Subject: [ukha_d] Cable
>=20
> 'looking at sources for Cat5e cable today, I noticed that prices
varied
> a lot - for example, CPC had reel-boxes for sale at between 60 &
130GPB
> ... with differences in attenuation at different frequencies ... must
> say, I thought Cat5 was Cat5, and Cat5e was Cat5e, but clearly I was
> wrong !   'seems like it's another mine-field for the uninitiated !
>=20
> Chris
>=20
>=20
>=20
>=20
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>=20
>=20
>=20
>=20
>=20




=20=20=20