Re: Cable

[Chris Hunter <cjhunter@xxxxxxxxxxxx>]

It was just that I'd assumed I'd be going for the lowest price ... then
I saw the price range was large, and the differences in attenuation were
huge ... 20db & 200db at 100MHz ... they'd not be selling the more
expensive types if it didn't matter ... but which should I choose ? ...
and now the snagging factor, too.

Chris


Christopher Purves wrote:

> The only difference I have found in cat5e cables is the easyness of
> the cable to lay. The cheap £20 a box stuff was always getting snagged
> while the £50 per box stuff was a pleasure to work with. If I was
> buying again I would go for the more expensive stuff for sure.
>
> C
>   ----- Original Message -----
>   From: Phil Harris<mailto:phil@xxxxxxx>
>   To: ukha_d@xxxxxxx<mailto:ukha_d@xxxxxxx>
>   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 then
>   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 then
>   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 why
>   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:ukha_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
>   >
>   > '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 !
>   >
>   > Chris