[Discuss] Future-proofing a house for networking -- what to run?

[richard.pieri at gmail.com (Richard Pieri)]

On 9/12/2017 12:05 PM, Derek Atkins wrote:
> No, I'm pointing out that wires are better than Wifi by showing actual
> capabilities.  If you had a wired network then you'd have that capability
> too.  It's just a fact that wired networks are more capable than wireless.

I do have a 1-Gig wired network. I used to have a 100Mbit wired network.

It is useless for my Android tablets. It is useless for my Kobo and my
Kindle. It is useless for my Vita, my PSP and my 3DS. None of these have
wired networking capabilities.

It is not better than wireless for my Clevo and Surface Pro and PS4
which are constrained by ISP bandwidth being less than local WiFi
bandwidth. NB: I do use the wired network with a USB dongle when I make
Clonezilla snapshots of the Clevo and Surface but those are not day to
day usage.

It is necessary for my DiskStation because it has no wireless capabilities.

For about a dozen devices the wired network is necessary for 1, better
than break even for 2 under special circumstances but otherwise break
even, break even for 1 all the time, and a non-starter for everything else.


> Wired ethernet over twisted pair has not significantly changed in 25
> years. [snip]

Actually, yes, it has. The number of pairs hasn't changed but the
composition of the pairs has in order to handle the progressive
increases in signal frequencies.

Yes, your ThinkPad has wired Ethernet. It's a business class device.
Yes, your "smart" TVs have wired Ethernet. They do no better with it
than they do with WiFi because the bandwidth requirements for MPEG-4
video and audio are well within WiFi capabilities. Your Macs are great
examples of the direction the world is going: no wires.


> But with Cat6 throughout I can always add additional APs wherever I might
> need them.  :)

I do believe that my suggestion, going wireless, is the one you
"completely disagree" with.

-- 
Rich P.