Jump to content

Talk:Category 6 cable/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1

Needs updating and sources

I couldn't find any sources listed on this page. Also, the external link "Cat 6 FAQ" appears to be dead as of 2007-02-26. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 216.152.208.1 (talk) 23:22, 26 February 2007 (UTC).

Intermixed cable fallacy?

I've recently completed a job with a contractor that forcefully asserted that Cat 5e and Cat 6 cabling cannot be intermixed. This went against my belief, however, I've known this guy for years and he has ne'er led me astray on purpose. Whats the deal?

Both the situation and the assertion you cite are vague, so allow me to hypothesize a few installations that intermix these cable types and describe the probable results:
  • A facility in which backbone, horizontal, and patch cables randomly use either cat-5e or cat-6 cables, but each individual channel is exclusively one cable type end-to-end. This would result in a facility in which any individual channel could be certified to either cat-6 or cat-5e performance requirements. Very suitable for gigabit ethernet, but only the cat-6 runs would be able to support 10GBASE-T (or other communications systems designed for cat-6). The end result is a system in which only a subset of work areas support advanced communication standards.
  • A facility in which every channel contains a random mix of cat-5e and cat-6 cables. A very poor idea. In all likelihood, these channels could be certified to cat-5e performance standards (although with the increased cost of the cat-6 components), but it is possible that small impedance mismatches, NVP differences, skin effect variances or other differences between the properties of the cables could cause the channel to fail cat-5e certification. I consider this rather unlikely, but certainly I would not expect any of these channels to pass cat-6 performance testing, so one is left with a higher cost, higher risk, cable system that delivers no benefit over pure cat-5e.
Bottom line: they *can* be intermixed, but doing so increases the risk of certification troubles and delivers no performance benefit. Thus, any justification for mixing them should be based on other factors, like logistics (cable availability, colors, etc), financial, etc., and with a full understanding of the risks.
dpotter 23:44, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
I can think of two main reasons to mix them.
The first and most obvious is extending or modifying an existing installation. You certainly don't want to rip out existing cable that is doing its current job perfectly well but you also want the new parts of the installation to remain usable for as long as possible.
The second is patch cords, patch cords are easy to replace and likely to have a much shorter lifetime (due to being handled more) than fixed cabling so there seems to be a lot less reason to choose future-proof patch cords than future proof fixed cabling. Plugwash 20:18, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

Popularity?

To what extent are Cat 6 is being installed as a percentage of all Ethernet cable types? Can someone add some statistics regarding its popularity? Thanks. ---Ransom (71.4.51.150 20:05, 9 March 2007 (UTC))

Changes made to article

A Cat6a cable does not "work" up to 500MHz. It is defined up to that frequency, but can function to much higher frequencies. For example, Cat6 was only defined to 250MHz, but can be used up to 417MHz for 10G applications (in certain conditions), and even much higher for analogue signals such as broadband.

Stating that ANEXT is a problem for UTP is incorrect. The proof is that CAT6a systems are available and meet the standard. However, it is true that there is large technical research to allow such performance in UTP, where shielded solutions can meet the requirements with less technological investments.

Cat7a is NOT a 40G solution. The IEEE has currently no intention of proposing 40G Ethernet on such system. This Shannon capacity calculation has been widely criticized by multiple manufacturers. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Golgot1 (talk • contribs) 00:44, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

PC to PC- innacurate and perhaps too informal

"To connect two Ethernet units of the same type (PC to PC, or hub to hub, for example) a cross over cable should be used, though some modern hardware can use either type of cable automatically." I am correcting this as it implies its a hardware issue, when really if one PC is a server and another PC is a client, crossover cable is never needed. Mentioning this use of crossover cables might only save the casual small office/home peer-to-peer network installers some headaches, but I think we could perhaps use the full term "Personal Computer" might be more appropriate for the Encyclopedia.

To answer your question, the reason is TIA/EIA-568 Ethernet has separate transmit (TX) and receive (RX) lanes. TX of one equipment must be connected to RX of the other. On older equipment they are fixed, so two equipment of the same type need a cross over cable, otherwise TX connects to TX and RX connects to RX. Newer equipment can automatically detect and adjust which pair is which. Ibjoe 01:52, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
If one PC is a server, and another is a client, a crossover cable will still be required as the network interface cards (NIC) in them will be identical. Rather, the as the above reply mentions, it is to do with TX/RX pins matching up between devices. A computer NIC will always transmit on the same pins, regardless of whether it is installed in a client or a server, as it was designed to match up with receive pins on a hub. Hence, if two computers (regardless of client or server designation) want to communicate directly, rather than through a hub or switch, a crossover cable is required. 210.8.150.249 (talk) 04:38, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
Most modern NICs will automatically detect whether the user has a straight-through or a crossover cable. Check the hardware specs. I've had problems connecting two computers together even with a crossover cable, only to be solved by using normal cables and a hub/switch. *shrug*, YMMV. starlite528 (talk) 13:21, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

UTP Cable Standards

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)

I've copied this to Template talk:UTP Cable Standards. --Kvng (talk) 18:44, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

New contributions

Judgeice (talk · contribs) made the following contributions. I have reverted. I believe the reason for the spine is to improve electrical performance not to help with installation. The other facts are already discussed elsewhere in the article. --Kvng (talk) 13:10, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

Cat5 is 250mhz, Cat5e is 350mhz, and cat6 is 500mhz with a spine for easy after market in-wall installation. Cat6e is more flexible and appears to be 550mhz however it is not known to be standardized specs yet. Cat5e or better is required for 1000Mbps aka 1GB networking. Standard cat6 uses a spine to cut in-wall install times in 1/2 and 500mhz. Special RJ-xx connectors can be used to accommodate true cat6 standard cable. Some 550mhz cables with no spine should qualify as cat6e or something different for outside the wall due to flexibility.

Extraneous USOC/RJ61 Wiring Diagram?

What is the justification to include the USOC/RJ61 Wiring diagram here? It is not referenced in the article, and to my knowledge, it is not used in any CAT6 gigabit environments. If it is placed for some comparison, please reference in the article. If not, it should probably be removed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.224.20.146 (talk) 14:16, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

As noted, there is no justification for the inclusion of the extraneous diagram. i have removed it.dunerat (talk) 16:45, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

Augmented category 6 is not CAT 6a

Cat 6a is as noted, a future standard. Using the term CAT 6a and augmented CAT 6 to mean the same thing is incorrect use of CAT 6a.

According to Nexans/Berk-tek, the "a" in Cat 6a stands for "augmented", just as the "e" from Cat 5e stands for "enhanced". As a result, Augmented Cat 6 is Cat 6a, although care should be taken to check the documentation to ensure the manufacturer is not attempting to decieve the purchaser (as in the case of the fallacious Cat 6e label). Also, that link is dead.dunerat (talk) 23:01, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

Cat6a running at 500mhz?

I just bought some cat6e cable online that runs at 550mhz. It seems normal cat6 runs at 500mhz according to most of the cables I can buy on this website. The website also makes no mention of cat6a. Is cat6a no longer used? —Preceding unsigned comment added by MGoers37 (talk • contribs) 03:44, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

A "maximum frequency" spec from a cable vendor is meaningless without details of the cables performance at those frequencies. Just because a manufacturer has got some kind of signal through at that frequency does not imply it is usable at that frequency for reliable data communications.
As for 6a it seems to exist but be an expensive niche product. From what I can gather 10GBaseT isn't used much since for short links CX4 has cheaper transceivers and lower power consumption and for backbone links fiber is generally preferred. Plugwash (talk) 01:51, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

Reply - Cat6e DOES NOT EXIST. This is pure marketing. A 550MHz " Cat6e" cable is far inferior to a 500MHz Cat6a cable for the simple reason that it would only meet Cat6 (in general, as seen with current products), so 250MHz. Anything above that is not defined in the standards, so offers no advantage to the user.

As stated, Cat "6e" is a marketing ploy and does not reflect any existing or planned standard. Cat 6a, on the other hand, is the highest bandwidth standard in the TIA scheme and in included in the current specification. I cannot speak to its current usefulness, but I know it existed as a non-prototype product in 2005 when I was installing it at EMC2.dunerat (talk) 23:01, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

For reliable Cat 6A 500 MHz connections the cable must be SHIELDED which is not required for Cat6 250MHz cables. Cat 6E is fake term used to sell UNSHIELDED Cat6 cables "rated" at 500MHz or higher for a greater profit then CAT6 even though both can preform the same since there is no true Cat 6E standard and the frequency loss could be almost as much as a cheaper Cat 6 cable per foot.

Cat 6e

I know that it has been declared that Cat 6e only exists as a "marketing ploy", but shouldn't it still be included in this article with that in mind? After all, Cat 6e is being marketed on store shelves, and I am sure that many people curious about it will come to this article to learn more, only to find no mention of it and leave more confused.

Therefore, I move to INCLUDE Cat 6e in this article whilst mentioning its origins and lack of industry specification. Any thoughts? –– amanisdude (talk) 23:36, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

ADDENDUM: If there is any concern about inadvertently deceiving readers about the existence of a Category 6e specification, the section title could be enveloped in quotes for further clarity (i.e., "Category 6e" with the quotations). Furthermore, there do appear to exist tacit or perceived specifications for the "standard". (See PC Tech Go's article on the different types of modern Ethernet cables for an example of this perception.) –– amanisdude (talk) 23:59, 29 June 2012 (UTC)
I agree. (I've also redirected Category 6e cable page here accordingly, rather than have the page wrongly languish as deleted for users to question repeatedly.) Go search the net (eg. Ebay) and you see "Cat 6e cable" mentioned literally everywhere! Now while the technical network people are gonna know about it being used as a 'sales ploy', the average Joe wanting to buy some for his/her home/soho or to connect from modem to computer, is certainly not. Hence when they come here wondering, looking for information, they're gonna be left none the wiser. Not a good way to handle it at all! Someone knowledgeable please add a section of explanation accordingly. Jimthing (talk) 05:26, 14 July 2012 (UTC)
I'm not sure we need a knowledgeable person, really. All we're going to say is, "Category 6e cable is regularly advertised for sale, especially over the internet. A specification for Category 6e cable has never been published or planned. The sellers are exaggerating from popular Category 5e cable, a legitimate specification." Maybe I should just start a section like that now.... —fudoreaper (talk) 04:04, 17 July 2012 (UTC)
Yes, do that. We need to start somewhere. --Kvng (talk) 13:20, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

Diagrams for 568-A and 568-B should be separate

Someone trying to wire a 568B connector would find the diagrams would be much more helpful if the information 568B information was presented separately from the 568A information. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ocdnctx (talk • contribs) 14:13, 14 September 2012 (UTC)

T568B is a deprecated pattern and no longer a recognised standard. Additionally, attempting to split these two items would not make any sense, as the chart was provided explicitly to show the differences between the two. If someone were looking for T568B information, there is already a page for that.dunerat (talk) 15:43, 25 October 2012 (UTC)


How about minimum cable length?

There's so much contradictory information on the web about this... Additionally, some professionals will refuse to use patch cords of less than 1m while some vendors (such as Neat Patch) sell you 0.6m Cat6 "certified" cables. I would like to use 10cm/15cm between my patch panel and my switch since I have a one to one mapping between switch port and patch panel port. Anyone has an official answer with citation on minimum length? Cheers, G — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gdassieu (talk • contribs) 10:39, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

Don't conflate "patch cable" with "cable length". What is crucial is that the signal characteristics of the total run between two active devices (e.g. between two switches, or between switch and end device) do not degrade significantly. The patch cables are a part of total run length, and as long as the total is > 50cm or so, the patch cables only need to be as long as you need them to be.
The shortest practical length for a switch to patch panel connection is 15cm (CAT6): Keep in mind that the shorter the cable, the more it acts like a spring, so not only are the mechanical stresses higher than with a longer cable, they are also more difficult to work with. Even 15cm cables are a bit difficult to unplug because of their "springiness". Also due to their "springiness", and due to their short length, they can't be twisted very much. 15cm works fine, but is _really_ the shortest practical length when working in a rack.
Electrically and mechanically, anything below 15cm is not sensible if you are going to be bending the cables. This is because the electrical properties of a cable change at the bends. Cables have bend radius limits, and bending a 10cm cable will almost certainly violate those limits. Good quality cables have a plastic spine that (in addition to other functionality) prevents them from being bent too far. My personal rule of thumb for CAT is a bend radius > 2.5 cm for patch cables. Another common rule of thumb is 5 times the thickness of the cable. Yet another rule of thumb is the length of the plastic at the base of the jacks. Those plastic guards prevent the cable from being bent too far, and are therefore a good indicator of how much you can bend the cable. -- 89.12.167.85 (talk) 10:49, 8 October 2013 (UTC)

Is This True or another cat 6 made up scare monger ??

I have recently been asked to install a number of cat 6 cables for a client. He requested that I ran all cables from the cable box's sittuated at the network point, when I asked why ? He replied they have to run this way becuase of the way the system works ( Its an AT+T style 110 system but cat 6 version known as 210 if using Siemon's system) I qeustion this action as I have never heard of any thing so riddiculous and he replied that it wouldn't work if i ran the cables from the LAN room (or the other way). The cables are normal cat-6 out of a box with no connectots on or anything. Could you please shed some light or dispurse this theory as I have installed many Cat 6 installations and they have all worked wich ever way I have run the cables after all its just copper end to end isn't it ??

Cheers Juls

This is nonsense. The cable is the same, either way you run it... /PerLundberg (talk) 11:30, 11 April 2010 (UTC)
For the previous poster, I'm not sure why the cat6 "direction" should make a difference. Can you pass along any cost difference (in time spent or money)? The customer doesn't have to be any wiser. Sometimes being right doesn't pay off. Let someone else educate the blowhard. Cuvtixo 19:13, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
As mentioned above, the direction you run the cable in is, in fact, irrelevent. Industry standard/recommendation is to run from the drop to the telecom room, but it's not a requirement that i've ever heard of, and it certainly won't affect how the cable works.dunerat (talk) 15:39, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

some cabling systems require this for warranty. when you lay the cable in there jacks the pair will line up with the punch downs according to the Color code if pull in the right direction. if you pull the cable in the other direction, you have to cross two of the pairs increasing the margin of error in the termination. System that require this for warranty will mark the cable boxed with the direction of pull. Deckerjwd (talk) 19:02, 23 April 2014 (UTC)

What is "horizontal cable length"?

65.27.174.174 00:06, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

It's the length of a horizontal cable. The term "horizontal cable" typically refers to the cabling between a horizontal cross-connect and a telecommunication outlet. An example of this would be an unshielded twisted pair cable that runs from an RJ45 termination panel in a wiring closet to an RJ45 jack in a wall plate. dpotter 05:30, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
So, the "horizontal cable length" is the length of the "permanently installed" cable, from the wall jack at one end to the wall jack or patch panel at the other end, typically hidden away inside walls, ceiling, or under the floor. Once you've cut the cable, its length doesn't change, no matter if the cable goes up, down, horizontal, or in a big circle. The "cords" are the visible length, typically one cord plugged into the wall jack and a PC, the other cord plugged between the patch panel and a router.
Could someone confirm that a cable that runs, say, 60 feet straight up then a couple of feet to the West has a "horizontal cable length" of 62 feet, and clarify this in the article? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.70.89.241 (talk • contribs)
You've got the right idea, and your first paragraph above is correct. Horizontal cables are defined by their place in the architecture, not the distance they traverse parallel to the ground. The example in your second paragraph is also correct, although unusual/unrealistic - in a commercial premises, horizontal cables would almost never traverse a 60-foot vertical climb. That would typically indicate a 4-5 story building, and a typical cable system architecture would have a cross-connect installed on each floor, with backbone cabling (not horizontal cabling) interconnecting the cross-connects. See Structured cabling for more information.
I'll add a link to the article as you suggested. dpotter 14:29, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
This then brings up the further question are the rules for backbone cabling different from those for horizontal cabling and if so in what way? Plugwash 19:56, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
Yes, to some extent. Backbone or Riser cabling has some slight manufacturing differences in the sheath from Horizontal or Plenum cabling, which has to do mostly with the burn properties of the cabling (ig, toxic gasses emitted while on fire, speed of burn, etc). There is no functional difference between the cables themselves from an electrical point-of-view, this difference has more to do with fire codes. Also, there will normally be many fewer cables in the backbone installation than in the horizontal installation. In terms of specifications such as cable attachment or cable droop, there are not any differences at all, as those are based on the category of cable being installed, rather than the type of installation. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dunerat (talk • contribs) 22:50, 25 April 2012 (UTC)
Horizontal cabling is defined by TIA/EIA 568 as the cable that is permanently installed in a build between a workspace outlet and the Telecommunications Closet. Plenum and Riser are not defined by the TIA CAT 6 standards, they are cable Flame rating and defined by the NEC. Deckerjwd (talk) 19:12, 23 April 2014 (UTC)

Absolutely no mention of how (physically) cat 6 is different than cat 5/5e ?!

There's not even any picture of a cat6 cable and it's terminating connector. Absolutely no mention of how (physically) a cat-6 cable differs from a cat5e cable. This entry is crap without this information. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.71.37.182 (talk) 04:11, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

The cat 6 I'm installing terminates identically to cat 5 & 5e. I have noticed that two of the four twisted pairs have more twists per inch, something I didn't see in cat5. My understanding is that Cat5 can transmit 100Mbs and cat6 transmits at 1000Mbs, which is gigabit. A superior communication and data transfer system. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.235.210.104 (talk) 02:11, 24 April 2009 (UTC)
I agree, there most likely is a visual difference between the two standards. I've seen cat-6 cables that have a "cross" that separates the pairs from each other, there is no mention of that. A google image search of cat-6 shows pictures of stripped cables with 4 pairs and a plastic "cross" that keeps them separated. (Didn't add a picture due too possible copyright issues) - Dorit82 (talk) 01:31, 4 November 2009 (UTC)
Early cat6 did indeed have a cross in the middle but it seems manufacturers have now managed to meet the performance requirements without it and modern cat6 cable looks the same (or at least too close for me to tell the difference on casual inspection) as cat5. Plugwash (talk) 00:40, 28 November 2009 (UTC)
I purchased a box of Cat6 Cable (1000Ft). It indeed has a plastic "Cross" in the center of the wire, separating the four pairs. I shall take a picture and post here for reference. 208.124.136.6 (talk) 20:58, 7 September 2010 (UTC)
the difference most see is the plastic cross or the paper pair separator. Another difference is in the twist per inch. In Cat5 the pairs are all twisted the same time per inch, Cat5E introduced twisting the data pairs(1&2,3&6 on a 8p8c) more per inch. In Cat6 all the pairs are twisted at different rate. Most cables also change wire gauge of the conductors in Cat6. In Cat5/e the conductor is a 24awg. Most of Cat6 is 23awg, but there are 24awg Cat6 cables. Deckerjwd (talk) 19:51, 23 April 2014 (UTC)

200MHz or 250MHz?

I've found endless pages across the internet stating 200MHz as well as those stating 250MHz, so to whom should I go for the definitive number? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Createcoms (talk • contribs) 07:49, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

Why don't you get your hands on a copy of the latest set of standards published by the Telecommunications Industry Association or TIA (http://www.tiaonline.org ) and pay particularly close attention to the ones numbered 568-C-0, 568-C-1, and 568-C-2 as they hold the answers you claim to seek. (You may purchase them here at http://global.ihs.com ). After all, they are the documents that define the physical, mechanical, performance and technical parameters for what makes a Category 6 cable eligeible to be stamped as such versus a CAT6a, CAT5e, or CAT3. It goes into great detail about how to install and test your installations and what results you should expect in order to certify your installation as CAT6 compliant. You may also want to take a good look at the TIA-569-B standard as well since it speaks to the requirements for the conduit, cable tray and other supporting infrastructure that will affect the performance of your network as well. There are some things in life that you just can't overcome with a faster, more expensive, Cisco switch. This should go a long way in helping you better understand where to "go for the definitive number" you seek. After that, I would recommend looking at the www.bicsi.org web site and seek out some formal training on the topic as well.
FZ-RDNZL (talk) 16:40, 23 March 2010 (UTC)
The truth is there isn't no "definitive number". A statement of "this cable is suitable for frequencies up to xMHz" isn't really very meaningful on it's own. To be meaningful such a statement has to also state what performance characteristics have to be maintained over what length of cable at that frequency. Plugwash (talk) 01:45, 28 February 2013 (UTC)
there is a definitive number and it is Defined in the TIA 568 documents. standards define the minimum requirement to meet a performance of a system. When we put a system together, we need a way of grading the performance of that system. TIA 568-C is how we install a system to make that grade. Deckerjwd (talk) 20:12, 23 April 2014 (UTC)

CAT6a vs. CAT6A

Chrisblitz357 and 196.211.71.25 have changed to upper case. Sources [1], [2], [3] indicate that CAT6A is correct. ~KvnG 15:49, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

Connector standard

Is it possible to get sources for information on the connector standards? Very little is specified in terms of the differences between Cat5E and Cat6 connectors, beside the line that a modular plug is used (more specific info required) and that it isn't standards compliant. Perhaps some material from IEC 60603-7-4 as compared with IEC 60603-7-2? --Growly (talk) 22:48, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

There isn't a real difference between Cat-5e and Cat-6 compatible connectors, although Cat-6a compatible connectors will not seat smaller cables effectively due to the larger gauges of the individual wires.dunerat (talk) 15:41, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

The plug and pin outs are the same so long as one uses the T568A standard for CAT 6 cables. The wires are thicker and you can run longer length with less signal loss. 6A should also be shielding so it can handle high frequencies with less interference. The difference between CAT 5E, CAT 6 and CAT 6A is speed not pins and plugs. However Cat 7 is NOT compatible with any CAT 5 or 6 version. CAT 5E handles 100 MHz, CAT 6 250 MHz, CAT 6A 500 MHz. Cat 5 "patch" cables (of up to 150 feet) often use only 26 AWG. 23 AWG is most common for CAT 6 and CAT 6A cables.

All can handle 1 Gbps connections but for longer runs use CAT 6 rated 23 AWG wires. CAT 6A is only needed for future ready installations where you never want to replace the wires in the next few decades or have 300 foot runs and will need shielded higher AWG cables to avoid crosstalk. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.46.242.118 (talk) 21:32, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

Twists per inch?

How many twists should each pair of wires have per inch? Should each of the four pairs use a different frequency of twists to avoid crosstalk? Do the twisted pairs themselves need to be twisted? WilliamKF (talk) 21:37, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

In theory they should be slightly different but the exact twists per foot should not matter and manufacturers know what is a reasonable rotation for their wire without over stressing the metal and copper coated aluminum or solid copper wire cables thus probably have a different twists per foot then threaded cables. Each pair is twisted separately and then combined later in the process. Most cables are made in 1000 foot runs since that is longer then any are rated for and you will be cutting them down during installation anyway. They may then be cut shorter after final manufacturing or made into shorter "patch" cables with molded ends. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.46.242.118 (talk) 21:46, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

I'm not sure if the standards specify how many twists per metre per pair in the cable should be used, I think the manufacturer can use as many or as few as they like so long as it meets the assorted electrical standards (bandwidth, impedence, crosstalk, etc) for that category of cable. Each pair definitely has a different number of twists per metre, and has since Cat 5e, and typically the whole lot of them are twisted to some extent, although not necessarily (i believe this is an effect of the manucaturing process, since cables with had pplstic internals, for example, are usually held in place rather than twisted together.dunerat (talk) 23:07, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

Future Standards?

Is their an new category standard planned since cat6? If so, a link would be nice. What about wiring 12VDC (for digital appliance) along the house? Any upcoming idea to standardize that? Juiceman74 (talk) 07:54, 20 December 2015 (UTC)


What maximum bandwidth is supported?

173.32.1.177 (talk) 00:17, 12 April 2016 (UTC) Hz? bps? they are the same. If you are transferring data at 1,000,000 bps or 1Mbps the frequency would also be be 1MHz. 173.32.1.177 (talk) 00:17, 12 April 2016 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure the bandwidth is 550 mhz not 250 mhz. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.92.160.28 (talk • contribs)

Although some cable manufacturers may provide (or claim to provide) cables capable of transmitting very high-frequency signals, the Cat 6 specification (TIA/EIA-568.B.2-1) specifies transmission requirements only within the range of 1MHz-250MHz. dpotter 20:16, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

Could someone translate this into layman's terms? How many Mbps is 250Mhz, and how does this relate to carrying Gigabit Ethernet (such as 1000-Base-T) signals? 4.239.48.201 (talk) 14:36, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

4.349.48.201 Mbps and bandwidth are not the same. The cable has a bandwidth, which is the maximum operating frequencies of the signals. To send a number of digital bits, it will need to be converted into a signal. This is why we have 'CAT 5', CAT 5e and CAT 6 cable, and 10BASE-T, 100BASE-T and 1000BASE-T. See Ethernet 62.190.112.2 (talk) 11:31, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Category 6 cable. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 05:46, 17 November 2016 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Category 6 cable. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 19:30, 22 April 2017 (UTC)

Mixing 568A and 568B

I find this statement somewhat dubious:

Mixing T568A-terminated patch cords with T568B-terminated horizontal cables (or the reverse) does not produce pinout problems in a facility. Although it may very slightly degrade signal quality, this effect is marginal and certainly no greater than that produced by mixing cable brands in-channel.

Why would switching between 568A and 568B cables in a run make any difference at all in terms of signal quality? The only difference between the two is the data pairs are swapped colorwise, but the signal has no way of knowing what color insulation the wire it's running through has. Of course, just connecting two patch cables together may result in some signal degradation, but that should be irrespective of what types of cables are on either side of the connection, no? Guido del Confuso (talk) 00:21, 5 September 2008 (UTC)


-The only difference is that the pairs have a different amount of twists, making each pair a slightly different length and level of interference (cross talk), but in all my years testing cables, I have never seen a measurable performance difference between the pairs.

In my experience, 568B is the accepted standard in industry for Ethernet Cat5/6. I've never seen any commercial patch cables that use 568A, and don't know of any wireman who would wire a panel to 568A. On most sites it would be considered wrongly wired if it were done that way. --Anteaus (talk) 05:33, 25 April 2018 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Category_6_cable/Archive_1&oldid=1142940015"