| reply to TheSMJ
Re: Should I run RG6 or skip it? If your running cable, do it right. Run cat5 or cat6 along with triple shielded rg6. Run more than you need. It never hurts to put in a media panel. |
|
| reply to Critsmcgee
Avoid splitters |
|
lutful... of ideasPremium
join:2005-06-16
Ottawa, ON Reviews:
 ·TekSavvy DSL
2 edits | reply to TheSMJ
said by TheSMJ:If RG6-to-CAT6 adapters existed I'd just use those, but I haven't been able to find any so I'm assuming they don't. Search for MoCA. RG6 has enough bandwidth to support gigabit Ethernet. If you really want to future-proof, run optical fiber and wait for affordable residential "cable-over-fiber" adapters. My new company has developed such a product and I am sure other companies will have them soon. There are also "antenna-over-fiber" for bringing free-to-air stuff to your TV/computer. *** Here are some articles showing all kinds of services that can run over good quality coax cable. Seems you could run even 10G Ethernet in near future while watching TV from same cable.  » www.mocalliance.org/news/HFC_Acc···0da469cc» www.lightreading.com/fttx/china-···40146955 |
|
|
|
Reviews:
 ·Verizon FiOS
| reply to ric
said by ric:Avoid splitters
Splitters are fine as long as your not using more then one or two per run. Knowledge is power so as long as you understand how they work there's nothing wrong with using them. |
|
Reviews:
·Verizon FiOS
| reply to alkizmo
said by alkizmo:And if you find a house you like and it is not wired, you can't demand it to be wired (at least, in my local realestate market). It's more lucrative to negotiate over the price and not over the wiring. The wiring is the price negotiation. No wiring means you can reduce the price whether they like it or not. Will they let the deal fall though over $500? I doubt it. In the end no wiring can cost you money. Based on that who would argue that it doesn't affect the sale? |
|
 PoloDudePremium,VIP
join:2006-03-29
Northport, NY
kudos:3 | reply to Critsmcgee
said by Critsmcgee:said by ric:Avoid splitters
Splitters are fine as long as your not using more then one or two per run. Knowledge is power so as long as you understand how they work there's nothing wrong with using them. No,NO,NO I will tell you right now that putting in splitters in new construction is a last resort. You put in splitters when you can't run an additional coax.
--
“My horse fights with me and fasts with me because if he is to carry me into battle, he must know my heart and I must know his or we shall never become brothers.
-Plenty Coups, Chief of the Crow” |
|
Reviews:
·Verizon FiOS
3 edits | said by PoloDude:said by Critsmcgee:said by ric:Avoid splitters
Splitters are fine as long as your not using more then one or two per run. Knowledge is power so as long as you understand how they work there's nothing wrong with using them. No,NO,NO I will tell you right now that putting in splitters in new construction is a last resort. You put in splitters when you can't run an additional coax. said by TheSMJ:My current house (built in 1959) Who's talking about new construction besides you? OP is old construction!
A home run for the internet is all that really matters. TV's are fine off splitters. You have a minimum of 2 splitters in the house. The cable company brings in ONE connection so you need a splitter or tap to run internet to one side and cable to the other. Next you need a splitter to deliver cable to every room. That's just how it works. You know that if you install FIOS. You also know it's fine to split the cable connection after that once maybe twice depending on the length of the run and have no ill effects on the TV viewing experience. It's not ideal but most people aren't trying to optimize their TV's by tweaking them to get a few more DB's to look cool. It either works or it doesn't at the end of the day. |
|
 alkizmo
join:2007-06-25
Pierrefonds, QC
kudos:1 | reply to Critsmcgee
said by Critsmcgee:said by alkizmo:And if you find a house you like and it is not wired, you can't demand it to be wired (at least, in my local realestate market). It's more lucrative to negotiate over the price and not over the wiring. The wiring is the price negotiation. No wiring means you can reduce the price whether they like it or not. Will they let the deal fall though over $500? I doubt it. In the end no wiring can cost you money. Based on that who would argue that it doesn't affect the sale? It is still a gamble. You would Spend a couple of hundred dollars now for something you won't use in order to maybe not have to discount a multihundred dollars house price by a few hundred bucks.
I have never seen negotiations go like that (asking a lowered price because a luxury feature is not present). I am not saying it never happens, but it must be rare, and I mostly underwrite mortgages for old houses (guaranteed not to have that stuff). |
|
Reviews:
·Verizon FiOS
| said by alkizmo:said by Critsmcgee:said by alkizmo:And if you find a house you like and it is not wired, you can't demand it to be wired (at least, in my local realestate market). It's more lucrative to negotiate over the price and not over the wiring. The wiring is the price negotiation. No wiring means you can reduce the price whether they like it or not. Will they let the deal fall though over $500? I doubt it. In the end no wiring can cost you money. Based on that who would argue that it doesn't affect the sale? It is still a gamble. You would Spend a couple of hundred dollars now for something you won't use in order to maybe not have to discount a multihundred dollars house price by a few hundred bucks. I have never seen negotiations go like that (asking a lowered price because a luxury feature is not present). I am not saying it never happens, but it must be rare, and I mostly underwrite mortgages for old houses (guaranteed not to have that stuff). The OP's house is from 1959 and it will have it. Mine is from 1960 and it has it. Are you talking about houses older then that? My parent's in law have a 1930's house with it. Everything with property is a gamble. Just because you spend $100,000 on addition doesn't mean the new addition is worth $100,000. You might only see $50,000 return. Once upon a time coax was a luxury item but with everything online it's no longer in that category. There's where people are confused. I don't know anyone who doesn't have internet. Maybe it's different in Canada. |
|
alkizmo
join:2007-06-25
Pierrefonds, QC
kudos:1 | said by Critsmcgee:The OP's house is from 1959 and it will have it. Mine is from 1960 and it has it. Are you talking about houses older then that? My house is from 1964 and it doesn't have it.
said by Critsmcgee:Once upon a time coax was a luxury item but with everything online it's no longer in that category. There's where people are confused. I don't know anyone who doesn't have internet. Maybe it's different in Canada.
Back in the 90s and early '00s, people did care about CATV being in every room. That's why older houses had it added later on.
However, as you said, it's a lot less important now because of bedroom TVs being replaced by bedroom laptops 
That's why I said it's a luxury, because while we still use it, it is not important anymore.
With HDTV cable providers forcing you to pay an extra monthly fee for additional HDTV boxes per household. People just limit cable TV to one or two TV and everything else is on the computer.
said by Critsmcgee:Just because you spend $100,000 on addition doesn't mean the new addition is worth $100,000. You might only see $50,000 return. You spend 100,000$ on a house at the risk of only getting 50,000$ back only because you want to enjoy the upgrades yourself before selling.
OP doesn't need CATV, so it's a loss. He'll install CATV, never use it for years, and by the time he sells the house, people will see the CATV outlets are an eye sore like we do for telephone jacks (useless, ripped out and patched next time they paint a room).
We're missing the entire point here though.
The OP doesn't need CATV, but he wants to use the opportunity while his walls are open. He should compromise by spending the same amount of $$$ on getting conduits to fewer, but key, locations instead of wiring CATV to every room. |
|
| reply to PoloDude
said by PoloDude:No,NO,NO I will tell you right now that putting in splitters in new construction is a last resort. You put in splitters when you can't run an additional coax. Quite correct!
Basic rule of in building distribution, home run all drops to the point of distribution and only when no other run is possible, split an existing drop. |
|
nonymousPremium
join:2003-09-08
Glendale, AZ Reviews:
 ·Callcentric
| reply to TheSMJ
The OP doesnt want it now but maybe in the future a wife, girlfriend, kids, a pet dog may. After the fact installations can be easy or hard. Look ok or be way messy with wire visible everywhere. Built in now it will be neat and clean. Install it to the most logical places a TV would go. It will never be as easy later unless another remodel. |
|
