Wired CAT6 or Wireless; pros and cons -help 1

[tmckeown]

My boss is driving me nuts. Our company is moving into a new facility. We've gutted the buildings and are getting ready to purchase new phone and data products. My plan was to use CAT6 for each computer connection, so we could eventually use gigabit bandwidth. My boss doesn't want to run any cables. He feels that wireless is the wave of the future and that within two years, no one will have wired computers. I try to point out the bandwidth, security, and compatability differences between wired and wireless, but it's falling on deaf ears. We have 100 computers in our network and 8 win2003 servers, including an Exchange server. We are a split 50/50 between MAC and PC.

Can anyone point me to documentation that might back up my claims, or set me straight?

Thanks for the help.

 

[mforrence]

1. Hard cabled connections are generally more robust and reliable compared to wireless.
2. Wired is not subject to RF/EMI influence.
3. Common wireless bandwidth is 54MB with good connection - slower if not good signal.
4. Most wireless access points act more like an ethernet hub than ethernet switch - generally you don't have the same level of "switching fabric" between ports.
5. Some devices (fax, modem) will require a cable.
6. Spectralink has some fine wireless IP phones that work quite well, if you build the core network correctly. They generally cost two to three times that of a normal business desk telephone. Wireless voice over IP requires special attention to Quality of Service (QoS)
7. Privacy is a concern. Encription is readily available, but it requires processing power.

My personal preference is to use wired where you can, and wireless where you can't. Especially if the building is gutted. And you'll still need "wired" to all of the access points... Good luck
MIKE

 

[tmckeown]

Those are all great points Mike. I'm not opposed to wireless at all. My plan is to use Cisco access points in all buildings that can handle the Spectralink IP phones. But, where I can run cable, I want to. These guys I work with have a consumer "home" mentality; a few Apple Airport base stations, and everything works. Our company has grown, but the mindset hasn't.

I'd welcome more input. If anyone is using mostly wireless, I would be interested in hearing about it.

 

[skip555]

your going to pull wire fro voice right ?

probably a voice line everywhere a data line would go right?

dual drops are not twice the price of single (shouldnt be anywhere near it )

a whole lot easier (cheaper ) to wire now then to have to do it later once everything is built and in operation.

if it turns out that wireless works for you you can always use the cable for voice .

 

[tmckeown]

Good point. If they already stub down the wall with a conduit for phone, why not run a CAT6 cable too?

 

[skip555]

well I would run the cat 6 for voice and data or maybe a cat5e and a cat6

we dont evan carry cat3 anymore everything we do is cat5e or 6

 

[wires]

Cost the job both ways.

Don't forget the wireless cards for the 100 PCs that already have wired networking built in. Add in some wireless troubleshooting tools. You will need them.

Be sure to give a figure for cost per Mb of total network bandwidth for both wired and wireless.

The cost savings for wired should point out the folly of their thinking.

If the phones are going to be wired there is little reason not to go ahead and add the network drops. The big cost in wiring is the time to pull and support the cables. That cost will be about the same for phones only or phones and network.

The market value of new construction/renovation without standard wiring is bound to be less.

 

[Jtodd]

Also, don't forget that a wireless access point needs a cable to connect to (unless you're looking at a mesh wireless network, then you can through the cost savings out the window), so not only are you running cable for phone but also for access points.
Also, if your boss thinks everything is going to be wireless in two years, head either high or delutional. Right now, we have 98% of our interior building space covered with wireless, as well as about 10% outdoor space (on a university campus). So essentially, we've already got wireless everywhere. But we're going to be installing cable to every outlet as long as I'm here, and I've got a long way to go before I retire. With the mentioned reliability issues, wireless is considered an overlay and a convinience on our network. NOTHING mission critical runs over the wireless.
Installing a wireless only network is going to give you nothing but a headache trying to make it work, then a backache when you have to install cable 6 months down the line.

Justin T. Clausen
Physical Layer Implementation
California State University, Monterey Bay

 

[ISDNman]

Wired, with a certified cabling has Guaranteed bandwidth.

Wireless, like *any* unlicensed shared-bandwidth Radio system is best effort. The analogy is the difference between doing your whole facility with Ethernet hubs vs using switches.

What happens when the other tenants in the building put in some sort of device that hsares the same RF frequencies.

Think cordless phones. Every few years they migrate to a new RF band and they work fine till that band fills up. Then they work sucky. With codlesss phones it is pretty obvious when thhey are working pooorly. With wirelss networking it is not so obvious - it will slow down and certain apps may act weirldy.

Here is how you may want to make the point to the boss. Each unlicensed device such as a WAP says right on it "this device must accept interference if generated by other equipment". And this WILL happen, it is just a matter of "when" and "how badly".


Good luck

 

[youcandoit]

Wired is not subject to RF/EMI influence. "

maybe in bizarro land wired cables arent subject to emi's.if the cables are installed improperly (near florescent ballast, wrapped around romex wiring, etc) it will be affected by emi's..unless of course you go with STP.

three reason to hard wire.
1. the building is gutted and ready to install new cabling, installing two cables now does not incure double the cost. most of the cost is associated with the labor.
2. wireless security or lack there of
3. bandwitdh limitations. at best you can get 104mb which is a 2 channel bridged wifi connection.

if you install 1 cat 6 and go Cisco VoIP you can plug the computers into the 7960/7940. I would however install no less than 2 cables per location.

Most of this was already stated. I just wanted to chime in also.

 

[mforrence]

youcandoit - you're right about RF/EMI. Lack of "Edit" function lets stupid comments live forever. I should have said "less vulnerable"...
MIKE

 

[tmckeown]

Thanks for all the input.
I go into the meeting to convince him within the hour. Wish me success.

 

[Jtodd]

On RF interferance for wireless....when working at home, leaching off my neighbores AP (802.11b, 2.4Ghz), I loose connection when ever the phone rings (2.4Ghz cordless) or the microwave (2.4Ghz nuker) turns on. So I made my self a 30' patch cord that I drag through the kitchen, dining room, and living room and no long use wireless at home.
It took a particular bag of popcorn one night to figure it out.

Justin T. Clausen
Physical Layer Implementation
California State University, Monterey Bay

 

[ISDNman]

I have two different 2.4 gHz phone systems that are worthless. Sadly I have been unable to link it to anything like the microwave, or the wireless network.

On this summers to-do list is to put in a better wirded phone system.

Luckily my wireless networks are reasonable well behaved, though the client I use to connect to email at work does balk about some network problem periodically.

Also, to elaborate on Youcandoit's comment: Wired is not fundamentally (e.g. by design) subject to RFI/EMI. If it is installed correctly it is highly unlikely to have those problems, and if it does, they can generally be adressed (and even at high power radio station transmitter sites ripping our UTP and rewiring with STP is rarely needed to solve it).

This is in stark contrast to wireless, which by design (e.g. unlicensed operation) subject to these issues. Also there is a high degree of unpredicability and lack of control - If a wired network jack stops working when a flourescent light is installed you know what happended. If it stops working because some other tenant 2 stories down got a cordless phone you don't even know where to begin.

Good luck tmckeown .

 

[wires]

> If it stops working because some other tenant 2 stories down
> got a cordless phone you don't even know where to begin.

You begin with a spectrum analyzer and a directional antenna.

Expensive and time consuming...

 

[youcandoit]

good answer wires. you are the man.

 

[ISDNman]

Wires,

Yeah, of course. But unlike licensed communications you still may be able to do anything about it even once you have identified the cuplrit.

I only wish I had a spectrum analyzer to solve my 2.4 GHz phone problem (the cheapo thing I got on ebay won't run on any windows computer I tried it on, but it didn't come with directional antenna anyway). I do have a freind that has one and may tempt him to come over for dinner and bring it.

But much like the original poster, why not just use wired for my phones - my house is prewired cat 5 and jacks in every room.

That said, I only have 1 cat 5 to each room, so I am pleased that the wireless network works much better than the cordless phone so I don't need to fish wires (other than the AC power I need to fish to several places).

 

[Servamatic]

One final note on wireless...

I would use PLC before I would rely on wireless...A quote from Intellon's web site ...

As a result, the return rate for PLC-based products averages less than 2% - compared with 30% for wireless network equipment.

Full article -

http://www.intellon.com/technology/powerlinecommunications.php

Nearly 1 out of 3 wireless products is returned to the store, now thats something to hang your corporate hat on.

Granted, most of those returns are out of frustration, but it will be a long time before wireless works half as well as wired.

Richard S. Anderson, RCDD

http://www.servamatic.net

 

[krstopher]

You must help your boss understand,

How about a demonstration? Take a good-sized file, 30Mg or so, copy it from one computer to another over a 54Mbps wireless link and also over a wired 100 Mbps link. The difference will be dramatic, 10 to 25 times faster. Your 54 Mbps wireless link has a lot of overhead, more if you want to use encryption.

 

[daronwilson]

While Power Line Communications certainly is an option, I'm not ready to throw wireless out the door because it's competitor's web site touts a 30% return rate. This is a wonderful old trick with statistics in this case used by in favor of the PLC sales by the PLC salesman.

The PLC site above claims the devices offer 'up to 14mbs' which is a fair amount of throughput.

Has anyone deployed this technology in a small office? Any idea how it costs compared to a wireless install? I've done several wireless installs, curious if anyone has really put this stuff out there, I've never seen it in the field.



Daron J. Wilson, RCDD