# CAT 7 shielding update required to code ?



## phasecheck (Sep 28, 2016)

Hi people.

CAT 7 has a double shielded construction to reduce crosstalk and EMI.

is it possible that standards will be updated to reflect this ?

standards used to specify cable separation between power and CAT 5 / CAT 6 cabling will not be applicable in real world terms if using CAT 7.

If using separate conduit , theory says CAT 7 could be run alot closer than the standard currently allows.

What is the future of codes here ?


----------



## splatz (May 23, 2015)

Seeing as RG6 quad shield hasn't caused any code changes in the 15 years or so that it's been popular, I doubt double shielded Cat 7 will, especially since it's never going to catch on. Cat 6 is already overkill, demand for 10GB to the desktop has not materialized, and there's little reason to believe it. 

When that demand does materialize, it will probably make more sense to run fiber to the desktop. If a simplified termination method develops, that would kill Cat 7 instantly, but fiber is really probably a better buy with current termination methods.


----------



## wildleg (Apr 12, 2009)

if the manufacturers don't upgrade the jacket to something higher than 300volts, it is unlikely (IMO) that the code will make any exceptions for it. Why should they ?


----------



## B-Nabs (Jun 4, 2014)

I don't know what your standard is in Australia, but in these parts, if run in separate metallic conduit, power and data don't need separation. It is often in the specs, but not in the code (unless I am grossly mistaken). Cable tray and other open schemes are a different matter. But if both the power and data cables are in their own metallic conduits, they are effectively shielded from one another.


----------



## splatz (May 23, 2015)

wildleg said:


> if the manufacturers don't upgrade the jacket to something higher than 300volts, it is unlikely (IMO) that the code will make any exceptions for it. Why should they ?


There are jackets that are rated for 600V, Rockwell makes Cat 5 cables with that rating for example. 

However I think the OP was talking about the separation outside of raceways and enclosures. I think the NEC is still at 2" except for keeping 6' from the GES when possible to prevent flashover, but the TIA / EIA standards want more with romex and other NM. 

He's saying it doesn't need to be as far with Cat7 because of the double shield so maybe the standards will change.


----------



## emtnut (Mar 1, 2015)

phasecheck said:


> Hi people.
> 
> CAT 7 has a double shielded construction to reduce crosstalk and EMI.
> 
> ...


Nope .... The extra shielding was tested at standard separation. The signal would be degraded if it was run closer ....

Nice try though 

And I'm with Splatz ..... can't see Cat7 taking off anytime soon !
Fiber to the house .... and in it .. is the future


----------



## Big John (May 23, 2010)

I don't think separation requirements have anything to do with crosstalk: They are to reduce the possibility that a fault could introduce power into a communications circuit. So no amount of shielding will reduce that separation, however guarding and armoring might be expected to.


----------



## splatz (May 23, 2015)

Big John said:


> I don't think separation requirements have anything to do with crosstalk: They are to reduce the possibility that a fault could introduce power into a communications circuit. So no amount of shielding will reduce that separation, however guarding and armoring might be expected to.


I agree, the NEC is mainly about safety not communications performance. (We can all point to many examples of perfectly NEC compliant installs that have awful communications problems.) The TIA/EIA requirements are for performance. 

The twist and the shielding between the pairs within the Cat 7 cable is the real protection from crosstalk.


----------



## Majewski (Jan 8, 2016)

Fiber to the home!!!!!!


----------



## splatz (May 23, 2015)

https://fiber.google.com/about/


----------



## Nukie Poo (Sep 3, 2012)

splatz said:


> https://fiber.google.com/about/




Limited market experiments. Don't hold your breath.


----------



## LGLS (Nov 10, 2007)

Since 2006 I was a Verizon FIOS subscriber, fiber to the home providing interactive digital HD cable TV, telephone (2 lines) and internet, including a wireless 4-port router. Prior to that I had the same services from the local cable provider, but television picture freezes and pixilization were a problem. I just switched back for 2 reasons.

Despite the awesome fiber speed capabilities, in reality they choke your internet speeds because their overall system capabilities cannot actually provide each customer advertised speeds at all times.

And the total monthly bill ended up almost double the cost of the cable company. 

Now that I've switched back, I have zero problems with the services, the internet speed is fast enough for me, Their multi-room DVR is standard equipment, and my bill is much lower.


----------

