# substituting phone line with cat5/6?



## backstay

I've never run anything but cat5 or cat6 as communication wiring.


----------



## splatz

When you install cable it makes more sense to me to consider that cable something that might be used for different things, because over time it probably will. Cat 5 or cat 6 is more versatile than old fashioned quad or etc. because it can be used for phone, or network, or even to extend HDMI. For what the cable costs it's really not worth considering anything below cat 5.


----------



## 3DDesign

Minimum for avoiding cross talk is Cat3.


----------



## HackWork

cdoublejj said:


> Does anyone have any thoughts on substituting phone line with cat5/6.
> 
> lately for my cabling jobs i've been sourcing cable on amazon, it took for ever before it finally started suggesting "phone installation cable" because it's search decided security alarm wire was more aptly suited for "phone line" and "4 conductor"
> 
> Then i got to thinking doesn't cat 5 and 6 reduce cross talk? Why not just sue that instead and use one wire from each pair? would that be better than trying to source 4 wire, solid core NON CCA shielded phone line? especially considering i already have the cat 5 and 6.
> 
> Normally i can find info on ethernet and crosstalk just fine but, phone cabling seems to require a just bit more than average google fu so i figured i'd just ask.
> 
> any opinions on the best phone line that can be used or do guys think i'm on the right track?


Tell your customers it's 2017. Plug the wireless base station into the modem and put the 2-6 wireless handsets anywhere that they want them. :thumbup:


----------



## cdoublejj

Thanks for all the awesome answers guys!


----------



## active1

The only reason I had 4 conductor phone cable was to make repairs or rework to existing. It was easier being red, black, yellow, green splicing the old to the new and back again, especially if more than 1 person working on it.

I would guess there is no savings buying 4 conductor or cat 3 vs cat5e.
Cat5 you can get plenty about anywhere.

Plus it can be re-purposed later for internet, internet phone, or something else.

It's gotten where I see cat5 used for everything from doorbells, intercoms, gate controls, door controls, LED lighting, etc.. Not saying it's right, I have replaced some of it. Just that some have the idea that cat5 is the universal do all cable now.


----------



## Buck Parrish

Yep, less interference with cat 5-6.

Something about each pair being twisted 5 times per inch, or 6. The shielding is good, too. 
The wave is smaller...


----------



## jw0445

Buck Parrish said:


> Yep, less interference with cat 5-6.
> 
> Something about each pair being twisted 5 times per inch, or 6. The shielding is good, too.
> The wave is smaller...


Here is what you were kind of referencing

Ever notice that some of the twisted pairs are easier to un-ravel? There is a reason for that. If adjacent pairs have an equivalent twist rate or pitch, the same wires of each pair could be next to each other for the entire run, negating differential signaling. In order to prevent that, Ethernet cable manufacturers use different twist rates (courtesy of Wikipedia):


Pair color
[cm] per turn
Turns per [m]

Blue
1.38
72

Green
1.53
65

Orange
1.78
56

Brown
1.94
52


----------



## Pete E

cdoublejj said:


> Does anyone have any thoughts on substituting phone line with cat5/6.
> 
> lately for my cabling jobs i've been sourcing cable on amazon, it took for ever before it finally started suggesting "phone installation cable" because it's search decided security alarm wire was more aptly suited for "phone line" and "4 conductor"
> 
> Then i got to thinking doesn't cat 5 and 6 reduce cross talk? Why not just sue that instead and use one wire from each pair? would that be better than trying to source 4 wire, solid core NON CCA shielded phone line? especially considering i already have the cat 5 and 6.
> 
> Normally i can find info on ethernet and crosstalk just fine but, phone cabling seems to require a just bit more than average google fu so i figured i'd just ask.
> 
> any opinions on the best phone line that can be used or do guys think i'm on the right track?


I don't know anything about the American phone network, but from working on the Brit network, I know that cross talk is often induced external to the customers premises.

I am not saying Cat5 or Cat6 cable is not a good idea, but it may not eliminate all your cross talk issues.


----------



## splatz

cdoublejj said:


> Then i got to thinking doesn't cat 5 and 6 reduce cross talk? *Why not just sue that instead and use one wire from each pair? *would that be better than trying to source 4 wire, solid core NON CCA shielded phone line? especially considering i already have the cat 5 and 6.


I missed that bold part in the OP - don't get creative  Just use the blue pair. Splitting pairs would be a bad idea.


----------



## paulengr

CAT 3 was originally designed AS business phone wire (4 lines), one of the others (CAT 1 or 2) wax 4 wire phone line. The red and green pair carried the phone call. The black and yellow pair carried 90 VAC for ringers. The ringer power was done away with long ago. CAT 3 was repurposed as 10 MBPS Ethernet cable as a cheaper alternative to thick and later thin ((ciax) cable and usually you could repurpose office phone lines. When 100 MBPS Ethernet came out it was believed that CAT 3 would still work. Sometimes it did, sometimes not. So CAT 5 came out to fix that. CAT 5E is just fixing some ambiguity (which fused some cheap but defective cable) in the CAT 5 spec. Up to this point all of them use the phone RJ-45 connector which is good enough for 250 MHz. CAT 6 pushes the cable from 100 to 250 MHz but NO Ethernet standard takes advantage of it. The 1 GBPS standard works just fine of CAT 5. The 10 GBPS standard won't work on either one for more than very short distances because it needs a better connector. So CAT 6 is basically a waste of money because nothing supports it and CAT 5 is good enough. 

So going backwards and using CAT 5 with it's 100 MHz bandwidth for a 4 KHz phone call works fine with just one pair and you have 2 more as spares. It's a balanced signal so use pairs of the same color such as blue/blue-white.


Sent from my SM-T350 using Tapatalk


----------



## Ty Wrapp

My last 10 years at AT&T all I installed was cat5e.


----------



## active1

At the local lowes the only Cat 5e they have in a box is the telephone tan.


----------



## Pete E

paulengr said:


> CAT 3 was originally designed AS business phone wire (4 lines), one of the others (CAT 1 or 2) wax 4 wire phone line. The red and green pair carried the phone call. The black and yellow pair carried 90 VAC for ringers. The ringer power was done away with long ago. CAT 3 was repurposed as 10 MBPS Ethernet cable as a cheaper alternative to thick and later thin ((ciax) cable and usually you could repurpose office phone lines. When 100 MBPS Ethernet came out it was believed that CAT 3 would still work. Sometimes it did, sometimes not. So CAT 5 came out to fix that. CAT 5E is just fixing some ambiguity (which fused some cheap but defective cable) in the CAT 5 spec. Up to this point all of them use the phone RJ-45 connector which is good enough for 250 MHz. CAT 6 pushes the cable from 100 to 250 MHz but NO Ethernet standard takes advantage of it. The 1 GBPS standard works just fine of CAT 5. The 10 GBPS standard won't work on either one for more than very short distances because it needs a better connector. So CAT 6 is basically a waste of money because nothing supports it and CAT 5 is good enough.


You can get Cat6 rated RJ45 plugs, patch panels and the other items needed if you want to take advantage of the enhanced speeds, but I don't see it having any application for domestic use??

You also can get Power over Ethernet (PoE) where by power is delivered over a signal pair of the Cat cabling...There are various systems in us and they are typically used to power CCTV cameras, VoIP and similar.

The voltages used are typically between 44V and 67V and they are rated to q max of just under an 1amp. 

If you are working on a LAN you need to know if its present as it can be enough to fry certain test equipment like pair mappers or tracer tone sets you might be using...


----------



## bostonPedro

I have not used phone line in over 15 plus years first using Cat 3 and then Cat 5

The future is wireless anyway but as far as home wiring goes Verizon is running fiber optic to homes where your modem back feeds your phone lines so the copper wire really wont matter that much when that technology reaches your area because the only thing dependent on that copper wire will be your phone but until then use Cat 5e


----------



## CTshockhazard

Probably been long enough now that I'd consider the cat3 as the "substitute". :biggrin:


----------



## Rora

The category ratings designate the speed/distance it's rated to, not so much the twist ratio although that is part of the overall specification. Pairs are twisted to improve balanced noise rejection and to reduce the EMR produced by the pair itself. Additional shielding is available for industrial environments. Other than that there's nothing special about it, it can be used for lots of things assuming the conductor and insulation is correct... might just not be very cost effective.


----------



## cdoublejj

you guys all probably know all this but, for those who may not....

you need metal keystone jacks for cat6a (search amazon)


the big difference i noticed between 5e and 6a was the amount of shielding. SFTP 6a, at least what i've been using comes with an out grounded braid, drain wire and shielding foil, then each twisted pair has it's foil shield as well, also grounded to the prior mentioned shielding and braiding.

i then started looking up cat 7 cable and it's basically the same thing 6a SFTP that i've been using, maybe finer or coarser twisting and maybe thicker conductors etc etc but, shielding that mentioned is standard for cat 7!

Where as my direct burial cat 6a, is single drain wire and outer shielding foil but, the twisted pairs are not separately shielded like the 6a i previously mentioned, instead it has plastic straw that separates and spaces out the 4 twisted pairs.

So to conclude, _the shielding is key!_ That shielding isn't work squat without a metal keystone jack! Your jumper cable to the 10gb NIC will also need to have shielded jack/plug/end as well. The ends i have specifically instruct soldering the drain wire to the shield on the plug.

also SFP+ ethernet transceivers are pretty well shielded and grounded to.


P.S. WIRELESS is a fickle load of crap, _"oh nooooo, please no! Not a WALL!"_ 2,4 band also craps out anywhere near a functioning microwave, 5ghz has limited range. Brick, heavy power, dense insulation.... what ever.

keystone jacks where possible wifi for the mobile devices.


----------



## MDShunk

cdoublejj said:


> keystone jacks where possible wifi for the mobile devices.


That's your opinion. I work in a plant of nearly a million square feet, and I get online with any PLC in the place, over wifi, from anywhere on the property.


----------



## gnuuser

cdoublejj said:


> you guys all probably know all this but, for those who may not....
> 
> you need metal keystone jacks for cat6a (search amazon)
> 
> 
> the big difference i noticed between 5e and 6a was the amount of shielding. SFTP 6a, at least what i've been using comes with an out grounded braid, drain wire and shielding foil, then each twisted pair has it's foil shield as well, also grounded to the prior mentioned shielding and braiding.
> 
> i then started looking up cat 7 cable and it's basically the same thing 6a SFTP that i've been using, maybe finer or coarser twisting and maybe thicker conductors etc etc but, shielding that mentioned is standard for cat 7!
> 
> Where as my direct burial cat 6a, is single drain wire and outer shielding foil but, the twisted pairs are not separately shielded like the 6a i previously mentioned, instead it has plastic straw that separates and spaces out the 4 twisted pairs.
> 
> So to conclude, _the shielding is key!_ That shielding isn't work squat without a metal keystone jack! Your jumper cable to the 10gb NIC will also need to have shielded jack/plug/end as well. The ends i have specifically instruct soldering the drain wire to the shield on the plug.
> 
> also SFP+ ethernet transceivers are pretty well shielded and grounded to.
> 
> 
> P.S. WIRELESS is a fickle load of crap, _"oh nooooo, please no! Not a WALL!"_ 2,4 band also craps out anywhere near a functioning microwave, 5ghz has limited range. Brick, heavy power, dense insulation.... what ever.
> 
> keystone jacks where possible wifi for the mobile devices.


regardless of if you use metal keystone jack or plastic with a grounding pigtail shielding must be grounded at one end only (preferably closest to the power source)
grounding it at both ends makes it a current carrying conductor and will negate the purpose of the shield.

you would not believe how many people fail to do this and end up with network noise issues.
and in the case of sensitive plc/slc systems erratic communication and induced signals could mean equipment damage and personnel injuries.


----------



## gnuuser

Jackolink said:


> **deleted**


using cat 6 for phone communication is fine 
the shielding if grounded properly will eliminate virtually all noise from the line starting from the demarcation through to the phone jack terminal.
and can be used for network as well


----------



## volleyball

I have a box of cat3 and it exceeds any needs of POTS. Anything more is overkill. Use something better rated if it is cheaper or just what you have.
Anyone who says move onto newer tech really doesn't get it. It is what someone wants. you use what you want, and let them use what they want.
I've been doing this for enough decades that better isn't always better and while it might be it isn't in the person paying you mind.
I wouldn't rip someone off but if they want it so be it.


----------



## Going_Commando

volleyball said:


> I have a box of cat3 and it exceeds any needs of POTS. Anything more is overkill. Use something better rated if it is cheaper or just what you have.
> Anyone who says move onto newer tech really doesn't get it. It is what someone wants. you use what you want, and let them use what they want.
> I've been doing this for enough decades that better isn't always better and while it might be it isn't in the person paying you mind.
> I wouldn't rip someone off but if they want it so be it.


We use Cat5e for phone cabling. We already have it in stock. Why would I buy a separate cable for the twice a year I install phone lines, when the cost difference is negligible? 

I guess we'll just keep ripping people off with that super expensive Cat5 cable instead of the much more reasonably priced, not stocked anywhere, Cat3. That whole penny a foot is really gonna be a deal breaker.


----------



## volleyball

Use something better rated if it is cheaper or just what you have.


So it's what you have as I said.


----------



## MDShunk

Runs in my mind that Cat3 was actually 10 megabit rated. Not a terrible shame to repurpose it for network duty on VOIP phones. They use hardly any bandwidth (like 8 or 10Kbit) and functions just fine on repurposed Cat3. Don't tell that to a low-volt guy, though. When VOIP started hitting the offices, there was one building I did work in that had the VOIP phones running off beige POTS cable through cruddy old 66 blocks with no issues.


----------



## splatz

MDShunk said:


> Runs in my mind that Cat3 was actually 10 megabit rated. Not a terrible shame to repurpose it for network duty on VOIP phones. They use hardly any bandwidth (like 8 or 10Kbit) and functions just fine on repurposed Cat3. Don't tell that to a low-volt guy, though. When VOIP started hitting the offices, there was one building I did work in that had the VOIP phones running off beige POTS cable through cruddy old 66 blocks with no issues.


The 10baseT standard only required Cat 3, in fact I don't even know if Cat 5 was a finished standard when 10BaseT was. It was 100baseT that was the end of Cat3, although some people continued to install one cat 3 and one cat 5 for years. 

To this day you can use Cat 3 for 10baseT, almost all network hardware is capable of 10baseT operation, but you have to program one end or the other so that it doesn't try to negotiate a 100 or gigabit connection. It will usually succeed to negotiate at a higher speed but then kill you with errors. 

You'd be shocked how little difference the average network user sees on 10baseT. 

And 10baseT is pretty forgiving with going over the distance limit - 100 and 1000 not at all forgiving. 

Regarding the OP - For years I kept a box of Coleman two pair cat 3 on the truck. It was a real small box, very cheap, very small diameter, useful for a lot of things other than phones. I used it for a million things, doorbells, amplified speakers, alarms, even for a pull string. I stopped carrying it a couple years ago when they stopped stocking it, not worth chasing it down. 

Fun fact, Siemon 66 blocks have been Cat 5 rated for a long time, mid 90's I think, but really old ones were not...


----------



## MDShunk

I guess the definition of "Phone Line" depends on when you grew up. Cloth insulated single twisted pair? Beige Pots cable? Cat 3? Cat 5? I dunno. I doubt the analog phone signal much cares. You could string together 1,000 twist ties from your last 1,000 loaves of bread and make you own "phone wire" and the phone will work fine.


----------



## splatz

MDShunk said:


> I guess the definition of "Phone Line" depends on when you grew up. Cloth insulated single twisted pair? Beige Pots cable? Cat 3? Cat 5? I dunno. I doubt the analog phone signal much cares. You could string together 1,000 twist ties from your last 1,000 loaves of bread and make you own "phone wire" and the phone will work fine.


If you get a look at the miles of nasty cobbled together old crap the phone line runs on to get to your home or business, you don't worry too much about that last 50' inside your fence.


----------



## paulengr

splatz said:


> If you get a look at the miles of nasty cobbled together old crap the phone line runs on to get to your home or business, you don't worry too much about that last 50' inside your fence.


Telephone techs lobby hard to be exempt from NEC and no license or the "baby" hack CATV license at worst. The workmanship shows.

Sent from my SM-T350 using Tapatalk


----------



## splatz

paulengr said:


> Telephone techs lobby hard to be exempt from NEC and no license or the "baby" hack CATV license at worst. The workmanship shows.


I'm not even talking about the workmanship. Cable that's been outdoors for 50 years, 70 years, some even longer, some still with paper insulation in it, cloth splice boots that are just as old, old Western Union outdoor cans, screw terminals that were screwed down in the great depression, everything patched over and over and over rather than spliced, some is nothing like this of course but a lot of the telecom infrastructure is ROUGH.


----------



## Going_Commando

splatz said:


> I'm not even talking about the workmanship. Cable that's been outdoors for 50 years, 70 years, some even longer, some still with paper insulation in it, cloth splice boots that are just as old, old Western Union outdoor cans, screw terminals that were screwed down in the great depression, everything patched over and over and over rather than spliced, some is nothing like this of course but a lot of the telecom infrastructure is ROUGH.


It's pretty bad around here. Plus trying to get a tech out to do anything takes forever. I remember a few years ago there was a failure in the aerial phone cable feeding a building we had an alarm system in. The phone company said it was going to take 6-8 weeks to get a tech there to fix it. Sooo, we fired up the bucket truck, bought a box of aerial telephone cable and I can not confirm, nor deny ripping out the old aerial phone line and tying it into the splice cabinet on a pole. All I know is, the problem magically went away and phone company techs never had to show up.


----------

