what type of Cat 5 are you using

I am still getting started here and was wondering what type of Cat5 you guys are using. Are you using Shielded cables, or just plain Cat5E?

I was looking around and discovered just how expensive Shielded Cat5e is…wow.

anyway, i was just wondering what is/isn’t working with canopy when it comes to cabling.

I’m sure that any Canopy user, and especially the Canopy Support Team, will tell you that shielded cable is NECESSARY on all radio tower installations. There’s enough interference on a tower that the shielded cable will actually be required for a clean install to avoid interference that can greatly reduce your bandwidth speeds. I don’t think shielded cable is necessary for client installations (like on customer homes) because they are normally in clean areas away from considerable amounts of RF.

shielded cable is rather expensive, but well worth the expense.

I would also like to know if people have had problems using unshielded CAT-5 on tower sites. I am not using any sheilded cable, just outdoor (flooded) cable for my tower installations. My longest runs are about 260’, and most of my runs are < 170’ , so maybe this helps me avoid a lot of interference. I also use outdoor cable on every customer site, at least for the exposed runs.

I am having Non-RF related trouble with non-shielded cableing. My enterprising employers are frugile (polite).
I am experiencing trouble with the Cat5 “vertical” non shielded cable purchased for a 140’ radio tower application. To be used for GPS syn only. No RF issue, just incosistent readings during testing, bad line?
1) Test equipment readings. Good, then bad. Check again bad, then good. No changes made, values should remain same? Yes, batteries are new.
2) Maybe it’s our test equipment? The found on ebay at 99cents line testing equipment Motorola values at $129.99 and includes in starter packages are junk!
Is there a unit capable of testing RJ12 connections effectively? What do people suggest? Has anyone tried the Fluke micromapper?
3) Cat5 “vertical”, what is the intended use for this type of cable? I guess I’m off to some manufactures website to find out, just received L-com catalog www.L-com.com migh have an answer.
4) Does routing through a surge suppressor affect signal during testing? I think it would?

tellink, your increased tower height and use of non-shielded cable would increase your chances for RF contamination. Spectrum analysis should reveal any major issues with your site? But don’t take my word for it, I’m the dummy who just strung up non-shielded “vertical” Cat5 and I don’t even know what it is for! :smiley:

we are using shielded on one tower where there are multiple transmitters and two broadcast sites. otherwise i have no shielded, only flooded on 12 other ap sites with no problem.

I have discovered vertical Cat5 is for use in multi level buildings between floors. Vertical is in regards to its flamability ratings and is a very low cost cable. I have not seen of any mention by Motorola that shielded cable is required for use on CMM(2) GPS Sync line. (CMMmicro uses one line, shielded is recommended). We use shielded line between CMM and Modules.
It is important to ground shielding, otherwise useless.
Last mentioned was Cat5 burial cable. The Outdoor cable I look at comes in three forms standard (burial), aerial, and direct burial (armored). Prices are good although I have yet to see shielded outdoor? I like the gel filled aspect and not having to route through conduit.
I have overlooked connectors(modular plugs) as culprits in bad lines. Need to use radiused and not standard type cable opening plugs. Premium plugs are worth the extra expense (I’ve found out the hard way).
RF has yet to be an issue with our radio tower site. We have been testing 900Mgz and the Paging equipment onsite operating around 920 might be an issue. Filters and planning (working around RF) should eliminate problems.

We use shielded on all of our tower installations, but non-shielded on all our customer installs. Using shielded on customer installs would not be very cost-effective, in my opinion.