Talk:Class F cable

using 100BaseVG, cat-3 can be used to carry a 100Mbps network. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 66.92.144.73 (talk • contribs) 17:05, October 11, 2005 (UTC)

Question regarding CAT 3 description
Cat 3: 10 Mbit/s cables, a well-known variant of Cat 5 cables.

How can soemthing that predates an item be a variant of that item? In this case, CAT 3 predates CAT 5. It would be acceptable for CAT 5 to be a variant of Cat 3, but not the other way around. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by SKnipfing (talk • contribs) 14:22, January 18, 2006 (UTC)

Siemon/TERA material
I noticed some Siemon link-spam in other articles (for example, alinkmasquerading as "Optical Fiber Cabling Standards"). I noticed the same editor posted stuff here about his company's product. I have removed it and put it here on the talk page:

"Also being considered is a non-RJ-45-compatible standard developed by Siemon which forgoes compatibility in exchange for performance, and doubles the transmission frequencies of RJ-45. The TERA interface is the only non-RJ category 7/class F industry-standard connector recognized within ISO/IEC 11801 Ed. 2.0 and the cable is rated for transmission frequencies of up to 1200 MHz. The TERA category 7/class F connector is also the only approved interface to meet the US government's TEMPEST/EMSEC security guidelines."

Along the same lines, I also removed:

Sources
 * Mysticom Press Release, Nov. 2003
 * Siemon Press Release, May. 2006

External links
 * Guide to network cabling standards including Category 7 TERA

See User talk:65.209.123.130 for more information on material removed elsewhere. --A. B. 23:10, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

Only 600 MHz with GG45
I think, the Nexans GG45 Connectors works with frequencys up to 1000 MHz http://e-service.nexans.com/eservice/Navigate.nx?navigationId=14080#top —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 83.65.212.98 (talk • contribs) 13:38, August 8, 2006 (UTC)

40G /100G
Multiple manufacturers are claiming 40G or even 100G on Cat7a solutions. A few reminders: - Cat7a is not defined in any standard yet. It is in draft only in ISO and there is currently no intention to support it by TIA - 40G and 100G calculations are based on Shannon capacity. This method is widely criticized in the industry. - Articles proving that 40G or 100G can function on Cat7a should not be trusted. These are either from manufacturers, or from researchers in need for recognition. The proof is that similar articles in the past have proved that Cat5e was good 10G. - Also, stating that Cat7a can support multiple applications in the cable is true, but the same can be said of any category, shielded or unshielded. However, it is true that mixing unbalanced signals (analogue, TV...) with Ethernet in the same cable is not recommended in UTP solutions. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Golgot1 (talk • contribs) 01:00, 18 August 2009 (UTC)


 * IF the article is froma realible source then i can nto see hwo it can not be said it can suppor tit. if it is realible then it be fine if it is not then if it is sued in other article that suggest ther eworng to--&#91;&#91;User:Andrewcrawford&#124;&lt;font color=&quot;Light Blue&quot;&gt;Andrewcrawford&lt;/font&gt;&#93;&#93; (&#91;&#91;User talk:Andrewcrawford&#124;&lt;small&gt;talk&lt;/small&gt;&#93;&#93; - &#91;&#91;Special:Contributions/Andrewcrawford&#124;&lt;small&gt;contrib&lt;/small&gt;&#93;&#93;) (talk) 10:23, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

Incorrect page title
Given that there is no TIA/EIA definition for a "Cat 7" and this article is actually about ISO "Class F" cabling, shouldn't this article be renamed Class F? If no comments within 7 days i will install this correction. dunerat (talk) 21:06, 8 February 2010 (UTC)


 * There isa CAt 7 defintion it for sale for one and its in the same tia place as cat 6 adn 5 etc-- Andrewcrawford ( talk  -  contrib ) 21:42, 8 February 2010 (UTC)


 * No, there isn't, as stated IN THIS ARTICLE. TIA/EIA does not have any plans for a Cat-7 standard.  The fact that some unscrupulous manufacturers will attempt to sell improperly labeled cable  (eg, i have seen "Cat-6e" before, which is also a non-existent standard)does not mean that this article should be misnamed.dunerat (talk) 18:22, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

Year and a half later, it did not seem to be moved? From a quick look, it seems that English sources (at least in the US) do seem to use the "cat-7" term, even if it is not standard. We should explain it with dated citations, either way. W Nowicki (talk) 22:30, 9 July 2011 (UTC)


 * I haven't been around to check until just recently, but at present TIA/EIA still has no documentation referring to a "Category 7" of any sort. Therefore I am changing the name of this article.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dunerat (talk • contribs) 00:57, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

Self-inconsistency
In addition to all the other flaws with the page (noted above), it contains inconsistencies like: "Cat 7 can be terminated either with 8P8C compatible GG45 electrical connectors which incorporate the 8P8C standard or with TERA connectors. [...] Due to lack of support for the 8P8C connector, Category 7 is not recognized in TIA/EIA-568."

This article really needs some love and I'm tagging it with cleanup and expert-subject, accordingly. -- Lewellyn talk 14:49, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

Possible source
Here is a source that contains some detailed technical information on Class F/a cable: http://www.lanster.com/pub/files/file/okablowanie_normy/Guide_ISO_11801_2nd_Amendment1.pdf It is mostly over my head (I used it to cite the 600MHz claim), perhaps someone could extract more information from it? Narohi (talk) 19:06, 11 March 2012 (UTC)