Terms @ RJ-45

[ty]

Reality is use "RJ45" generically to describe any 8P8C plug or jack. It's been that way for almost three decades.

true, but it isn't technically correct.

, but anywhere else in the world it isn't worth the blank-stare confusion

Yes it is. I love getting the 'blank stare'

8P8C = "RJ45". Just deal with it.

honestly, even most packaging calls these RJ-45. still doesn't make it correct.

ty, RJ61 is obsolete, even for voice-only wiring. For new work, always use EIA/TIA-568-B.

Yeah. I took that from a post of mine from probably 6 years ago or more. Just copied and pasted it. But point being, again, it is the wiring, not the jack that makes the determination. People will never learn, if they just call everything an RJ-45 without knowing what it really is.

 

[esobocinski]

true, but it isn't technically correct.

Yes. That doesn't mean we're not stuck with it. It really isn't that much different than needing to know what a "1900 box" is even though you can't actually buy something by that description anymore. I concede that there you could at least use alternate terminology ("inch-and-a-half four-by-four", etc.) and still be understood, whereas not using "RJ45" is harder.

Yes it is. I love getting the 'blank stare'

That does explain a lot.

honestly, even most packaging calls these RJ-45. still doesn't make it correct.

... and that illustrates my first point.

Yeah. I took that from a post of mine from probably 6 years ago or more. Just copied and pasted it. But point being, again, it is the wiring, not the jack that makes the determination. People will never learn, if they just call everything an RJ-45 without knowing what it really is.

I understand about the RJ61 carry-forward. If it helps any, I remembered just after the last post that EIA/TIA-568-B is no longer current and is replaced by -C. Learn stuff well-enough and it gets hard to unlearn it when you need to.

I completely agree with your point, but you and I are in the minority by holding to accuracy. Popular usage will win. One more generation of retirements and nobody will have a clue that "RJ45" is technically wrong. Fortunately, since the real RJ45 is obsolete, there's no real harm done. Not unlike how nobody's safety is compromised by a plane taking off from "tarmac" that is concrete rather than tar macadam.

 

[ty]

but you and I are in the minority by holding to accuracy.

It's safe to say, you can include Hal as well.

I'm sure we all(except maybe Hal) catch ourselves calling them RJ-45 at some point

 

[egnlsn]

Same thing with the coax we use. RG comes from an old mil-spec (MIL-C-17). Of course, in order for a cable to be properly called RG cable, it must meet the MIL-C-17 specifications -- no more, no less. While the electrical specifications and most of the physical characteristics of the cable we use meet those of RG 6 (M17/2), the shielding is different than what the specification calls for. Different manufacturers can use different components for the jacket and/or dielectric, and/or make the jacket different thicknesses. All of those are differences from the spec and technically cannot be called RG cable.

All of the major coaxial cable manufacturers correctly call their cables as "RG "X" type" or "Series "X" cable". Same with the major connector manufacturers. They call their connectors "Series X" connectors.

But, we're stuck with everybody saying RG "X" cable and RG "X" connectors.