They aren't available because USB-C isn't widely supported in current router designs.
They aren't available because USB-C isn't widely supported in current router designs.
Recent adoption of USB-C in devices such as phones, laptops, and peripherals is reducing reliance on traditional dongles. This shift highlights a growing interest in adapters for RJ-45 connections. Many users now seek ways to connect their gadgets via wired networks, prompting questions about the absence of internet routers with USB-C ports. Advantages of such devices include:
- Serving as hosts for storage and peripherals like cellular modems, webcams, and printers, offering a versatile setup (similar to what some routers can achieve with custom firmware like OpenWrt)
- Functioning as peripheral connectors for phones, PCs, consoles, or other devices directly via USB-C cables, removing the need for dongles and potentially shrinking device sizes that would otherwise require RJ-45 ports
While USB specifications support shorter ranges than Ethernet cables, cables up to 8 meters are sufficient for most applications. The main challenge remains the lack of routers with USB-C interfaces.
The main reason lies in Ethernet's broader bandwidth and its capacity to connect to switches, allowing more cables without losing speed on individual ones thanks to the high data rate. Most USB devices now rely on Wi-Fi instead. For apps on USB-C-only devices, 5Gbps Wi-Fi usually suffices. Those needing extra performance often use a docking station with Thunderbolt or USB 3.0/3.1.
The main concern is how far things can be. USB-C supports up to roughly 15 meters, while Ethernet can reach about 100 meters. You also need to consider the expense of installing a whole new cable network at home and handling compatibility issues.
Based on what I understand, Intel hasn't incorporated Ethernet or any networking protocols into the USB-C specification. This implies that achieving such functionality would require an active cable converting USB/Thunderbolt signals into a protocol like Ethernet. Such a setup might lead to long, active cables similar to those found in 2M Thunderbolt 3 connectors—potentially even bigger. The RJ45 connector has stood the test of time, maintaining backward compatibility across many generations; a device from 10 or 15 years ago would still work with today’s routers or switches. Forcing thousands of manufacturers to adopt a new physical standard would be difficult, slow, and costly. Most businesses and even some home users wouldn’t see the need to change. Additionally, I believe the Type-C standard isn’t ideal for Ethernet because it lacks a retainer clip, making it risky in critical applications. The required length of an active connector could damage it if handled improperly, which is common in commercial settings. Ethernet cables are designed as "think cables," with shielding and pairs optimized for high-speed transmission over long distances. To meet Ethernet standards, you’d need a much thicker cable and a larger connector, along with a substantial length—something that would likely be impractical. Instead of changing the physical connector, I’d prefer to see RJ45 remain on hardware devices like routers and switches, allowing future updates through software specifications rather than hardware redesign. If such a change ever happened, it would probably come as a pricier active cable, shorter in length, and limited to speeds around 100 Mbps or 1 Gbps at best.
The issue with both statements centers on adapting modern solutions to older setups. Using your smartphone as a modem for a PC via USB-C is a common workaround, but it works best in environments where professional networking cables are standard. In cases where such infrastructure isn't typical, the approach becomes impractical. USB-C to RJ-45 adapters aren’t widely needed right now, so adding more ports to routers isn’t justified.
Good luck connecting multiple devices via USB-C and ensuring they run smoothly with sufficient speed and low delay.
So networking properties are outside the scope of your networking discussion. Riight. You're just avoiding his point. These implementations have been around in previous USB versions for years. You can already tether over USB 2 or Bluetooth, printers can already be shared via USB or Ethernet. There's little reason to dump millions into developing usb3 only networking equipment when there's already significantly cheaper alternative, and zero existing market penetration.