One thing I would very likely have done differently -- if I was starting from scratch on home-design stuff -- is to have built-in ethernet everywhere, for computer and video. That is probably the standard in better construction for at least the last 10 years (?) At this point, I am unwilling to do any major projects that involve going through walls and ceilings to get that sort of coverage. Wi-Fi mostly gets it done here, though there are some limitations and annoyances. I am aware of powerline adapters, and may look into that.
I have two Panasonic TVs that include VieraCast. With one of them, I have for several years used a "NIC-stick" like this
https://www.amazon.com/Asus-Wireless-N-Graphical-Interface-USB-N53/dp/B005SAKW9G/ref=p...EPXRFM6RMVVANK
which goes into a USB port and provides the VieraCast, with its Netflix gateway and other apps. (Was somewhat bummed when they dropped their YouTube interface awhile back . . . but I have other ways to access that. These days, Samsung may offer the best roster of built-in apps, among smart TVs.)
Now here is my question. In another location, I have another Panasonic tv that is a model year or two earlier. It has no USB ports, but it does have an unused RJ45 ethernet port. The manual says you can connect a router to that, but space is tight in that area, and I much preferred a very compact solution like the thumbdrive-sized NIC-stick that I've used for the other Panny. [Elsewhere, I have successfully used a USB-over-internet kit for a printer that needed a rather long cable run, and though it's impressive how well that works, this is not entirely comparable.] But even if there was some converter cable available that could make both ends of this USB-to-RJ45 connection, and translate the signals effectively, I realized that it would still not be powered. With the other setup that works, the wireless NIC gets what power it needs from the USB port. I don't think that happens with the tv's RJ-45 port. Is this scenario salvageable ? The older VieraCast on the older tv is strictly optional, though I'm curious as to whether it might have anything to offer.
I have two Panasonic TVs that include VieraCast. With one of them, I have for several years used a "NIC-stick" like this
https://www.amazon.com/Asus-Wireless-N-Graphical-Interface-USB-N53/dp/B005SAKW9G/ref=p...EPXRFM6RMVVANK
which goes into a USB port and provides the VieraCast, with its Netflix gateway and other apps. (Was somewhat bummed when they dropped their YouTube interface awhile back . . . but I have other ways to access that. These days, Samsung may offer the best roster of built-in apps, among smart TVs.)
Now here is my question. In another location, I have another Panasonic tv that is a model year or two earlier. It has no USB ports, but it does have an unused RJ45 ethernet port. The manual says you can connect a router to that, but space is tight in that area, and I much preferred a very compact solution like the thumbdrive-sized NIC-stick that I've used for the other Panny. [Elsewhere, I have successfully used a USB-over-internet kit for a printer that needed a rather long cable run, and though it's impressive how well that works, this is not entirely comparable.] But even if there was some converter cable available that could make both ends of this USB-to-RJ45 connection, and translate the signals effectively, I realized that it would still not be powered. With the other setup that works, the wireless NIC gets what power it needs from the USB port. I don't think that happens with the tv's RJ-45 port. Is this scenario salvageable ? The older VieraCast on the older tv is strictly optional, though I'm curious as to whether it might have anything to offer.