Using WiFi for Clerk Computers

Recently the network Jack that the Clerk computer was connected to was removed. When we asked the FM Group said that this is the new standard and that we should use WiFi. Is there supposed to be a separate SSID or should we just connect to Liahona or Lehi? Or is this a mistake?

Your only choice is to connect the clerk computer to the Liahona WIFI. The stake TS should also add the computer to the "No Splash" group policy in CNM. If your printer was attached to the network, and doesn't have WIFI capability, the FM group can send you an adapter or you can ask for a replacement printer.

This is part of a church-wide effort, starting with 1300 bldgs in Utah, to standardize the network infrastructure and improve the user experience by adding MORE APs to get good WIFI coverage in ALL rooms. New CAT6a cables are installed to new APs, camera, and AV rack. If they RE-LOCATE the network equipment (rack) to a different area for security or "code-compliance" reasons they WILL NOT EXTEND ANY EXISTING NETWORK CABLES FROM CLERK OFFICES, PULPIT, ROOMS, ETC- so you will lose the use of those wall jacks. If the network equipment rack is NOT moved then the wall jacks WILL be disconnected at the patch panel. The stake TS can re-connect these cables from the old "patch panel" to the new 24-port Switch in the equipment rack to make them useable again, if deemed necessary.

In our stake bldgs, the equipment racks were not re-located so we were able to retain the use of all wired wall jacks (after we reconnected them from patch panel to switch).

CalS201 wrote: Fri Dec 19, 2025 8:33 am The stake TS should also add the computer to the "No Splash" group policy in CNM.

Just wondering, is this an opinion, or a directive that's been handed down?

To answer the question posed in post #3 -- If the OP has to use WIFI for the clerk computer, It is my opinion that the computer should be added to the "No Splash" group policy.

In my previous post (#2 in this thread), what I said in paragraph 2 is a summary of various communications from HQ, FM, and personal conversations with the foreman of one installation crew.

But that being said, there's still nothing 'official' a local clerk could use to bolster their request, if their local FM Group disagrees, correct? As much as one might state that this is a unified and coordinated effort, past experience dictates that local variations regularly occur, even when there might be a semi-official statement of intent on whatever the particular issue might be.

CalS201 wrote: Fri Dec 19, 2025 11:18 pm It is my opinion that the computer should be added to the "No Splash" group policy.

Elsewhere, it's been communicated that NoSplash was for devices that couldn't access the web page. It was never intended as a convenience. There's also a limited number that can be placed on that policy. I'm leery about handing them out without a solid reason for doing so or you're going to hit that limit.

I don't think having someone click one button once each 24 hours is that big an issue.

I'm not saying it's wrong to do it, just that we need to distinguish between opinion and written instruction.

russellhltn wrote: Tue Dec 23, 2025 6:26 pm Elsewhere, it's been communicated that NoSplash was for devices that couldn't access the web page. It was never intended as a convenience.

Indeed the Tech WIKI you referenced talks about the purpose of the NoSplash group policy. What I don't see is any verbage that limits it's use. In fact, the WIKI's example shows a MACBOOK AIR LAPTOP using the group policy!

russellhltn wrote: Tue Dec 23, 2025 6:26 pm There's also a limited number that can be placed on that policy.

This is new news to me. I know there are HARD limits on the number of static IP address you can assign . Please share what the limit is for the NoSplash Group policy.

russellhltn wrote: Tue Dec 23, 2025 6:26 pm I'm leery about handing them (NoSplash) out without a solid reason for doing so or you're going to hit that limit.

Our stake center currently has about 18 devices "that could be" on the NoSplash group policy if we only had WIFI and no wired connections (TVs in RS, PRIM, HC rooms. Each bishops office has a TV and a printer. Each clerks office has a printer. Stake office has 2 printers. Theres also some AV stuff). Its hard to beleive that adding 4-5 clerk computers to the NoSplash policy would hit any limit.


With the current church-wide network infrastructure upgrade, some bldgs will retain their wired connections, while other bldgs will lose them and therefore must use WIFI for almost everything. Since a wired clerk computer user doesn't have to go through the "terms & conditions" splash screen I don't see a reason to inconvenience a WIFI clerk computer user by making them go through the "terms & conditions" screen. Of course, a policy change from HQ, could change everything!

CalS201 wrote: Wed Dec 24, 2025 9:17 pm

russellhltn wrote: Tue Dec 23, 2025 6:26 pm There's also a limited number that can be placed on that policy.

This is new news to me. I know there are HARD limits on the number of static IP address you can assign . Please share what the limit is for the NoSplash Group policy.

I have not seen it documented anywhere, but we have this post from 5 years ago. Please note that Bartj is a product manager, so I'd take what he said as more than hearsay. Perhaps it's been expanded since then.

Given that there is a limit, I wouldn't put anything on the list that doesn't have an actual need for it. MacBooks used to have problem getting to the splash screen, but I think it's been worked out as the subject hasn't come up in awhile.

Since you've indicated 18 possible devices before adding clerk computers, that could be an issue.

I did some testing to find the maximum number of devices that can use the "NoSplash" policy.

The current limit is 30 devices.

If you plan to standardize the network systems and infrastructure church wide, then you should MAKE SURE there is enough AP coverage and bandwidth as well as INTERNET bandwidth to/from the building.

Adding clerk computers to Liahona (for us) is potentially a problem. We understand the "No Splash" group policy and can do that. However, when we are webcasting a Stake Conference or other major event (and DOING IT WIRED - WHICH IS FASTER (SPEED AND LATENCY) AND MORE RELIABLE), we frequently have to shut down Liahona due to bandwidth issues.

When you have stake center full of people with phones and tablets on WiFi (and they ARE ON WiFi whether the phone is in their hand or in their pocket/purse), you can easily loose a lot of bandwidth that is necessary for a quality and "flawless" webcast. This is why, if we must go wireless, having the clerk's computers on Liahona could be a problem. I hope you can see that.

Also, I predict that the quality of our webcasts will suffer if expected to do everything wireless.

411r3d wrote: Wed Jan 07, 2026 3:32 pmI hope you can see that.

Who is this intended for? The Forum is user to user self-help. We're all pretty much regular members like you with no special access to church headquarters.

If you want to get your concern to the decision makers, there are 2 methods:
1. Send feedback from almost any church webpage.
2. Ask your stake president to bring it up in the coordinating council meeting with his general authority.