500' through the pines?

I have some experience using 8.11b on my boat in the Bahamas with a WET11
and a cantenna, so I understand the importance of "line of sight".

I am now looking at sharing a cable modem with a neighbor via wireless.
Houses are about 500' apart.

house => 150' open => 75' pine trees <= 200' open <= house

We cannot easily clear trees to get unobstructed line of sight between the
houses. We COULD arrange a line of sight through the trees, placing some
kind of antennas or repeaters on each side of the woods, then wired or
wireless to each house.

Suggestions? Alternatives?

post here - attached email address is not used

tkranz <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
> I have some experience using 8.11b on my boat in the Bahamas with a WET11
> and a cantenna, so I understand the importance of "line of sight".
>
> I am now looking at sharing a cable modem with a neighbor via wireless.
> Houses are about 500' apart.
>
> house => 150' open => 75' pine trees <= 200' open <= house
>
> We cannot easily clear trees to get unobstructed line of sight between the
> houses. We COULD arrange a line of sight through the trees, placing some
> kind of antennas or repeaters on each side of the woods, then wired or
> wireless to each house.
>
> Suggestions? Alternatives?

Have you power at the mid-points?

If not, you'r looking at either wired, or two solar panels and battery
systems (which gets expensive and bulky).

If you've already run 150 + 200 feet of cable, I'd be strongly considering
just running the other 75.
Do you own the land, and the rights to lay cables over it, or is that
a pressing reason to go wireless.

I do own the land. It has been my understanding that ethernet was limited
to not much more than 100 to 150 feet, which is why I was thinking Wi-fi. I
suppose there are repeaters or amplifiers available to extend this? And,
yes, I can get power to the mid-points. Thanks for any further advice.

"Ian Stirling" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
news:FatDb.1317$(E-Mail Removed)...
> tkranz <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
> > I have some experience using 8.11b on my boat in the Bahamas with a
WET11
> > and a cantenna, so I understand the importance of "line of sight".
> >
> > I am now looking at sharing a cable modem with a neighbor via wireless.
> > Houses are about 500' apart.
> >
> > house => 150' open => 75' pine trees <= 200' open <= house
> >
> > We cannot easily clear trees to get unobstructed line of sight between
the
> > houses. We COULD arrange a line of sight through the trees, placing
some
> > kind of antennas or repeaters on each side of the woods, then wired or
> > wireless to each house.
> >
> > Suggestions? Alternatives?
>
> Have you power at the mid-points?
>
> If not, you'r looking at either wired, or two solar panels and battery
> systems (which gets expensive and bulky).
>
> If you've already run 150 + 200 feet of cable, I'd be strongly considering
> just running the other 75.
> Do you own the land, and the rights to lay cables over it, or is that
> a pressing reason to go wireless.

"tkranz" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
news:AnuDb.201007$(E-Mail Removed)...
> I do own the land. It has been my understanding that ethernet was limited
> to not much more than 100 to 150 feet, which is why I was thinking Wi-fi.
I
> suppose there are repeaters or amplifiers available to extend this? And,
> yes, I can get power to the mid-points. Thanks for any further advice.
>

Cat. 5 ethernet is good up to 100 meters (328 feet)

Craig
..
> "Ian Stirling" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
> news:FatDb.1317$(E-Mail Removed)...
> > tkranz <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
> > > I have some experience using 8.11b on my boat in the Bahamas with a
> WET11
> > > and a cantenna, so I understand the importance of "line of sight".
> > >
> > > I am now looking at sharing a cable modem with a neighbor via
wireless.
> > > Houses are about 500' apart.
> > >
> > > house => 150' open => 75' pine trees <= 200' open <= house
> > >
> > > We cannot easily clear trees to get unobstructed line of sight between
> the
> > > houses. We COULD arrange a line of sight through the trees, placing
> some
> > > kind of antennas or repeaters on each side of the woods, then wired or
> > > wireless to each house.
> > >
> > > Suggestions? Alternatives?
> >
> > Have you power at the mid-points?
> >
> > If not, you'r looking at either wired, or two solar panels and battery
> > systems (which gets expensive and bulky).
> >
> > If you've already run 150 + 200 feet of cable, I'd be strongly
considering
> > just running the other 75.
> > Do you own the land, and the rights to lay cables over it, or is that
> > a pressing reason to go wireless.
>
>

"tkranz" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
> I do own the land. It has been my understanding that ethernet was limited
> to not much more than 100 to 150 feet, which is why I was thinking Wi-fi. I
> suppose there are repeaters or amplifiers available to extend this? And,
> yes, I can get power to the mid-points. Thanks for any further advice.

10baseT (the common twisted pair ethernet that is ubiquitous these days)
is limited to 100 meters (about 330 feet). The older 10base5 (thicknet)
was good for up to 500 meters (1600 feet) and 10base2 (thinnet) could do
185 meters (600 feet).

Even if you could still buy the stuff today, 500 feet of 10base5 trunk
cable would be pretty expensive. 10base2 uses relatively common
RG-50-something (not the same as video, but similar), and you might be
able to pick up some old gear on eBay pretty cheap. Not sure about
running this stuff outside, or the electrical issues of interconnecting
two different building wiring systems (ground loops, etc). One of the
many nice things about fiber is you get complete electical isolation.
But fiber isn't cheap.

All things considered, if you can get power out to it, the idea of a
wireless repeater at the midpoint is starting to look pretty reasonable.

In article <AnuDb.201007$(E-Mail Removed)>,
tkranz <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
:I do own the land. It has been my understanding that ethernet was limited
:to not much more than 100 to 150 feet, which is why I was thinking Wi-fi. I
:suppose there are repeaters or amplifiers available to extend this? And,
:yes, I can get power to the mid-points. Thanks for any further advice.

You will be glad to hear that ethernet limits are higher than that.
The 10 and 100 Mbit/s limits are 100 meters over good UTP.
As I recall, it is possible to get Cat5 cable suitable for running
outdoors.

--
Come to think of it, there are already a million monkeys on a million
typewriters, and Usenet is NOTHING like Shakespeare. -- Blair Houghton.

In article <brlt88$9nb$(E-Mail Removed)>,
Walter Roberson <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
|In article <AnuDb.201007$(E-Mail Removed)>,
|tkranz <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
|:I do own the land. It has been my understanding that ethernet was limited
|:to not much more than 100 to 150 feet, which is why I was thinking Wi-fi.

|You will be glad to hear that ethernet limits are higher than that.
|The 10 and 100 Mbit/s limits are 100 meters over good UTP.

Reviewing your messages, I see that the two houses are about 500' apart.
That is too far for a single ethernet segment with no
repeater, but it is within range of placing a single repeater in the
middle.

You might find it easier all around to lay down a fibre: the limits
for that are 2 km for multimode at 10 Mbps, 2 km for multimode full
duplex at 100 Mbps [requires a fibre pair], and 412m for 100 Mbps
half duplex [requires only a single fibre.] You would also need
transceivers or media convertors for each end; those are not very
expensive for 10 Mbps, but can still add up for 100 Mbps.


The beginning of this thread does not seem to be readily available to me,
so excuse me if I repeat a question someone has asked before: have
you checked that the ISP AUP allows you to share the connection?
Most cable modem contracts do NOT allow that, though sometimes
'business' or 'professional' contracts do.
--
"There are three kinds of lies: lies, damn lies, and statistics."
-- not Twain, perhaps Disraeli, first quoted by Leonard Courtney

"tkranz" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
news:AnuDb.201007$(E-Mail Removed)...
> I do own the land. It has been my understanding that ethernet was limited
> to not much more than 100 to 150 feet, which is why I was thinking Wi-fi.
I
> suppose there are repeaters or amplifiers available to extend this? And,
> yes, I can get power to the mid-points. Thanks for any further advice.
>

Then why not just run outdoor-rated CAT5 to a switch at the midpoint?

"Ross Evans" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
news:AfvDb.131359$(E-Mail Removed). ..
>
> "tkranz" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
> news:AnuDb.201007$(E-Mail Removed)...
> > I do own the land. It has been my understanding that ethernet was
limited
> > to not much more than 100 to 150 feet, which is why I was thinking
Wi-fi.
> I
> > suppose there are repeaters or amplifiers available to extend this?
And,
> > yes, I can get power to the mid-points. Thanks for any further advice.
> >
>
> Then why not just run outdoor-rated CAT5 to a switch at the midpoint?
>
>

Because a switch does amplify the signal, a repeater does.

Craig

"tkranz" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
news:AnuDb.201007$(E-Mail Removed)...
> I do own the land. It has been my understanding that ethernet was limited
> to not much more than 100 to 150 feet, which is why I was thinking Wi-fi.
I
> suppose there are repeaters or amplifiers available to extend this? And,
> yes, I can get power to the mid-points. Thanks for any further advice.
>
> "Ian Stirling" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
> news:FatDb.1317$(E-Mail Removed)...
> > tkranz <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
> > > I have some experience using 8.11b on my boat in the Bahamas with a
> WET11
> > > and a cantenna, so I understand the importance of "line of sight".
> > >
> > > I am now looking at sharing a cable modem with a neighbor via
wireless.
> > > Houses are about 500' apart.
> > >
> > > house => 150' open => 75' pine trees <= 200' open <= house
> > >
> > > We cannot easily clear trees to get unobstructed line of sight between
> the
> > > houses. We COULD arrange a line of sight through the trees, placing
> some
> > > kind of antennas or repeaters on each side of the woods, then wired or
> > > wireless to each house.
> > >
> > > Suggestions? Alternatives?

Talk to your favorite network supplier about buying a pre-terminated length
of fibre - multimode with connectors to suit what you need at the ends. Get
a generous over length bit.

Make sure you get outdoor rated fibre (this is mainly about not allowing
water into the construction since hygrogen ions can degrade the glass).

Bury it, probably with something over it to protect it, or string it through
the trees on a carrier wire.

Buy a couple of 100M fibre to UTP converters.

Plug into a switch or router with embedded switch etc at each end.
> >
> > Have you power at the mid-points?
> >
> > If not, you'r looking at either wired, or two solar panels and battery
> > systems (which gets expensive and bulky).
> >
> > If you've already run 150 + 200 feet of cable, I'd be strongly
considering
> > just running the other 75.
> > Do you own the land, and the rights to lay cables over it, or is that
> > a pressing reason to go wireless.

If you feel adventurous, then several companies make "ethernet like" LAN
equipment that goes much further than 10Base-T on UTP - Cisco use something
called LRE to get around 15 Mbps on a few thousand feet of phone wire.

Or - use good quality Cat5 and 10-Base-T - you "should" be able to push the
distance well past the 100m spec - low background noise, cable spec better
than the standard requires, little crosstalk, and the standards are designed
to have some slack to allow for variations and aging.

The primary risks with this are ground loops, electical safety and equipment
that gets damaged or in worst case explodes if you have a lightning strike
nearby.
--
Regards

Stephen Hope - remove xx from email to reply