Best way to replace DSL with point-point wirless?

All,

I am considering going to a wireless internet provider that will
attach an antenna on the side of the house and run a network cable
into the basement. That part is easy, but getting the signal up to
the home office on the second floor is the problem. I seem to have 3
options since there is no easy way to run a network cable from the
basement to the office -- wireless (801.xx), over the power line, and
perhaps over the CATV co-axial cable.

I called LinkSys & NetGear and tried to communicate with their support
people (and you know what I mean). Ugh!

I would appreciate any thoughts from people that have been down this road.

Dave,
--
e-mail: d boland 9 (all 1 word) at fastmail period fm

On Fri, 27 Jun 2008, in the Usenet newsgroup comp.os.linux.networking, in
article <dB89k.4$iU.2@trndny02>, Dave wrote:

>I am considering going to a wireless internet provider that will
>attach an antenna on the side of the house and run a network cable
>into the basement. That part is easy, but getting the signal up to
>the home office on the second floor is the problem. I seem to have 3
>options since there is no easy way to run a network cable from the
>basement to the office

Is there a computer up on the second floor now? How is it wired in?

>wireless (801.xx),

Possible - see the Usenet newsgroup 'alt.internet.wireless' which you
can find on google (as Verizon is cutting expenses by phasing out news
groups). Problem is antenna placement - you want to be able to aim
antennas at each other, to improve signals, and to reduce interference.
(Think of the difference between a flashlight and the same tiny light
bulb without the reflector to "aim" the light.) Be sure to use WPA
encryption and NOT the easily cracked WEP.

>over the power line,

Slightly more "reliable" but generally a bigger security risk. As it's
less common, there is slightly less problems with interference.
Depending on the age of the house and the type of wiring used ("BX"
armored cable, or conduit, compared to Romex or knob-and-tube) there
can be significant "range" problems.

>and perhaps over the CATV co-axial cable.

VERY messy. A lot easier to simply pull in new Cat5e cables, which
makes the whole point moot.

>I would appreciate any thoughts from people that have been down this
>road.

I didn't bother trying that road - installing Cat5 was a lot less
complicated for me and substantially more reliable. Obviously, it's
going to depend on the layout of the house and how it is constructed.
If you have a 2.4 GHz cordless phone (which is going to cause problems
of interference with 802.x), you could experiment with that to gauge
the problems you're going to run into.

Old guy

Moe Trin wrote:
> On Fri, 27 Jun 2008, in the Usenet newsgroup comp.os.linux.networking, in
> article <dB89k.4$iU.2@trndny02>, Dave wrote:
>
>
>>I am considering going to a wireless internet provider that will
>>attach an antenna on the side of the house and run a network cable
>>into the basement. That part is easy, but getting the signal up to
>>the home office on the second floor is the problem. I seem to have 3
>>options since there is no easy way to run a network cable from the
>>basement to the office
>
>
> Is there a computer up on the second floor now? How is it wired in?

I have DSL going to a DSL modem then to a router then to two computers.

>
>
>>wireless (801.xx),
>
>
> Possible - see the Usenet newsgroup 'alt.internet.wireless' which you
> can find on google (as Verizon is cutting expenses by phasing out news
> groups). Problem is antenna placement - you want to be able to aim
> antennas at each other, to improve signals, and to reduce interference.
> (Think of the difference between a flashlight and the same tiny light
> bulb without the reflector to "aim" the light.) Be sure to use WPA
> encryption and NOT the easily cracked WEP.
>
>
>>over the power line,
>
>
> Slightly more "reliable" but generally a bigger security risk. As it's
> less common, there is slightly less problems with interference.
> Depending on the age of the house and the type of wiring used ("BX"
> armored cable, or conduit, compared to Romex or knob-and-tube) there
> can be significant "range" problems.
>
>
>>and perhaps over the CATV co-axial cable.
>
>
> VERY messy. A lot easier to simply pull in new Cat5e cables, which
> makes the whole point moot.

To pull a CAT 5 cable a skinny person has to climb through the attic
entrance (very small). The person has to be short -- 3 ft. head room.
And I don't think there is much room to pull a cable through the
transom from the basement to the attic. This is why I'm looking for a
better answer.

My sense of things is that the cable from the basement can be routed
to a wall connector, which connects to an 801.xx device on the first
floor. Then in the second floor office I can use a receiver that
either has a router, or one that goes to the existing router.

>
>
>>I would appreciate any thoughts from people that have been down this
>>road.
>
>
> I didn't bother trying that road - installing Cat5 was a lot less
> complicated for me and substantially more reliable. Obviously, it's
> going to depend on the layout of the house and how it is constructed.
> If you have a 2.4 GHz cordless phone (which is going to cause problems
> of interference with 802.x), you could experiment with that to gauge
> the problems you're going to run into.
>
> Old guy

Dave,

On Sat, 28 Jun 2008, in the Usenet newsgroup comp.os.linux.networking, in
article <g46l4t$f03$(E-Mail Removed)>, Dave Boland wrote:

>Moe Trin wrote:

>> Is there a computer up on the second floor now? How is it wired in?

>I have DSL going to a DSL modem then to a router then to two computers.

Have you looked at simply replacing your DSL carrier with another?

http://www.business.com/directory/in...ernet_service_
providers_isp/isps_by_country/united_states/

That's all one line. In posts in some other groups, Verizon has been
reported as "difficult" in some states regarding allowing other providers
access to their wires as required by law. You might need to contact your
state Public Utilities Commission (or what ever the state agency is who
regulates telephone service).

>> A lot easier to simply pull in new Cat5e cables, which makes the
>> whole point moot.
>
>To pull a CAT 5 cable a skinny person has to climb through the attic
>entrance (very small). The person has to be short -- 3 ft. head room.

Could be worse - it's going to be in the mid-100s today, and that means
it's going to be hot in the attic - never mind trying to crawl over a
foot of loose fiberglass insulation. But I see your point.

>And I don't think there is much room to pull a cable through the transom
>from the basement to the attic.

Another option would be to "follow" existing central heating system
or plumbing runs. Still another might be to run the cables outside
the house, as you did with the TV lead-in from the roof-top antenna
common in the 1940s to 1980s (or as the phone company used to do on
older houses).

>This is why I'm looking for a better answer.

From a reliability, security, and speed viewpoint, cable is better. A
wireless solution may be easier to install, but tends to be strangely
effected by wall/floor construction, foil backed insulation, and the
presence of reflecting objects. You're complicating matters by being
on different floor levels.

>My sense of things is that the cable from the basement can be routed
>to a wall connector, which connects to an 801.xx device on the first
>floor. Then in the second floor office I can use a receiver that
>either has a router, or one that goes to the existing router.

"A" problem is antenna patterns. A simple antenna consisting of a
"vertical" element radiates (and receives - the process is reciprocal)
best broadside to the length of the element. For a vertical, this means
on the same level. Think of a standard donut - that's the pattern of a
simple antenna. "Up" and "down" are not the best directions. Higher
gain antennas exist, much like a flood or spot light compared to a
standard incandescent bulb. They provide gain by focusing the energy
in a "desired" direction and reducing the energy is the "undesired"
direction. Now if you need energy/coverage upstairs/downstairs, you
could turn the antenna so that it's horizontal - but what you are
doing is turning that donut, and while you now have up and down
coverage, you lost the 'left/right' coverage. Antennas at both
ends of the link have to be oriented the same (vertical verses
horizontal) or you reduce the signal levels.

If you want to try this, see if you can _borrow_ the equipment to make
a test. If it works, fine - and if it doesn't you're not out much more
than the time involved.

Old guy

On 2008-06-27, Dave <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
> I am considering going to a wireless internet provider that will
> attach an antenna on the side of the house and run a network cable
> into the basement. That part is easy, but getting the signal up to
> the home office on the second floor is the problem. I seem to have 3
> options since there is no easy way to run a network cable from the
> basement to the office -- wireless (801.xx), over the power line, and
> perhaps over the CATV co-axial cable.

I'd just encourage you to keep an open mind about the wired route and
see if there isn't some way to make it work. Often you can get Cat5
almost anywhere, if you're willing to take various unconventional
routes.

I've had good luck in several places I've lived, running wiring inside
the forced-air ductwork. It provides an easy way of getting from one
floor to another, and is big enough so that feeding a fish tape and
actually pulling the cable is easy. (Easier than actual condit,
really.) Non-destructive too, which is a plus if you're not allowed
to drill holes.

Following water pipes is also good, although if you're near
uninsulated (copper) hot water, you may need to get industrial
high-heat cabling. Belden has a product that's good up to 160C I
believe, which is hotter than most domestic hot water gets.

Anyway, don't write off the idea of a wired network just because you
can't do it the usual way. You'd be amazed at the places I've seen
cables squeezed to get from one place to another. Just stay away from
mains power...

-Kadin.

Dave <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
> I am considering going to a wireless internet provider that will
> attach an antenna on the side of the house and run a network cable
> into the basement.

Isn't the antenna fitted at the top of the house, and the cable runs
down to where you want it?

If the antenna is on the roof, it seems strange to run a cable down to
the basement in order to connect to a computer on the second floor.

I would speak to the provider, and tell them that you want the cable to
go into the office on the second floor.

Regards,

Mark.

--
Mark Hobley,
393 Quinton Road West,
Quinton, BIRMINGHAM.
B32 1QE.

On Fri, 04 Jul 2008 08:37:28 +0100, Mark Hobley passed an empty day by
writing:

> Dave <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>> I am considering going to a wireless internet provider that will attach
>> an antenna on the side of the house and run a network cable into the
>> basement.
>
> Isn't the antenna fitted at the top of the house, and the cable runs
> down to where you want it?
>
> If the antenna is on the roof, it seems strange to run a cable down to
> the basement in order to connect to a computer on the second floor.
>
> I would speak to the provider, and tell them that you want the cable to
> go into the office on the second floor.
>
> Regards,
>
> Mark.

That did cross my mind too.

--
begin oefixed_in_2005.exe

On Fri, 04 Jul 2008, in the Usenet newsgroup comp.os.linux.networking, in
article <(E-Mail Removed)>, Kadin2048 wrote:

>I'd just encourage you to keep an open mind about the wired route and
>see if there isn't some way to make it work. Often you can get Cat5
>almost anywhere, if you're willing to take various unconventional
>routes.

Generally true - but one individual in another newsgroup mentioned the
problems he had installing a network in a concrete bunker (in Israel),
where drilling holes was next to impossible (meter/40 inch thick
reinforced concrete walls), which also made using wireless nearly
impossible, power lines were limited, etc. But other than that, it's
often possible to get wiring in to most places.

>I've had good luck in several places I've lived, running wiring inside
>the forced-air ductwork. It provides an easy way of getting from one
>>floor to another, and is big enough so that feeding a fish tape and
>actually pulling the cable is easy. (Easier than actual condit,
>really.) Non-destructive too, which is a plus if you're not allowed
>to drill holes.

Be sure to be using plenum rated cable - the jacket material on many
cables produces toxic smoke/gases when burning. Yes, you are not
planning to burn the house, but why make life more risky?

>Following water pipes is also good, although if you're near
>uninsulated (copper) hot water, you may need to get industrial
>high-heat cabling.

There are plenty of plenum rated cables with adequate temperature
ratings.

>Belden has a product that's good up to 160C I believe, which is
>hotter than most domestic hot water gets.

One would hope your hot water isn't that warm, as that's well above
the point where you have high pressure steam in the lines - remember
water boils at 100C at sea-level. Domestic hot water is usually 140F
60C, and the warning labels on the hot water heaters (and the so-called
instruction books that come with the heater) recommend setting the
temperatures much lower - like a chilly 120F/49C. Most plenum rated
cables are rated to at least 75C (167F) and should be adequate for
most cases.

Old guy

On Fri, 04 Jul 2008 15:39:16 -0500, Moe Trin wrote:

> On Fri, 04 Jul 2008, in the Usenet newsgroup comp.os.linux.networking,
> in article <(E-Mail Removed)>, Kadin2048
> wrote:
>
>>I'd just encourage you to keep an open mind about the wired route and
>>see if there isn't some way to make it work. Often you can get Cat5
>>almost anywhere, if you're willing to take various unconventional
>>routes.
>
> Generally true - but one individual in another newsgroup mentioned the
> problems he had installing a network in a concrete bunker (in Israel),
> where drilling holes was next to impossible (meter/40 inch thick
> reinforced concrete walls), which also made using wireless nearly
> impossible, power lines were limited, etc. But other than that, it's
> often possible to get wiring in to most places.
>
>>I've had good luck in several places I've lived, running wiring inside
>>the forced-air ductwork. It provides an easy way of getting from one
>>>floor to another, and is big enough so that feeding a fish tape and
>>actually pulling the cable is easy. (Easier than actual condit,
>>really.) Non-destructive too, which is a plus if you're not allowed to
>>drill holes.

As a former comms engineer it never ceases to amaze me how people think
you can get a service where they want it, without running any visible
cable at all. In the UK telecom giant BT introduced a '3 metre' rule.
Basically, you could have your termination up to 3 metres away for where
the service attached to your home. All wiring mostly visible.

But then, luxuries like forced air & service ducts are a dream here -
despite property being some of the most expensive in the world (and most
shoddily built, but that is another story)



--
Dog walks down the road. Gust of wind. Dog inside out.
I've replaced my 'old joke' signature because a better man than me told
me to ;-)

On 05 Jul 2008, in the Usenet newsgroup comp.os.linux.networking, in article
<486f0ea6$0$26074$(E-Mail Removed)>, A J Hawke wrote:

>Moe Trin wrote:

>> Kadin2048 wrote:

>> Generally true - but one individual in another newsgroup mentioned the
>> problems he had installing a network in a concrete bunker (in Israel),
>> where drilling holes was next to impossible (meter/40 inch thick
>> reinforced concrete walls), which also made using wireless nearly
>> impossible, power lines were limited, etc. But other than that, it's
>> often possible to get wiring in to most places.
>>
>>>I've had good luck in several places I've lived, running wiring inside
>>>the forced-air ductwork. It provides an easy way of getting from one
>>>>floor to another, and is big enough so that feeding a fish tape and
>>>actually pulling the cable is easy. (Easier than actual condit,
>>>really.) Non-destructive too, which is a plus if you're not allowed to
>>>drill holes.
>
>As a former comms engineer it never ceases to amaze me how people think
>you can get a service where they want it, without running any visible
>cable at all.

Much depends on how the house is constructed. My previous house had a
crawl space under the dwelling, and while cramped it was accessible
allowing me to install network cables as needed. The current house is
build directly on a concrete slab, and the only access would be the
attic - which is heavily insulated (18 inches of blown-in fiberglass
over the ceilings). A lot more work, but again, network cables added
where needed.

In the 1940s and 1950s, people learning the (house) electrical trade
were taught a technique called "old work" which was used to install
wiring in an older house. It used such tricks as removing the baseboard
(wooden trim at the bottom of the wall) and hiding the wires behind
that. Where needed, you could drill a hole large enough to pass the
wire into the wall just below a convenience outlet. Another trick was
to dig a channel in the plastered wall surface, stick the wires in there
and patch/paint to hide the gouge work. There was also a product
allowing wires to be run in metal channels (raceways) on the surface of
the wall. Given todays wiring requirements (outlets every six feet, no
more than a room on a given circuit, etc.) and the large amounts of
electrical power needed in the home today, these techniques wouldn't be
very practical - although the surface wiring materials are still found
in DIY stores like Home Despot. The 'behind the backboard' technique
does work for installing network cabling, as I used it to reach the
exterior walls which are out of reach from above..

>In the UK telecom giant BT introduced a '3 metre' rule. Basically, you
>could have your termination up to 3 metres away for where the service
>attached to your home.

Wouldn't have worked very well in my last home - the phone and power
attached to the house on the far side of an attached two car garage,
about 5.5 meters / 18 feet from the nearest living space. And of course,
the cable TV and network connection came in on the other side of the
house.

>All wiring mostly visible.

There is a _recommendation_ in most building codes here that new homes
be wired for communications devices - this used to mean telephone only,
but even my 19 year old home was built with wiring for cable TV in 4
of the rooms. Today, some builders are advertising their homes have
pre-installed network cabling that meets the building code
recommendation. What they DON'T tell you is that this is Cat1 wiring
(wet string) and was probably installed by the apprentice electricians
helper using a power stapler (meaning the wires are often shorted).

>But then, luxuries like forced air & service ducts are a dream here -

It's cool today - only going to reach 43 degrees... Celsius (109F), so
air conditioning is mandatory. This house has 7 Tons (84000 BTU/H =
24.6 KW) of central air. But I was told that British builders always
put the plumbing outside so the repair crews could have access to it
when it froze.

>despite property being some of the most expensive in the world (and
>most shoddily built, but that is another story)

I dunno - I haven't seen a builder who isn't building using minimum cost
materials and labor. Somehow, they get the result past the city building
inspectors, and that's all they care about. It's hard to build a house
for a mere $200/square foot (about 28 times the minimum hourly wage).
Besides, the builders warranty is a whole 24 months!!! ($200/ft^2 is
on the low side - houses were selling for $235/ft^2 before the bubble
burst, and no, I'm not down town - I'm 28 _miles_ from down town.)

When I bought this house, I noted that the water supply pipe coming out
of the ground was 1 1/2 inch soft copper, and thought - "wow, quality".
About a year afterwards, a neighbor mentions that the builder had used
Polybutylene pipe there. The PB pipe has a history of splitting, but it
was cheap. I also notice that the 240 Volt wiring used here for high
power service such as the air conditioners, air handlers, water heater,
clothes drier and kitchen stove (lighting and general use is 120V) was
all aluminum wiring. Fifteen years after it was built, I notice low
water pressure, and it's flooding the yard between the water meter at
the edge of the property and the shutoff at the side of the house. Turns
out the builder _had_ used PB pipe there, and transitioned to the copper
about a foot below grade. The plumbers who replaced the pipe noted that
the run unnecessarily ran under the concrete slab that is the driveway,
and suggested this was done to hide the pipe from the city inspector.

Old guy