External Lan cable - WTP?

Time and again, I'm asked why one cannot (should not) run a LAN cable
outside the house, i.e. taking the easiest route from one room to
another.

Why is there a problem, and what is it?
Would we be attaching a lightening conductor to the router and
computer? Is it dangerous to the equipment, the person, or both?

- and of course why can one run telephone line, cable TV etc, and
television aerial cable outside with (presumably) impunity?

Asking in complete ignorance!

Bill

On Sun, 03 Jul 2005 15:06:20 +0100, B Gruff <(E-Mail Removed)>
wrote:

>Why is there a problem, and what is it?

it looks crap, and going through an outside wall ought not to be
easier and it bridges the cavity wall.

Phil
--
Tiscali - dialup speeds at Broadband prices, see
http://bbs.adslguide.org.uk/postlist...&Board=tiscali

AOL - the unlimited ISP of choice for heavy downloaders.

On Sun, 03 Jul 2005 15:21:54 +0100,it is alleged that Phil Thompson
<(E-Mail Removed)> spake thusly in uk.telecom.broadband:

>On Sun, 03 Jul 2005 15:06:20 +0100, B Gruff <(E-Mail Removed)>
>wrote:
>
>>Why is there a problem, and what is it?
>
>it looks crap, and going through an outside wall ought not to be
>easier and it bridges the cavity wall.
>
>Phil

The reason cited in the US (with their higher frequency of
thunderstorms) is that it *could* get a much higher voltage induced on
it by being outside the 'controlled environment' of someplace indoors.
Having witnessed several dozen such storms, I can see the point,
although I lost a network hub *inside* a building on a LAN that was
NOT connected to the outside world in any way. My theory on that is
that the protection on the hub ports was 'cheaper' than the protection
on the PC NICs, which all survived.

I agree that outside cables look less professional (I wouldn't go so
far as 'crap' if it's done neatly, but this is very much up to the
individual.

--
Life is a whim of several billion cells to be you for a while.

On Sun, 03 Jul 2005 15:24:25 GMT, Chip <(E-Mail Removed)>
wrote:

>although I lost a network hub *inside* a building on a LAN that was
>NOT connected to the outside world in any way.

wot, no electric ?

Phil
--
Tiscali - dialup speeds at Broadband prices, see
http://bbs.adslguide.org.uk/postlist...&Board=tiscali

AOL - the unlimited ISP of choice for heavy downloaders.

On Sun, 03 Jul 2005 16:35:19 +0100,it is alleged that Phil Thompson
<(E-Mail Removed)> spake thusly in uk.telecom.broadband:

>On Sun, 03 Jul 2005 15:24:25 GMT, Chip <(E-Mail Removed)>
>wrote:
>
>>although I lost a network hub *inside* a building on a LAN that was
>>NOT connected to the outside world in any way.
>
>wot, no electric ?
>
>Phil

At the time, no. A feature of the part of Ohio I was in, is the power
goes off during thunderstorms <g>.

Seriously, it was a bad storm, all the computers were unplugged and so
was the hub. The only way anything could have got in was induction.

The strike that I think caused the damage was onto a power pole ~50
feet from the house, would have caused serious current to be flowing
through the ground under the house.

--
Computers achieved sentience in nineteen seventy five. The reason we're
unaware of this is that they watched TV, saw what we do to sentient
computers, and decided to take it out on us secretly. We call the
result of this descision "Windows"

On Sun, 03 Jul 2005 15:06:20 +0100, B Gruff wrote:

> Time and again, I'm asked why one cannot (should not) run a LAN cable
> outside the house, i.e. taking the easiest route from one room to
> another.
>
> Why is there a problem, and what is it?
> Would we be attaching a lightening conductor to the router and
> computer? Is it dangerous to the equipment, the person, or both?
>
> - and of course why can one run telephone line, cable TV etc, and
> television aerial cable outside with (presumably) impunity?
>
> Asking in complete ignorance!
>
> Bill


There is no more likelyhood of it being hit than your tv aerial cable and
if the house gets hit you can say goodbye to most electronic devices
anyway. Most people who go on about this have some sort of issue or they
want to make a name for themselves as doomongers. If the appearance
bothers you then run it in 20mm black plastic conduit.

Dave

"B Gruff" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
news:(E-Mail Removed)...
> Time and again, I'm asked why one cannot (should not) run a LAN cable
> outside the house, i.e. taking the easiest route from one room to
> another.

The biggest problem will be how you are going to do it.

Most, if not all, Cat5 cables are not rated for external use & so will break
down, in time, due to UV. There are various ways of getting around this
(i.e using ducting/conduit)..

Now if you are talking about from one house to another that is a completely
different kettle of fish....

B Gruff wrote:

> Time and again, I'm asked why one cannot (should not) run a LAN cable
> outside the house, i.e. taking the easiest route from one room to
> another.

Wires get eaten, possibility of different phase next door house,
lightening attractor, rats love the flavour or Cat5 cable,
etc...

It just isn't a done thing.

I have tried coax ethernet - that seems to be much more resilient
but caused phase related problems. (i.e. you end up getting 340V on
your coax - very low current but still enough to give
an uncomfortable jolt to kids unfamiliar with technology and pets)

Use WiFI with a booster if needs be.
Far safer providing you have enabled simple security.

"kraftee" <kraftee@spamoff&die> wrote

> Most, if not all, Cat5 cables are not rated for external use & so will
> break down, in time, due to UV.

External grade UTP cable is available, and the key difference is that it
will not break down under UV light. It is also (as you might expect)
considerably more expensive.

- Mike
PS It is usually black in colour, which rarely matches a house/office
colour.