Inexpensive point-to-point solution needed

I'm a bit of a newbie to this topic so please excuse my ignorance.

We live out in the boonies - no cable, no DSL - only internet access
is via satellite. For various reasons (not the least of which is
cost) we do not have a satellite hook-up ourselves. However, our
neighbors just up the hill (about 300' through the trees) do get
satellite internet. On occasion, we can actually get a weak signal
off of their wireless (with their leave) - but only certain dell
laptops are able to even pick it up (my <1 yr old macbook pro
cannot). And even when we can get a signal, it's sometimes just as
slow as dial-up.

We were hoping to set up some kind of point-to-point bridge between
the two houses so that we could share the satellite internet and the
cost. At one time, I tried just getting a wireless router, went over
to their house and set it up as part of the network - but back at our
house, it just didn't work.

So, I'm hoping one of you can point me at an inexpensive solution to
set up some kind of directional wireless bridge between the two houses
so that we can extend the wireless network to our house in a way that
will be functional, reliable and easy to set up. Searching around in
the internet, I only seem to come across solutions geared towards
larger entities, costing thousands of $$. I'm looking for a solution
that would run only in the few hundreds of $$, if such exists.

Ideally, this would be a product that I could buy off the shelf
instead of something that I have to fashion myself - and something
that could be added on without any major changes to their current
system.

Any help appreciated.

Thanks.

-J

Besides the powerstations, check out Ubiquiti's Nanostation2 and
Loco2. Both are under $100 and look like just what you'd want.

http://store.wisp-router.com/wri/ite...=Loco2&eq=&Tp=

http://store.wisp-router.com/wri/ite...ic=NS2&eq=&Tp=


Steve

Thanks for the suggestions from everyone.

> Caveats -- use HDcom's instructions for setup, instead of Ubiquity's. *
> The former is simple, the latter overly-complex for the task. *Also,
> be sure to set the "Station" at your friend's house where IP leases
> are issued, and the "Access Point" unit at your place.
> (no, it won't double as an AP while in the bridge mode-- sorry)
>

In HDcom's setup manual, doesn't it say just the reverse? That the AP
should be "located at the site of the network infrastructure that you
are looking to associate to"?

I'm still a bit confused. Would one of the two boxes replace my
friend's current wireless access point?

Also, what's POE?

Thanks.

-J

On Dec 16, 9:41*pm, John Navas <spamfilt...@navasgroup.com> wrote:
> On Tue, 16 Dec 2008 14:33:04 -0600, "Lloyd E. Sponenburgh"
> <lloydspinsidemindspring.com> wrote in
> <Xns9B769E37F6F03lloydspmindspring...@216.168.3.70 >:
>
> >It's actually quite a bit less expensive to do it with the PS-2s than
> >with wire, once you figure the ditch, the pipe (or direct-burial
> >cable), the surge protection on both ends, and the labor.
>
> <quibble> *No surge protection needed with fiber. *</quibble>

That's a good point, John. You can get a two pair outdoor mm fiber
cable for about $1 a feet in any length. No need for pipes, but should
be placed under ground frost to extend lifetime. In addition you need
two fiber converters, $100 each, and a couple of weekends of work. You
will end up with a silution where your day to day concern is what to
use your bandwidth for, and not whether or not it's working, If you
can avoid wireless, do!

On Dec 17, 1:31*am, "Lloyd E. Sponenburgh"
<lloydspinsidemindspring.com> wrote:
>> That's a good point, John. You can get a two pair outdoor
>> mm fiber cable for about $1 a feet in any length. No need
>> for pipes, but should be placed under ground frost to extend
>> lifetime. In addition you need two fiber converters, $100 each,
>> and a couple of weekends of work.You will end up with a
>> silution where your day to day concern is what to use your
>> bandwidth for, and not whether or not it's working, If you
>> can avoid wireless, do!
>
> John's quibble is acknowleged. *Yours still results in a link that is
> quite a bit more expensive than the wireless solution. (roughly $600
> vs. under $400)

Yes. Best cost more than bad.

> Yours benefits from having a higher intrinsic bandwidth. *That assumes
> you have the bandwidth to use it, though.

I bet they can come up with something, sharing movies and music for
instance. Is there anything else you need bandwidth for?

> As far as reliability?... The PS-2s over that distance (400+ feet) are
> rock-solid. *

Rock-solid my ass. I have built some wireless networks in my life and
when it sais watchdog it means software routine, and when it sais
water proof, it means you need to put it inside a bucket that is acit
proof unless you want a router (or antenna) if plastic cracks and suck
in water, and if it sais lightning proof it means it won't put your
house on fire, but destroy your equipment it will, and if it sais peak
voltage proof, it doesn't mean a circuit that will reset the µC when
voltage drops under a certain level like in equipment made by
reasonable man, oh no, it means your router at best wil reset to
factory settings. Don't you dare tell me that cunsumer product, here
under wireless is any good. I know it's shit from long experience.
Shit that needs daily care. My clear experience with wireless points
in one direction. If you don't want to use alots of time fixing
problems, go fiber. It's the best way, specially if you're doing an
electronic potentional separation with a good local ground, and if you
live in lightning area, a good lightning deflector. If you got bad
voltage, which often drops, then you may want to go -48V with
batteries function as a capacitor. Then you may get something close to
rock solid. Just make sure you got that fiber to transport data unless
there is impossible.

> You aren't going to be concerned with up-time with either
> configuration at that distance, unless you include hardware failures.

lol.

Listen boy. Distance when it comes to wireless is ONLY a fading
concern. If your fading margin is great enough to for all the weather
in your district, distance is not relevant. Other than this, longer
distance got no magical property that makes it less reliable. Power is
sqr distance. Twice the distance screams for four times the power,
neither more nor less, to get the same fade margin.

In article <Xns9B77447718D8Dlloydspmindspringcom@216.168.3.70 >,
"Lloyd E. Sponenburgh" <lloydspinsidemindspring.com> wrote:

> Besides, when was the last time you tried trenching through a stand of
> trees. <G>

True. With all the advances in technology, the high-speed devices, the
fibre-optics, petaflop processors, we still haven't come up with a
cheaper way to dig a ditch.
--
W. Oates

> Besides, when was the last time you tried trenching through a stand of
> trees. <G>

Within my budget there is no way a trench will be dug to lay any kind
of wire across this terrain. Lloyd, It's nice to hear of a solution
that is actually field tested under similar conditions - that is a
much stronger recommendation than "this should work". This is not a
critical gov't system, so if it flakes on occasion and needs to be
jiggered, no big deal. I'm not expecting miracles, just something
that works right most of the time.

Thanks.

-J

On Dec 16, 7:17*pm, Chrisjoy <ultralibertaria...@gmail.com> wrote:

> Listen boy.


How ugly. Another Euro-troll?

Who wouldn't agree that wires are more reliable? Still, this is not
a critical mission, and nobody gets hurt if it's down 3% of the time
or whatever.

Over a couple of years of using consumer grade wireless in a local
network, I've had minor niggles with client devices and Windows, but
really, wireless bridging does work. As for wired, which I always
try to implement first, yes we've had one fail that was somehow nicked
a year after installation and was a bear to track down. I'm cautious
when installing, but over hundreds of meters, things happen.

When wireless fails it's about dealing with the endpoints (or
interference) When wired fails, it could be anywhere. I get nervous
when one of my wired clients has a problem. Usually it's at the
endpoints as well, though.

That said, for 300 feet of forest, wire is the way to go, if you have
access.

If not, try to get some Nanostations up above the treetops. Since
your neighbor is up the hill from you, his end may be easier. In both
cases, the house is a good place to start for getting altitude, but
doesn't always serve you. In that case, to get the wireless device
up high without installing a tower, I put the device on a long pole
then lift it into the tree using my tallest ladder and strap it to the
tree, which provides extra altitude and support. If I have a 20' pole
and a 16' ladder, then I can get 35' -40' of height that way. Wind
is sometimes a problem with this approach, but not too bad in our
case, with wide beamed antennas. Line of sight is more imporatant.
Run your ethernet wire from there to the house and throw a cheap AP/
switch/router on the end of it.

Steve

> That said, for 300 feet of forest, wire is the way to go, if you have
> access.

It's just impractical to try and lay a trench through the trees - and
going around via the road would be thousands of feet. Plus, I
wouldn't ask my neighbor to dig up his property. Laying some kind of
tougher wire overland or suspended is not an option for other
reasons. Getting up above the trees is also not practical. At 40' is
just where the foliage (hemlock needles mostly) is thickest. The
first 20' or so is mostly scattered bare trunks. So unless I'm going
up 60-80', it's better to go low than high.

As I originally stated - I can get a weak signal right now, as is,
with no special equipment. That's what gives me the most hope of
success. A dell laptop in our house can access the internet (though
often not much faster than dial-up) from our neighbor's wireless
router sitting in their house. Macs consistently get nothing though.
Given that I can lock up on the weak signal with certain computers
with the current setup, I'm hoping that some beefed up wireless relays
(such as the ubiquity products discussed above) plus a standard
wireless router in our house will get respectable coverage in our
house for any wireless device.

I'm going to give it a try anyway. I looked at the ubiquiti products
and am not sure which model to make the attempt with though - either
go all out with the Powerstations (more expensive but presumably a
higher chance of success) or try with the nano-station or loco, which
could work just fine because, as noted, we can already get a weak
signal with no booster.

-J

On Dec 17, 12:52*pm, "Lloyd E. Sponenburgh"
> Chrisjoy <ultralibertaria...@gmail.com> fired this volley in
> news:03c935bb-1a0f-4398-99d6-
> > Listen boy. Distance when it comes to wireless is ONLY a
> > fading concern. If your fading margin is great enough to for
> > all the weather in your district, distance is not relevant. Other
> > than this, longer distance got no magical property that makes
> > it less reliable. Power is sqr distance. Twice the distance
> > screams for four times the power, neither more nor less, to get
> > the same fade margin.
>
> The PS-2 is capable of about 20W ERP. *The power formula is high
> school physics. *I was a General Class radio amateur before I sat for
> that course in the 10th grade. That was some while before you were
> splattered on a public toilet seat.

Listen up, boy.

There is nothing madigcal about distance as you claimed. You offer no
valid argument to support this claim. I think what ever I want about
your schooling. So far you have shown nothing else but being a
clueless moron.

There is no such thing as rock solid wireless link in the sumsumer
marked. Consumer marked offer you only crap.

Those were the two claims you put forward, and yet not able to support
with reason. You're a charlatan.

> You're just a sick fuck with a big mouth; boy.

Whatever you like to call a guy who's not worry about pointing out the
charlatans.

> Actually, more likely, you're one of those pasty-skinned, TV-addicted,
> game-thumbed, pimple-covered twinkies who've never seen a live woman
> naked.

This is far below my dignity to answer directly.