# 450Ft+ Networking? Phoneline and cat5e....



## Markuss13 (Sep 21, 2010)

What is needed to convert a cat5e internet signal to RJ45 (phone line)? I'm trying to wire up a long distance internet for a friend and i have seen this done before but I do not remember what was needed to be done. If anyone could help me, what I am trying to do is run internet to a switch 450ft+ away from router and I know that cat5e will loose signal through this distance. But I have heard and seen that if you convert to RJ45 (phone line) and run it then convert back the signal retains its strength. Please correct me if I'm wrong. But could anyone help me out?

Thanks,
Markuss13


----------



## newtekie1 (Sep 21, 2010)

You can't do that.  RJ45 is just the standard ethernet plug.  Converting it to phone line, which would be untwisted pair wire, would only make things worse.

What you would need to do is put a powered switch right around the mid-point of the cable run.  That would prevent any signal degradation.

You can get some converts that will allow you to have pretty far runs with Coax cable such as these: http://www.vpi.us/eth-coax.html  However, I've never used them personally, only heard of them being used to run an IP network from one building to another.

Of course the best solution to this is fiber, but it is also the most expensive...


----------



## Phxprovost (Sep 21, 2010)

why not just get 2 directional antennas and 2 wireless ap's?


----------



## Athlon2K15 (Sep 21, 2010)

Wireless N would work great for this


----------



## v12dock (Sep 21, 2010)

So want to use cat5e for phone, thats how my house is ran
green = white/blue
red = blue/white
black = white/orange
yellow = orange/white


----------



## Markuss13 (Sep 21, 2010)

Phxprovost said:


> why not just get 2 directional antennas and 2 wireless ap's?



Because of too much interference. 



newtekie1 said:


> You can't do that.  RJ45 is just the standard ethernet plug.  Converting it to phone line, which would be untwisted pair wire, would only make things worse.
> 
> What you would need to do is put a powered switch right around the mid-point of the cable run.  That would prevent any signal degradation.
> 
> ...



I hear what your saying. ummm....would that work for extending a network to this other place and still allow internet access?



v12dock said:


> So want to use cat5e for phone, thats how my house is ran
> green = white/blue
> red = blue/white
> black = white/orange
> yellow = orange/white



Not what i want to do.


----------



## Hybrid_theory (Sep 21, 2010)

Ethernet has a guaranteed limit of 100 meters, or 328 ft. You need a device in there as a repeater to get the signal all the way. Wireless n would be tricky to get 450ft as well. You would need more of a unidirectional antenna. That coax device newtekie listed may work.


----------



## Mike0409 (Sep 21, 2010)

You need to run a powered switch as stated before by Newtekie  This would be your cheapest and most effective solution.


----------



## ktr (Sep 22, 2010)

There is away to transmit and IP from ethernet over phone lines, but it is old and slow (http://www.anandtech.com/print/860). 

Ideally you want to stick with standard ethernet cable. Open your phone's wall plate. Maybe the builders used ethernet cable for the phone lines.


----------



## Deleted member 3 (Sep 22, 2010)

newtekie1 said:


> What you would need to do is put a powered switch right around the mid-point of the cable run.  That would prevent any signal degradation.





Mike0409 said:


> You need to run a powered switch as stated before by Newtekie  This would be your cheapest and most effective solution.



Is there such a thing as a switch that is not powered? 
Technically you need a repeater, though considering the price of switches and the fact that they function as repeaters as well they will do. You can always use PoE to power one and put it in a weather resistant box if it has to be outside. 

The best solution however is fiber as newtekie mentioned, though that comes with a different price tag.


----------



## Markuss13 (Sep 22, 2010)

Problem being is that it is being run over a feild with no area for a switch/repeater to be run. This is why im looking for a way to convert ethernet to something else to run up to the other spot.


----------



## Hybrid_theory (Sep 22, 2010)

Well even just running a wire, youll want to bury it in a couple of feet so animals dont chew on it, and its a little more protected from weather and such. But 450 ft of diggin is a fair amount of work. You could run a power cord along this and use a switch/repeater along the way. But yeah your choice is basically fiber or coax.


----------



## newtekie1 (Sep 22, 2010)

DanTheBanjoman said:


> Is there such a thing as a switch that is not powered?
> Technically you need a repeater, though considering the price of switches and the fact that they function as repeaters as well they will do. You can always use PoE to power one and put it in a weather resistant box if it has to be outside.
> 
> The best solution however is fiber as newtekie mentioned, though that comes with a different price tag.



Saying powered switch is kind of redundant, but I do it to avoid confusion.  There are, or rather were, non-powered hubs and you can still find them in some local mom and pop electronics shops.  So I just say powered switch to make sure they don't pick up one of these antient useless devices.

Yes, technically you need a repeater, but switches do the job and are usually cheaper.



Markuss13 said:


> Problem being is that it is being run over a feild with no area for a switch/repeater to be run. This is why im looking for a way to convert ethernet to something else to run up to the other spot.



You have some options.  As we mentioned fiber would be the best choice, but expensive.

Probably the best comprimize between price practicality would be a coax run.  I believe this would be a slightly better kit than the one I originally posted: NETGEAR MCAB1001-100NAS 270 Mbps MoCA Coax-Etherne...

Being from netgear and not a random generic company means it probably has better support should you run into problems.  I believe this should give you at least 500ft to play with, though some places I've read seem to say you can get coax runs like this to go up to 4000ft.


----------



## ktr (Sep 22, 2010)

Markuss13 said:


> Problem being is that it is being run over a feild with no area for a switch/repeater to be run. This is why im looking for a way to convert ethernet to something else to run up to the other spot.



Okay, you didn't mention that it is outdoor, across a field. This is very important information to provide. Are we talking about two different homes across a field? Do these property share any common wiring (Phone, power, TV, etc)? 



newtekie1 said:


> You have some options.  As we mentioned fiber would be the best choice, but expensive.
> 
> Probably the best comprimize between price practicality would be a coax run.  I believe this would be a slightly better kit than the one I originally posted: NETGEAR MCAB1001-100NAS 270 Mbps MoCA Coax-Etherne...
> 
> Being from netgear and not a random generic company means it probably has better support should you run into problems.  I believe this should give you at least 500ft to play with, though some places I've read seem to say you can get coax runs like this to go up to 4000ft.



That device has a max range of 300FT between nodes.


----------



## Mindweaver (Sep 22, 2010)

It's possible to run cat5 past the rated 328 ft. I know cause i've done it in the past. My 100mb network was drop to around 10mb in the longest distances, but that is still plenty. Just try to put a switch every 328ft or so to help out. I was using 2 T1's then.. err I'm still using 2 t1's and have rigs over 328ft away, but i've upgraded my switches to 1gb switches so my 10mb is faster now. I think you will be fine just don't use a shitty switch and don't expect to send really big files and get them in a timely fashion. I know ppl are going to say no way, but I've done this for over 8 years now. I also, have devices a lot farther away using a few ap and repeaters. have the repeater catch the connection and feed it to a switch to the rest of the boxes. 

Don't get me wrong fiber would be the best route, but it you can afford it then it can still be done with out fiber.


----------



## Disparia (Sep 22, 2010)

As Dan mentioned, there are PoE powered repeaters. No additional power cord runs, but would need PoE injector on that line unless you want buy a switch with PoE on some or all of the ports (future devices - cameras, phones, etc).

This is the route I would go, as I don't like dips in my speed. Otherwise, you can try Mindweavers suggestion and just go for it  At worst, you cut that 450ft run in half and add the repeater in?


----------



## timta2 (Sep 22, 2010)

BTW, Phone lines (here in the US at least) use RJ11 connectors and Ethernet uses RJ45.

You can rent trenchers that are motorized and will help you dig that long trench. You can also buy weatherproof enclosures if you need it.


----------



## digibucc (Sep 22, 2010)

i have two directional antennae pointed at each other around 400ft apart, and i get all 10MB from Roadrunner coming through fine , never actually tested max throughput but that is all i need.  I wouldn't even consider running wire that long.


----------



## Mindweaver (Sep 22, 2010)

As everyone has said I would go wireless. Just get a nice directional ant like digibucc said. I would get the biggest dbi directional ant that i could afford. Then put it on my router/ap then one on my repeater and be done with it.


----------



## overclocking101 (Sep 22, 2010)

if the thing is 450ft away across a feild how the hell is there interference?? i say go wireless of figure out a switch, otherwise just run the wire alone, but digging all that well enought to last is going to be a full work day.


----------



## Markuss13 (Sep 23, 2010)

overclocking101 said:


> if the thing is 450ft away across a feild how the hell is there interference?? i say go wireless of figure out a switch, otherwise just run the wire alone, but digging all that well enought to last is going to be a full work day.



This is because the house is mostly surrounded by a hill. The signal can not be picked up. SO for all you that keeps saying go wireless it cannot be done here. Also the running a Ethernet plus switch/repeater to run it out will not work due to to far and no area for a repeater.


----------



## digibucc (Sep 23, 2010)

Markuss13 said:


> This is because the house is mostly surrounded by a hill. The signal can not be picked up. SO for all you that keeps saying go wireless it cannot be done here. Also the running a Ethernet plus switch/repeater to run it out will not work due to to far and no area for a repeater.



so run a cable 50ft vertical to a directional, wireless, antenna.
you ask for how to make it work but don't like the answers.

well the simple answer is this: there is no way to run a cable across 400+ft with no power to repeat that signal.  you can try putting 3 solar powered repeaters, to that end.
so all you are left with is wireless. we wouldn't keep mentioning it, if it weren't the best solution.


----------



## Disparia (Sep 23, 2010)

So you were originally willing to run phone line, but Ethernet is somehow a problem?

I guess you could go satellite


----------



## newtekie1 (Sep 23, 2010)

At this point, if you can't do wireless, and you can't use ethernet then you might have to use fiber.

I know coax runs can go longer than 300ft, but every home based solution I see that would be reasonably priced is limitted to 300ft.

The standard says 328ft is the limit for ethernet also, but I've seen it go longer, it just isn't totally reliable, packets start to get dropped and such, but it can work.  In fact I've seen it handle 10M just fine, which is plenty fast for most internet connections, but file transfers between computers was rather slow.

I'd say try just running the cat5e straight out there and see what happens.



Jizzler said:


> So you were originally willing to run phone line, but Ethernet is somehow a problem?
> 
> I guess you could go satellite



I don't think the problem is with ethernet, but rather with the repeater that would be required in the middle, and how to get power to it in the middle of a field.


----------



## ktr (Sep 23, 2010)

Okay, I think I got what you need from the info you've provide.

What you need is the following:

Direct burial cat5e/6 cable
PoE injector
PoE splitter
Switch
Outdoor weather proof housing

|Source------>PoE injector|======>[PoE Splitter------>Switch]======>|Destination|

----> is regular cat cable
===> is direct burial cat cable
| | is the home/indoors
[ ] is the outdoor housing


----------



## meran (Sep 23, 2010)

just get point to point ap 5ghz for no interference get nanostation or airgrid it will cost u 150$ though but no trouble and wire problems i have this one its amazing
http://www.google.com/products/cata...XMCYGK-Qa1hYnOBQ&sa=title&ved=0CAcQ8wIwADgA#p


----------



## v12dock (Sep 23, 2010)

We just installed these at my work http://us.startech.com/product/110VDSLEXT-10-100Mbps-VDSL-Ethernet-LAN-Extender-Kit

We need to run ethernet about 1400ft over cat3 cable if that


----------



## Markuss13 (Sep 23, 2010)

Ok so you all keep saying use a directional wireless signal. Where could you get a a kit for this?


----------



## andrew123 (Sep 26, 2010)

There are a multitude of different carrier systems you can use to accomplish this, if you have access to a couple of hub/repeaters your best bet might be to simply put one every 100m until you get to the point of termination.

Converting the Packets/Frame to run over an analogue line would be pointless as you'd require much more cabling to even get 10mbit unless you had a stinger + dslam to convert the signal to adsl. If you used a 10base5 coax connection you could run a single shot of coax from your network to his network, that would be enough to comfortably surf the internet, download.

I'd stay away from any wireless solutions. In my experience wireless (especially anything that's not done using a controller) suffers terribly from interference in the 2.4Ghz and 5Ghz range be it from microwaves, other AP's etc.. not to mention the security concerns that can ocurr.

So yeah, either stick with ethernet + repeaters or use 10Base5 / 10Base2 (185m range for 10Base2).


----------



## slyfox2151 (Sep 26, 2010)

wireless with WPA2 - 63 digit password has NO security concerns.  set the password once and ur done.


good luck trying to break that.







however i do agree to stay away from any wireless. theres bound to be days with problems.


----------



## Hybrid_theory (Sep 26, 2010)

slyfox2151 said:


> wireless with WPA2 - 63 digit password has NO security concerns.  set the password once and ur done.
> 
> 
> good luck trying to break that.
> ...



eh its doable to break it. would just take a long time. maybe park a van with solar power or someyhing and a couple of servers clustered inside for 2 months, see what happens


----------



## andrew123 (Sep 26, 2010)

Fair enough, it is hard to break.. but every other encryption has been broken, so it's only a matter of time.. Nuking a bowl of popcorn could take down that radio, AM interference could take down that radio... WiFi is a convenience, not a replacement for physically wired connections.. especially for something as important as primary internet connection. There is a reason your internet connection comes over copper/fiber/coax, reliability.


----------



## Markuss13 (Sep 27, 2010)

For one security is not a problem here. This is because it is located in middle of no where really. And the owner is thinking more towards wireless due to the fact he does not want to run any wires.


----------



## Hybrid_theory (Sep 27, 2010)

Oh yea, when it comes to cracking wireless, people just look for wep networks. They might crack wpa2 if they know theres something worth getting on the network for. ie cybercrime scenarios.


----------



## newtekie1 (Sep 27, 2010)

Hybrid_theory said:


> Oh yea, when it comes to cracking wireless, people just look for wep networks. They might crack wpa2 if they know theres something worth getting on the network for. ie cybercrime scenarios.



Actually, when it comes to cracking networks they just look for the unsecured networks.  They only move to cracking WEP when there isn't any unsecured within driving distance.


----------



## Hybrid_theory (Sep 27, 2010)

> Actually, when it comes to cracking networks they just look for the unsecured networks. They only move to cracking WEP when there isn't any unsecured within driving distance



Lazy bastards . One day i should setup an ldap server at home or something and use wpa2 enterprise. just cause i can


----------



## andrew123 (Oct 7, 2010)

*10Base5*

Pick up a couple of old 10Base5 NICS. It's old technology, but we're talking 10mbit straight shot over coax, cheap to do, underground rated coax is cheap (or you might be able to modulate it over aerial plant if your cable company technician is a nice guy and runs a line for you on the messanger wire.)

10Base5 is good for 500m distance. You are well within spec @ 450ft. Burial rated grease-filled coax is cheap too.

You can run Cat5/6e, but you will need an 802.3at capable injector (+ PoE repeater). Now, finding a 10Base5 NIC in PCI might be a stretch. but seriously, all you need are 2 NIC's  + Cable and termination ends. Most likely under 100bucks.

It will get you 10Mbit, half duplex, enough to do Netflix.


----------

