Archived from groups: alt.internet.wireless (
More info?)
On Wed, 6 Oct 2004 00:47:18 +0100, "chrisj" <a@b.c> wrote:
>Hi, i need to get internet access into a building that is being used as an
>office. It is 300ft from my house and my ADSL, there is a clear line of
>sight from the ADSL socket to the corner of the buidling but not to where
>the computer would be. Whats the best way to do this? Could i use a wireless
>network, can they reach that far? Or would i be better off to put a cat5
>cable through?
I always run cable where possible. Wireless should be a last restort.
A 300ft distance between buildings usually means 400ft of CAT5 wire.
I've gone up to 950ft with CAT5 between two 10baseT switched ports (on
two switches of course). No problems. Just don't try it at 100baseT
or with a hub. If you have conduit, run CAT5.
I prefer using coax cable for the job because it's easier to find
messenger wired or buriable RG-6/u or RG-11/u than it is to find
weatherproof CAT5. I also don't like to work with the slimey goo used
in waterproof CAT5. 10base2 coax cable will work up to about 1000ft
using two media converters at each end.
See my previous rants on the subject of abusing cabling standards:
http://www.google.com/groups?selm=5uotd0hfdeqsdmmgih4got8i9ook1lde3m%404ax.com
http://www.google.com/groups?selm=v27ud0pveqfnlcgemnfgqs9n792naa1bd8%404ax.com
At 300ft, wireless should be easy if you're shooting through a window
and have line of sight. However, if you put a few walls in the way,
the composition of the walls will make a big difference. You can use
directional antennas to compensate for the loss, but if your building
has metal in the walls, no amount of power will work. That means
outside antennas and coax cable runs.
--
Jeff Liebermann jeffl@comix.santa-cruz.ca.us
150 Felker St #D
http://www.LearnByDestroying.com
Santa Cruz CA 95060 AE6KS 831-336-2558