i have an issue here and i think there's no solution, but we'll see.
we have a massive warehouse and we need 2 computers on two ends of the building. i ran the DSL line (which runs on our fax number) to this end of the building, split with a simple phone jack splitter (so we can still get faxes on this line, too) into a wireless router which allows my laptop and the desktop here to work fine with internet.
on the other end of the building, we installed a new office and a new computer. we thought we could just make the 2 way phone jack splitter a 3 way splitter and run a new phone line to the new office for DSL, which in turn plugs into a simple ethernet-port modem.
as you might already know, either only the router OR only the modem will have internet at one time, plugging one in shuts the other off.
i realized after reading online that DSL can run to a single line.
the router here is much too far away to reach the other office, and it took several hundred feet of phoneline to get the DSL ran to the new office. so i can't just go get a 900ft ethernet cable and run from the router to the new office...
what are our options...? is there a DSL signal splitter that will run to two modems? or will we simply have to shut one off while using the other?
wireless is not an option, either--the building is all steel and the signal dies immediately outside this office.
Why not have the phone company run another service line to that end of the warehouse? I know you'd rather not, but if you can't run ethernet cable, and can't use wireless (and I’m suspicious whether powerline would work, but maybe it's worth considering), I can't imagine that wouldn't work. Is it just a matter of economics and you’re hoping to find a cheap fix?
Of course, even if you did this, you’d end up w/ two separate networks. And that could be problematic when it comes to sharing data. Which raises the questions, is the need at each end of the warehouse simply Internet access? IOW, there’s no need to “bridge” each end of the warehouse in a common local network?! That seems very unusual. If you’re going to need a warehouse-wide network to share data based on ethernet or wireless, then solving that problem will, by definition, solve this DSL problem. IOW, the lack of connectivity options for Internet access only exposes a more general lack of connectivity internally.
Or else I’m just not getting the full/correct picture.
there's no need to network, but even still, i dont know how i could network these at this distance with these roadblocks.
we just need plain and simple internet access. and if running a seperate line is the solution, we'll do that, i guess...which i suppose means running a full-new phone line with a full-new DSL service?
it's a complicated situation, but the simplest explanation is we just both need to get online from two spots in the warehouse. this building takes up most of this block ,it's huge, and the initial internet area is a 'behind the scenes' kind of employee only locale, vs the new office which is for helping clients. again, no networking is needed as all the data being shared can be shared simply over the net. we get clients in all the time who might need to jump online and it'd just be nice for them to be able to do it from the front office, out in the shop area...
the 'networked' computers are all in the same room, running out of the router--the same router that wont work if anyone plugs that other modem in in the east side.
so. that's the gist of it...
and just getting the net here AT ALL was a pain in the ass. Cable wont run here (i have no clue why. we're blocks away from DOWNTOWN in the heart of the largest city in the state, but cable simply doesnt run here)> so DSL was our only option.