[help]Setting up long distance cable connection

[syst3mboot]

I want to setup a connection from 1 router to another with a distance of 100m(328ft)-200m(656ft) in between. I've done some research and found out that no CAT cable goes over 100m.

I found out that ADSL2+ however easily does and the speeds for my distance should be highest possible(almost).

Now my question, neither router has any RJ11 ports. So I was thinking of using this setup:

Router->RJ45 to RJ11 adapter->ADSL2+ cable ->Another RJ45 to RJ11 adapter ->Other router.

Would this setup work over a distance of maximum 200m? Would I get any (significant) data loss/speed loss? and would this setup work in general with the routers?

The adapters I was thinking of using are these ones: http://www.ebay.com/itm/310704843459

Sorry if any of this doesn't make sense, I'm not completely inexperienced with this.

EDIT: Also I'm open to any other suggestions of how to transfer data between 2 routers at a distance of up to 200m.

Thanks

 

[ConradGoodmanIT]

Hi

What you really need here is fiber optic cable.

You can buy media converters from the likes of allied telesys that will convert from RJ45 to fibre (ST, SC).

So you would require 2 media converters with your choice of fiber connector, and a made up fiber optic cable with the relevant ends.

I'm in the UK, and would look at these, not sure if available in the US: http://uk.rs-online.com/web/p/produ...&istBid=tzit&gclid=CNXnh-SYnrwCFSEHwwodmUcAyg

Cheers

Conrad

 

[syst3mboot]

I looked into fiber, the problem is that it becomes too pricey, I was hoping for something cheaper. Can a regular, cheap, $10 on ebay, hub act as a repeater? Wouldn't it technically re-transmit the signal thus giving you another 100m?

 

[ConradGoodmanIT]

Yes a switch would increase the distance.

 

[ch33zw1z]

If you have a clear line of sight, you can setup wireless between the two points.

 

[syst3mboot]

What type of wireless do you have in mind? Would regular wifi even reach 200m with a decent connection?

EDIT: With an average sized antenna and router, something like Linksys DWRT54GS

 

[JoeMcJoe]

What type of wireless do you have in mind? Would regular wifi even reach 200m with a decent connection?

EDIT: With an average sized antenna and router, something like Linksys DWRT54GS

Two of these will work the best.
http://www.amazon.com/NanoBridge-Cos.../dp/B0055PKSCK

 

[syst3mboot]

Haha I think that would a bit of an over kill, also the size is a little too large, we need something that would be easily concealed. And again for the price, it would be cheaper just to cat5 with a hub in the middle, that would cost around $100.

 

[JackMDS]

Electronics is Not a matter of plastic plugs adaptation.

The adapter that you linked to meant to convert to RJ-11 pure telephone that is fed through Cat5e cable it has nothing to do with Ethernet*.

There is No point to even touch your question without a detailed description of the environment.

If you do have clear line of site read this (from beginning to end).

http://forums.anandtech.com/showthread.php?t=2366095

------------
* In many newer American homes cables are installed into the walls.

It is quite common to just put in Cat5e/6 even for the telephone land lines. In such cases the RJ-45 to RJ-11 is needed for the Telephone signal.

 

[syst3mboot]

Yah that's what I was worried about, well the this setup will be outside, there should be a direct line of sight, but the antennas are still to large, and cant be concealed. I was hoping for something smaller, I think we'll end up dragging a large CAT5 cable from point to point and putting a hub in the middle. That seems like the cheapest alternative.

 

[JackMDS]

Yah that's what I was worried about, well the this setup will be outside, there should be a direct line of sight, but the antennas are still to large, and cant be concealed.

Is this means to you Intend to do something illegal, like stealing the signal?

 

[ch33zw1z]

Haha I think that would a bit of an over kill, also the size is a little too large, we need something that would be easily concealed. And again for the price, it would be cheaper just to cat5 with a hub in the middle, that would cost around $100.

$100 isn't going to cut it. You want a solution that will "just work" or be reliable for a long period of time?

 

[azazel1024]

A better description of the setup.

You could possibly run Cat6 over the distance if all you are running on it is fast ethernet. The issue is, it is only rated to run 1,000Mbps over 100m and nothing rated beyond that. However, since cat5 can run to 100m for 10/100 and cat5 can run 10/100/1000 to 100m (cat5e is basically 5, with twice the wires) and Cat 6 is 5e, with larger AWG wires seperated by a plastic core so each twisted wire pair is fully seperated from the other wire pairs, you have lower cross talk and best of all, its larger wire gauge so voltage drop is lower over the same distance.

I'd bet a lot that Cat 6 would handle fast ethernet well beyond 100m. Wether you'll get 200m without connection and speed issues for fast ethernet is beyond me though.

If possible, I'd say powered hub and/or switch connected between the cabling around the mid point.

Or fiber. Two converters, a pair of GBIC fiber cards and the length of fiber you need isn't going to be super expensive. It won't be $10 cheap and it won't be the $100 or so cheap that that length of Cat 5e and a powered hub/switch will cost, but we are still only talking maybe $300 for it all.

 

[JoeMcJoe]

Haha I think that would a bit of an over kill, also the size is a little too large, we need something that would be easily concealed. And again for the price, it would be cheaper just to cat5 with a hub in the middle, that would cost around $100.

Well, if you're going to use old hubs (hope you mean a switch) and you want it to be cheap, not sure what you're going to achieve.

The cable alone costs about $120 for 1000ft, then the connectors, patch panel, sockets, patch cables, etc..

 

[syst3mboot]

Is this means to you Intend to do something illegal, like stealing the signal?

Haha no not stealing, just building owners don't want antennas to "ruin their elegance"

$100 isn't going to cut it. You want a solution that will "just work" or be reliable for a long period of time?

Actually just work is fine, we only need this setup temporarily, maybe 1-2 months.

If possible, I'd say powered hub and/or switch connected between the cabling around the mid point.

Yah I think we'll end up doing this since its a temporary setup, and its a small company, they dont want to invest a lot of money.

Well, if you're going to use old hubs (hope you mean a switch) and you want it to be cheap, not sure what you're going to achieve.

The cable alone costs about $120 for 1000ft, then the connectors, patch panel, sockets, patch cables, etc..

Actually I meant hub, if I could find one cheaper than a switch on ebay... (surprisingly there aren't that many), but since its just acting as an extender and there are no other sources being connected to it (just 2), a hub would work the same way as a switch. There's no data coming in from external sources that would broadcast to the 2 existing ones.
And yah we found cable for $80 for 630ft which is perfect, and connectors are pennies, you can get a hub for ~$10.

 

[ch33zw1z]

Actually just work is fine, we only need this setup temporarily, maybe 1-2 months.

That's how it always starts

Actually I meant hub, if I could find one cheaper than a switch on ebay... (surprisingly there aren't that many), but since its just acting as an extender and there are no other sources being connected to it (just 2), a hub would work the same way as a switch. There's no data coming in from external sources that would broadcast to the 2 existing ones.
And yah we found cable for $80 for 630ft which is perfect, and connectors are pennies, you can get a hub for ~$10.

There aren't that many hubs because they're not used anymore. Switches have replaced them.

good luck with this setup, temporarily!