Faster net over 600'...?

There are no standard, inexpensive methods to run more than 10 Mb over coax cable. If there's power available midway, you could run a switch to regenerate the signal. Failing that, your best bet would be fibre.

Hello again,

Thanks for the speedy response.

I should have said that we have no access between the two systems.

If I were to go the fibre (or fiber ) route could I get significantly increased speeds? And, if so, would the costs be insane?

Thanks for any further information,

Can some knowledgable person post the product description for the lowest-tech fiber that's appropriate for something like this, and an appx cost per foot.

Also the URL for the economy model transeivers appropriate to convert the fiber to RJ45 appropriate to be patched into a hub/switch.

What are the cost/distance/speed tradeoffs for 10Mb and faster, up to

100Mb/sec. ?

This gets discussed lots but I don't recall it ever being reduced to numbers. It should be Q#1 for a FAQ document.

Thanks

Hi Robert,

It is for imaging that this is all of interest to me...

The main run is close to straight, but inside the buildings that is definitely not the case.

Why would the run being straight matter?

Thanks,

Yes. ;-)

Fibre can be much faster than copper, though somewhat more expensive to install.

If only one off, I'd be temped to go with pre terminated cables. It's been a while, but when I used to buy fibre cables, I usually had them terminated by the supplier.

The photons have to slow down for the curves. ;-)

Replace the cable with fiber optic cable. You'll then be able to run 10 or 100 (or more) depending on the media converters you use on the ends. We use a lot of Milan converters, but there are many other brands that work as well.

some of their products. The stand alone Classic Converter lets you plug into anything with an ethernet port. But I see what looks like cards that go inside the PC, which might be more convenient, and cheaper.

OP here...

Is pulling fiber materially different from pulling other forms of cable such as the 10-Base-2 we now have?

Thanks,

Hi again,

Might you have a source to suggest for information about those costs?

Sincere thanks,

Yes, you could go from 10 Mbit/s to 100 Mbit/s fairly easily (especially if that coax is in a straight conduit). Installation is the big variable.

Whether it helps or not is a totally different question, and depends greatly on the nature of the traffic between the systems. For many apps, 10 is more than enough. But big pushers like backup or imaging can benefit from more.

-- Robert

It's easier to break.

Also, if you check, you'll find it is spelled "fibre", not "fiber".

Ah, so you probably really do need the bandwidth.

If the run is straight conduit, it is much easier to pull in a fiber line. Corners make long pulls tough.

-- Robert

Not much different. Fiber cables are usually more flexible than coax. Easier to pull. They use kevlar for strength, but still can break. Fiber really doesn't like tight bends.

-- Robert

Howdy,

Regarding the breakage issue, I think we would be fine. The underground conduit was properly designed for the purpose and has only smooth curves.

Regarding the spelling:

I am US based, and on this side of the pond it is "fiber." 'Sorry for any confusion.

All the best,

Only if you're not in the U.S. ;-)

Seems that the Nat'l Institute of Standards and Technology, a part of the U.S. Gov't, uses the term fiber extensively.

In article , Watson A.Name - "Watt Sun, the Dark Remover" writes

Of course. Despite what they might think, most of 'us' are not in the US.

Also, you can get by in most of the world with English, not American. ;-)

There is a difference. Just listen to George 'Dubya'. Phil Partridge snipped-for-privacy@pebbleGRIT.demon.co.uk Remove the grit to reply

Not as big a difference as there is between "the Queen's English" and "Queens English" (as in Queens, New York)

;-P