device to wirelessly simulate Ethernet?
Timothy Daniels
I have a desktop, a laptop, and a printer connected to the router
via cat 5 cables running10Mb Ethernet. The router, in turn, connects
to a cable modem via cat 6 cable running 10Mb Ethernet. I want
to move the router, desktop, laptop, and printer upstairs in my condo,
but the cable modem must remain downstairs where the coaxial cable
enters the condo because of difficulties in running a cable upstairs.
(Please just believe me.) The problem is how to link the cable modem
downstairs to the router upstairs by wirelessly simulating an Ethernet
connection. Is there a device (or devices) that can do this?
*TimDaniels*
DevilsPGD
I'm scratching my head here as I must be missing something obvious. The
whole point of a wireless router is "wirelessly simulating an Ethernet
connection"
Clue me in, what am I missing? Are you looking to have a wired switch
upstairs that links to the cable modem downstairs wirelessly, but avoid
getting wireless adapters for each machine upstairs, or something else?
If so, what you need is an access point (not a router) that can operate
in client mode.
Yousuf Khan
Kind of wirelessly, you can use powerline ethernet adapters. Though
you're using wires here, they aren't cat5 cables, but your home's
internal electrical grid. Examples are the D-link DHP-301, or Netgear
HDX 101.
D-Link DHP-301 PowerLine HD Network Starter Kit
http://www.dlink.com/products/?pid=533
Powerline HD Ethernet Adapter
http://www.netgear.com/Products/PowerlineNetworking/PowerlineEthernetAdapters/HDX101.aspx
Here's an old review of products available back then:
Powerline Ethernet Adapter Adapters/NIC reviews - CNET Reviews
http://reviews.cnet.com/adapters-nics/powerline-ethernet-adapter/4505-3380_7-30485690.html
Yousuf Khan
Timothy Daniels
> "Timothy Daniels" wrote:
>
>>I have a Linksys wireless router, model no. WRT54GS, v.7.
>>I have a desktop, a laptop, and a printer connected to the router
>>via cat 5 cables running10Mb Ethernet. The router, in turn, connects
>>to a cable modem via cat 6 cable running 10Mb Ethernet. I want
>>to move the router, desktop, laptop, and printer upstairs in my condo,
>>but the cable modem must remain downstairs where the coaxial cable
>>enters the condo because of difficulties in running a cable upstairs.
>>(Please just believe me.) The problem is how to link the cable modem
>>downstairs to the router upstairs by wirelessly simulating an Ethernet
>>connection. Is there a device (or devices) that can do this?
>
> I'm scratching my head here as I must be missing something obvious.
> The whole point of a wireless router is "wirelessly simulating an Ethernet
> connection"
>
> Clue me in, what am I missing? Are you looking to have a wired switch
> upstairs that links to the cable modem downstairs wirelessly, but avoid
> getting wireless adapters for each machine upstairs,
YES.
> or something else?
NO.
> If so, what you need is an access point (not a router) that can operate
> in client mode.
I am trying to simulate the ethernet connection between the modem
and the router, not between the router and the devices. The setup
that I have now - with an ethernet cable between the modem and
the router, and only occasional wireless use between the router
and the laptop - works fine. I just want to move all the devices upstairs
and leave the modem downstairs. I DON'T want to leave the router
downstairs with the modem. So the term, apparently, is "access point".
Have you a manufacturer and model no. that I could look up to
see how those things are configured and how much they cost?
*TimDaniels*
DevilsPGD
Daniels" <SpamB...@NoSpamPlease.biz> was claimed to have wrote:
>> If so, what you need is an access point (not a router) that can operate
>> in client mode.
>
>
> I am trying to simulate the ethernet connection between the modem
> and the router, not between the router and the devices. The setup
> that I have now - with an ethernet cable between the modem and
> the router, and only occasional wireless use between the router
> and the laptop - works fine. I just want to move all the devices upstairs
> and leave the modem downstairs. I DON'T want to leave the router
> downstairs with the modem. So the term, apparently, is "access point".
> Have you a manufacturer and model no. that I could look up to
> see how those things are configured and how much they cost?
I'm running an Apple's Airport Extreme here, although I'm using it
entirely as a wireless bridge, it sits inside my firewall/router.
I went with Apple's products because they were the only vendor offering
802.11n in the 5.8GHz band at a reasonable price at the time.
Apple's products do the trick reasonably well, although the
configuration software is horrible and Apple still hasn't managed to get
a web based interface working.
Before that I was using a WAP54G in client mode.
The easiest solution is to put the router at the modem, the access point
client goes upstairs and connects to a switch, all your devices connect
to that switch.
Timothy Daniels
How about using the WAP54G as a Wireless Repeater as diagrammed
here:
http://linksys.custhelp.com/cgi-bin/linksys.cfg/php/enduser/std_adp.php?p_faqid=4200
The existing WRT54GS would stay downstairs connected via ethernet
cable to the modem, and the WAP54G would be upstairs connecting
to the desktop and printer via ethernet cable and to the laptop wirelessly.
Do you think that would work? The WAP54G sells on Ebay at prices
I could afford, and only one of them would be needed.
*TimDaniels*
Timothy Daniels
Powerline ethernet adaptors would probably work well for my
situation. The problem is that I'd need two of them, and they
are not cheap, even on Ebay. I think that there are more
affordable alternatives - a Wireless Bridge using the Linksys
WAP54G, for example (Ebay is rife with them), especially if
I switched to Earthlink for cable Internet service and took
advantage of their 6-month introductory rate of $30/month,
or by using DSL instead of cable for my broadband service.
By using DSL, I'd actually *save* money from what I'm
spending now for cable, even after the introductory rate
expired. Thanks for your thoughtful ideas, though, Yousuf.
*TimDaniels*
Timothy Daniels
> Powerline ethernet adaptors would probably work well for my
> situation. The problem is that I'd need two of them, and they
> are not cheap, even on Ebay. I think that there are more
> affordable alternatives - a Wireless Bridge using the Linksys
> WAP54G, for example (Ebay is rife with them), especially if
> I switched to Earthlink for cable Internet service and took
> advantage of their 6-month introductory rate of $30/month,
Ooops. I just saw that the WAP54G has only one ethernet port,
and it would need a switch or router to connect to the desktop,
laptop, and printer. A firmware flash to a WRT54GS wireless
router using the firmware at www.dd-WRT.com and using its
Repeater Bridge mode might work, but I don't know how reliable
and how fast the result would be. See
http://dd-wrt.com/wiki/index.php/Repeater_Bridge#Client_Bridge_works.2C_Repeater_Bridge_doesn.27t_.2F_Only_one_network_can_be_encrypted
and http://dd-wrt.com/wiki/index.php/Image:Repeater_Bridge.jpg .
DSL is looking increasingly attractive right now... :-)
*TimDaniels*
Yousuf Khan
> DSL is looking increasingly attractive right now... :-)
Or you can just have your cable company put a jack up closer to where
you actually want the modem to be.
Yousuf Khan
Timothy Daniels
For many reasons, including the skills of the installers, the layout
of the condo, the asbestos in the ceilings, the restrictions imposed
by the condo home owners association, running a coaxial cable
upstairs is difficult and expensive. I know that there are cable
installers that can do wonders with 6-foot flexible drill bits and who
have experience as housing carpenters so that they can run cables
up inside walls and through fireblocks and stud plates like they had
x-ray vision, but those guys charge around $100/hr/man, and they're
hard to find. I got a call from a Time Warner cable "installer" today
named "Carlos", and Carlos barely spoke any English, and the most
custom of his work was drilling a hole from a downstairs closet
ceiling to penetrate the upstairs identical closet floor. I also would
want to use compression-fit connectors in case I ever wanted to
take satellite TV signals upstairs (which top out at 2.1GHz since we
have a "stacked" system), and just the installation tool for those
connectors can run between $45 and $100. So that means that
even if I do the work myself, the cost will still be significant, given
my budget - for time as well as money. The least time/money
would involve switching to DSL, and the next least time/money
would be using a re-flashed (i.e. hacked) Linksys WRT54GS
Linksys wireless router to provide a wireless repeater link
between the floors.
*TimDaniels*
YKhan
wrote:
> "Timothy Daniels" opined:
>
> > Powerline ethernet adaptors would probably work well for my
> > situation. The problem is that I'd need two of them, and they
> > are not cheap, even on Ebay. I think that there are more
> > affordable alternatives - a Wireless Bridge using the Linksys
> > WAP54G, for example (Ebay is rife with them), especially if
> > I switched to Earthlink for cable Internet service and took
> > advantage of their 6-month introductory rate of $30/month,
>
> Ooops. I just saw that the WAP54G has only one ethernet port,
> and it would need a switch or router to connect to the desktop,
> laptop, and printer. A firmware flash to a WRT54GS wireless
> Repeater Bridge mode might work, but I don't know how reliable
> and how fast the result would be.
The WAP still requires a connection through ethernet to the main
router. That's what the single ethernet port on the WAP is for, it's
for it's own connection to the router, not as an alternate connection
to a client. It only connects to clients through the wireless
interface. So in order to get an ethernet connection to a remote WAP,
you'd still need a powerline ethernet (or a regular ethernet snaked
through the house ducts).
If you really want to use a WAP still, then it's cheaper to buy a
second wireless router and just turn off its routing functions. You'll
also get multiple ethernet connections in addition to the wireless.
Yousuf Khan
Timothy Daniels
----------------------------------
The WAP still requires a connection through ethernet to the main
If you really want to use a WAP still, then it's cheaper to buy a
second wireless router and just turn off its routing functions. You'll
also get multiple ethernet connections in addition to the wireless.
Yousuf Khan
----------------------------------
What would be the topology of such a setup? Is the "second
wireless router" to act as a WAP or to act as a switch for the
WAP?
*TimDaniels*
Yousuf Khan
The second router is supposed to act as the WAP. You would connect the
2nd router through one of its *LAN* ports via ethernet, to the primary
router. You must use a LAN port on the 2nd router, *not* its WAN port
(aka Internet or Broadband port). Of course that means you still need to
get an ethernet connection to the second router from the first router,
via full CAT5 or powerline ethernet. At the first router, you would
connect the other end of the ethernet to one of its LAN ports too. So
the two routers will connect to each other via LAN ethernet ports only.
On the secondary router, you will be disabling all of its routing and
DHCP functions. This can be a pretty simple one-step process in some of
the newer routers, which have a single-click function to disable all of
them properly. But even if you have an older router which doesn't have
this convenience, you can simply leave the 2nd router's WAN port
disconnected, set it's IP to a static 0.0.0.0 or something, and then
disable its client DHCP services.
If you have two wireless routers, it's still not a problem, you can keep
both router's wireless function enabled, and you'd have the ability load
balance your wireless computers over each router. Likely each machine
would connect to its closest router. So it would be useful if the
routers covered different parts of the house, with a bit of overlapping
in the signals. In the past, I've even given both routers identical
SSID's, and identical wireless passwords, and the computers just
connected to the router with the strongest signal at boot time. Then if
one of the routers were to go down for, then the wireless devices would
automatically reconnect to the other router seemlessly.
Yousuf Khan
Timothy Daniels
Remember that you have a clear picture in your mind, but
I can only see the picture through your words. How about
using "modem-connected" router and "device-connected"
router.
*TimDaniels*
YKhan
wrote:
The first router, or primary, would be the "modem-connected" router.
The second router, or secondary, rides off of the first one for most
of its functions, such as DHCP and routing. The secondary at this
point is basically just functionally a bridge, but not a router
anymore. The primary is the only real router in functional terms.
I would assume all of the routers would be "device-connected",
regardless of their primacy. I assume some devices will connect to the
first and some to the second. Or did I not understand your question?
Yousuf Khan
Timothy Daniels
Yousuf Khan
-----------------------------------------
Originally, I had planned to have theWRT54GS wireless router
upstairs as the "secondary" router with wired connections to the
end devices, i.e. the desktop, laptop, and printer, with the laptop
connecting occasionally via Wi-Fi. Connected via wire to the
modem downstairs would be "link", perhaps a WAP54G
wireless access point talking to another WAP54G upstairs
which would be wired to the WRT54GS wireless router.
But that would require purchase of 2 WAP54G access points
to provide the downstaire-upstairs link. This, I believe, is the
most expensive of the solutions.
Another solution would be to put the WRT54GS wireless router
downstairs and put a WAP54G access point upstairs connected
via wire to an ethernet switch which is connected via wire to the
end devices. The laptop upstairs could connect to the WRT54GS
wireless router downstairs when a wireless connection is desired,
but I don't know if it would allow file transfers between the laptop
and the other end devices. In any event, this solution would require
purchase of a WAP54G access point and an ethernet switch.
Another solution would be to purchase 2 powerline ethernet
adapters, one connected to the modem downstairs, the other
connected to the WRT54GS wireless router upstairs, and the
in-wall electrical wiring would provide the connectivity between
the 2 ethernet adapters.
The latter 2 solutions could be the cheapest, depending on one's
luck on Ebay. They are equal in speed for Internet downloads,
the wireless solution being the fastest for file transfers on the LAN,
and the powerline solution being the most secure (as I see it).
Surprisingly (to me), the simple solution of running a coaxial cable
upstairs is the most expensive, given the condo situation, the asbestos
in the ceilings, the wood veneer on the livingroom wall, and either
the cost of attachment tools for compression-fit connectors or the
cost of labor for a professional installation. Eventually, I would want
to use coaxial cabling to carry TV signals as well, but that would be
when I had more money to spend. For now, I believe the AP/switch
or powerline adapters are the way to go, and I'm prowling Ebay for
bargains in used equipment.
*TimDaniels*
Yousuf Khan
> Originally, I had planned to have theWRT54GS wireless router
> upstairs as the "secondary" router with wired connections to the
> end devices, i.e. the desktop, laptop, and printer, with the laptop
> connecting occasionally via Wi-Fi. Connected via wire to the
> modem downstairs would be "link", perhaps a WAP54G
> wireless access point talking to another WAP54G upstairs
> which would be wired to the WRT54GS wireless router.
> But that would require purchase of 2 WAP54G access points
> to provide the downstaire-upstairs link. This, I believe, is the
> most expensive of the solutions.
>
> Another solution would be to put the WRT54GS wireless router
> downstairs and put a WAP54G access point upstairs connected
> via wire to an ethernet switch which is connected via wire to the
> end devices. The laptop upstairs could connect to the WRT54GS
> wireless router downstairs when a wireless connection is desired,
> but I don't know if it would allow file transfers between the laptop
> and the other end devices. In any event, this solution would require
> purchase of a WAP54G access point and an ethernet switch.
I think there is a misunderstanding of how a WAP works on your part. Two
WAPs won't connect to each other wirelessly. They will not form an
ad-hoc wireless network from the upstairs to the downstairs. WAPs do not
form ad-hoc networks (i.e. peer-to-peer), they only form infrastructure
connections (i.e. the WAP acts as a server, while everything else works
as a client). Two WAPs won't talk to each other. This solution will not
work the way you think it will.
> Another solution would be to purchase 2 powerline ethernet
> adapters, one connected to the modem downstairs, the other
> connected to the WRT54GS wireless router upstairs, and the
> in-wall electrical wiring would provide the connectivity between
> the 2 ethernet adapters.
Powerline ethernet is the only thing that will do what you're thinking here.
> The latter 2 solutions could be the cheapest, depending on one's
> luck on Ebay. They are equal in speed for Internet downloads,
> the wireless solution being the fastest for file transfers on the LAN,
> and the powerline solution being the most secure (as I see it).
Actually no, the powerline solution would also be the fastest. Even
though they say Wifi-G operates at 54 Mbps, it's barely 50% efficient
most of the time, and they are very peaky in their speed. The powerline
devices are much more efficient and consistent in speed. For example, I
use it at my place to stream Divx and Xvid AVI files from my computer to
my Xbox360 which I use to watch them on my tv. If I were to use WiFi for
this, then I would get a lot of stuttering. Now WiFi-N might be better
suited to video streaming than WiFi-G was, so this may no longer be
applicable, but at least upto 802.11G, WiFi is not good enough for video
streaming.
> Surprisingly (to me), the simple solution of running a coaxial cable
> upstairs is the most expensive, given the condo situation, the asbestos
> in the ceilings, the wood veneer on the livingroom wall, and either
> the cost of attachment tools for compression-fit connectors or the
> cost of labor for a professional installation. Eventually, I would want
> to use coaxial cabling to carry TV signals as well, but that would be
> when I had more money to spend. For now, I believe the AP/switch
> or powerline adapters are the way to go, and I'm prowling Ebay for
> bargains in used equipment.
>
> *TimDaniels*
BTW, you might want to check out Ebay item # 280305561710, if you get to
it in time, you might be able to get them at a reasonable price.
Yousuf Khan
Timothy Daniels
I had been thinking of connecting two of them as an Access Point
and an Access Client, as in:
http://linksys.custhelp.com/cgi-bin/linksys.cfg/php/enduser/std_adp.php?p_faqid=4202
This combination of two WAP54G's and an ethernet switch would
give wired connectivity to end devices upstairs, and it would allow
the laptop upstairs to connect wirelessly to the WAP54G downstairs.
All devices could share files and connect to the Internet. The WAP54G
downstairs would be connected directly to the modem instead of to
an intermediary router that is shown in the diagram.
Or as Wireless Bridging, as in:
http://linksys.custhelp.com/cgi-bin/linksys.cfg/php/enduser/std_adp.php?p_faqid=4194&p_created=1161766680&p_sid=wBXCcMoj&p_accessibility=0&p_redirect=&p_lva=&p_sp=cF9zcmNoPTEmcF9zb3J0X2J5PSZwX2dyaWRzb3J0PSZwX3Jvd19jbnQ9NjYsNjYmcF9wcm9kcz0wJnBfY2F0cz0xNzIxLDE3MjMmcF9wdj0mcF9jdj0yLjE3MjMmcF9zY2ZfMz0xJnBfcGFnZT0xJnBfc2VhcmNoX3RleHQ9d2FwNTRn&p_li=&p_topview=1
But this wouldn't give wireless connectivity for the laptop.
Or as a Wireless Repeater, as in:
http://linksys.custhelp.com/cgi-bin/linksys.cfg/php/enduser/std_adp.php?p_faqid=4200
But this wouldn't give wired connectivity for the desktop and printer
upstairs.
(Notice that the downstairs Access Point could instead be a WRT54G or
WRT54GS wireless router.)
Thanks for sharing your experience with powerline ethernet adapters.
The Ebay price (if it holds) for the 4 Netgear units is quite nice. I'm
actually watching Ebay for the equivalent Linksys adapters because
of the 128-bit encryption available on the Linksys units.
*TimDaniels*
Timothy Daniels
I'd be able to add just a single device - a wireless ethernet bridge,
such as the Linksys WET54GS5 - to move my end devices
upstairs. Downstairs, I'd have the cable modem connecting to
the existing WRT54GS wireless router. Upstairs, I'd have a
WET54GS5 wireless ethernet bridge wired to the end devices
(desktop, laptop, printer) and connected wirelessly to the
WRT54GS wireless router downstairs. If I wanted to use the
laptop wirelessly, it would connect to the WRT54GS wireless
router downstairs. What to you think? Would this work for
sharing both Internet access and for file sharing among the end
devices?
*TimDaniels*
Timothy Daniels
has a built-in 5-port switch.
*TimDaniels*
Yousuf Khan
> I had been thinking of connecting two of them as an Access Point
> and an Access Client, as in:
> http://linksys.custhelp.com/cgi-bin/linksys.cfg/php/enduser/std_adp.php?p_faqid=4202
> This combination of two WAP54G's and an ethernet switch would
> give wired connectivity to end devices upstairs, and it would allow
> the laptop upstairs to connect wirelessly to the WAP54G downstairs.
> All devices could share files and connect to the Internet. The WAP54G
> downstairs would be connected directly to the modem instead of to
> an intermediary router that is shown in the diagram.
Okay, so it looks like Linksys has added some kind of additional
functionality to their WAPs, making them a bit more than WAPs. It looks
like it only works between two identical Linksys WAPs though.
> Thanks for sharing your experience with powerline ethernet adapters.
> The Ebay price (if it holds) for the 4 Netgear units is quite nice. I'm
> actually watching Ebay for the equivalent Linksys adapters because
> of the 128-bit encryption available on the Linksys units.
I'm not sure it's really all that necessary to have encryption on the
powerline ethernet adapters, as the signals between these things won't
go outside of your circuit breaker box anyways. In fact, if you have
added an extension to your house which has its own circuit breaker, you
won't be able to connect these things if they are on different main
breakers.
Yousuf Khan
Yousuf Khan
Yes, sounds like it will work that way. The laptop with its own wireless
connection will connect directly to the wireless router from most
anywhere in the house. But the remote ethernet devices will connect to
the wireless ethernet bridge.
Yousuf Khan
Timothy Daniels
I live in a condo building and I'm paranoid about emails getting
snooped. The powerline bridge has a much lower probability of
being seen and decrypted, but the 14Mbps units would crowd the
download speed, so I've been looking for 85Mbps and 100Mbps
powerline units on eBay. Yikes! They're expensive even at half-price.
I've found a way to get a cable from downstairs to upstairs by
going through a chimney's outer wall to bypass the supporting beam
for the stud plates (I checked with a building inspector), but it would
be uuuuggleeeee getting up to the fireplace's hood and penetrating it.
I will probably go with DSL if it can provide the download speed,
or I will cough up the money for powerline.
*TimDaniels*
Timothy Daniels
Yup. The WET54G's have been going for prices in the $40s to
$50s (delivered). They're tempting. WRT54GS's (wireless routers
flashable to 3rd-party dd-WRT and then configurable as ethernet bridges)
have been going in the $30s to $40s (delivered). I still get nervous about
broadcasting, though, even with encryption. If I can't find a powerline
ethernet bridge at a low price, I'll probably go with DSL or a physical
cable.
*TimDaniels*
Yousuf Khan
> I live in a condo building and I'm paranoid about emails getting
> snooped. The powerline bridge has a much lower probability of
> being seen and decrypted, but the 14Mbps units would crowd the
> download speed, so I've been looking for 85Mbps and 100Mbps
> powerline units on eBay. Yikes! They're expensive even at half-price.
There's about as much chance that the powerline ethernet can be snooped
from outside as there is for a CAT5 cable to be snooped from outside --
nearly impossible. The encryption is basically for keeping data
transmissions between multiple adapters within the powerline network
private from each other. In other words it's to prevent internal
snooping. If you have only two powerline adapters, then there won't be
another adapter which can snoop on those two.
Most condos and apartments have individual main breakers in each unit,
afterall you don't want a neighbor's hairdryer shutting down the whole
floor or the whole building.
The 14 Mbps units are known as HomePlug 1.0 adapters. 85 & 100 Mbps
powerline units are known as HomePlug 1.0 Turbo adapters, which is an
unofficial standard. And the 200 Mbps units are known as Homeplug AV.
Most of the units I've seen on Ebay are HP 1.0 turbo units.
>
> I've found a way to get a cable from downstairs to upstairs by
> going through a chimney's outer wall to bypass the supporting beam
> for the stud plates (I checked with a building inspector), but it would
> be uuuuggleeeee getting up to the fireplace's hood and penetrating it.
> I will probably go with DSL if it can provide the download speed,
> or I will cough up the money for powerline.
There's ugly and then there's practical. I suppose if you weren't
worried about the look, you could even take a CAT5 cable from upstairs
to downstairs via two outside windows.
Yousuf Khan
DevilsPGD
was claimed to have wrote:
>There's about as much chance that the powerline ethernet can be snooped
>from outside as there is for a CAT5 cable to be snooped from outside --
>nearly impossible. The encryption is basically for keeping data
>transmissions between multiple adapters within the powerline network
>private from each other. In other words it's to prevent internal
>snooping. If you have only two powerline adapters, then there won't be
>another adapter which can snoop on those two.
>
>Most condos and apartments have individual main breakers in each unit,
>afterall you don't want a neighbor's hairdryer shutting down the whole
>floor or the whole building.
Can't powerline ethernet solutions cross breakers? If not, that should
severely limit their usefulness as even in my very first apartment we
had multiple breakers for different rooms, my current condo has at least
a dozen different breakers.
(Okay, half of those are probably for specific appliances, kitchen, etc,
but even in my office I've got at least two different circuits available
to me)
Timothy Daniels
> There's about as much chance that the powerline ethernet can be snooped from outside as there is for a CAT5 cable to
> be snooped from outside --
> nearly impossible. The encryption is basically for keeping data transmissions between multiple adapters within the
> powerline network private from each other. In other words it's to prevent internal snooping. If you have only two
> powerline adapters, then there won't be another adapter which can snoop on those two.
I've seen advertized claims that powerline transmissions can cross
between branch circuits (i.e. between breakers) in a condo unit's
breaker box. If so, they might also cross between primary circuits
in the building's breaker box.
> There's ugly and then there's practical. I suppose if you weren't worried about the look, you could even take a CAT5
> cable from
> upstairs to downstairs via two outside windows.
The home owners association would prevent that (and has done so
in the past). We have to keep the wires inside the "Unit" - as defined
in the CC&Rs. The only exception made is if the wires are kept hidden
in the walls or between floors and ceilings. Like I said, DSL and
Powerline are looking really good to me right now. :-)
*TimDaniels*
YKhan
> Can't powerline ethernet solutions cross breakers? If not, that should
> severely limit their usefulness as even in my very first apartment we
> had multiple breakers for different rooms, my current condo has at least
> a dozen different breakers.
>
> (Okay, half of those are probably for specific appliances, kitchen, etc,
> but even in my office I've got at least two different circuits available
> to me)
I'm not talking about the individual fuses, I'm talking about the main
on-off switch. They don't get past the main on-off switch, but they do
go across the fuses.
Yousuf Khan
YKhan
wrote:
> I've seen advertized claims that powerline transmissions can cross
> between branch circuits (i.e. between breakers) in a condo unit's
> breaker box. If so, they might also cross between primary circuits
> in the building's breaker box.
No, I've tested it, within a single house, which has had a new
extension built on it, the extension has its own main breaker, and the
signals couldn't pass between each main breaker. They do pass between
the branch circuits, that's absolutely necessary or else the powerline
ethernet would never even work.
> > There's ugly and then there's practical. I suppose if you weren't worried about the look, you could even take a CAT5
> > cable from
> > upstairs to downstairs via two outside windows.
>
> The home owners association would prevent that (and has done so
> in the past). We have to keep the wires inside the "Unit" - as defined
> in the CC&Rs. The only exception made is if the wires are kept hidden
> in the walls or between floors and ceilings. Like I said, DSL and
> Powerline are looking really good to me right now. :-)
Do they allow satellite dishes to be installed on the building?
Yousuf Khan
Jerry Peters
Why? The main breakers are just a larger version of the individual
breakers, there's no magic involved.
I think you're confused; power-line networking has problems
communicating across the 2 sides of the center-tapped utility
transformer, so if one outlet is on one side of the center tap, and
the other outlet is on the other, they're likely to have problems.
Jerry
Timothy Daniels
> "Timothy Daniels" wrote:
> I've seen advertized claims that powerline transmissions can cross
> between branch circuits (i.e. between breakers) in a condo unit's
> breaker box. If so, they might also cross between primary circuits
> in the building's breaker box.
No, I've tested it, within a single house, which has had a new
extension built on it, the extension has its own main breaker, and the
signals couldn't pass between each main breaker. They do pass between
the branch circuits, that's absolutely necessary or else the powerline
ethernet would never even work.
---------
That's good to hear. I'm looking more favorably at powerline.
---------
> > There's ugly and then there's practical. I suppose if you weren't
>> worried about the look, you could even take a CAT5 cable from
> > upstairs to downstairs via two outside windows.
>
> The home owners association would prevent that (and has done so
> in the past). We have to keep the wires inside the "Unit" - as defined
> in the CC&Rs. The only exception made is if the wires are kept hidden
> in the walls or between floors and ceilings. Like I said, DSL and
> Powerline are looking really good to me right now. :-)
Do they allow satellite dishes to be installed on the building?
--------
Definitely not. The HOA even put in a community dish to bolster
its stand against individual private dishes. They're allowed on
patios and balconies, though, if the dishes and the associated cables
can be kept within the boundaries of the "Unit" as defined in the
CC&Rs. The passage of the cables through the wall from the patio
to the interior of the units is usually overlooked.
---------
*TimDaniels*
Yousuf Khan
> Do they allow satellite dishes to be installed on the building?
>
> --------
> Definitely not. The HOA even put in a community dish to bolster
> its stand against individual private dishes. They're allowed on
> patios and balconies, though, if the dishes and the associated cables
> can be kept within the boundaries of the "Unit" as defined in the
> CC&Rs. The passage of the cables through the wall from the patio
> to the interior of the units is usually overlooked.
> ---------
>
> *TimDaniels*
Well, passing a single cat5 cable is minor enough to be overlookable,
I'm sure. Especially if you staple the cable to the walls so they don't
protrude.
Yousuf Khan
Yousuf Khan
> Why? The main breakers are just a larger version of the individual
> breakers, there's no magic involved.
>
> I think you're confused; power-line networking has problems
> communicating across the 2 sides of the center-tapped utility
> transformer, so if one outlet is on one side of the center tap, and
> the other outlet is on the other, they're likely to have problems.
>
> Jerry
Well, if that's the reason why it doesn't pass through, then that's the
reason it doesn't pass through.
Yousuf Khan
Timothy Daniels
> Well, passing a single cat5 cable is minor enough to be overlookable, I'm sure. Especially if you staple the cable to
> the walls so they don't protrude.
You don't know HOAs. Ten years ago, while I was out of town
on an extended assignment, my neighbor borrowed the use of my
telephone (with my permission) by running a 2-conductor telephone
wire between our bedroom windows - a distance of 6 feet. The
HOA demanded that it be removed.
*TimDaniels*
DevilsPGD
was claimed to have wrote:
A condominium or apartment won't have an individual utility transformer
for each unit though, so you'll find that unless your building is
absolutely huge, the building is likely split into two distinct
powerline networks.
Timothy Daniels
> A condominium or apartment won't have an individual utility
> transformer for each unit though, so you'll find that unless
> your building is absolutely huge, the building is likely split
> into two distinct powerline networks.
Are you implying that it is the utility transformer that
isolates powerline networks, i.e. prevents powerline
signals from passing between the transformer's down-
stream circuits that feed each unit's breaker panel?
Our buildings have 10 units in each building with a
breaker panel in each unit that is fed by 240vac. The
breaker panel then divides the 240vac between 2 rails,
each rail getting 120vac and several branch circuits fed
by each of the rails. I'd guess that the powerline signals
can reach all branch circuits on the same rail, but what
about passing from one rail to the other? If the signals
can jump the rails, I'd think the powerline signals can at
least get back to the service panel where the meters are.
If they can do so, what would stop them from passing
between service panels?
*TimDaniels*
Yousuf Khan
> Are you implying that it is the utility transformer that
> isolates powerline networks, i.e. prevents powerline
> signals from passing between the transformer's down-
> stream circuits that feed each unit's breaker panel?
>
> Our buildings have 10 units in each building with a
> breaker panel in each unit that is fed by 240vac. The
> breaker panel then divides the 240vac between 2 rails,
> each rail getting 120vac and several branch circuits fed
> by each of the rails. I'd guess that the powerline signals
> can reach all branch circuits on the same rail, but what
> about passing from one rail to the other? If the signals
> can jump the rails, I'd think the powerline signals can at
> least get back to the service panel where the meters are.
> If they can do so, what would stop them from passing
> between service panels?
It's likely that there are smaller transformers that feed into each
apartment complex, not just the one big main one. And it would make
perfect physical sense that the HomePlug signal is stopped by a
transformer. Since transformers step down high voltages from the outside
lines to low voltages for the inside of the home or apartment. Little
jitters in the low-voltage inside current won't really feedback to
affect the big high-voltage outside current.
After reading all about HomePlug for this thread, I've found out that
the HomePlug consortium are also finalizing a new HomePlug BPL standard
to deliver data from the outside lines to the home, i.e. the "last mile".
Yousuf Khan
Jerry Peters
Nothing. The only caveat I can think of is distance. For example, in
my neighborhood one transformer feeds at least 8 houses, perhaps more.
My immediately adjacent neighbor is probably about 100 ft of wire from
me (2 50 ft runs from the house to the power pole). Is there
sufficient attenuation in the 100 ft to prevent them from receiving a
signal?
Jerry