Re: Common House Technology Cost Savings | <– Date –> <– Thread –> |
From: Brian Bartholomew (bb![]() |
|
Date: Sat, 7 Apr 2007 18:07:02 -0700 (PDT) |
> So, if it is practical, I recommend running multiple strands of cat > 6 to each house. Is there a ground loop/lightning damage/fire safety reason to prefer non-conductive plastic fiber between separated buildings, even when buried underground? A quick google claims the timing-based 100 MBit ethernet length limit over copper is 100 meters. A suburban density arrangement made from 100 Mbit or gigabit ethernet may not work due to wire length, total repeater count, or both. I'm sure there are off the shelf "campus" ethernet wiring systems, but it won't be as cheap as an office lan. Brian
- Re: Common House Technology Cost Savings, (continued)
- Re: Common House Technology Cost Savings Stuart Joseph, April 7 2007
- Re: Common House Technology Cost Savings Tim Mensch, April 7 2007
- Re: Common House Technology Cost Savings Lavinia Weissman, April 7 2007
- Re: Common House Technology Cost Savings Matt Lawrence, April 7 2007
- Re: Common House Technology Cost Savings Brian Bartholomew, April 7 2007
- Re: Common House Technology Cost Savings Tim Mensch, April 8 2007
- Re: Common House Technology Cost Savings Robert Heinich, April 8 2007
- Re: Common House Technology Cost Savings R.P. Aditya, April 8 2007
- Re: Common House Technology Cost Savings Tim Mensch, April 9 2007
Results generated by Tiger Technologies Web hosting using MHonArc.