Post by thread:[EE] powerline ethernet?

Hi all! We're having some work done in our house, and need some CAT5 and possibly COAX run. Just talked to an installer, and (surprise!) they suggested something other than their services. Ethernet over powerline. However, looking at the hardware I have one question: Can I have more than one network running on the same lines? We are getting FIOS installed, and from what we hear the Actiontec router is junk. We have read articles about using a Linksys 54GL instead, and that sounds good. However, our network is going to look something like this: FIOS -> ONT -> Actiontec -> Linksys -> Computer Cloud (Tivo, computers) The Actiontec would have to be in the basement (so we don't have to run coax anywhere), but we want the Linksys in the computer room (top floor for better wireless signal). So, we would need a powerline ethernet adapter link from the Actiontec in the basement to the Linksys in the computer room, and then another 2 powerline ethernet links from the Linksys to the Tivo's (in other rooms). Since we want the Tivo's to route data through the Linksys, not the Actiontec, they need to be in separate subnets. Is this possible? Can more than one powerline ethernet setup play nice in the house? Do they steal bandwidth from each other? Or do we have to pull CAT5 to link the routers? Thanks, Bill -- Psst... Hey, you... Buddy... Want a kitten? straycatblues.petfinder.org

If the house is fairly accessible, running cat-5 is fairly easy and inexpensive. Haven't checked lately but 1000' yep that one thousand feet around $75. Ends are $1.00 each, and a crimp tool maybe $25. Cut 3/4" outer covering off with utility knife, un twist the 4 pairs. Arrange the wires in a flat plane close to each other with the colors in proper order, trim wires to stick out of covering around 3/8" and push wires into RJ-46 8c/8p plug and crimp. After you have done a few, probably 10 minutes each. If you want to get fancy with RJ-45 wall plates, I prefer the ones with 110 punchdown for the wires. Will need a punchdown tool for $25. For coax, much same setup, RG-6 cable, a crimper and some F terminals. I buy most of this from MCM http://www.mcmelectronics.com/#?gclid=CIvUhvm6_JwCFWBB5godYx5HbQ If this sounds interesting, I can provide a list of part numbers, just today I got a shipment from them that included RJ-45, F terms, and a TIVO hardrive. My house for the most part has open basement and attic with nearly everywhere accessible. There is probably 600' of RG-6, and 700' of Cat-5 neatly run all over. :) We have had Direcv for 8 years, and Sunday went to switch to Dish Network, install went bad after 4 hours, cancelled and chased them out. They refused to use the "distribution" port which should have powered my TV network nicely. :( William Couture wrote: {Quote hidden}> Hi all! > > We're having some work done in our house, and need some CAT5 and > possibly COAX run. > > Just talked to an installer, and (surprise!) they suggested something > other than their services. > > Ethernet over powerline. > > However, looking at the hardware I have one question: Can I have more > than one network running on the same lines? > > We are getting FIOS installed, and from what we hear the Actiontec > router is junk. We have read articles about using a Linksys 54GL > instead, and that sounds good. However, our network is going to > look something like this: > > FIOS -> ONT -> Actiontec -> Linksys -> Computer Cloud (Tivo, computers) > > The Actiontec would have to be in the basement (so we don't have to run > coax anywhere), but we want the Linksys in the computer room (top floor > for better wireless signal). > > So, we would need a powerline ethernet adapter link from the Actiontec > in the basement to the Linksys in the computer room, and then another > 2 powerline ethernet links from the Linksys to the Tivo's (in other > rooms). Since we want the Tivo's to route data through the Linksys, > not the Actiontec, they need to be in separate subnets. > > Is this possible? Can more than one powerline ethernet setup play > nice in the house? Do they steal bandwidth from each other? Or do > we have to pull CAT5 to link the routers? > > Thanks, > Bill > >

On Sep 18, 2009, at 5:21 PM, William Couture wrote: > Ethernet over powerline. > > However, looking at the hardware I have one question: Can I have more > than one network running on the same lines? I have just bought some powerline ethernet modules. I have heard mixed reviews about different circuits, different phases, and overall performance. I haven't done any hard testing yet (though it DOES work over the most-important link I had in mind.) My understanding is that it is an ETHERNET. So, one (baseband) network, but more than two endpoints are possible. So you should be able to connect large numbers of individual hosts to it, and/or multiple real routers, bridges, or switches. I haven't tried that yet either (first, to run around the house and see about performance.) BillW

If it's a newer house with drywall / sheetrock, take the money you would spend on the powerline ethernet equipment and take a drywall class. You said "we" so let your spouse/partner/roommate learn to paint. Then pick your spot, whack a hole in the wall and stick in a conduit. A 2" PVC conduit fits nicely in a standard 2x4 stud wall. Then if it's network from the basement to the attic and then down to the computer room or TV antenna from the attic to the basement to the TV distribution splitter, you're all set. Even with satellite or cable TV there's usually more local HD channels OTA. {Original Message removed}

On Sep 18, 2009, at 8:14 PM, William Chops Westfield wrote: > I have just bought some powerline ethernet modules. I have heard > mixed reviews about different circuits, different phases, and overall > performance. I haven't done any hard testing yet I got to some tests tonight. I've got netgear powerline modules, and they pretty much appear to suck. On the supposedly 200Mbps units (which of course is only 100Mbps, but (maybe) full duplex) I got about 5Mbps in one room, and 10Mbps in another. Rumor has it that the RF filters found these days in most power supplies interfere with the powerline protocols. That makes a certain amount of sense, but I'm not a very happy camper. OTOH, both of the test locations ran as fast or faster than the (old, 802.11b) wireless network I have installed... Sigh. It would have made things a lot nicer if it had performed closer to its specification. I may try out some "problem" wireless spots, but I don't think I'll be buying more units to try out the multi-point configurations. BillW

William Couture wrote: > We're having some work done in our house, and need some CAT5 and > possibly COAX run. > > Just talked to an installer, and (surprise!) they suggested something > other than their services. > > Ethernet over powerline. This is the first I hear of it. I can only guess what kind of modulation they use and how reliable it might or might not be. I would investigate it carefully before going with it. My first knee jerk reaction is that it might be appropriate for places where running CAT5 would be too difficult or expensive so that putting up with the likely problems is worth it. If you're having work done on the house already, I would seriously look into running the cable for 100Mbit/s drops. > However, looking at the hardware I have one question: Can I have more > than one network running on the same lines? I'm not sure about the question. Ethernet itself can support many logical networks on the same wires because each sends data in separate packets. > The Actiontec would have to be in the basement (so we don't have to > run coax anywhere), but we want the Linksys in the computer room (top > floor for better wireless signal). That doesn't make sense. Unless you live in a mansion, a wireless access point in the basement will easily cover the whole house. I have mine in the basement and it works well. I did that deliberately to limit signal spill outside the house. The access point is placed just below grade level so that the signal at ground level doesn't extend much past the house. In practise it is still useable outside near the house anywhere we want to sit with a portable computer, but you can't pick it up outside the property whereas we can pick up access points of some other houses from our house. This scheme may not work in a city where houses are dense packed because at least the top floor of nearby houses will be within sight of your access point. In our case the nearest house is maybe 200 feet away on the other side of a esker, so that's no problem. The few houses within unobstructed radio sight are probably at least 500 feet away. By that time our signal is way too weak due to the shadow effect of it being in a hole in the ground. Of course you want to use normal WiFi security measures too, but if attackers can't even see your signal in the first place, it's a lot more secure. ******************************************************************** Embed Inc, Littleton Massachusetts, http://www.embedinc.com/products (978) 742-9014. Gold level PIC consultants since 2000.

Charles Craft wrote: > Even with satellite or cable TV there's usually more local HD channels OTA. > > In our local area (Cleveland, Ohio), there is some very nice OTA programing on the sub-channels that cable, or the dishes are and will not for foreseeable future be airing. Some of the programming includes 2 local weather channels, 5 PBS channels, including the Ohio channel (state supreme court and legislature live and replay), and other channels we never received before. Friend's antenna/satellite is booming with new antenna installs, only a few are to correct from analog to loss of digital service. At this point about 50% of our watching is on those channels available only via the antenna.

Why not go wireless, other than cost. I have had a wireless DSL/router modem for some years. Wireless USB adapters and printers are readily available. I understand that power companies have been wanting data over their lines for some time as competition to cable and satellite for rural broadband, and they are slowly getting there, but it's still not very practical. They have got to the point of meters being read via the power line. They recently, install a power line remote controlled isolation switch (if a tree takes a line down, the can reduce the customers off line). The control comes via UHF with a directional antenna pointed to their office. There are many tricks to running cables without being unsightly: 1: Shoe or base moldings can be temporarily removed 2: Some very interesting tools including 48" (and longer) drill bits that bend 3: drill bits that bore bent holes 4: Fiber optic cameras like Ridgids micro see-snake will go 30 feet - expensive 5: flat cable that can be covered with wall paper or dry wall compound 6: Install a crown moulding at ceiling or chair moulding at 30" , run in that space, poke a hole that will then be hidden by the molding 7: Electrical boxes that can install very easily in old wall construction. I think it took me 10 minutes to do one for a HDMI cable the other day. 8: Both Ethernet cat-5 and Video RG-6 cables can be easily terminated after pulling through confined spaces, which give a lot easier install. 9: For a neat appearance,I prefer the "keystone" wall plates that allow 6 cable jacks in a single gang box. The jacks are available in many configurations including video (RG-6), Ethernet (CAT-5), telephone, RCA,, and the list goes on and on. and colors are there to, for color coding. If you are not confident, check your local Directv, Dish network, etc. installers that do motels, hospitals, etc. They generally are much more professional. William Couture wrote: {Quote hidden}> On Fri, Sep 18, 2009 at 9:01 PM, Carl Denk <.....cdenkKILLspam@spam@windstream.net> wrote: > > >> If the house is fairly accessible, running cat-5 is fairly easy and >> inexpensive. >> > > Unfortunately, the house is not accessible, which is why we are > looking at powerline ethernet. > > Bill > >

In message <001f01ca3923$208f9600$0300a8c0@main>, Olin Lathrop <olin_piclistKILLspamembedinc.com> writes >William Couture wrote: >> We're having some work done in our house, and need some CAT5 and >> possibly COAX run. >> >> Just talked to an installer, and (surprise!) they suggested something >> other than their services. >> >> Ethernet over powerline. > Nasty stuff if you are an amateur radio operator or short wave radio listener or have one nearby. It generates noise in the HF band apparently. >That doesn't make sense. Unless you live in a mansion, a wireless access >point in the basement will easily cover the whole house. Depends how old the house is, I've seen aluminium foil backed insulation used for internal walls and floors here in the UK on refurbished homes and new builds which makes WiFi somewhat 'difficult' to use. Maybe similar in the US if a house is being remodelled? -- Clint Sharp

In the USA, I haven't known of aluminum foil being used on the inside, and very little on the outside for some years.In the early 1950's there was some movement in that direction, but it died. Help the people that live in some houses my dad bult then. They had aluminum foil on all the exterior walls and roof. And thouse people can't figure out why rabbit ears don't work. Clint Sharp wrote: {Quote hidden}> In message <001f01ca3923$208f9600$0300a8c0@main>, Olin Lathrop > <.....olin_piclistKILLspam.....embedinc.com> writes > >> William Couture wrote: >> >>> We're having some work done in our house, and need some CAT5 and >>> possibly COAX run. >>> >>> Just talked to an installer, and (surprise!) they suggested something >>> other than their services. >>> >>> Ethernet over powerline. >>> > Nasty stuff if you are an amateur radio operator or short wave radio > listener or have one nearby. It generates noise in the HF band > apparently. > >> That doesn't make sense. Unless you live in a mansion, a wireless access >> point in the basement will easily cover the whole house. >> > Depends how old the house is, I've seen aluminium foil backed insulation > used for internal walls and floors here in the UK on refurbished homes > and new builds which makes WiFi somewhat 'difficult' to use. Maybe > similar in the US if a house is being remodelled? > >