| How far can you have your Uverse modem from the demarc? I have two buildings at my property, one is a garage/storage, the other a rough finished office. The demarc is at the garage and about 400' away (via 4" underground conduit) from where I have my computer network and office.
My first plan was to run fiber between the two.
But I was wondering, would it be possible to run copper from the demarc over to the office part and have my ATT Uverse modem there? How far can you put the modem away and it not degrade?
The ATT tech on the phone said 25', but the wiring company I talked to said it could easily go 1000'
My location is about 1800' away from the ATT box on the side of the road. Currently getting 12mb down. |
|
 dbeatsonPremium
join:2001-02-22
Clover, SC | It would depend if you have an iNID at the Dmarc, if you do than you should be able to go the distance of a single ethernet segment which would be 185 meters.
If you do not have an iNID and you just have a modem, than the further you are from the Dmarc the the more your DSL signal will weaken and this will affect your speed and line quality.
--
»www.w4lny.com |
|
| Ethernet should be fine for that run. Just steer clear of any large sources of interference.
Although, if it's going to be a flat out pain in the arse to run the ethernet I'd consider a wireless solution if there's not much between the two points. I use Ubiquiti devices for links like this quite often. They're cheap and and rock solid. |
|
|
|
| reply to pareto8020
What am I missing here? My RG is 849' from the VRAD over a copper pair and I believe that it would work out to about 2500' if the pair is good quality. To be sure U-Verse is working at these distances today so why can't he just extend the copper pair another 400' to the other building. Thanks and sorry if I have this all wrong. |
|
 CanezoidWe are the Corps
join:2001-02-16
Powder Springs, GA | reply to pareto8020
4" conduit ? Pull yourself a couple runs of CAT5e, shielded if you can go for the xtra $, terminate for 1 ethernet connection on both ends & install a switch at the new location.
Problem solved. |
|
 joakoPremium
join:2000-09-07
/dev/null
kudos:5
 ·Comcast
| reply to pareto8020
Ethernet limit is 100 meters, so you are a few over that. However 100mbps ethernet over Cat5e honestly should work fine, but don't hold me to that.
If all you have is 12mbps internet and your current line quality is good you should have no problem extending the VDSL 500 feet over properly terminated cat5e.
--
PRescott7-2097 |
|
| reply to pareto8020
Keep in mind that VDSL signal travels over only Cat3 rated wire up to your NID, and possibly through several ratsnest looking pedestals or terminals. So if it can run fine on that, then a clean Cat5 run shouldn't be a problem at 400 feet. |
|
| reply to pareto8020
What are you trying to accomplish specifically? If you have zero use for any services ATT the garage where the NID (demarc) and RG are now, and you want all the service at the office, then you need to get the NID moved so you get an all new drop and NID. The reasoning is so that your still covered if issues arrive before the demarcation. ATT might even be able to set you up with one of the newer, two pair, intelligent NIDs.
Amped Wireless »www.ampedwireless.com/family/ makes some brilliant, high powered routers and outdoor antennas if all your looking for is internet access all over your whole property.
Adding an additional 400ft between the NID and the RG is going to be a disaster waiting to happen.
400ft of cat6 or cat5e is pushing the specs on the ethernet protocol. Though it might work, why bother when there's better solutions. |
|
| reply to Canezoid
said by Canezoid:4" conduit ? Pull yourself a couple runs of CAT5e, shielded if you can go for the xtra $, terminate for 1 ethernet connection on both ends & install a switch at the new location.
Problem solved.
That would be nice if it wasn't rated at max 328ft for a straight run. A run that long would require a powered switch in the middle of the conduit. |
|
| He's not trying to run gigabit over it. 400' should be just fine for what he wants to do. I have numerous 400-450' lines to remote cameras and I've never had a problem even with POE. |
|
cramer
join:2007-04-10
Raleigh, NC
kudos:5 Reviews:
 ·AT&T Southeast
| The spec says 100M (328ft.) It's an old spec.  A full-duplex link can be as long as you want, more or less. The reason for the limit is so collisions can be detected -- collisions don't happen on fdx links.
The most common problem with such a long run is power loss. Many cheap switches/nics simply cannot put enough power on the line to go that far.
Back to the OP... you should keep the total length between VRAD and RG less than 3000ft. There may already be 2kft+ in the network up to your house. The extra 400ft isn't likely to hurt anything. "UV Realtime" (application) can estimate the line length and show if there are any problems on the line (check before and after extending the demarc.) |
|
| said by cramer:The spec says 100M (328ft.) It's an old spec. A full-duplex link can be as long as you want, more or less. The reason for the limit is so collisions can be detected -- collisions don't happen on fdx links.
While many think the 100m is 'legacy,' set for prop delay and collision in mind before full duplex became common-place, with every revision of protocol the length limit of single runs stayed 100m industry standard because of the transmission characteristics inherent of the cat5/cat6 cabling, re: attenuation, crosstalk.
What this guy »investing.businessweek.com/resea···2C%20Inc. has to say here is an interesting comment on the subject.
"The first Ethernet spec to incorporate Cat-5 was 100BASE-TX, which was approved in 1995. By 1995, switches were in fact quite popular. In addition, while the formal specification for full-duplex operation was not completed until 1997 (I was the chairman and editor of that standard), there were a number of proprietary full-duplex devices already on the market, both for 10BASE-T and 100BASE-T.
I also sat on the IEEE 802.3 standards committee during the development of 10, 100, and 1000BASE-T. The primary focus of the design of the physical link signaling over UTP (both for Cat-3 during 10BASE-T, and for Cat-5 during 100/1000BASE-T) was reliable operation over a minimum distance of 100 m. This is because early industry specifications (e.g., AT+T's Premise Distribution System) and the later EIA/TIA building wiring standards both used 100 m as the maximum extent of a UTP cable
run from a central device in a wiring closet to the end user desktop. In every case, the limiting factor for the Ethernet transceiver specification was the physical characteristics of the cable. Any issues regarding overall system propagation delay were factored not into the transceiver design, but into the rules that users would apply to determine whether the resulting configuration met the prop delay constraints (e.g., number and type of repeaters, number of cable segments, etc.)."
said by cramer:The most common problem with such a long run is power loss. Many cheap switches/nics simply cannot put enough power on the line to go that far.
That is a good way to picture the issue, but attenutation is the real limiting factor.
I don't recommend the Cat5e run 400ft in a conduit for the same reason I don't recommend tacking on 400ft after the NID. You leave yourself vulnerable to not being within the scope of support for the product if issues do arise. But then again, I do spend a lot of time cleaning up after poor tech work and failed DIY projects so maybe I'm biased. |
|
| reply to pareto8020
Thanks for all your replies. I was not going to run CAT5 that far no matter what, so it was between fiber or phone line.
I bought 4 100' phone lines and couplers, daisy chained them all together and hit speedtest.net.
Same exact results as with the shorter ATT supplied green cable. I figure if it can handle that, it can handle the gel filled direct burial cable they'll be using.
Note, I had a typo in my orig. post - I was only getting 10 MB down, not 12. |
|
joakoPremium
join:2000-09-07
/dev/null
kudos:5 | Cat5 is without a doubt better than flat phone cord. It's ethernet over Cat5 that would be technically out of spec (but very likely to work without issues)
--
PRescott7-2097 |
|
| Right, it will be CAT5 burial cable, but acting as a phone line vs Ethernet. Sorry for the confusion. |
|
| reply to pareto8020
That's the moto nvg 510 I think I see in the pick there. Which means that extra run from the demarcation to the modem your adding will be adsl2+ modulation. So adding 400ft to your already short loop shouldn't impact service much as it would if you were on VDSL2.
A simple SS of the modems line stat page before and after the extra run would show you the real difference and let you know if your max rate and attenuation still support your service profile. |
|
| reply to pareto8020
MMF fiber is cheap ... personally id put the fiber in now while you have the chance.
Why put copper down? What is the benefit? |
|
| The company doing the wiring has some leftover cat5 burial from a larger project, so I'm getting a break on that. And this way I'll save by not buying media converters, connectors, patch cords, etc. And I won't be hoofing it out there to "restart the modem" when necessary. |
|
| said by pareto8020:And I won't be hoofing it out there to "restart the modem" when necessary.
Good point. Mine requires a restart and a good slap every couple of weeks. |
|
| reply to pareto8020
Update: I had a burial cat5 cable run and connected up and the distance has not mattered running the phone signal that far. Now getting the NVG510 to operate in something emulating bridge mode was trickier. Best advice - just keep messing with it. I have it giving a public (static) IP to my router and so far so good. ATT (esp. first line techs) don't know anything about it, and the router doesn't natively support it. |
|
