Network design for two (connected) rural homes?

[pyrogerg]

My family lives in a rural area where our only options for ISPs are satellite providers. I want to set up a network for our two houses on a single satellite modem and it's not clear to me what would be the best way to design and install the network. Here are some relevant details:

1) Structures: 2 houses roughly 300' apart (a little less), there's a barn with power but no heat in between the houses. The barn doesn't need to be on the network, but could be used if helpful. It can get really cold in the barn during the winter (sub 0ºF).
2) Network speed requirements: We do not need an ultra-fast network. There will be very little traffic within the network, most will be isolated devices connecting to the internet. Our ISP should be the bottleneck for our internet connection. We will probably be limited to about 5Mbps download and 1 Mbps upload. Maybe we'll be able to triple that someday, but I'm not holding my breath.

My ideas about how to set up the network:
1) Satellite dish and modem in the barn, direct burial cat 5e from the modem to routers in the two houses.
2) Satellite dish and modem in one house, direct burial cat 5e from the modem to the other house.
3) Either of the above options, but with wireless connections to the houses rather than hard lines.

Cost is not a non-issue, but I'm willing to spend $500-1000 for equipment if necessary to set up a reliable network. It would be great if we could keep the equipment cost under $500.

I will appreciate any suggestions this community may be able to offer, regarding both the network design and specific equipment.

 

[AdvHomeServer]

I've never set up a network like that, but I can tell you that cat5e cables are limited to 300 feet. Some advanced antennas might provide wireless if aimed at each other and line of sight is available. Ubiquti sells them, but I don't know how to set up a transmit / receive relationship. It can't be very hard.

If you can find a router that runs hot, maybe it could survive sub zero winter. Just kidding, Then again, put it in a Styrofoam box in the winter and put it in the middle. It might work.

 

[abailey]

I would use cable since it is an option, and not try wireless. I would also put the Satellite dish and modem in one house and cable to the other. If the total device to device distance is less than 300feet then use Cat5e cable. If the distance is further I would use RG6 COAX cable and put one of these at each end: http://www.amazon.com/dp/B00684E0UI/?tag=snbforums-20

 

[AdvHomeServer]

I didn't think of RG6. It has a much longer run limit. Wired is always more reliable than wireless.

 

[pyrogerg]

Abailey, I like your idea of running coax, which I hadn't known to have so much more range. The 300' limit of cat 5 would seriously constrain where in the houses I could put the devices. With coax, I could place the wireless routers centrally in both houses for better coverage.

Wireless should also be an option as line-of-sight is available between the houses, but I suspect that a wired connection will be more reliable at the price-point I'm targeting.

 

[abailey]

Abailey, I like your idea of running coax, which I hadn't known to have so much more range. The 300' limit of cat 5 would seriously constrain where in the houses I could put the devices. With coax, I could place the wireless routers centrally in both houses for better coverage.

Wireless should also be an option as line-of-sight is available between the houses, but I suspect that a wired connection will be more reliable at the price-point I'm targeting.

I would choose a wired connection since that is an option. Wired is almost always better. If you wanted to do wireless I would purchase a pair of these, but I believe it would be inferior to a wired connection with COAX.
http://www.amazon.com/dp/B004EHSV4W/?tag=snbforums-20

 

[pyrogerg]

I would choose a wired connection since that is an option. Wired is almost always better. If you wanted to do wireless I would purchase a pair of these, but I believe it would be inferior to a wired connection with COAX.
http://www.amazon.com/dp/B004EHSV4W/?tag=snbforums-20

Wired it will be. I'll run this coax underground between the houses with a coaxial network adapter at each end. Does quad-shielded coax take a special crimping tool, or will any RG6 crimper work?

 

[azazel1024]

Honestly for the project, I realize you are talking only sharing a low bandwidth satellite connection, but I'd consider doing fiber instead. For a couple of transcievers and inexpensive 1000base-SX GBIC modules for them, you are only looking at a few bucks more than the coax boxes there and the fiber isn't going to be a lot more than quad shielded coax.

Probably less than $100 more in cost, and you'll have 1Gbps speeds between the houses in case you want to do things like sharing files, streaming video, if there ever is a high speed internet connection (as unlikely as it may be).

 

[fistv]

Honestly for the project, I realize you are talking only sharing a low bandwidth satellite connection, but I'd consider doing fiber instead. For a couple of transcievers and inexpensive 1000base-SX GBIC modules for them, you are only looking at a few bucks more than the coax boxes there and the fiber isn't going to be a lot more than quad shielded coax.

Probably less than $100 more in cost, and you'll have 1Gbps speeds between the houses in case you want to do things like sharing files, streaming video, if there ever is a high speed internet connection (as unlikely as it may be).

Second that one, bury or string fiber, 4 fiber to ethernet converters. 4 port GB router in barn with two gb converters connected, then one in each house.
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Produ...thernet_converters-_-9SIA4SM1RK0213-_-Product

You can get the fiber to order and terminated to order, just be sure to add a few feet at either end, you don't want to bend fiber only coil it no smaller than 12 inches, gradual turns, etc. Don't guesstimate, run a string and treat it just like you are planning to install it, nothing worse than being 3 inches too short. If you plan on burying it account for the below the frost line distances also.

 

[pyrogerg]

Considering fiber

I'm willing to consider running fiber, if the cost difference is really around $100 then that isn't a big deal. I do have a couple questions about running fiber, however.

1) Can a get direct-burial fiber or would I need to run it through conduit? I'll probably run the section under our unpaved driveway through conduit just for added protection in any case.

2) How does the frost-line figure in the burial plan for fiber and would it be different for coax? The frost line is much deeper up here than I want to trench (6 feet to be safe), if I can possibly avoid it.

 

[abailey]

I'm willing to consider running fiber, if the cost difference is really around $100 then that isn't a big deal. I do have a couple questions about running fiber, however.

1) Can a get direct-burial fiber or would I need to run it through conduit? I'll probably run the section under our unpaved driveway through conduit just for added protection in any case.

2) How does the frost-line figure in the burial plan for fiber and would it be different for coax? The frost line is much deeper up here than I want to trench (6 feet to be safe), if I can possibly avoid it.

Pulling fiber between the buildings would be nice but I would make sure the fiber is terminated with ends already on it. If you are looking for direct burial fiber with ends already on it, the length you are talking, I don't know where you will be able to get it for only $100 more. Then the transceivers at each end are also more expensive than the COAX ones. Here are some cheap ones (that I have used in the past and they did fine): http://www.amazon.com/dp/B003AVRLZI/?tag=snbforums-20
You could price out the difference and see if it is worth it to you.

 

[fistv]

1: Yes, they have U rated fiber.
I've always played it safe when burying to get away from any heaves from frost, I generally dig the trench, put in 6" of sand, lay the cable and put 6 more inches over that after removing any rocks. I've also run it inside pcv but again I put sand around it and remove any intruding rocks that could work their way up. The cable and sheathing won't be bothered by the cold, I'm more concerned with physical damage, my area is all rock, you want to plant a garden where I live you better bring a pick and an 8 foot pry bar as well as a couple of friends.

 

[abailey]

If you really need speed and don't want to try the fiber optic path, you could use your barn as a half way point for CAT5e Ethernet. I would not put your Satellite equipment or modem in the barn, though, but you could put a low cost unmanaged switch in there and that would allow you to go 300 feet in any direction from the barn. This method would cost the least of all the methods but would leave you with one more point of failure (the switch in the barn).

 

[CaptainSTX]

Given the distance is only 300+ feet I would try running a piece of Cat6 cable between the two dwellings and see if that works. If it won't carry the distance then run it to the barn, install an inexpensive switch in the barn to act as an amplifier. Test the distance by just running the cable on the surface then bury it once you have it working.

Cat 6 cable for direct burial is inexpensive enough that would not worry about any extensive burial and trenching to protect it. Replace it when it fails. If you want to protect it then install inter duct (orange flexible conduit).

The only other gadgets I would install would be grounding blocks designed for Ethernet cable. You should have one on each building.

 

[pyrogerg]

Given the distance is only 300+ feet I would try running a piece of Cat6 cable between the two dwellings and see if that works. If it won't carry the distance then run it to the barn, install an inexpensive switch in the barn to act as an amplifier. Test the distance by just running the cable on the surface then bury it once you have it working.

Cat 6 cable for direct burial is inexpensive enough that would not worry about any extensive burial and trenching to protect it. Replace it when it fails. If you want to protect it then install inter duct (orange flexible conduit).

The only other gadgets I would install would be grounding blocks designed for Ethernet cable. You should have one on each building.

This makes sense. If I go over the "length limit" for a Cat6, it won't be by much and for our purposes I doubt that we'll notice a small amount of signal attenuation.

 

[azazel1024]

Only $100 more would imply 1 length of fiber. If you double or quad up the costs will get significantly more between the transceivers, fiber modules and fiber itself.

If you do sand like suggested, frost heaving is much less of an issue, but it still can be. Running through conduit would help with that some.

In the end, you really want to get below the frost line if you can at all help it.

I am a lucky duck in that my frost line is only ~2ft down here, so the trenching isn't too bad. Pretty rocky once you get down a few inches though, but fortunately not big rocks, just lots and lots and lots of little to medium rocks.

 

[Daybreak]

Howdy,

To many here are over thinking this.

300' distance between houses, yes, decent Cat5, Cat5e, Cat6 theoretical limit is 100 meters (328ft).
Get yourself 2 cheap 802.11 b outdoor access points, shoot them at each other, your done. If you want to spend more, go with 2 N outdoor access points.

Rural internet is just that. We are barely getting off dial-up modems out here. Satellite is only so fast.

 

[azazel1024]

The biggest point is what do you want to do in the future. If sharing files and streaming video between the properties, then 802.11b bridges are deffinitely not fast enough. Nor would you really want to use 802.11g bridges. In expensive 802.11n bridges could handle it, but you still aren't talking a whole ton of bandwidth between the properties. You'd likely get close to 50% of the link speed since the distance is short, which if using 20Mhz channels means 30-60Mbps depending on a N150 or N300 wireless bridge.

IMHO, I'd go the wireless bridge route with a couple of inexpensive Engenius wireless bridges if you want the cheapest, fastest and easiest route.

If you want speed and long term cost, coax/cat6/fiber in that order.

Personally, I am not quite rural enough to lose FIOS, so I have a 75/75 connection and need a decent link medium to saturate that if sharing it around, but I do also transfer some big old files and even faster speeds than wireless are nice even when I am connecting at 300-400Mbps over 802.11ac with my laptop. Rarely, but it is nice sometimes. So for me, whatever link medium I use to connect devices/parts of my network, I don't look at my internet connection is the limiting factor. I look at what I'll be doing with the connection.

Just streaming video and browsing the internet? A low speed link is fine. Transfering files around my network? The higest speed link I can resonably afford/feasible to install.

 

[Scooterit]

My family lives in a rural area where our only options for ISPs are satellite providers. I want to set up a network for our two houses on a single satellite modem and it's not clear to me what would be the best way to design and install the network. Here are some relevant details:

1) Structures: 2 houses roughly 300' apart (a little less), there's a barn with power but no heat in between the houses. The barn doesn't need to be on the network, but could be used if helpful. It can get really cold in the barn during the winter (sub 0ºF).
2) Network speed requirements: We do not need an ultra-fast network. There will be very little traffic within the network, most will be isolated devices connecting to the internet. Our ISP should be the bottleneck for our internet connection. We will probably be limited to about 5Mbps download and 1 Mbps upload. Maybe we'll be able to triple that someday, but I'm not holding my breath.

My ideas about how to set up the network:
1) Satellite dish and modem in the barn, direct burial cat 5e from the modem to routers in the two houses.
2) Satellite dish and modem in one house, direct burial cat 5e from the modem to the other house.
3) Either of the above options, but with wireless connections to the houses rather than hard lines.

Cost is not a non-issue, but I'm willing to spend $500-1000 for equipment if necessary to set up a reliable network. It would be great if we could keep the equipment cost under $500.

I will appreciate any suggestions this community may be able to offer, regarding both the network design and specific equipment.

As long as you can see the other house use a pair of Ubiquity LocoM2 stations to create a wireless bridge between the two properties.
In one house you connect a Unit to one of the Lan ports of the Satellite modem/router. And in the other house you connect the Unit to the WAN port of a regular router to create a new (wireless) network as if it was connected to its own ISP.
A pair or LocoM2's will cost about $100.
The rest is all standard equipment you might already have.


PS you might want to install a dual wan router on the main side. Peplink makes models that are very easy to handle. For example you could use a SoHo that is connected to your Sat Modem and a 3G modem for fall back. If you have a regular phone line you could consider adding a old fashioned dial up modem to a multi WAN unit to combine bandwidth and spread the load.

 

[willmatt]

If you use flooded RG-6 direct burial cable you can use HPNA Coaxial network adapters as shown here, at each end:
http://www.trendnet.com/products/proddetail.asp?prod=265_TPA-311#tabs-solution01

Available for purchase here:
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=9SIA24G1GC5203