From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: James Subject: Re: what tech? Date: Sun, 28 Apr 2002 08:59:14 +0100 Sender: linux-admin-owner@vger.kernel.org Message-ID: <20020428075914.GA5292@piku.org.uk> References: <5.1.0.14.0.20020428013622.00a739e0@mail.tumsan.fi> Mime-Version: 1.0 Return-path: Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <5.1.0.14.0.20020428013622.00a739e0@mail.tumsan.fi> List-Id: Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit To: linux-admin@vger.kernel.org On Sun, Apr 28, 2002 at 01:46:47AM +0300, urgrue wrote: | is there something like dsl, but cheaper, that would be appropriate for | getting a connection along normal copper wires at relatively short | distances (a few hundred meters at most? | just plain old ethernet is almost sufficient, but the distances im talking | about would require slightly more, and it would be better if it didnt need | two pairs of wire. speed is not important, even half a meg is okay. | dsl is too expensive for this purpose, and overkill anyway. | | basically the point is to run connections through an apartment building. | what would be appropriate? Well if it's through a building and not across open fields, etc then ethernet is probably the cheapest. When you reach the 100-and-whatever metre limit of cat5, just stick a cheap 2 port hub on the end, and continue the wire for another 100m. And if speed's not important, a 10Mbit network will run further than a 100Mbit one with fewer errors. This is probably how large offices cable themselves up. And if you can push one wire through the wall, whatever, you can easily push two (besides, a piece of cat5 isn't that thick, no thicker than regular phone wire you'd be using for dsl, and it's fairly cheap too). -- I will not encourage others to fly 6AD6 865A BF6E 76BB 1FC2 | www.piku.org.uk/public-key.asc E4C4 DEEA 7D08 D511 E149 | www.piku.org.uk wnzrf@cvxh.bet.hx (rot13'd)