"Bill Kearney" <wkearney99@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>> The spec actually states 100 meters being the max length which is 328
>> feet, this includes all patch cables.
>
> Indeed. I've had runs slightly longer that worked, and ones shorter that
> didn't. There are enough variables to make it reasonable to think of it
> as a 300' limit. My point wasn't to quibble over the total limit, but to
> stress that the distance needs to include ALL portions of the connection.
> To the wall, up and over the ceiling, etc. If the other build is really
> only 200' away then he's got plenty of distance to play with inside the
> buildings.

My point was not to piss over the actual distance, if you've had shorter
cables fail something was wrong with your termination or equipment. I
install and terminate cat5/cat6 cables daily and have never had a short
cable fail but we did have a customer that had us install 600ft of cat5e
against our will and it would not work.

>
>> True, however there is nothing wrong with using cat5e cable if 10/100 is
>> all that's required.
>
> Two reasons I refuse to use ethernet wire buried: lightning and voltage
> transients. If only because I've had personal experience with both
> wrecking equipment.

Not always possible for some applications say for traditional phone cabling
of course, as with anything standard grounding and bonding techniques needs
to be followed.
I agree that fiber is the way to go, it's just not cheap.
I just installed ST connectors on a 6 strand multimode fiber (12 total
connectors) for a customer who installed the cable themselves, still cost
them around $800 for my travel, connectors and test equipment. Lets add the
cost of media converters (around $100 each) and cable ($1 per foot?). Lets
not consider what connectors, and the termination and test equipment cost.
Our fluke DTX-1800 with fiber moduals was about $16,000 and our splice kits
were several hundred dollars. This is all assuming that someone has the know
how to install, terminate and test the fiber correctly.

>
>> Fiber cable, the terminations and and media converters can be pretty
>> expensive.
>
> Not as expensive as the hassle of replacing fried equipment. I'd much
> rather spend a few bucks on media converters instead of hundreds of
> dollars on blown routers, switches and PC motherboards. But hey, feel
> free to gamble.

Agreed

>
>> If i wanted gigabit speed i'd consider fiber for a run that short other
>> wise the cat5 will be fine, just all depends on what you want to do and
>> what you have planned in the future.
>
> Yes, gigabit media converters ARE a lot more expensive. And quite
> probably not worth doing in most situations. Heck, I'd probably go for
> bonding multiple 100mb fiber links first. More often than not the network
> is not the bottleneck. The host CPU, local disk drives, and processing
> times are usually bigger bottlenecks.

Right, that's my point, what does he need to do with this link? If it's one
computer or access point can he justify the cost of a fiber solution?
Reguardless
>
> -Bill Kearney
>