Bud must post anything to avoid what is standard and fundamental to
surge protection. A protector is only as effective as its earth
ground. Earth ground - not a protector - provides protection.
Protection even for an ethernet cable between buildings. Surge energy
must be harmlessly dissipated in earth - not in some 'magic box'.
Bud is promoting 'magic box' protectors that have no dedicated
earthing connection AND do not even claim to provide that protection
in numeric specs.

OP is installing an ethernet cable between two buildings. The
effective solution has been standard for over 100 years. Telcos
connect to every building in town and suffer no damage. Telco earths
every wire before it enters a building. A connection from each wire
to earth provides effective protection. There is no 'magic box'
solution.

No earthing where surge entered a building and no earthing for
Bud's plug-in protector means surge energy was earthed 8000 volts
destructively through adjacent electronics: Page 42 Figure 8. The
solution to an ethernet cable between buildings is earthing where each
cable enters each building. Why does Bud recommend an ineffective
solution that is irrelevant to the OP's question?

.. As predicted, Bud provides no manufacture specifications for
protection. Even the manufacturer will not claim what Bud recommends.
So why is that a solution to the OP's question? Profits are at risk
should everyone learn that earthing - not a protector - provides the
protection. What do two front page articles in Electrical Engineering
Times define for surge protection? Earthing. A protector is only as
effective as its earth ground. A fact that puts profits at risk. The
fact that provides the answer to Idone1's original post: how to
connect communication cables between buildings.

On Jan 27, 2:17 am, bud-- <remove.budn...@isp.com> wrote:
> ...
> I recommended no 'protector'.
> ...
> To quote w_ "It is an old political trick. When facts cannot be
> challenged technically, then attack the messenger." My only association
> with surge protectors is I have some.
> ...
> The illustration in the IEEE guide has a surge coming in on a cable
> service. There are 2 TVs, one is on a plug-in suppressor. The plug-in
> suppressor protects TV1, connected to it.
>
> Without the plug-in suppressor the surge voltage at TV2 is 10,000V. With
> the suppressor at TV1 the voltage at TV2 is 8,000V. The plug-in
> suppressor at TV1 does not contribute to damage at TV2.
>
> The point of the illustration for the IEEE, and anyone who can think, is
> "to protect TV2, a second multiport protector located at TV2 is required."
>
> The problem is the wire connecting the cable entry block to the power
> service 'ground' is too long allowing a high voltage between power and
> cable wires. Ethernet connections between buildings can have the same
> problem if they do not enter the building near the power service. The
> IEEE guide says in that case "the only effective way of protecting the
> equipment is to use a multiport protector." Fortunately ethernet has
> higher surge immunity than most equipment.
> ...
> What does the NIST guide really say about plug-in suppressors?
> They are "the easiest solution".
>
> I made a rather brief comment about plug-in suppressors in response to
> w_'s 'magic box' nonsense, resulting in a rant from w_.
>
> Contrary to w_'s misrepresentation, both the IEEE and NIST guides say
> plug-in suppressors are effective. The IEEE guide has 2 examples of
> surge suppression - both use plug-in suppressors. (They may, or may not,
> be useful for ethernet between buildings.)
>
> w_ can not find a link agreeing that plug-in suppressors are NOT effective.