Re: Need to extend LAN less than mile

[ps56k]

since you don't have direct wiring between the locations,
you might think about wireless..... - x-posted to that newsgroup
continue at the bottom
--

Harvey wrote:
> I am not very familiar with all the terminology.
> I have two locations less than a mile apart in a rural area.
> I assume the phone company could (if I knew how/what to ask) make
> appropriate splices to give me two or more pair of copper between the
> two locations.
> Is that what a "leased line" is? Or does that go through the exchange?
>
> Assuming I could get this copper between the two points, how fast
> could I send data between the two?
> I have an ethernet lan on each end that I want to connect together.
> And of course :-) I want to do it for low cost.
>
> I would simply use the internet but there is no high speed available
> out there in rural Western Washington State.
>
> Thank you all very much,
> Harvey.

I have a friend near Randle WA - near Mt. St. Helens... no high speed either

anyway - what do you ultimately want to do ?
and why do you want the locations connected ?

[Harvey]

On May 17, 6:08 pm, "ps56k" <pschuman_no_spam...@interserv.com> wrote:
> since you don't have direct wiring between the locations,
> you might think about wireless..... - x-posted to that newsgroup
> continue at the bottom
> --
>
>
>
> Harvey wrote:
> > I am not very familiar with all the terminology.
> > I have two locations less than a mile apart in a rural area.
> > I assume the phone company could (if I knew how/what to ask) make
> > appropriate splices to give me two or more pair of copper between the
> > two locations.
> > Is that what a "leased line" is? Or does that go through the exchange?
>
> > Assuming I could get this copper between the two points, how fast
> > could I send data between the two?
> > I have an ethernet lan on each end that I want to connect together.
> > And of course :-) I want to do it for low cost.
>
> > I would simply use the internet but there is no high speed available
> > out there in rural Western Washington State.
>
> > Thank you all very much,
> > Harvey.
>
> I have a friend near Randle WA - near Mt. St. Helens... no high speed either
>
> anyway - what do you ultimately want to do ?
> and why do you want the locations connected ?

It is for monitoring 5 cameras. The camera setup is in place and
working over the internet using dial up, but it is too slow. The
picture updates only about every 5 to 40 seconds. I assume that
internet traffic is the variable. Once every two seconds or faster
would be good.

What do you recommend for wireless through a fairly wooded area?

And again can the phone company provide a connection in the existing
buried wiring? They always have extra pairs available, right? Both
locations are on the same dead end road.

Thanks

[Harvey]

On May 17, 6:08 pm, "ps56k" <pschuman_no_spam...@interserv.com> wrote:
> since you don't have direct wiring between the locations,
> you might think about wireless..... - x-posted to that newsgroup
> continue at the bottom
> --
>
>
>
> Harvey wrote:
> > I am not very familiar with all the terminology.
> > I have two locations less than a mile apart in a rural area.
> > I assume the phone company could (if I knew how/what to ask) make
> > appropriate splices to give me two or more pair of copper between the
> > two locations.
> > Is that what a "leased line" is? Or does that go through the exchange?
>
> > Assuming I could get this copper between the two points, how fast
> > could I send data between the two?
> > I have an ethernet lan on each end that I want to connect together.
> > And of course :-) I want to do it for low cost.
>
> > I would simply use the internet but there is no high speed available
> > out there in rural Western Washington State.
>
> > Thank you all very much,
> > Harvey.
>
> I have a friend near Randle WA - near Mt. St. Helens... no high speed either
>
> anyway - what do you ultimately want to do ?
> and why do you want the locations connected ?

It is for monitoring 5 cameras. The camera setup is in place and
working over the internet using dial up, but it is too slow. The
picture updates only about every 5 to 40 seconds. I assume that
internet traffic is the variable. Once every two seconds or faster
would be good.

What do you recommend for wireless through a fairly wooded area?

And again can the phone company provide a connection in the existing
buried wiring? They always have extra pairs available, right? Both
locations are on the same dead end road.

Thanks

[ps56k]

Harvey wrote:
> On May 17, 6:08 pm, "ps56k" <pschuman_no_spam...@interserv.com> wrote:
>> since you don't have direct wiring between the locations,
>> you might think about wireless..... - x-posted to that newsgroup
>> continue at the bottom
>> --
>>
>>
>>
>> Harvey wrote:
>>> I am not very familiar with all the terminology.
>>> I have two locations less than a mile apart in a rural area.
>>> I assume the phone company could (if I knew how/what to ask) make
>>> appropriate splices to give me two or more pair of copper between
>>> the two locations.
>>> Is that what a "leased line" is? Or does that go through the
>>> exchange?
>>
>>> Assuming I could get this copper between the two points, how fast
>>> could I send data between the two?
>>> I have an ethernet lan on each end that I want to connect together.
>>> And of course :-) I want to do it for low cost.
>>
>>> I would simply use the internet but there is no high speed available
>>> out there in rural Western Washington State.
>>
>>> Thank you all very much,
>>> Harvey.
>>
>> I have a friend near Randle WA - near Mt. St. Helens... no high
>> speed either
>>
>> anyway - what do you ultimately want to do ?
>> and why do you want the locations connected ?
>
> It is for monitoring 5 cameras. The camera setup is in place and
> working over the internet using dial up, but it is too slow. The
> picture updates only about every 5 to 40 seconds. I assume that
> internet traffic is the variable. Once every two seconds or faster
> would be good.
>
> What do you recommend for wireless through a fairly wooded area?
>
> And again can the phone company provide a connection in the existing
> buried wiring? They always have extra pairs available, right? Both
> locations are on the same dead end road.
>

oops - wooded area - NG - the radio wave signals are absorbed by the
leaves.... :((

Not sure what "wiring" might be available to you in this situation -
cheaply -
BTW - since you indicated that broadband - DSL, cable, ISDN are not avail in
your area
it might even be tough to get a "leased line" - and it will be cost
prohibitive...
A "leased line" is not just renting an extra pair of wires,
it actually is a datacom service that is configured, optimized, monitored,
and $$$.

And yes - they usually are a hub & spoke arrangement with say 2 points near
each other
actually going all the way back to the telco exchange for the "electronics"
portion.

Any other options ??
Is this on your property - is there a fence or other "path"
where you might be able to string some cable ?

[Jeff Liebermann]

On Sat, 17 May 2008 21:00:59 -0500, "ps56k"
<pschuman_no_spam_me@interserv.com> wrote:

>oops - wooded area - NG - the radio wave signals are absorbed by the
>leaves.... :((

Some frequencies have problems going through water. 900MHz wireless
penetrates leaves (not trunks) quite nicely. Less than a mile is
easy. Worked great for Metricom (Ricochet). See:
<http://www.avalanwireless.com>
<http://www.vecima.com/rider.php>
<http://www.freewave.com>
<http://www.trangobroadband.com/wireless_products/m900s.shtml>
<http://www.streakwave.com/items.asp?Cc=CB-ODU-900MHz>
<http://www.ubnt.com/products/xr9.php>
and others. One catch is that the throughput is rather limited.

--
# Jeff Liebermann 150 Felker St #D Santa Cruz CA 95060
# 831-336-2558 jeffl@comix.santa-cruz.ca.us
# http://802.11junk.com jeffl@cruzio.com
# http://www.LearnByDestroying.com AE6KS

[glen herrmannsfeldt]

ps56k wrote:
(snip)

> Not sure what "wiring" might be available to you in this
> situation - cheaply - BTW - since you indicated that
> broadband - DSL, cable, ISDN are not avail in
> your area it might even be tough to get a "leased line" -
> and it will be cost prohibitive...

> A "leased line" is not just renting an extra pair of wires,
> it actually is a datacom service that is configured,
> optimized, monitored, and $$$.

I believe in some cases you can buy (rent) a pair of wires
with no electronics in between. It is sometimes done for
alarm companies. It might be that it is harder than it
used to be, as phone companies want to be in the datacom
business. I know public schools that do it for their T1
lines instead of leasing T1 lines. (For schools close enough
to the district office or to other schools.) Libraries
might also be able to do it.

-- glen

[LR]

Harvey wrote:
> On May 17, 6:08 pm, "ps56k" <pschuman_no_spam...@interserv.com> wrote:
>> since you don't have direct wiring between the locations,
>> you might think about wireless..... - x-posted to that newsgroup
>> continue at the bottom
>> --
>>
>>
>>
>> Harvey wrote:
>>> I am not very familiar with all the terminology.
>>> I have two locations less than a mile apart in a rural area.
>>> I assume the phone company could (if I knew how/what to ask) make
>>> appropriate splices to give me two or more pair of copper between the
>>> two locations.
>>> Is that what a "leased line" is? Or does that go through the exchange?
>>> Assuming I could get this copper between the two points, how fast
>>> could I send data between the two?
>>> I have an ethernet lan on each end that I want to connect together.
>>> And of course :-) I want to do it for low cost.
>>> I would simply use the internet but there is no high speed available
>>> out there in rural Western Washington State.
>>> Thank you all very much,
>>> Harvey.
>> I have a friend near Randle WA - near Mt. St. Helens... no high speed either
>>
>> anyway - what do you ultimately want to do ?
>> and why do you want the locations connected ?
>
> It is for monitoring 5 cameras. The camera setup is in place and
> working over the internet using dial up, but it is too slow. The
> picture updates only about every 5 to 40 seconds. I assume that
> internet traffic is the variable. Once every two seconds or faster
> would be good.
>
> What do you recommend for wireless through a fairly wooded area?
>
> And again can the phone company provide a connection in the existing
> buried wiring? They always have extra pairs available, right? Both
> locations are on the same dead end road.
>
> Thanks
You don't say how much less than a mile. If the phone company can
provide you with a leased line that is less than 1500 metres in length
to the location you want it may be worth looking at a "VDSL over
Ethernet" system, most seem to give you 15Mbs at that distance.
Most come as a master and slave combination.
http://www.eusso.com/product3/Ethernet%20Extender.htm

[Peter Pan]

>> I am not very familiar with all the terminology.
>> I have two locations less than a mile apart in a rural area.
>> I assume the phone company could (if I knew how/what to ask) make
>> appropriate splices to give me two or more pair of copper between
>> the two locations.
>> Is that what a "leased line" is? Or does that go through the
>> exchange?
>>
>> Assuming I could get this copper between the two points, how fast
>> could I send data between the two?
>> I have an ethernet lan on each end that I want to connect together.
>> And of course :-) I want to do it for low cost.
>>
>> I would simply use the internet but there is no high speed available
>> out there in rural Western Washington State.
>>
>> Thank you all very much,
>> Harvey.


Never say never, but forget wireless in that area (lived in rathdrum idaho
((western id)) and trees/leafs in the summer and snow in the winter made
that a non-starter..... However, There are several commercial systems/isp's
out there that schools/businesses/etc use that may be able to point you in
the right direction (check with your local school and find out how they get
their internet fo the classes, ended up with )


as a start you may want to see if any are shown on this map at
http://www.onelasvegas.com/wireless/compare.html click on the state you want
and see if you are in one of the red circles
or for a more text based (rather than graphical/map)
or check Washington State Wireless Internet Service Providers
at http://www.bbwexchange.com/wisps/washington-wisps.asp

Not rural wash, but oregon, you may want to peruse the thread at
http://www.hwkb.com/Uwe/Forum.aspx/network-wireless/13346/Looking-for-hardware-opinions-for-rural-link
and see if any of that info helps.

[Si Ballenger]

On Sat, 17 May 2008 18:36:45 -0700 (PDT), Harvey
<harveyab@juno.com> wrote:

>It is for monitoring 5 cameras. The camera setup is in place and
>working over the internet using dial up, but it is too slow. The
>picture updates only about every 5 to 40 seconds. I assume that
>internet traffic is the variable. Once every two seconds or faster
>would be good.
>
>What do you recommend for wireless through a fairly wooded area?
>
>And again can the phone company provide a connection in the existing
>buried wiring? They always have extra pairs available, right? Both
>locations are on the same dead end road.
>
>Thanks

Something you can try with the phone lines is to establish a
connection between the two locations without using the internet.
In years past I've tested using the dialin server included in the
win 98 DUN 1.3 application. Just to see if it could be done, I
ran netmeeting and a webcam between two computers over the two
different phone lines in the house. Still would be slow compared
to broadband, but might be a little quicker than going thru an
ISP.

[Harvey]

On May 18, 12:40 am, shb*NO*SP...@comporium.net (Si Ballenger) wrote:
> On Sat, 17 May 2008 18:36:45 -0700 (PDT), Harvey
>
> <harve...@juno.com> wrote:
> >It is for monitoring 5 cameras. The camera setup is in place and
> >working over the internet using dial up, but it is too slow. The
> >picture updates only about every 5 to 40 seconds. I assume that
> >internet traffic is the variable. Once every two seconds or faster
> >would be good.
>
> >What do you recommend for wireless through a fairly wooded area?
>
> >And again can the phone company provide a connection in the existing
> >buried wiring? They always have extra pairs available, right? Both
> >locations are on the same dead end road.
>
> >Thanks
>
> Something you can try with the phone lines is to establish a
> connection between the two locations without using the internet.
> In years past I've tested using the dialin server included in the
> win 98 DUN 1.3 application. Just to see if it could be done, I
> ran netmeeting and a webcam between two computers over the two
> different phone lines in the house. Still would be slow compared
> to broadband, but might be a little quicker than going thru an
> ISP.

So are you saying instead of calling an ISP, I just call the phone at
my other location and regular dialup modems on the two ends will talk
to each other? How can I configure that?
Thanks,
Harvey

[Harvey]

On May 17, 11:39 pm, LR <l...@privacy.net> wrote:
> Harvey wrote:
> > On May 17, 6:08 pm, "ps56k" <pschuman_no_spam...@interserv.com> wrote:
> >> since you don't have direct wiring between the locations,
> >> you might think about wireless..... - x-posted to that newsgroup
> >> continue at the bottom
> >> --
>
> >> Harvey wrote:
> >>> I am not very familiar with all the terminology.
> >>> I have two locations less than a mile apart in a rural area.
> >>> I assume the phone company could (if I knew how/what to ask) make
> >>> appropriate splices to give me two or more pair of copper between the
> >>> two locations.
> >>> Is that what a "leased line" is? Or does that go through the exchange?
> >>> Assuming I could get this copper between the two points, how fast
> >>> could I send data between the two?
> >>> I have an ethernet lan on each end that I want to connect together.
> >>> And of course :-) I want to do it for low cost.
> >>> I would simply use the internet but there is no high speed available
> >>> out there in rural Western Washington State.
> >>> Thank you all very much,
> >>> Harvey.
> >> I have a friend near Randle WA - near Mt. St. Helens... no high speed either
>
> >> anyway - what do you ultimately want to do ?
> >> and why do you want the locations connected ?
>
> > It is for monitoring 5 cameras. The camera setup is in place and
> > working over the internet using dial up, but it is too slow. The
> > picture updates only about every 5 to 40 seconds. I assume that
> > internet traffic is the variable. Once every two seconds or faster
> > would be good.
>
> > What do you recommend for wireless through a fairly wooded area?
>
> > And again can the phone company provide a connection in the existing
> > buried wiring? They always have extra pairs available, right? Both
> > locations are on the same dead end road.
>
> > Thanks
>
> You don't say how much less than a mile. If the phone company can
> provide you with a leased line that is less than 1500 metres in length
> to the location you want it may be worth looking at a "VDSL over
> Ethernet" system, most seem to give you 15Mbs at that distance.
> Most come as a master and slave combination.http://www.eusso.com/product3/Ethernet%20Extender.htm

I don't know how long the buried wires are, but the line of sight
distance is probably less than 1/2 mile.
So if it were a little over 1500m, say 1800m would it just give up or
would the rate drop or what?
Thanks,
Harvey

[LR]

Harvey wrote:
> On May 17, 11:39 pm, LR <l...@privacy.net> wrote:
>> Harvey wrote:
>>> On May 17, 6:08 pm, "ps56k" <pschuman_no_spam...@interserv.com> wrote:
>>>> since you don't have direct wiring between the locations,
>>>> you might think about wireless..... - x-posted to that newsgroup
>>>> continue at the bottom
>>>> --
>>>> Harvey wrote:
>>>>> I am not very familiar with all the terminology.
>>>>> I have two locations less than a mile apart in a rural area.
>>>>> I assume the phone company could (if I knew how/what to ask) make
>>>>> appropriate splices to give me two or more pair of copper between the
>>>>> two locations.
>>>>> Is that what a "leased line" is? Or does that go through the exchange?
>>>>> Assuming I could get this copper between the two points, how fast
>>>>> could I send data between the two?
>>>>> I have an ethernet lan on each end that I want to connect together.
>>>>> And of course :-) I want to do it for low cost.
>>>>> I would simply use the internet but there is no high speed available
>>>>> out there in rural Western Washington State.
>>>>> Thank you all very much,
>>>>> Harvey.
>>>> I have a friend near Randle WA - near Mt. St. Helens... no high speed either
>>>> anyway - what do you ultimately want to do ?
>>>> and why do you want the locations connected ?
>>> It is for monitoring 5 cameras. The camera setup is in place and
>>> working over the internet using dial up, but it is too slow. The
>>> picture updates only about every 5 to 40 seconds. I assume that
>>> internet traffic is the variable. Once every two seconds or faster
>>> would be good.
>>> What do you recommend for wireless through a fairly wooded area?
>>> And again can the phone company provide a connection in the existing
>>> buried wiring? They always have extra pairs available, right? Both
>>> locations are on the same dead end road.
>>> Thanks
>> You don't say how much less than a mile. If the phone company can
>> provide you with a leased line that is less than 1500 metres in length
>> to the location you want it may be worth looking at a "VDSL over
>> Ethernet" system, most seem to give you 15Mbs at that distance.
>> Most come as a master and slave combination.http://www.eusso.com/product3/Ethernet%20Extender.htm
>
> I don't know how long the buried wires are, but the line of sight
> distance is probably less than 1/2 mile.
> So if it were a little over 1500m, say 1800m would it just give up or
> would the rate drop or what?
> Thanks,
> Harvey
I have never tried this over 900 metres but looking at the specs for one
of the "Planet VC-201's" the rate drops but there will be a point where
the link is not viable.
<http://www.planet.com.tw/en/product/product_spec.php?id=12943>
I have seen the spec for models which do work to 2.4Km but have
misplaced the link at the moment, if I find it I will post it.

[LR]

LR wrote:
> Harvey wrote:
>> On May 17, 11:39 pm, LR <l...@privacy.net> wrote:
>>> Harvey wrote:
>>>> On May 17, 6:08 pm, "ps56k" <pschuman_no_spam...@interserv.com> wrote:
>>>>> since you don't have direct wiring between the locations,
>>>>> you might think about wireless..... - x-posted to that newsgroup
>>>>> continue at the bottom
>>>>> --
>>>>> Harvey wrote:
>>>>>> I am not very familiar with all the terminology.
>>>>>> I have two locations less than a mile apart in a rural area.
>>>>>> I assume the phone company could (if I knew how/what to ask) make
>>>>>> appropriate splices to give me two or more pair of copper between the
>>>>>> two locations.
>>>>>> Is that what a "leased line" is? Or does that go through the
>>>>>> exchange?
>>>>>> Assuming I could get this copper between the two points, how fast
>>>>>> could I send data between the two?
>>>>>> I have an ethernet lan on each end that I want to connect together.
>>>>>> And of course :-) I want to do it for low cost.
>>>>>> I would simply use the internet but there is no high speed available
>>>>>> out there in rural Western Washington State.
>>>>>> Thank you all very much,
>>>>>> Harvey.
>>>>> I have a friend near Randle WA - near Mt. St. Helens... no high
>>>>> speed either
>>>>> anyway - what do you ultimately want to do ?
>>>>> and why do you want the locations connected ?
>>>> It is for monitoring 5 cameras. The camera setup is in place and
>>>> working over the internet using dial up, but it is too slow. The
>>>> picture updates only about every 5 to 40 seconds. I assume that
>>>> internet traffic is the variable. Once every two seconds or faster
>>>> would be good.
>>>> What do you recommend for wireless through a fairly wooded area?
>>>> And again can the phone company provide a connection in the existing
>>>> buried wiring? They always have extra pairs available, right? Both
>>>> locations are on the same dead end road.
>>>> Thanks
>>> You don't say how much less than a mile. If the phone company can
>>> provide you with a leased line that is less than 1500 metres in length
>>> to the location you want it may be worth looking at a "VDSL over
>>> Ethernet" system, most seem to give you 15Mbs at that distance.
>>> Most come as a master and slave
>>> combination.http://www.eusso.com/product3/Ethernet%20Extender.htm
>>
>> I don't know how long the buried wires are, but the line of sight
>> distance is probably less than 1/2 mile.
>> So if it were a little over 1500m, say 1800m would it just give up or
>> would the rate drop or what?
>> Thanks,
>> Harvey
> I have never tried this over 900 metres but looking at the specs for one
> of the "Planet VC-201's" the rate drops but there will be a point where
> the link is not viable.
> <http://www.planet.com.tw/en/product/product_spec.php?id=12943>
> I have seen the spec for models which do work to 2.4Km but have
> misplaced the link at the moment, if. I find it I will post it.
Can't find the link I was looking for but MRV do "Long Range"(2.4Km)
home units.
<http://www.mrv.com/product/MRV-OS-EoV>
<http://www.interlinkweb.com/systemics/assets/product_images/MRV/MRV-OS-EoV_A4_LO.pdf>

[Walter Roberson]

In article <d1ede80a-adc5-40e9-8af8-1b27c99a35a8@j33g2000pri.googlegroups.com>,
Harvey <harveyab@juno.com> wrote:

>So are you saying instead of calling an ISP, I just call the phone at
>my other location and regular dialup modems on the two ends will talk
>to each other? How can I configure that?

That can work; the traditional limit in such cases was 38400 baud
("56K" dialup was always asymmetric, with the 56K only downward from a
modem bank that had a special interface; If I recall correctly, it pretty
much required that the 56K sending system be co-located at the
Central Office.)

The technology has been around for years; you could use SLIP.

If you do this, the call is going to be routed via the central office,
not just take the direct signal path between the two sites, because
as far as the telephone company is concerned there would be no
direct path between the two sites.


You used to be able to get "wet" and "dry" pairs (the difference
in who is supplying the electricity). What you are asking for
used to be common, and would be a typical application for a CSU/DSU
at a nominal line rate of 56K, degraded by distance.


You might be able to set up a microwave link between the sites.
That used to be a major investment, but it is relatively affordable
now. Though you didn't mention a budget for this project? A microwave
link would likely have to be licensed (mostly a formality if you hire
experienced installers and you don't happen to be in a bird migration
path). The 900 MHz mentioned earlier is in the unlicensed ISM
frequency range -- but note that the 802.11a, 802.11b, 802.11g,
and 802.11n commercial off-the-shelf units are -not- in the ISM
frequency range, so you would likely have to order something in rather
than buy it at a local consumer electronics store.

[Bill Kearney]

>> I would simply use the internet but there is no high speed available
>> out there in rural Western Washington State.

How about cellular data services? An aircard and a router at the camera end
would get it onto the internet.

[Robert Redelmeier]

In comp.dcom.lans.ethernet Harvey <harveyab@juno.com> wrote in part:
> It is for monitoring 5 cameras. The camera setup is in place and
> working over the internet using dial up, but it is too slow. The
> picture updates only about every 5 to 40 seconds. I assume that
> internet traffic is the variable. Once every two seconds or
> faster would be good.

Thanks for the additional details. This is an application
where an asymmetric link would work well.

Your problem might be elsewhere: 40 seconds is very long for
internet traffic, and the problem might be the sending comp.
It sounds more like a swap-delay on some MS-Windows systems.
Some modems "Winmodems" can also consume excessive CPU.
Does it run well when you plug a laptop in?

> And again can the phone company provide a connection in the
> existing buried wiring? They always have extra pairs available,
> right? Both locations are on the same dead end road.

Yes, the telco should be able to provide a dry pair. A big problem
is it will almost certainly be _much_ longer than you expect.
The dry pair is made by installing crossconnect at an available
site. If you are extremely lucky, they have a pedestal not to
far up the line and are willing to mess it up with crossconnect.
If not, the crossconnect will be installed in the Central Office.

Fortunately however, ASDL can push 15,000 wire feet and there are
other solutions like Long-Range Ethernet. Google. You need to
call the phone comany to see what they will provide you (will they
do it at all), and only after "yes" can you dare ask them how long
the wire will run.




> Thanks

[DTC]

Harvey wrote:
> So are you saying instead of calling an ISP, I just call the phone at
> my other location and regular dialup modems on the two ends will talk
> to each other? How can I configure that?

To expand on what Walter wrote...

Set up one computer to accept incoming connections.
In XP, its:
New Connection Wizard
Set up advanced connection
Accept incoming calls

On the other computer.
New Connection Wizard
Connect to the internet
Set up connection manually
Connect using a dial up modem
Phone number of the first computer above

The connection will travel from the first computer to the
telco central office and from there back to the second computer.
If the distance is around 3 miles to the C.O., you'll probably
get a 22 Kbps connection or so.

You won't get a "56K" connection (the MARKETING term for a 45 to 48
Kbps connection in real life) as the signal is not digitally injected
at the C.O.

We use this approach in all of our wireless access points as a backup
access to the tower if the wireless backhaul is down.

[Carl Navarro]

On Sat, 17 May 2008 20:08:09 -0500, "ps56k"
<pschuman_no_spam_me@interserv.com> wrote:

>since you don't have direct wiring between the locations,
>you might think about wireless..... - x-posted to that newsgroup
>continue at the bottom

Only because it's painful to watch you guys stumble over a wireless
solution, I'm going to help you out. If you can get an off-premise
extension solution or dry pair, here's a link to equipment that works.

http://www.netsys-direct.com/proddetail.php?prod=NVF-200EKIT

At distances beyond 1/2 mile, it will probably not link at anything
higher than 5 Mbs, but there may be a chance for 15.

Carl Navarro

[Harvey]

On May 18, 10:38 am, Carl Navarro <cnava...@wcnet.org> wrote:
> On Sat, 17 May 2008 20:08:09 -0500, "ps56k"
>
> <pschuman_no_spam...@interserv.com> wrote:
> >since you don't have direct wiring between the locations,
> >you might think about wireless..... - x-posted to that newsgroup
> >continue at the bottom
>
> Only because it's painful to watch you guys stumble over a wireless
> solution, I'm going to help you out. If you can get an off-premise
> extension solution or dry pair, here's a link to equipment that works.
>
> http://www.netsys-direct.com/proddetail.php?prod=NVF-200EKIT
>
> At distances beyond 1/2 mile, it will probably not link at anything
> higher than 5 Mbs, but there may be a chance for 15.
>
> Carl Navarro

Carl,
Thanks for the link.
The picture on the web page looks like two boxes setting one on top of
the other. Is this the equipment for one end only? Or is it just a
single picture showing the front and back of two units (both ends)?
And is the price for one end or both ends?
Thanks again,
Harvey

[DLR]

Robert Redelmeier wrote:
> Yes, the telco should be able to provide a dry pair. A big problem
> is it will almost certainly be _much_ longer than you expect.
> The dry pair is made by installing crossconnect at an available
> site. If you are extremely lucky, they have a pedestal not to
> far up the line and are willing to mess it up with crossconnect.
> If not, the crossconnect will be installed in the Central Office.

In many areas getting a dry copper pair is much harder than it used to be. There are FCC rules back by federal law regarding signal levels on copper phone pairs to limit interference. Back in the early days of broadband lots of folks "rolled their own" to get a connection to a remote office by ordering a dry copper pair and telling the phone company it was for an alarm circuit. Lots of hassles ensued for both the phone companies and the end users. An alarm circuit needs about 10 baud of signal ability so someone (back 10 years ago) might invest in $2000 of equipment and then 6 months later the phone company move them to another pair and things stop working and there be no hope of it ever working again. Remember the phone company was supplying a dry copper pair, not a DSL rated circuit.

I'd just stay away from that situation.

There are various options. I'm assuming you have power at each end? Can you get a line of site even if on top of a pole you own? Can you run a copper or fiber pair yourself?

There was a similar discussion on one of these news groups a year or so ago where someone was doing something similar. He lived up on a mountain and was about 1000' from a broad band internet connection. He ran copper by lying it on the ground knowing he'd have to replace it every 6 months to a year or so.

David

[ps56k]

Harvey wrote:
> On May 18, 10:38 am, Carl Navarro <cnava...@wcnet.org> wrote:
>> On Sat, 17 May 2008 20:08:09 -0500, "ps56k"
>>
>> <pschuman_no_spam...@interserv.com> wrote:
>>> since you don't have direct wiring between the locations,
>>> you might think about wireless..... - x-posted to that newsgroup
>>> continue at the bottom
>>
>> Only because it's painful to watch you guys stumble over a wireless
>> solution, I'm going to help you out. If you can get an off-premise
>> extension solution or dry pair, here's a link to equipment that
>> works.
>>
>> http://www.netsys-direct.com/proddetail.php?prod=NVF-200EKIT
>>
>> At distances beyond 1/2 mile, it will probably not link at anything
>> higher than 5 Mbs, but there may be a chance for 15.
>>
>> Carl Navarro
>
> Carl,
> Thanks for the link.
> The picture on the web page looks like two boxes setting one on top of
> the other. Is this the equipment for one end only? Or is it just a
> single picture showing the front and back of two units (both ends)?
> And is the price for one end or both ends?
> Thanks again,
> Harvey

You still need your own physical pair of wires between the 2 locations,
which is back to the initial problem to begin with...
These "extenders" are designed for going across a local campus or private
area
where you control and have access to the wires deployed across the campus,
plant, or school.

[seaweedsl]

On May 17, 8:36 pm, Harvey <harve...@juno.com> wrote:
> On May 17, 6:08 pm, "ps56k" <pschuman_no_spam...@interserv.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > since you don't have direct wiring between the locations,
> > you might think about wireless..... - x-posted to that newsgroup
> > continue at the bottom
> > --
>
> > Harvey wrote:
> > > I am not very familiar with all the terminology.
> > > I have two locations less than a mile apart in a rural area.
> > > I assume the phone company could (if I knew how/what to ask) make
> > > appropriate splices to give me two or more pair of copper between the
> > > two locations.
> > > Is that what a "leased line" is? Or does that go through the exchange?
>
> > > Assuming I could get this copper between the two points, how fast
> > > could I send data between the two?
> > > I have an ethernet lan on each end that I want to connect together.
> > > And of course :-) I want to do it for low cost.
>
> > > I would simply use the internet but there is no high speed available
> > > out there in rural Western Washington State.
>
> > > Thank you all very much,
> > > Harvey.
>
> > I have a friend near Randle WA - near Mt. St. Helens... no high speed either
>
> > anyway - what do you ultimately want to do ?
> > and why do you want the locations connected ?
>
> It is for monitoring 5 cameras. The camera setup is in place and
> working over the internet using dial up, but it is too slow. The
> picture updates only about every 5 to 40 seconds. I assume that
> internet traffic is the variable. Once every two seconds or faster
> would be good.
>
> What do you recommend for wireless through a fairly wooded area?
>
> And again can the phone company provide a connection in the existing
> buried wiring? They always have extra pairs available, right? Both
> locations are on the same dead end road.
>
> Thanks

If you are already paying for dial-up connections in both places,
perhaps switching to satellite internet would be a solution for the
cams and give you (somewhat) improved internet access as a side-
benefit.

Would cost $300-600 for equipment + $60-90 per month - for each site.

The practicality of that depends on many things, one of which is data
thruput over 24 hours. Sat plans, though often faster, are very
limited in total thruput allowed for the consumer accounts.

They also have lag issues, but I doubt that would come into play for
cams.

[Harvey]

On May 19, 11:53 am, seaweedsl <seaweedst...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On May 17, 8:36 pm, Harvey <harve...@juno.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > On May 17, 6:08 pm, "ps56k" <pschuman_no_spam...@interserv.com> wrote:
>
> > > since you don't have direct wiring between the locations,
> > > you might think about wireless..... - x-posted to that newsgroup
> > > continue at the bottom
> > > --
>
> > > Harvey wrote:
> > > > I am not very familiar with all the terminology.
> > > > I have two locations less than a mile apart in a rural area.
> > > > I assume the phone company could (if I knew how/what to ask) make
> > > > appropriate splices to give me two or more pair of copper between the
> > > > two locations.
> > > > Is that what a "leased line" is? Or does that go through the exchange?
>
> > > > Assuming I could get this copper between the two points, how fast
> > > > could I send data between the two?
> > > > I have an ethernet lan on each end that I want to connect together.
> > > > And of course :-) I want to do it for low cost.
>
> > > > I would simply use the internet but there is no high speed available
> > > > out there in rural Western Washington State.
>
> > > > Thank you all very much,
> > > > Harvey.
>
> > > I have a friend near Randle WA - near Mt. St. Helens... no high speed either
>
> > > anyway - what do you ultimately want to do ?
> > > and why do you want the locations connected ?
>
> > It is for monitoring 5 cameras. The camera setup is in place and
> > working over the internet using dial up, but it is too slow. The
> > picture updates only about every 5 to 40 seconds. I assume that
> > internet traffic is the variable. Once every two seconds or faster
> > would be good.
>
> > What do you recommend for wireless through a fairly wooded area?
>
> > And again can the phone company provide a connection in the existing
> > buried wiring? They always have extra pairs available, right? Both
> > locations are on the same dead end road.
>
> > Thanks
>
> If you are already paying for dial-up connections in both places,
> perhaps switching to satellite internet would be a solution for the
> cams and give you (somewhat) improved internet access as a side-
> benefit.
>
> Would cost $300-600 for equipment + $60-90 per month - for each site.
>
> The practicality of that depends on many things, one of which is data
> thruput over 24 hours. Sat plans, though often faster, are very
> limited in total thruput allowed for the consumer accounts.
>
> They also have lag issues, but I doubt that would come into play for
> cams.

Actually We tried Hughes Net on both ends and the camera techs never
got it to work. The data went up okay and can be retrieved from dialup
or DSL at any location, but having sattlelite links on both ends never
worked.
Harvey

[glen herrmannsfeldt]

Walter Roberson wrote:
(snip)

> That can work; the traditional limit in such cases was 38400 baud
> ("56K" dialup was always asymmetric, with the 56K only downward from a
> modem bank that had a special interface; If I recall correctly, it pretty
> much required that the 56K sending system be co-located at the
> Central Office.)

Co-located may be the easy way, I believe all it requires
is a digital line, such as ISDN. Primary rate ISDN (which
is pretty much T1) holds about 23 voice calls at 56K
(or 64K if no bits are stolen).

If you can get basic rate ISDN to both ends, you can
send (usually) 128K bits/second through it.

-- glen

[Harvey]

On May 18, 12:40 am, shb*NO*SP...@comporium.net (Si Ballenger) wrote:
> On Sat, 17 May 2008 18:36:45 -0700 (PDT), Harvey
>
> <harve...@juno.com> wrote:
> >It is for monitoring 5 cameras. The camera setup is in place and
> >working over the internet using dial up, but it is too slow. The
> >picture updates only about every 5 to 40 seconds. I assume that
> >internet traffic is the variable. Once every two seconds or faster
> >would be good.
>
> >What do you recommend for wireless through a fairly wooded area?
>
> >And again can the phone company provide a connection in the existing
> >buried wiring? They always have extra pairs available, right? Both
> >locations are on the same dead end road.
>
> >Thanks
>
> Something you can try with the phone lines is to establish a
> connection between the two locations without using the internet.
> In years past I've tested using the dialin server included in the
> win 98 DUN 1.3 application. Just to see if it could be done, I
> ran netmeeting and a webcam between two computers over the two
> different phone lines in the house. Still would be slow compared
> to broadband, but might be a little quicker than going thru an
> ISP.

I am trying a link to my new thread (if it works), click to go to
http://groups.google.com/group/comp.dcom.lans.ethernet/tree/browse_frm/thread/56f9276a72da4582/32d25ea5c37b4f39?rnum=1&_done=%2Fgroup%2Fcomp.dcom.lans.ethernet%2Fbrowse_frm%2Fthread%2F56f9276a72da4582%3F#doc_32d25ea5c37 b4f39
Is there a better way to do a link to another thread?
Harvey

[Carl Navarro]

On Sun, 18 May 2008 23:52:11 -0700 (PDT), Harvey <harveyab@juno.com>
wrote:

>On May 18, 10:38 am, Carl Navarro <cnava...@wcnet.org> wrote:
>> On Sat, 17 May 2008 20:08:09 -0500, "ps56k"
>>
>> <pschuman_no_spam...@interserv.com> wrote:
>> >since you don't have direct wiring between the locations,
>> >you might think about wireless..... - x-posted to that newsgroup
>> >continue at the bottom
>>
>> Only because it's painful to watch you guys stumble over a wireless
>> solution, I'm going to help you out. If you can get an off-premise
>> extension solution or dry pair, here's a link to equipment that works.
>>
>> http://www.netsys-direct.com/proddetail.php?prod=NVF-200EKIT
>>
>> At distances beyond 1/2 mile, it will probably not link at anything
>> higher than 5 Mbs, but there may be a chance for 15.
>>
>> Carl Navarro
>
>Carl,
>Thanks for the link.
>The picture on the web page looks like two boxes setting one on top of
>the other. Is this the equipment for one end only? Or is it just a
>single picture showing the front and back of two units (both ends)?
>And is the price for one end or both ends?
>Thanks again,
>Harvey

Whoops, I'm a little remiss in answering posts this(last) month. Yes,
the picture shows the front and back of the remote unit. The diagram
at the bottom does the same, but shows how it functions. Yes,
everybody, you need a pair, but it doesn't have to be dedicated. At
2000 feet, it will probably synch up at 25M.

Carl

[seaweedsl]

On May 19, 2:03 pm, Harvey <harve...@juno.com> wrote:
> On May 19, 11:53 am, seaweedsl <seaweedst...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > On May 17, 8:36 pm, Harvey <harve...@juno.com> wrote:
>
> > > On May 17, 6:08 pm, "ps56k" <pschuman_no_spam...@interserv.com> wrote:
>
> > > > since you don't have direct wiring between the locations,
> > > > you might think about wireless..... - x-posted to that newsgroup
> > > > continue at the bottom
> > > > --
>
> > > > Harvey wrote:
> > > > > I am not very familiar with all the terminology.
> > > > > I have two locations less than a mile apart in a rural area.
> > > > > I assume the phone company could (if I knew how/what to ask) make
> > > > > appropriate splices to give me two or more pair of copper between the
> > > > > two locations.
> > > > > Is that what a "leased line" is? Or does that go through the exchange?
>
> > > > > Assuming I could get this copper between the two points, how fast
> > > > > could I send data between the two?
> > > > > I have an ethernet lan on each end that I want to connect together.
> > > > > And of course :-) I want to do it for low cost.
>
> > > > > I would simply use the internet but there is no high speed available
> > > > > out there in rural Western Washington State.
>
> > > > > Thank you all very much,
> > > > > Harvey.
>
> > > > I have a friend near Randle WA - near Mt. St. Helens... no high speed either
>
> > > > anyway - what do you ultimately want to do ?
> > > > and why do you want the locations connected ?
>
> > > It is for monitoring 5 cameras. The camera setup is in place and
> > > working over the internet using dial up, but it is too slow. The
> > > picture updates only about every 5 to 40 seconds. I assume that
> > > internet traffic is the variable. Once every two seconds or faster
> > > would be good.
>
> > > What do you recommend for wireless through a fairly wooded area?
>
> > > And again can the phone company provide a connection in the existing
> > > buried wiring? They always have extra pairs available, right? Both
> > > locations are on the same dead end road.
>
> > > Thanks
>
> > If you are already paying for dial-up connections in both places,
> > perhaps switching to satellite internet would be a solution for the
> > cams and give you (somewhat) improved internet access as a side-
> > benefit.
>
> > Would cost $300-600 for equipment + $60-90 per month - for each site.
>
> > The practicality of that depends on many things, one of which is data
> > thruput over 24 hours. Sat plans, though often faster, are very
> > limited in total thruput allowed for the consumer accounts.
>
> > They also have lag issues, but I doubt that would come into play for
> > cams.
>
> Actually We tried Hughes Net on both ends and the camera techs never
> got it to work. The data went up okay and can be retrieved from dialup
> or DSL at any location, but having sattlelite links on both ends never
> worked.
> Harvey

Oh, OK. I wonder what the problem is. I suspect it's something that
having a fixed IP at the receiving end would solve.

[Harvey]

On Jun 2, 8:34 am, seaweedsl <seaweedst...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On May 19, 2:03 pm, Harvey <harve...@juno.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > On May 19, 11:53 am, seaweedsl <seaweedst...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > On May 17, 8:36 pm, Harvey <harve...@juno.com> wrote:
>
> > > > On May 17, 6:08 pm, "ps56k" <pschuman_no_spam...@interserv.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > since you don't have direct wiring between the locations,
> > > > > you might think about wireless..... - x-posted to that newsgroup
> > > > > continue at the bottom
> > > > > --
>
> > > > > Harvey wrote:
> > > > > > I am not very familiar with all the terminology.
> > > > > > I have two locations less than a mile apart in aruralarea.
> > > > > > I assume the phone company could (if I knew how/what to ask) make
> > > > > > appropriate splices to give me two or more pair of copper between the
> > > > > > two locations.
> > > > > > Is that what a "leased line" is? Or does that go through the exchange?
>
> > > > > > Assuming I could get this copper between the two points, how fast
> > > > > > could I send data between the two?
> > > > > > I have anethernetlanon each end that I want to connect together.
> > > > > > And of course :-) I want to do it for low cost.
>
> > > > > > I would simply use the internet but there is no high speed available
> > > > > > out there inruralWestern Washington State.
>
> > > > > > Thank you all very much,
> > > > > > Harvey.
>
> > > > > I have a friend near Randle WA - near Mt. St. Helens... no high speed either
>
> > > > > anyway - what do you ultimately want to do ?
> > > > > and why do you want the locations connected ?
>
> > > > It is for monitoring 5 cameras. The camera setup is in place and
> > > > working over the internet using dial up, but it is too slow. The
> > > > picture updates only about every 5 to 40 seconds. I assume that
> > > > internet traffic is the variable. Once every two seconds or faster
> > > > would be good.
>
> > > > What do you recommend for wireless through a fairly wooded area?
>
> > > > And again can the phone company provide a connection in the existing
> > > > buried wiring? They always have extra pairs available, right? Both
> > > > locations are on the same dead end road.
>
> > > > Thanks
>
> > > If you are already paying for dial-up connections in both places,
> > > perhaps switching to satellite internet would be a solution for the
> > > cams and give you (somewhat) improved internet access as a side-
> > > benefit.
>
> > > Would cost $300-600 for equipment + $60-90 per month - for each site.
>
> > > The practicality of that depends on many things, one of which is data
> > > thruput over 24 hours. Sat plans, though often faster, are very
> > > limited in total thruput allowed for the consumer accounts.
>
> > > They also have lag issues, but I doubt that would come into play for
> > > cams.
>
> > Actually We tried Hughes Net on both ends and the camera techs never
> > got it to work. The data went up okay and can be retrieved from dialup
> > or DSL at any location, but having sattlelite links on both ends never
> > worked.
> > Harvey
>
> Oh, OK. I wonder what the problem is. I suspect it's something that
> having a fixed IP at the receiving end would solve.

Well, there is a fixed IP address at the server end. Why the receiving
end?
Harvey

[Harvey]

On May 18, 8:54 am, DTC <m...@nothingtoseehere.zzx> wrote:
> Harvey wrote:
> > So are you saying instead of calling an ISP, I just call the phone at
> > my other location and regular dialup modems on the two ends will talk
> > to each other? How can I configure that?
>
> To expand on what Walter wrote...
>
> Set up one computer to accept incoming connections.
> In XP, its:
> New Connection Wizard
> Set up advanced connection
> Accept incoming calls
>
> On the other computer.
> New Connection Wizard
> Connect to the internet
> Set up connection manually
> Connect using a dial up modem
> Phone number of the first computer above
>
> The connection will travel from the first computer to the
> telco central office and from there back to the second computer.
> If the distance is around 3 miles to the C.O., you'll probably
> get a 22 Kbps connection or so.
>
> You won't get a "56K" connection (the MARKETING term for a 45 to 48
> Kbps connection in real life) as the signal is not digitally injected
> at the C.O.
>
> We use this approach in all of our wireless access points as a backup
> access to the tower if the wireless backhaul is down.

I tried this today, and when I dialed, it wanted a username, password
and IP address - none of which I had. The IP address that I have is
for the camera scanner box, not the computer it is connected to. So do
I need an IP address set for it too. I eventually got it to stop
asking for a username and password but then I couldn't tell if
anything was happening. I brought up a browser, but it couldn't
connect to the IP address of the scanner (I didn't think it would -
because I didn't know how to even tell if it was connected to the host
computer. Then how to get it to connect to the LAN, I was lost.)

Harvey

[Jeff Liebermann]

On Sun, 18 May 2008 10:54:20 -0500, DTC <me@nothingtoseehere.zzx>
wrote:

>The connection will travel from the first computer to the
>telco central office and from there back to the second computer.
>If the distance is around 3 miles to the C.O., you'll probably
>get a 22 Kbps connection or so.
>
>You won't get a "56K" connection (the MARKETING term for a 45 to 48
>Kbps connection in real life) as the signal is not digitally injected
>at the C.O.
>
>We use this approach in all of our wireless access points as a backup
>access to the tower if the wireless backhaul is down.

Some detail: If you have a direct copper connection to the CO
(central office), you'll up to about 48Kbits/sec download, and up to
33.6Kbits/sec with upload, depending on line condition, loading coils,
bridged taps, and modem quality. However, if you have an SLC
(subscriber line concentrator) or Pair Gain device, the best you can
do is 28.8Kbit/sec.

I once scribbled some tests that can be done with a USR modem and the
ATY11 command:
<http://www.LearnByDestroying.com/aty11/aty11.htm>

--
Jeff Liebermann jeffl@cruzio.com
150 Felker St #D http://www.LearnByDestroying.com
Santa Cruz CA 95060 http://802.11junk.com
Skype: JeffLiebermann AE6KS 831-336-2558

[Peter Pan]

Harvey wrote:
> On Jun 2, 8:34 am, seaweedsl <seaweedst...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On May 19, 2:03 pm, Harvey <harve...@juno.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>> On May 19, 11:53 am, seaweedsl <seaweedst...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>>> On May 17, 8:36 pm, Harvey <harve...@juno.com> wrote:
>>
>>>>> On May 17, 6:08 pm, "ps56k" <pschuman_no_spam...@interserv.com>
>>>>> wrote:
>>
>>>>>> since you don't have direct wiring between the locations,
>>>>>> you might think about wireless..... - x-posted to that newsgroup
>>>>>> continue at the bottom
>>>>>> --
>>
>>>>>> Harvey wrote:
>>>>>>> I am not very familiar with all the terminology.
>>>>>>> I have two locations less than a mile apart in aruralarea.
>>>>>>> I assume the phone company could (if I knew how/what to ask)
>>>>>>> make appropriate splices to give me two or more pair of copper
>>>>>>> between the two locations.
>>>>>>> Is that what a "leased line" is? Or does that go through the
>>>>>>> exchange?
>>
>>>>>>> Assuming I could get this copper between the two points, how
>>>>>>> fast could I send data between the two?
>>>>>>> I have anethernetlanon each end that I want to connect together.
>>>>>>> And of course :-) I want to do it for low cost.
>>
>>>>>>> I would simply use the internet but there is no high speed
>>>>>>> available out there inruralWestern Washington State.
>>
>>>>>>> Thank you all very much,
>>>>>>> Harvey.
>>
>>>>>> I have a friend near Randle WA - near Mt. St. Helens... no high
>>>>>> speed either
>>
>>>>>> anyway - what do you ultimately want to do ?
>>>>>> and why do you want the locations connected ?
>>
>>>>> It is for monitoring 5 cameras. The camera setup is in place and
>>>>> working over the internet using dial up, but it is too slow. The
>>>>> picture updates only about every 5 to 40 seconds. I assume that
>>>>> internet traffic is the variable. Once every two seconds or faster
>>>>> would be good.
>>
>>>>> What do you recommend for wireless through a fairly wooded area?
>>
>>>>> And again can the phone company provide a connection in the
>>>>> existing buried wiring? They always have extra pairs available,
>>>>> right? Both locations are on the same dead end road.
>>
>>>>> Thanks
>>
>>>> If you are already paying for dial-up connections in both places,
>>>> perhaps switching to satellite internet would be a solution for the
>>>> cams and give you (somewhat) improved internet access as a side-
>>>> benefit.
>>
>>>> Would cost $300-600 for equipment + $60-90 per month - for each
>>>> site.
>>
>>>> The practicality of that depends on many things, one of which is
>>>> data thruput over 24 hours. Sat plans, though often faster, are
>>>> very limited in total thruput allowed for the consumer accounts.
>>
>>>> They also have lag issues, but I doubt that would come into play
>>>> for cams.
>>
>>> Actually We tried Hughes Net on both ends and the camera techs never
>>> got it to work. The data went up okay and can be retrieved from
>>> dialup or DSL at any location, but having sattlelite links on both
>>> ends never worked.
>>> Harvey
>>
>> Oh, OK. I wonder what the problem is. I suspect it's something
>> that having a fixed IP at the receiving end would solve.
>
> Well, there is a fixed IP address at the server end. Why the receiving
> end?
> Harvey

Depends.... There is streaming video and packetized video, and the streaming
won't work on sat (even with the fixed ip's, probability is it wont, cuz of
packets and latency)... If you are using the software that came with the
camera's look to see if it is streaming or not, and maybe look at alternate
software that is made to work on packetized links (microwave/sat/cell/etc)..
Remember a sat at both ends does 2 latency laden/packetizations, and 4
latency laden transmissions.... 2 up and two down)....

Got the 1xrtt cell service there? (not as fast as evdo, but faster than
dial-up)... FWIW in Rural northern Idaho we went with cell for security
cameras (bonus, the cell phone worked real good too with the repeaters see
www.cellantenna.com to see if they would have stuff that would work for you
we used the cae50 directional yagi pointed at cell tower and a omni for use
in the house, and the kyocera routers/data cards Check out the kyocera kr1
and kr2 mobile routers at http://www.kyocera-wireless.com/pc-mobility/