“Modern” Ethernet over coax
up vote
13
down vote
favorite
So, I've just bought a house. It's reasonably new - built in the early '00s. One of the features that got built in was a cable TV drop in every room. The cabling is gorgeous - there's even a wiring cabinet of sorts in a closet where the cables all tie together to the splitter to the outside line.
Of course, my problem is that I only own the one TV. I do, however, own a few computers. What I would love to be able to do is drop a switch in the wiring closet and run 100/1000BASE-T ethernet over the coax in the walls I wouldn't otherwise be using. My fantasy would be if you could get some kind of adapter-plug-thing that would take a coax plug on one side and a cat5/RJ45 plug on the other.
Had anyone else done this? Any suggestions?
(There are a few other options that suggest themselves - first, I could just use the existing cabling channels and re-run cat5 or 6 through the walls. While tempting, that sounds like more work than I really want to put in, so I'm calling that Plan B. Also, I could just scare up a mess of old 10BASE2 cards and run the house on thinnet, all mid-90s style. While I think I'd get major style points for that, I don't think I can get a 10BASE2 adapter for the new laptop. Also, I have all these super-snazzy gigabit adaptors I'd like to be using. And so forth.)
ethernet adapter wiring coaxial rj-45
edited Apr 5 '10 at 23:05
quack quixote
35k1086118
asked Aug 3 '09 at 20:40
Electrons_Ahoy
1,87142635
add a comment |
up vote
13
down vote
favorite
So, I've just bought a house. It's reasonably new - built in the early '00s. One of the features that got built in was a cable TV drop in every room. The cabling is gorgeous - there's even a wiring cabinet of sorts in a closet where the cables all tie together to the splitter to the outside line.
Of course, my problem is that I only own the one TV. I do, however, own a few computers. What I would love to be able to do is drop a switch in the wiring closet and run 100/1000BASE-T ethernet over the coax in the walls I wouldn't otherwise be using. My fantasy would be if you could get some kind of adapter-plug-thing that would take a coax plug on one side and a cat5/RJ45 plug on the other.
Had anyone else done this? Any suggestions?
(There are a few other options that suggest themselves - first, I could just use the existing cabling channels and re-run cat5 or 6 through the walls. While tempting, that sounds like more work than I really want to put in, so I'm calling that Plan B. Also, I could just scare up a mess of old 10BASE2 cards and run the house on thinnet, all mid-90s style. While I think I'd get major style points for that, I don't think I can get a 10BASE2 adapter for the new laptop. Also, I have all these super-snazzy gigabit adaptors I'd like to be using. And so forth.)
ethernet adapter wiring coaxial rj-45
edited Apr 5 '10 at 23:05
quack quixote
35k1086118
asked Aug 3 '09 at 20:40
Electrons_Ahoy
1,87142635
3
+1 for the general enthusiasm and for taking us back to the thinnet-Napster-RealPlayer nineties, if just for a second
– trolle3000
Mar 4 '10 at 4:34
10BASE2 only runs at 10 Mbit/sec. I doubt you would find its performance satisfactory. It would, for example, take you at least 14 minutes to copy a 1 1GB file over such a network.
– Mike Scott
Aug 18 '17 at 6:13
add a comment |
up vote
13
down vote
favorite
up vote
13
down vote
favorite
So, I've just bought a house. It's reasonably new - built in the early '00s. One of the features that got built in was a cable TV drop in every room. The cabling is gorgeous - there's even a wiring cabinet of sorts in a closet where the cables all tie together to the splitter to the outside line.
Of course, my problem is that I only own the one TV. I do, however, own a few computers. What I would love to be able to do is drop a switch in the wiring closet and run 100/1000BASE-T ethernet over the coax in the walls I wouldn't otherwise be using. My fantasy would be if you could get some kind of adapter-plug-thing that would take a coax plug on one side and a cat5/RJ45 plug on the other.
Had anyone else done this? Any suggestions?
(There are a few other options that suggest themselves - first, I could just use the existing cabling channels and re-run cat5 or 6 through the walls. While tempting, that sounds like more work than I really want to put in, so I'm calling that Plan B. Also, I could just scare up a mess of old 10BASE2 cards and run the house on thinnet, all mid-90s style. While I think I'd get major style points for that, I don't think I can get a 10BASE2 adapter for the new laptop. Also, I have all these super-snazzy gigabit adaptors I'd like to be using. And so forth.)
ethernet adapter wiring coaxial rj-45
edited Apr 5 '10 at 23:05
quack quixote
35k1086118
asked Aug 3 '09 at 20:40
Electrons_Ahoy
1,87142635
So, I've just bought a house. It's reasonably new - built in the early '00s. One of the features that got built in was a cable TV drop in every room. The cabling is gorgeous - there's even a wiring cabinet of sorts in a closet where the cables all tie together to the splitter to the outside line.
Of course, my problem is that I only own the one TV. I do, however, own a few computers. What I would love to be able to do is drop a switch in the wiring closet and run 100/1000BASE-T ethernet over the coax in the walls I wouldn't otherwise be using. My fantasy would be if you could get some kind of adapter-plug-thing that would take a coax plug on one side and a cat5/RJ45 plug on the other.
Had anyone else done this? Any suggestions?
(There are a few other options that suggest themselves - first, I could just use the existing cabling channels and re-run cat5 or 6 through the walls. While tempting, that sounds like more work than I really want to put in, so I'm calling that Plan B. Also, I could just scare up a mess of old 10BASE2 cards and run the house on thinnet, all mid-90s style. While I think I'd get major style points for that, I don't think I can get a 10BASE2 adapter for the new laptop. Also, I have all these super-snazzy gigabit adaptors I'd like to be using. And so forth.)
ethernet adapter wiring coaxial rj-45
ethernet adapter wiring coaxial rj-45
edited Apr 5 '10 at 23:05
quack quixote
35k1086118
asked Aug 3 '09 at 20:40
Electrons_Ahoy
1,87142635
edited Apr 5 '10 at 23:05
quack quixote
35k1086118
asked Aug 3 '09 at 20:40
Electrons_Ahoy
1,87142635
edited Apr 5 '10 at 23:05
quack quixote
35k1086118
edited Apr 5 '10 at 23:05
quack quixote
35k1086118
edited Apr 5 '10 at 23:05
quack quixote
35k1086118
35k1086118
asked Aug 3 '09 at 20:40
Electrons_Ahoy
1,87142635
asked Aug 3 '09 at 20:40
Electrons_Ahoy
1,87142635
asked Aug 3 '09 at 20:40
Electrons_Ahoy
1,87142635
1,87142635
3
+1 for the general enthusiasm and for taking us back to the thinnet-Napster-RealPlayer nineties, if just for a second
– trolle3000
Mar 4 '10 at 4:34
10BASE2 only runs at 10 Mbit/sec. I doubt you would find its performance satisfactory. It would, for example, take you at least 14 minutes to copy a 1 1GB file over such a network.
– Mike Scott
Aug 18 '17 at 6:13
add a comment |
3
+1 for the general enthusiasm and for taking us back to the thinnet-Napster-RealPlayer nineties, if just for a second
– trolle3000
Mar 4 '10 at 4:34
10BASE2 only runs at 10 Mbit/sec. I doubt you would find its performance satisfactory. It would, for example, take you at least 14 minutes to copy a 1 1GB file over such a network.
– Mike Scott
Aug 18 '17 at 6:13
3
3
+1 for the general enthusiasm and for taking us back to the thinnet-Napster-RealPlayer nineties, if just for a second
– trolle3000
Mar 4 '10 at 4:34
+1 for the general enthusiasm and for taking us back to the thinnet-Napster-RealPlayer nineties, if just for a second
– trolle3000
Mar 4 '10 at 4:34
10BASE2 only runs at 10 Mbit/sec. I doubt you would find its performance satisfactory. It would, for example, take you at least 14 minutes to copy a 1 1GB file over such a network.
– Mike Scott
Aug 18 '17 at 6:13
10BASE2 only runs at 10 Mbit/sec. I doubt you would find its performance satisfactory. It would, for example, take you at least 14 minutes to copy a 1 1GB file over such a network.
– Mike Scott
Aug 18 '17 at 6:13
add a comment |
10 Answers
10
active
oldest
votes
up vote
8
down vote
accepted
I really think you should go with plan B, as this'll give a lot less problems later on.
It might take some time to install it, but this is only a one-time installation.
Using standard connectors completely makes it easier to ugrade/expand/repair your network later on.
There are some nice connector shields out there that have coax+ethernet connections, enabling you to simply plug in a standard cable anywhere in the house.
also, if you ever want to sell the house, it is worth more, as it has the cables already ;)
answered Aug 3 '09 at 21:19
alexanderpas
439313
After doing more research, I have to agree. As teabot points out it can be done - just at $200 a pop. Compared to spending a weekend slinging 50 bucks worth of cat5, I think I'll go with Plan B.
– Electrons_Ahoy
Nov 12 '09 at 18:20
add a comment |
up vote
9
down vote
Netgear offer 270Mbps Ethernet-over-coax adapters (MCAB1001) for under $200. They can (apparently) coexist with your cable system (if you have one) and provide a 10/100baseT (RJ45) socket to connect to your LAN/computer.
Not sure what the deal is regarding the advertised 270Mbps transfer speed being limited by the 100bT connection though.
edited May 9 '12 at 15:50
nik
48.1k786132
answered Aug 3 '09 at 21:39
teabot
7951918
2
Damn. Not cheep, but da-amn.
– dmckee
Aug 3 '09 at 21:45
Wow, those are pretty slick. Still, compare those to the price of vanilla cat5 at monoprice, and the right choice becomes clear.
– Electrons_Ahoy
Nov 12 '09 at 18:19
as of today both links are dead.
– hildred
Aug 18 '17 at 0:23
add a comment |
up vote
7
down vote
In addition to what others said:
TV coax is not the same as 10Base2 coax. The former has an impedance of 75 Ohms (at least in Europe); the latter has 50 Ohms.
edited Aug 18 '17 at 6:34
G-Man
5,539102155
answered Aug 4 '09 at 9:39
Ludwig Weinzierl
7,38042331
5
It's a nitpick, but 10baseT is not coax. By definition it's twisted pair (that's what the T at the end stands for). What you're referring to as "10baseT coax" is actually 10base2, a true coax, usually of the RG-58 variety, terminated with BNC connectors.
– hotei
Sep 9 '10 at 20:09
also compare 10base5 Ethernet (thicknet) which is also coax and not compatible with either 10base2 or TV
– hildred
Aug 18 '17 at 0:30
add a comment |
up vote
2
down vote
There is a trade body Moca which has this page with a number of ethernet to coax bridges on it. I think this is what you want. However most of them don't look like they are retail products at the moment.
answered Aug 4 '09 at 8:51
Jeremy French
7101616
The Netgear adapter mentioned here superuser.com/questions/17782/modern-ethernet-over-coax/… appears to be a result of this Moca trade body.
– Martijn Heemels
Aug 4 '09 at 9:07
add a comment |
up vote
1
down vote
This is not really a serious suggestion...just a dumb, but potentially cool hack.
The cable companies more quite high bandwidth internet activity over 75 ohm coax using only part of the available bandwidth. SO the hardware for this has got to be available, and a standard cable modem is one half of it (and I own two of the things, how about you?). You might even be able to configure several in a peer-to-peer mode with fixed IP address.
Like I said, not serious.
answered Aug 3 '09 at 21:22
dmckee
7,02612240
Man, that is a cool idea. Sadly, I've been a DSL man for the last decade, or I might actually give that a whirl.
– Electrons_Ahoy
Nov 12 '09 at 18:17
For what it's worth this solution is nearly 30 years old. Look up Sytek cable modems. We networked with them in our office around 1982.
– hotei
Sep 9 '10 at 20:14
@Electrons_Ahoy some DSL equipment can operate in this fashion...
– ivanivan
Nov 24 at 4:55
add a comment |
up vote
0
down vote
The only option I have seen is a product call TVNet from Coaxsys, but it looks like the product and the company no longer exist. These essentially created an Ethernet transceiver and used some sort of proprietary protocol to communicate over coaxial cable.
Maybe you can find some old units on Ebay.
http://www.hometech.com/techwire/net.html#CX-012000188
answered Aug 3 '09 at 21:15
dlux
3,03872630
add a comment |
up vote
0
down vote
There's another alternative that I'm surprised nobody else has mentioned: just install WiFi. If you need multiple connections in one room, you can save on wireless adapters and configure a router running DD-WRT (or your favorite open router firmware) to bridge your wired and wireless networks.
In some houses, it's not easy to run new cable. If that's the case, you can tape the end of your network cable and the end of a rope to the end of the coax in your wiring closet, then pull on the other end of the coax until the network cable and rope are through. To pull the coax back into place, retape just the rope to the coax then go back to the wiring closet and pull until the coax is back. Note that you may or may not have perfect success with this, depending on whether the holes for the cable are big enough to accommodate both coax and network cable, so it might be best to try it first in a room where you'll never need coax (just in case you can't pull the coax back through from the room to the wiring closet).
answered Jan 28 '10 at 1:45
rob
12.2k43979
add a comment |
up vote
0
down vote
There's a cheap solution to your problem that nobody has mentioned so far. The ActionTec that are provided by Verizon implement MoCA, which is a standard that allows IP traffic to coexist with CATV traffic on the same coax. (The speed is good - it should be close to 100baseT wired speed). These routers can be configured in bridge mode, so you can use several of them - you'll need one at each endpoint.
These devices (ActionTec MI424WR) can be bought very cheaply on eBay; I've seen them as low as $25/each. So it should be possible to do exactly what you want without spending a fortune and without causing any problems with your TV reception.
More detailed info can be found in these threads:
http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showthread.php?t=1145636
http://www.dslreports.com/forum/r17679150-Howto-make-ActionTec-MI424WR-a-network-bridge
answered Sep 9 '10 at 18:25
Roger
1,17231128
add a comment |
up vote
0
down vote
Outside of all these fine suggestions, i'd lurk on AT&T UVerse forums and see what you can dig up.
I just had an install, and the tech tried to use the existing cabling to make my UVerse home net, but we couldn't ever find how to sever from the rest of the building so he just switched to the existing phone networking (forgot to ask if it was cat5).
So, AT&T folks know how to run home ethernet on normal 'cable' coax.
answered Sep 9 '10 at 18:50
Rich Homolka
24.9k64366
add a comment |
up vote
0
down vote
I'm currently facing the same issue; just that the house is rented and thus I have no plan B.
For one, there's even a Wikipedia article about Ethernet over Coax. One "popular" (= easy to stumble upon) option seems to be MoCA. It allows speeds up to 2.5 Gbps ... but the devices that I could find (even the ones for 400Mbps) are quite expensive (starting at 70€, Nov 2018). There's also "HomePNA" and "G.Hn" but the devices seem to be similar expensive.
There's also DOCSIS which AFAIK is used for cable internet (at least in the EU?) but for all that I understand this is absolute overkill for a home installation.
Far cheaper are "DECA" (DirectTV Ethernet to Coax Adapters) ... these are as cheap as 8$ the unit. The speed seems to be limited to 200 Mbps, though.
Another option could be to run a Wifi over Coax ... basically buy 2 Wifi adapters with an external antenna (usually RP-SMA) and instead of using the antenna connect it to your coax cable (e.g. via an adapter RP-SMA to F ... less than 10$ for two usually). Here's an older (2006?) website where someone has done this. I'm not sure, but AFAIK you could probably use more than 2 wifi adapters on a single cable .. using the cable instead of air as transmission medium.
Another more "hackish" solution could be to use Powerline adapters and run them on the Coax cable, similar to how this article describes running Ethernet over a phone cable.
answered Nov 24 at 1:45
Daniel Jour
185129
add a comment |
10 Answers
10
active
oldest
votes
10 Answers
10
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
up vote
8
down vote
accepted
I really think you should go with plan B, as this'll give a lot less problems later on.
It might take some time to install it, but this is only a one-time installation.
Using standard connectors completely makes it easier to ugrade/expand/repair your network later on.
There are some nice connector shields out there that have coax+ethernet connections, enabling you to simply plug in a standard cable anywhere in the house.
also, if you ever want to sell the house, it is worth more, as it has the cables already ;)
answered Aug 3 '09 at 21:19
alexanderpas
439313
After doing more research, I have to agree. As teabot points out it can be done - just at $200 a pop. Compared to spending a weekend slinging 50 bucks worth of cat5, I think I'll go with Plan B.
– Electrons_Ahoy
Nov 12 '09 at 18:20
add a comment |
up vote
8
down vote
accepted
I really think you should go with plan B, as this'll give a lot less problems later on.
It might take some time to install it, but this is only a one-time installation.
Using standard connectors completely makes it easier to ugrade/expand/repair your network later on.
There are some nice connector shields out there that have coax+ethernet connections, enabling you to simply plug in a standard cable anywhere in the house.
also, if you ever want to sell the house, it is worth more, as it has the cables already ;)
answered Aug 3 '09 at 21:19
alexanderpas
439313
After doing more research, I have to agree. As teabot points out it can be done - just at $200 a pop. Compared to spending a weekend slinging 50 bucks worth of cat5, I think I'll go with Plan B.
– Electrons_Ahoy
Nov 12 '09 at 18:20
add a comment |
up vote
8
down vote
accepted
up vote
8
down vote
accepted
I really think you should go with plan B, as this'll give a lot less problems later on.
It might take some time to install it, but this is only a one-time installation.
Using standard connectors completely makes it easier to ugrade/expand/repair your network later on.
There are some nice connector shields out there that have coax+ethernet connections, enabling you to simply plug in a standard cable anywhere in the house.
also, if you ever want to sell the house, it is worth more, as it has the cables already ;)
answered Aug 3 '09 at 21:19
alexanderpas
439313
I really think you should go with plan B, as this'll give a lot less problems later on.
It might take some time to install it, but this is only a one-time installation.
Using standard connectors completely makes it easier to ugrade/expand/repair your network later on.
There are some nice connector shields out there that have coax+ethernet connections, enabling you to simply plug in a standard cable anywhere in the house.
also, if you ever want to sell the house, it is worth more, as it has the cables already ;)
answered Aug 3 '09 at 21:19
alexanderpas
439313
answered Aug 3 '09 at 21:19
alexanderpas
439313
answered Aug 3 '09 at 21:19
alexanderpas
439313
answered Aug 3 '09 at 21:19
alexanderpas
439313
439313
After doing more research, I have to agree. As teabot points out it can be done - just at $200 a pop. Compared to spending a weekend slinging 50 bucks worth of cat5, I think I'll go with Plan B.
– Electrons_Ahoy
Nov 12 '09 at 18:20
add a comment |
After doing more research, I have to agree. As teabot points out it can be done - just at $200 a pop. Compared to spending a weekend slinging 50 bucks worth of cat5, I think I'll go with Plan B.
– Electrons_Ahoy
Nov 12 '09 at 18:20
After doing more research, I have to agree. As teabot points out it can be done - just at $200 a pop. Compared to spending a weekend slinging 50 bucks worth of cat5, I think I'll go with Plan B.
– Electrons_Ahoy
Nov 12 '09 at 18:20
After doing more research, I have to agree. As teabot points out it can be done - just at $200 a pop. Compared to spending a weekend slinging 50 bucks worth of cat5, I think I'll go with Plan B.
– Electrons_Ahoy
Nov 12 '09 at 18:20
add a comment |
up vote
9
down vote
Netgear offer 270Mbps Ethernet-over-coax adapters (MCAB1001) for under $200. They can (apparently) coexist with your cable system (if you have one) and provide a 10/100baseT (RJ45) socket to connect to your LAN/computer.
Not sure what the deal is regarding the advertised 270Mbps transfer speed being limited by the 100bT connection though.
edited May 9 '12 at 15:50
nik
48.1k786132
answered Aug 3 '09 at 21:39
teabot
7951918
2
Damn. Not cheep, but da-amn.
– dmckee
Aug 3 '09 at 21:45
Wow, those are pretty slick. Still, compare those to the price of vanilla cat5 at monoprice, and the right choice becomes clear.
– Electrons_Ahoy
Nov 12 '09 at 18:19
as of today both links are dead.
– hildred
Aug 18 '17 at 0:23
add a comment |
up vote
9
down vote
Netgear offer 270Mbps Ethernet-over-coax adapters (MCAB1001) for under $200. They can (apparently) coexist with your cable system (if you have one) and provide a 10/100baseT (RJ45) socket to connect to your LAN/computer.
Not sure what the deal is regarding the advertised 270Mbps transfer speed being limited by the 100bT connection though.
edited May 9 '12 at 15:50
nik
48.1k786132
answered Aug 3 '09 at 21:39
teabot
7951918
2
Damn. Not cheep, but da-amn.
– dmckee
Aug 3 '09 at 21:45
Wow, those are pretty slick. Still, compare those to the price of vanilla cat5 at monoprice, and the right choice becomes clear.
– Electrons_Ahoy
Nov 12 '09 at 18:19
as of today both links are dead.
– hildred
Aug 18 '17 at 0:23
add a comment |
up vote
9
down vote
up vote
9
down vote
Netgear offer 270Mbps Ethernet-over-coax adapters (MCAB1001) for under $200. They can (apparently) coexist with your cable system (if you have one) and provide a 10/100baseT (RJ45) socket to connect to your LAN/computer.
Not sure what the deal is regarding the advertised 270Mbps transfer speed being limited by the 100bT connection though.
edited May 9 '12 at 15:50
nik
48.1k786132
answered Aug 3 '09 at 21:39
teabot
7951918
Netgear offer 270Mbps Ethernet-over-coax adapters (MCAB1001) for under $200. They can (apparently) coexist with your cable system (if you have one) and provide a 10/100baseT (RJ45) socket to connect to your LAN/computer.
Not sure what the deal is regarding the advertised 270Mbps transfer speed being limited by the 100bT connection though.
edited May 9 '12 at 15:50
nik
48.1k786132
answered Aug 3 '09 at 21:39
teabot
7951918
edited May 9 '12 at 15:50
nik
48.1k786132
edited May 9 '12 at 15:50
nik
48.1k786132
edited May 9 '12 at 15:50
nik
48.1k786132
48.1k786132
answered Aug 3 '09 at 21:39
teabot
7951918
answered Aug 3 '09 at 21:39
teabot
7951918
answered Aug 3 '09 at 21:39
teabot
7951918
7951918
2
Damn. Not cheep, but da-amn.
– dmckee
Aug 3 '09 at 21:45
Wow, those are pretty slick. Still, compare those to the price of vanilla cat5 at monoprice, and the right choice becomes clear.
– Electrons_Ahoy
Nov 12 '09 at 18:19
as of today both links are dead.
– hildred
Aug 18 '17 at 0:23
add a comment |
2
Damn. Not cheep, but da-amn.
– dmckee
Aug 3 '09 at 21:45
Wow, those are pretty slick. Still, compare those to the price of vanilla cat5 at monoprice, and the right choice becomes clear.
– Electrons_Ahoy
Nov 12 '09 at 18:19
as of today both links are dead.
– hildred
Aug 18 '17 at 0:23
2
2
Damn. Not cheep, but da-amn.
– dmckee
Aug 3 '09 at 21:45
Damn. Not cheep, but da-amn.
– dmckee
Aug 3 '09 at 21:45
Wow, those are pretty slick. Still, compare those to the price of vanilla cat5 at monoprice, and the right choice becomes clear.
– Electrons_Ahoy
Nov 12 '09 at 18:19
Wow, those are pretty slick. Still, compare those to the price of vanilla cat5 at monoprice, and the right choice becomes clear.
– Electrons_Ahoy
Nov 12 '09 at 18:19
as of today both links are dead.
– hildred
Aug 18 '17 at 0:23
as of today both links are dead.
– hildred
Aug 18 '17 at 0:23
add a comment |
up vote
7
down vote
In addition to what others said:
TV coax is not the same as 10Base2 coax. The former has an impedance of 75 Ohms (at least in Europe); the latter has 50 Ohms.
edited Aug 18 '17 at 6:34
G-Man
5,539102155
answered Aug 4 '09 at 9:39
Ludwig Weinzierl
7,38042331
5
It's a nitpick, but 10baseT is not coax. By definition it's twisted pair (that's what the T at the end stands for). What you're referring to as "10baseT coax" is actually 10base2, a true coax, usually of the RG-58 variety, terminated with BNC connectors.
– hotei
Sep 9 '10 at 20:09
also compare 10base5 Ethernet (thicknet) which is also coax and not compatible with either 10base2 or TV
– hildred
Aug 18 '17 at 0:30
add a comment |
up vote
7
down vote
In addition to what others said:
TV coax is not the same as 10Base2 coax. The former has an impedance of 75 Ohms (at least in Europe); the latter has 50 Ohms.
edited Aug 18 '17 at 6:34
G-Man
5,539102155
answered Aug 4 '09 at 9:39
Ludwig Weinzierl
7,38042331
5
It's a nitpick, but 10baseT is not coax. By definition it's twisted pair (that's what the T at the end stands for). What you're referring to as "10baseT coax" is actually 10base2, a true coax, usually of the RG-58 variety, terminated with BNC connectors.
– hotei
Sep 9 '10 at 20:09
also compare 10base5 Ethernet (thicknet) which is also coax and not compatible with either 10base2 or TV
– hildred
Aug 18 '17 at 0:30
add a comment |
up vote
7
down vote
up vote
7
down vote
In addition to what others said:
TV coax is not the same as 10Base2 coax. The former has an impedance of 75 Ohms (at least in Europe); the latter has 50 Ohms.
edited Aug 18 '17 at 6:34
G-Man
5,539102155
answered Aug 4 '09 at 9:39
Ludwig Weinzierl
7,38042331
In addition to what others said:
TV coax is not the same as 10Base2 coax. The former has an impedance of 75 Ohms (at least in Europe); the latter has 50 Ohms.
edited Aug 18 '17 at 6:34
G-Man
5,539102155
answered Aug 4 '09 at 9:39
Ludwig Weinzierl
7,38042331
edited Aug 18 '17 at 6:34
G-Man
5,539102155
edited Aug 18 '17 at 6:34
G-Man
5,539102155
edited Aug 18 '17 at 6:34
G-Man
5,539102155
5,539102155
answered Aug 4 '09 at 9:39
Ludwig Weinzierl
7,38042331
answered Aug 4 '09 at 9:39
Ludwig Weinzierl
7,38042331
answered Aug 4 '09 at 9:39
Ludwig Weinzierl
7,38042331
7,38042331
5
It's a nitpick, but 10baseT is not coax. By definition it's twisted pair (that's what the T at the end stands for). What you're referring to as "10baseT coax" is actually 10base2, a true coax, usually of the RG-58 variety, terminated with BNC connectors.
– hotei
Sep 9 '10 at 20:09
also compare 10base5 Ethernet (thicknet) which is also coax and not compatible with either 10base2 or TV
– hildred
Aug 18 '17 at 0:30
add a comment |
5
It's a nitpick, but 10baseT is not coax. By definition it's twisted pair (that's what the T at the end stands for). What you're referring to as "10baseT coax" is actually 10base2, a true coax, usually of the RG-58 variety, terminated with BNC connectors.
– hotei
Sep 9 '10 at 20:09
also compare 10base5 Ethernet (thicknet) which is also coax and not compatible with either 10base2 or TV
– hildred
Aug 18 '17 at 0:30
5
5
It's a nitpick, but 10baseT is not coax. By definition it's twisted pair (that's what the T at the end stands for). What you're referring to as "10baseT coax" is actually 10base2, a true coax, usually of the RG-58 variety, terminated with BNC connectors.
– hotei
Sep 9 '10 at 20:09
It's a nitpick, but 10baseT is not coax. By definition it's twisted pair (that's what the T at the end stands for). What you're referring to as "10baseT coax" is actually 10base2, a true coax, usually of the RG-58 variety, terminated with BNC connectors.
– hotei
Sep 9 '10 at 20:09
also compare 10base5 Ethernet (thicknet) which is also coax and not compatible with either 10base2 or TV
– hildred
Aug 18 '17 at 0:30
also compare 10base5 Ethernet (thicknet) which is also coax and not compatible with either 10base2 or TV
– hildred
Aug 18 '17 at 0:30
add a comment |
up vote
2
down vote
There is a trade body Moca which has this page with a number of ethernet to coax bridges on it. I think this is what you want. However most of them don't look like they are retail products at the moment.
answered Aug 4 '09 at 8:51
Jeremy French
7101616
The Netgear adapter mentioned here superuser.com/questions/17782/modern-ethernet-over-coax/… appears to be a result of this Moca trade body.
– Martijn Heemels
Aug 4 '09 at 9:07
add a comment |
up vote
2
down vote
There is a trade body Moca which has this page with a number of ethernet to coax bridges on it. I think this is what you want. However most of them don't look like they are retail products at the moment.
answered Aug 4 '09 at 8:51
Jeremy French
7101616
The Netgear adapter mentioned here superuser.com/questions/17782/modern-ethernet-over-coax/… appears to be a result of this Moca trade body.
– Martijn Heemels
Aug 4 '09 at 9:07
add a comment |
up vote
2
down vote
up vote
2
down vote
There is a trade body Moca which has this page with a number of ethernet to coax bridges on it. I think this is what you want. However most of them don't look like they are retail products at the moment.
answered Aug 4 '09 at 8:51
Jeremy French
7101616
There is a trade body Moca which has this page with a number of ethernet to coax bridges on it. I think this is what you want. However most of them don't look like they are retail products at the moment.
answered Aug 4 '09 at 8:51
Jeremy French
7101616
answered Aug 4 '09 at 8:51
Jeremy French
7101616
answered Aug 4 '09 at 8:51
Jeremy French
7101616
answered Aug 4 '09 at 8:51
Jeremy French
7101616
7101616
The Netgear adapter mentioned here superuser.com/questions/17782/modern-ethernet-over-coax/… appears to be a result of this Moca trade body.
– Martijn Heemels
Aug 4 '09 at 9:07
add a comment |
The Netgear adapter mentioned here superuser.com/questions/17782/modern-ethernet-over-coax/… appears to be a result of this Moca trade body.
– Martijn Heemels
Aug 4 '09 at 9:07
The Netgear adapter mentioned here superuser.com/questions/17782/modern-ethernet-over-coax/… appears to be a result of this Moca trade body.
– Martijn Heemels
Aug 4 '09 at 9:07
The Netgear adapter mentioned here superuser.com/questions/17782/modern-ethernet-over-coax/… appears to be a result of this Moca trade body.
– Martijn Heemels
Aug 4 '09 at 9:07
add a comment |
up vote
1
down vote
This is not really a serious suggestion...just a dumb, but potentially cool hack.
The cable companies more quite high bandwidth internet activity over 75 ohm coax using only part of the available bandwidth. SO the hardware for this has got to be available, and a standard cable modem is one half of it (and I own two of the things, how about you?). You might even be able to configure several in a peer-to-peer mode with fixed IP address.
Like I said, not serious.
answered Aug 3 '09 at 21:22
dmckee
7,02612240
Man, that is a cool idea. Sadly, I've been a DSL man for the last decade, or I might actually give that a whirl.
– Electrons_Ahoy
Nov 12 '09 at 18:17
For what it's worth this solution is nearly 30 years old. Look up Sytek cable modems. We networked with them in our office around 1982.
– hotei
Sep 9 '10 at 20:14
@Electrons_Ahoy some DSL equipment can operate in this fashion...
– ivanivan
Nov 24 at 4:55
add a comment |
up vote
1
down vote
This is not really a serious suggestion...just a dumb, but potentially cool hack.
The cable companies more quite high bandwidth internet activity over 75 ohm coax using only part of the available bandwidth. SO the hardware for this has got to be available, and a standard cable modem is one half of it (and I own two of the things, how about you?). You might even be able to configure several in a peer-to-peer mode with fixed IP address.
Like I said, not serious.
answered Aug 3 '09 at 21:22
dmckee
7,02612240
Man, that is a cool idea. Sadly, I've been a DSL man for the last decade, or I might actually give that a whirl.
– Electrons_Ahoy
Nov 12 '09 at 18:17
For what it's worth this solution is nearly 30 years old. Look up Sytek cable modems. We networked with them in our office around 1982.
– hotei
Sep 9 '10 at 20:14
@Electrons_Ahoy some DSL equipment can operate in this fashion...
– ivanivan
Nov 24 at 4:55
add a comment |
up vote
1
down vote
up vote
1
down vote
This is not really a serious suggestion...just a dumb, but potentially cool hack.
The cable companies more quite high bandwidth internet activity over 75 ohm coax using only part of the available bandwidth. SO the hardware for this has got to be available, and a standard cable modem is one half of it (and I own two of the things, how about you?). You might even be able to configure several in a peer-to-peer mode with fixed IP address.
Like I said, not serious.
answered Aug 3 '09 at 21:22
dmckee
7,02612240
This is not really a serious suggestion...just a dumb, but potentially cool hack.
The cable companies more quite high bandwidth internet activity over 75 ohm coax using only part of the available bandwidth. SO the hardware for this has got to be available, and a standard cable modem is one half of it (and I own two of the things, how about you?). You might even be able to configure several in a peer-to-peer mode with fixed IP address.
Like I said, not serious.
answered Aug 3 '09 at 21:22
dmckee
7,02612240
answered Aug 3 '09 at 21:22
dmckee
7,02612240
answered Aug 3 '09 at 21:22
dmckee
7,02612240
answered Aug 3 '09 at 21:22
dmckee
7,02612240
7,02612240
Man, that is a cool idea. Sadly, I've been a DSL man for the last decade, or I might actually give that a whirl.
– Electrons_Ahoy
Nov 12 '09 at 18:17
For what it's worth this solution is nearly 30 years old. Look up Sytek cable modems. We networked with them in our office around 1982.
– hotei
Sep 9 '10 at 20:14
@Electrons_Ahoy some DSL equipment can operate in this fashion...
– ivanivan
Nov 24 at 4:55
add a comment |
Man, that is a cool idea. Sadly, I've been a DSL man for the last decade, or I might actually give that a whirl.
– Electrons_Ahoy
Nov 12 '09 at 18:17
For what it's worth this solution is nearly 30 years old. Look up Sytek cable modems. We networked with them in our office around 1982.
– hotei
Sep 9 '10 at 20:14
@Electrons_Ahoy some DSL equipment can operate in this fashion...
– ivanivan
Nov 24 at 4:55
Man, that is a cool idea. Sadly, I've been a DSL man for the last decade, or I might actually give that a whirl.
– Electrons_Ahoy
Nov 12 '09 at 18:17
Man, that is a cool idea. Sadly, I've been a DSL man for the last decade, or I might actually give that a whirl.
– Electrons_Ahoy
Nov 12 '09 at 18:17
For what it's worth this solution is nearly 30 years old. Look up Sytek cable modems. We networked with them in our office around 1982.
– hotei
Sep 9 '10 at 20:14
For what it's worth this solution is nearly 30 years old. Look up Sytek cable modems. We networked with them in our office around 1982.
– hotei
Sep 9 '10 at 20:14
@Electrons_Ahoy some DSL equipment can operate in this fashion...
– ivanivan
Nov 24 at 4:55
@Electrons_Ahoy some DSL equipment can operate in this fashion...
– ivanivan
Nov 24 at 4:55
add a comment |
up vote
0
down vote
The only option I have seen is a product call TVNet from Coaxsys, but it looks like the product and the company no longer exist. These essentially created an Ethernet transceiver and used some sort of proprietary protocol to communicate over coaxial cable.
Maybe you can find some old units on Ebay.
http://www.hometech.com/techwire/net.html#CX-012000188
answered Aug 3 '09 at 21:15
dlux
3,03872630
add a comment |
up vote
0
down vote
The only option I have seen is a product call TVNet from Coaxsys, but it looks like the product and the company no longer exist. These essentially created an Ethernet transceiver and used some sort of proprietary protocol to communicate over coaxial cable.
Maybe you can find some old units on Ebay.
http://www.hometech.com/techwire/net.html#CX-012000188
answered Aug 3 '09 at 21:15
dlux
3,03872630
add a comment |
up vote
0
down vote
up vote
0
down vote
The only option I have seen is a product call TVNet from Coaxsys, but it looks like the product and the company no longer exist. These essentially created an Ethernet transceiver and used some sort of proprietary protocol to communicate over coaxial cable.
Maybe you can find some old units on Ebay.
http://www.hometech.com/techwire/net.html#CX-012000188
answered Aug 3 '09 at 21:15
dlux
3,03872630
The only option I have seen is a product call TVNet from Coaxsys, but it looks like the product and the company no longer exist. These essentially created an Ethernet transceiver and used some sort of proprietary protocol to communicate over coaxial cable.
Maybe you can find some old units on Ebay.
http://www.hometech.com/techwire/net.html#CX-012000188
answered Aug 3 '09 at 21:15
dlux
3,03872630
answered Aug 3 '09 at 21:15
dlux
3,03872630
answered Aug 3 '09 at 21:15
dlux
3,03872630
answered Aug 3 '09 at 21:15
dlux
3,03872630
3,03872630
add a comment |
add a comment |
up vote
0
down vote
There's another alternative that I'm surprised nobody else has mentioned: just install WiFi. If you need multiple connections in one room, you can save on wireless adapters and configure a router running DD-WRT (or your favorite open router firmware) to bridge your wired and wireless networks.
In some houses, it's not easy to run new cable. If that's the case, you can tape the end of your network cable and the end of a rope to the end of the coax in your wiring closet, then pull on the other end of the coax until the network cable and rope are through. To pull the coax back into place, retape just the rope to the coax then go back to the wiring closet and pull until the coax is back. Note that you may or may not have perfect success with this, depending on whether the holes for the cable are big enough to accommodate both coax and network cable, so it might be best to try it first in a room where you'll never need coax (just in case you can't pull the coax back through from the room to the wiring closet).
answered Jan 28 '10 at 1:45
rob
12.2k43979
add a comment |
up vote
0
down vote
There's another alternative that I'm surprised nobody else has mentioned: just install WiFi. If you need multiple connections in one room, you can save on wireless adapters and configure a router running DD-WRT (or your favorite open router firmware) to bridge your wired and wireless networks.
In some houses, it's not easy to run new cable. If that's the case, you can tape the end of your network cable and the end of a rope to the end of the coax in your wiring closet, then pull on the other end of the coax until the network cable and rope are through. To pull the coax back into place, retape just the rope to the coax then go back to the wiring closet and pull until the coax is back. Note that you may or may not have perfect success with this, depending on whether the holes for the cable are big enough to accommodate both coax and network cable, so it might be best to try it first in a room where you'll never need coax (just in case you can't pull the coax back through from the room to the wiring closet).
answered Jan 28 '10 at 1:45
rob
12.2k43979
add a comment |
up vote
0
down vote
up vote
0
down vote
There's another alternative that I'm surprised nobody else has mentioned: just install WiFi. If you need multiple connections in one room, you can save on wireless adapters and configure a router running DD-WRT (or your favorite open router firmware) to bridge your wired and wireless networks.
In some houses, it's not easy to run new cable. If that's the case, you can tape the end of your network cable and the end of a rope to the end of the coax in your wiring closet, then pull on the other end of the coax until the network cable and rope are through. To pull the coax back into place, retape just the rope to the coax then go back to the wiring closet and pull until the coax is back. Note that you may or may not have perfect success with this, depending on whether the holes for the cable are big enough to accommodate both coax and network cable, so it might be best to try it first in a room where you'll never need coax (just in case you can't pull the coax back through from the room to the wiring closet).
answered Jan 28 '10 at 1:45
rob
12.2k43979
There's another alternative that I'm surprised nobody else has mentioned: just install WiFi. If you need multiple connections in one room, you can save on wireless adapters and configure a router running DD-WRT (or your favorite open router firmware) to bridge your wired and wireless networks.
In some houses, it's not easy to run new cable. If that's the case, you can tape the end of your network cable and the end of a rope to the end of the coax in your wiring closet, then pull on the other end of the coax until the network cable and rope are through. To pull the coax back into place, retape just the rope to the coax then go back to the wiring closet and pull until the coax is back. Note that you may or may not have perfect success with this, depending on whether the holes for the cable are big enough to accommodate both coax and network cable, so it might be best to try it first in a room where you'll never need coax (just in case you can't pull the coax back through from the room to the wiring closet).
answered Jan 28 '10 at 1:45
rob
12.2k43979
answered Jan 28 '10 at 1:45
rob
12.2k43979
answered Jan 28 '10 at 1:45
rob
12.2k43979
answered Jan 28 '10 at 1:45
rob
12.2k43979
12.2k43979
add a comment |
add a comment |
up vote
0
down vote
There's a cheap solution to your problem that nobody has mentioned so far. The ActionTec that are provided by Verizon implement MoCA, which is a standard that allows IP traffic to coexist with CATV traffic on the same coax. (The speed is good - it should be close to 100baseT wired speed). These routers can be configured in bridge mode, so you can use several of them - you'll need one at each endpoint.
These devices (ActionTec MI424WR) can be bought very cheaply on eBay; I've seen them as low as $25/each. So it should be possible to do exactly what you want without spending a fortune and without causing any problems with your TV reception.
More detailed info can be found in these threads:
http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showthread.php?t=1145636
http://www.dslreports.com/forum/r17679150-Howto-make-ActionTec-MI424WR-a-network-bridge
answered Sep 9 '10 at 18:25
Roger
1,17231128
add a comment |
up vote
0
down vote
There's a cheap solution to your problem that nobody has mentioned so far. The ActionTec that are provided by Verizon implement MoCA, which is a standard that allows IP traffic to coexist with CATV traffic on the same coax. (The speed is good - it should be close to 100baseT wired speed). These routers can be configured in bridge mode, so you can use several of them - you'll need one at each endpoint.
These devices (ActionTec MI424WR) can be bought very cheaply on eBay; I've seen them as low as $25/each. So it should be possible to do exactly what you want without spending a fortune and without causing any problems with your TV reception.
More detailed info can be found in these threads:
http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showthread.php?t=1145636
http://www.dslreports.com/forum/r17679150-Howto-make-ActionTec-MI424WR-a-network-bridge
answered Sep 9 '10 at 18:25
Roger
1,17231128
add a comment |
up vote
0
down vote
up vote
0
down vote
There's a cheap solution to your problem that nobody has mentioned so far. The ActionTec that are provided by Verizon implement MoCA, which is a standard that allows IP traffic to coexist with CATV traffic on the same coax. (The speed is good - it should be close to 100baseT wired speed). These routers can be configured in bridge mode, so you can use several of them - you'll need one at each endpoint.
These devices (ActionTec MI424WR) can be bought very cheaply on eBay; I've seen them as low as $25/each. So it should be possible to do exactly what you want without spending a fortune and without causing any problems with your TV reception.
More detailed info can be found in these threads:
http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showthread.php?t=1145636
http://www.dslreports.com/forum/r17679150-Howto-make-ActionTec-MI424WR-a-network-bridge
answered Sep 9 '10 at 18:25
Roger
1,17231128
There's a cheap solution to your problem that nobody has mentioned so far. The ActionTec that are provided by Verizon implement MoCA, which is a standard that allows IP traffic to coexist with CATV traffic on the same coax. (The speed is good - it should be close to 100baseT wired speed). These routers can be configured in bridge mode, so you can use several of them - you'll need one at each endpoint.
These devices (ActionTec MI424WR) can be bought very cheaply on eBay; I've seen them as low as $25/each. So it should be possible to do exactly what you want without spending a fortune and without causing any problems with your TV reception.
More detailed info can be found in these threads:
http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showthread.php?t=1145636
http://www.dslreports.com/forum/r17679150-Howto-make-ActionTec-MI424WR-a-network-bridge
answered Sep 9 '10 at 18:25
Roger
1,17231128
answered Sep 9 '10 at 18:25
Roger
1,17231128
answered Sep 9 '10 at 18:25
Roger
1,17231128
answered Sep 9 '10 at 18:25
Roger
1,17231128
1,17231128
add a comment |
add a comment |
up vote
0
down vote
Outside of all these fine suggestions, i'd lurk on AT&T UVerse forums and see what you can dig up.
I just had an install, and the tech tried to use the existing cabling to make my UVerse home net, but we couldn't ever find how to sever from the rest of the building so he just switched to the existing phone networking (forgot to ask if it was cat5).
So, AT&T folks know how to run home ethernet on normal 'cable' coax.
answered Sep 9 '10 at 18:50
Rich Homolka
24.9k64366
add a comment |
up vote
0
down vote
Outside of all these fine suggestions, i'd lurk on AT&T UVerse forums and see what you can dig up.
I just had an install, and the tech tried to use the existing cabling to make my UVerse home net, but we couldn't ever find how to sever from the rest of the building so he just switched to the existing phone networking (forgot to ask if it was cat5).
So, AT&T folks know how to run home ethernet on normal 'cable' coax.
answered Sep 9 '10 at 18:50
Rich Homolka
24.9k64366
add a comment |
up vote
0
down vote
up vote
0
down vote
Outside of all these fine suggestions, i'd lurk on AT&T UVerse forums and see what you can dig up.
I just had an install, and the tech tried to use the existing cabling to make my UVerse home net, but we couldn't ever find how to sever from the rest of the building so he just switched to the existing phone networking (forgot to ask if it was cat5).
So, AT&T folks know how to run home ethernet on normal 'cable' coax.
answered Sep 9 '10 at 18:50
Rich Homolka
24.9k64366
Outside of all these fine suggestions, i'd lurk on AT&T UVerse forums and see what you can dig up.
I just had an install, and the tech tried to use the existing cabling to make my UVerse home net, but we couldn't ever find how to sever from the rest of the building so he just switched to the existing phone networking (forgot to ask if it was cat5).
So, AT&T folks know how to run home ethernet on normal 'cable' coax.
answered Sep 9 '10 at 18:50
Rich Homolka
24.9k64366
answered Sep 9 '10 at 18:50
Rich Homolka
24.9k64366
answered Sep 9 '10 at 18:50
Rich Homolka
24.9k64366
answered Sep 9 '10 at 18:50
Rich Homolka
24.9k64366
24.9k64366
add a comment |
add a comment |
up vote
0
down vote
I'm currently facing the same issue; just that the house is rented and thus I have no plan B.
For one, there's even a Wikipedia article about Ethernet over Coax. One "popular" (= easy to stumble upon) option seems to be MoCA. It allows speeds up to 2.5 Gbps ... but the devices that I could find (even the ones for 400Mbps) are quite expensive (starting at 70€, Nov 2018). There's also "HomePNA" and "G.Hn" but the devices seem to be similar expensive.
There's also DOCSIS which AFAIK is used for cable internet (at least in the EU?) but for all that I understand this is absolute overkill for a home installation.
Far cheaper are "DECA" (DirectTV Ethernet to Coax Adapters) ... these are as cheap as 8$ the unit. The speed seems to be limited to 200 Mbps, though.
Another option could be to run a Wifi over Coax ... basically buy 2 Wifi adapters with an external antenna (usually RP-SMA) and instead of using the antenna connect it to your coax cable (e.g. via an adapter RP-SMA to F ... less than 10$ for two usually). Here's an older (2006?) website where someone has done this. I'm not sure, but AFAIK you could probably use more than 2 wifi adapters on a single cable .. using the cable instead of air as transmission medium.
Another more "hackish" solution could be to use Powerline adapters and run them on the Coax cable, similar to how this article describes running Ethernet over a phone cable.
answered Nov 24 at 1:45
Daniel Jour
185129
add a comment |
up vote
0
down vote
I'm currently facing the same issue; just that the house is rented and thus I have no plan B.
For one, there's even a Wikipedia article about Ethernet over Coax. One "popular" (= easy to stumble upon) option seems to be MoCA. It allows speeds up to 2.5 Gbps ... but the devices that I could find (even the ones for 400Mbps) are quite expensive (starting at 70€, Nov 2018). There's also "HomePNA" and "G.Hn" but the devices seem to be similar expensive.
There's also DOCSIS which AFAIK is used for cable internet (at least in the EU?) but for all that I understand this is absolute overkill for a home installation.
Far cheaper are "DECA" (DirectTV Ethernet to Coax Adapters) ... these are as cheap as 8$ the unit. The speed seems to be limited to 200 Mbps, though.
Another option could be to run a Wifi over Coax ... basically buy 2 Wifi adapters with an external antenna (usually RP-SMA) and instead of using the antenna connect it to your coax cable (e.g. via an adapter RP-SMA to F ... less than 10$ for two usually). Here's an older (2006?) website where someone has done this. I'm not sure, but AFAIK you could probably use more than 2 wifi adapters on a single cable .. using the cable instead of air as transmission medium.
Another more "hackish" solution could be to use Powerline adapters and run them on the Coax cable, similar to how this article describes running Ethernet over a phone cable.
answered Nov 24 at 1:45
Daniel Jour
185129
add a comment |
up vote
0
down vote
up vote
0
down vote
I'm currently facing the same issue; just that the house is rented and thus I have no plan B.
For one, there's even a Wikipedia article about Ethernet over Coax. One "popular" (= easy to stumble upon) option seems to be MoCA. It allows speeds up to 2.5 Gbps ... but the devices that I could find (even the ones for 400Mbps) are quite expensive (starting at 70€, Nov 2018). There's also "HomePNA" and "G.Hn" but the devices seem to be similar expensive.
There's also DOCSIS which AFAIK is used for cable internet (at least in the EU?) but for all that I understand this is absolute overkill for a home installation.
Far cheaper are "DECA" (DirectTV Ethernet to Coax Adapters) ... these are as cheap as 8$ the unit. The speed seems to be limited to 200 Mbps, though.
Another option could be to run a Wifi over Coax ... basically buy 2 Wifi adapters with an external antenna (usually RP-SMA) and instead of using the antenna connect it to your coax cable (e.g. via an adapter RP-SMA to F ... less than 10$ for two usually). Here's an older (2006?) website where someone has done this. I'm not sure, but AFAIK you could probably use more than 2 wifi adapters on a single cable .. using the cable instead of air as transmission medium.
Another more "hackish" solution could be to use Powerline adapters and run them on the Coax cable, similar to how this article describes running Ethernet over a phone cable.
answered Nov 24 at 1:45
Daniel Jour
185129
I'm currently facing the same issue; just that the house is rented and thus I have no plan B.
For one, there's even a Wikipedia article about Ethernet over Coax. One "popular" (= easy to stumble upon) option seems to be MoCA. It allows speeds up to 2.5 Gbps ... but the devices that I could find (even the ones for 400Mbps) are quite expensive (starting at 70€, Nov 2018). There's also "HomePNA" and "G.Hn" but the devices seem to be similar expensive.
There's also DOCSIS which AFAIK is used for cable internet (at least in the EU?) but for all that I understand this is absolute overkill for a home installation.
Far cheaper are "DECA" (DirectTV Ethernet to Coax Adapters) ... these are as cheap as 8$ the unit. The speed seems to be limited to 200 Mbps, though.
Another option could be to run a Wifi over Coax ... basically buy 2 Wifi adapters with an external antenna (usually RP-SMA) and instead of using the antenna connect it to your coax cable (e.g. via an adapter RP-SMA to F ... less than 10$ for two usually). Here's an older (2006?) website where someone has done this. I'm not sure, but AFAIK you could probably use more than 2 wifi adapters on a single cable .. using the cable instead of air as transmission medium.
Another more "hackish" solution could be to use Powerline adapters and run them on the Coax cable, similar to how this article describes running Ethernet over a phone cable.
answered Nov 24 at 1:45
Daniel Jour
185129
answered Nov 24 at 1:45
Daniel Jour
185129
answered Nov 24 at 1:45
Daniel Jour
185129
answered Nov 24 at 1:45
Daniel Jour
185129
185129
add a comment |
add a comment |
Thanks for contributing an answer to Super User!
- Please be sure to answer the question. Provide details and share your research!
But avoid …
- Asking for help, clarification, or responding to other answers.
- Making statements based on opinion; back them up with references or personal experience.
To learn more, see our tips on writing great answers.
Some of your past answers have not been well-received, and you're in danger of being blocked from answering.
Please pay close attention to the following guidance:
- Please be sure to answer the question. Provide details and share your research!
But avoid …
- Asking for help, clarification, or responding to other answers.
- Making statements based on opinion; back them up with references or personal experience.
To learn more, see our tips on writing great answers.
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
StackExchange.ready(
function () {
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fsuperuser.com%2fquestions%2f17782%2fmodern-ethernet-over-coax%23new-answer', 'question_page');
}
);
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
3
+1 for the general enthusiasm and for taking us back to the thinnet-Napster-RealPlayer nineties, if just for a second
– trolle3000
Mar 4 '10 at 4:34
10BASE2 only runs at 10 Mbit/sec. I doubt you would find its performance satisfactory. It would, for example, take you at least 14 minutes to copy a 1 1GB file over such a network.
– Mike Scott
Aug 18 '17 at 6:13