800 foot run of CAT6

[owenmpk]

Hello gang,
I have a client of mine that I am helping spec an IP camera system for his storage yard and the camera contractor is claiming that running CAT6 cable 800 feet will work for 7 IP cameras and he does not need fiber. I know this is way out of spec for CAT6 but he is claiming that at 800 feet the CAT6 will have the cameras throughput that he needs which is 70 MB/S.
I am aware of cable extenders but he is claiming just CAT6 on its own
Has anyone seen this type of setup work with CAT6?

 

[nayr]

I would not pay for it or guarantee it; your well beyond double the specs.. throughput is not relative to length; it wont run but slower.. either it will negotiate speed or it wont.. when noise is greater than the signal all bets are off.. these are DC signals and as distance increases the voltage drop gets exponentially worse and the gauge of the wire keeps needing to be bigger and bigger; thus why we transmit power using AC over distance.. you would need PSTN modems to negotiate copper that long and it'll be more like DSL speeds than ethernet and cost what fiber would have to burry in the first place.

I would bridge two Ubiquiti AirMax NanoBeams if your budget dont include fiber and there is LOS between locations.. cheaper than burying copper by a large margin to boot.. Obviously reliability isn't a concern with this proposal or you'd be burying some fiber.. however I suspect an ~8th mile 5GHz wireless bridge will be much more reliable than an equivalent copper run, assuming a clean LOS and your not near a bunch of weather radars.

http://www.ubnt.com/airmax/nanobeamm

fiber or wireless provides electrical isolation between locations that far separated; which is a very good thing when dealing with outdoor electronics mounted at high vantage points inside metal enclosures.. he might not NEED fiber today but he may very well in a few years when 7 cameras becomes 12 cameras and there now all 5-10MP and he wants to add some outdoor wifi points at his storage lot because cell signals arent reliable.. nobody going through the expense of burying any data lines that long is opting for copper over fiber; despite the desired throughput requirements.. the cost difference is not that much vs redoing it sometime in the future.. fiber tends to also be more reliable in the long run as it wont corrode in contact with moisture or heat up/melt if there is a electronics failure or electrical storm.

 

[bp2008]

I agree with nayr. 800 feet is way outside ethernet specs. Fiber optic isn't absurdly expensive for a distance like that if you've already got a path to run copper. Yeah it is more expensive per foot (perhaps 2x to 4x) plus about $50-$100 extra on each end for media converters, but the bulk of the expense is likely the burial or other installation concerns. And with fiber you have full reliable gigabit speed right away and faster in the future if the need arises.

IF you have a reliably clear line of sight between the two locations then Ubiquiti radios will do fine. Probably faster and a lot more reliable than the cat6 at this distance. (100 Mbps both directions is likely) No need to buy nanobeam dish antennas. Just buy two NanoStation Loco M5 and you will still have a strong, reliable, and fast connection even after you set the output power to the minimum on both sides. These NanoStation Loco models are a lot smaller and lighter and easier to deal with, and easier to aim too since they have a wider beam width than the dish antennas. See this wiki to learn how to configure them: http://wiki.ubnt.com/How_to_bridge_internet_connections