POE over Powerline adapters! Will they suck? Let's find out.

[TheWaterbug]

I want to mount two IP5M-T1277EW-AI units at my parents house, under the eaves where there is a reasonably-protected AC socket, but where running Ethernet is not feasible. Whilst looking for Ethernet-over-Powerline adapters, someone pointed me towards the $90 Nexuslink GPL-2000PoE that provides two POE outlets in a powerline endpoint:



It needs to pair with a $40 GPL-2000PT unit at the other end:



This could be excellent, if it doesn't suck, because it would allow me to do exactly what I want with one small box at the far end. Without the POE feature I'd need either a POE switch or a pair of POE injectors, all crammed in under the eaves.

Curiously, I don't see any discussion of these units here in IPCamTalk.

Powerline Ethernet can be very unpredictable, because it depends on the way the AC in the house is wired, so it remains to be seen whether these will suck or not, in my particular installation. But these units are based on the somewhat-newer G.hn standard, instead of HPAV (HomePlug AV/2), which allegedly has better signal integrity, error-correction, noise-immunity, etc., etc., etc. We will see.

I don't care about bandwidth or latency for this application, which is just two modest IP cameras, but I do care about link reliability.

I just ordered this pair of units. I'lll follow up when I get a chance to install and test.

 

[wittaj]

There is talk of powerline adaptors here.

I mention them frequently when someone comes here looking for a wifi solution.

I have been using one for over 10 years and is rock solid (different brand but same idea).

Other people here have used them for years as well. Way more stable and reliable than a wifi connection.

 

[TonyR]

The G.hn standard may provide better operation when the 2 PLA's must be on circuits that come from OPPOSITE sides of the circuit breaker panel, meaning they are not on the same leg of the 120/240VAC split phase .

I've used the older non-G.hn units reliably for years when they were on circuits on the same side of the panel (from the the same leg of 120VAC).

 

[Oneup]

I use that Nexuslink for 2 cameras on my shed. I also use a POE splitter from the single output of the power line adapter. It has been reliable for years, but I do see a momentary drop out every great once in a while. Don't use with surge protector on the outlet. It does depend on which outlets you use, so may have to experiment. I found connecting the PLA directly to outlet I wired in shed, it did not communicate, but added a 6' extension cord it worked. Must have been a Null in the RF standing wave on power line, direct from outlet, and extending the power line got the Rx out of that Null. I think they are worth it.

 

[TheWaterbug]

I use that Nexuslink for 2 cameras on my shed. I also use a POE splitter from the single output of the power line adapter. It has been reliable for years, but I do see a momentary drop out every great once in a while. Don't use with surge protector on the outlet. It does depend on which outlets you use, so may have to experiment. I found connecting the PLA directly to outlet I wired in shed, it did not communicate, but added a 6' extension cord it worked. Must have been a Null in the RF standing wave on power line, direct from outlet, and extending the power line got the Rx out of that Null. I think they are worth it.

Which Nexuslink model are you using? The one I linked has 2 POE outputs, but you mentioned that you're using a POE splitter from a single output.

Is your unit G.hn Wave 2?

 

[TheWaterbug]

Curiously, I don't see any discussion of these units these two particular model numbers (GPL-2000PoE and GPL-2000PT) here in IPCamTalk.

There; I fixed my OP.

 

[Oneup]

Which Nexuslink model are you using? The one I linked has 2 POE outputs, but you mentioned that you're using a POE splitter from a single output.

Is your unit G.hn Wave 2?

This is the one I am using. When I bought these, I did not see any available with 2 POE ports or I would have got them, and saved $ on the splitters. I bought another one of these to use temporarily around the house when I want to see close areas that other cams do not have good view, such as rodents, or maybe, what the hell is the neighbor doing over there?

https://www.amazon.com/NexusLink-Powerline-Adapter-Ethernet-GPL-1200PoE/dp/B07NQ76B7M/ref=pd_ybh_a_d_sccl_7/135-6197504-4735448?pd_rd_w=8FhDJ&content-id=amzn1.sym.67f8cf21-ade4-4299-b433-69e404eeecf1&pf_rd_p=67f8cf21-ade4-4299-b433-69e404eeecf1&pf_rd_r=TPDX9SHDJPVF61SNP74C&pd_rd_wg=At2HH&pd_rd_r=5e2c9f9f-3215-46a5-a9c5-2388e9f0d51a&pd_rd_i=B07NQ76B7M&psc=1

 

[TonyR]

Curiously, I don't see any discussion of these units here in IPCamTalk.

Lots to read with the right search term. Use the below on Google with "PLA" for "Power Line Adapter".

site:ipcamtalk.com PLA

 

[TheWaterbug]

I just ordered this pair of units. I'lll follow up when I get a chance to install and test.

Four days after placing my order, Nexuslink is still showing "Processing" and hasn't responded to my messages or chats, so I canceled and ordered from amazon. I had to order 2 of the GPL-2000PT, because they're only in stock as a kit right now, but I'm sure I'll find a use for the extra unit someday.

 

[TheWaterbug]

Units received, and preliminary testing completed.

1. The GPL-2000PT Kit comes in a shiny retail box, whereas the GPL-2000PoE comes in almost white box OEM packaging:
   1. 
   2. Neither box was sealed, which is very slightly annoying.
   3. The PoE adapter had a glossy, printed Quick Install Guide, an FCC conformance certificate, and a small card exhorting me to update the firmware, with a QR code pointing to us.comtrend.com. More on this later.
   4. The PT Kit had no printed documentation whatsoever. With no seal on the box, this might have been an open box. Or maybe they just don't ship this with documentation.
2. Each unit comes with an Ethernet cable, which is a pleasant surprise. The units are also larger than I expected. The product photos do not include a banana for scale, and Yes, I have No Bananas, (yet), but here they are:
   1. 
3. The great news is that, if you plug in the two GPL-2000PT units from the kit, connect one end to your LAN, and connect the other end to your laptop, it works.
   1. My laptop got a DHCP address from my router right away, and everything just works.
   2. No configuring, no fiddling, and no pairing required.
   3. Either they're paired out of the box, or else they come up by default in a mode which doesn't require it (probably the latter; see below).
   4. In any case, it's a welcome surprise to have something work this easily, out of the box. And that's a good thing, since there's no documentation.
4. Connecting the GPL-2000PoE unit requires pairing, which is simple, and documented in the glossy printed QIG included with the GPL-2000PoE.
   1. Press the pairing button on the GPL-2000PT unit until the security LED starts blinking.
   2. Press the pairing button on the GPL-2000PoE unit until the security LED starts blinking.
   3. The units will pair within a few seconds, and then everything works.
   4. Once I had paired the GPL-2000PoE with the first GPL-2000PT, the second GPL-2000PT would no longer link with the first GPL-2000PT, so I had to repeat the pairing procedure. This was not unexpected to me, but might be unexpected to a novice user.
5. I plugged in the two POE security cameras that I intend to deploy at my parents' house this weekend, and they powered up and appeared on the network as expected.
   1. The GPL-2000PoE is specced at 30 W shared between the two 802.3at ports, and the cameras are specced at 8.9 W each over POE, so there should be plenty of headroom, but it's nice when things work as they're supposed to.
   2. I ran these overnight, with the IR LEDs on during the darkness, and I saw no dropouts in the Blue Iris log, so they stayed up all night. By now they've been up continuously for 24 hours.
6. Throughput is highly variable depending on location of the two units:
   1. With two GPL-2000PT units plugged in about 20' away from each other in my standard residential house, iperf runs at up to ~180 Mbps:
      1. Spoiler

         ./iperf3 -c 192.168.1.2Connecting to host 192.168.1.2, port 5201
         [  4] local 192.168.1.101 port 51335 connected to 192.168.1.2 port 5201
         [ ID] Interval           Transfer     Bandwidth
         [  4]   0.00-1.00   sec  24.9 MBytes   209 Mbits/sec          
         [  4]   1.00-2.00   sec  20.6 MBytes   173 Mbits/sec          
         [  4]   2.00-3.00   sec  20.6 MBytes   173 Mbits/sec          
         [  4]   3.00-4.00   sec  21.8 MBytes   183 Mbits/sec          
         [  4]   4.00-5.00   sec  20.8 MBytes   174 Mbits/sec          
         [  4]   5.00-6.00   sec  21.0 MBytes   176 Mbits/sec          
         [  4]   6.00-7.00   sec  21.2 MBytes   178 Mbits/sec          
         [  4]   7.00-8.00   sec  21.4 MBytes   180 Mbits/sec          
         [  4]   8.00-9.00   sec  21.5 MBytes   180 Mbits/sec          
         [  4]   9.00-10.00  sec  21.1 MBytes   177 Mbits/sec          
         - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
         [ ID] Interval           Transfer     Bandwidth
         [  4]   0.00-10.00  sec   215 MBytes   180 Mbits/sec                  sender
         [  4]   0.00-10.00  sec   214 MBytes   180 Mbits/sec                  receiver
         
         iperf Done.

   2. Swapping out the client end GPL-2000PT for the GPL-2000PoE unit reduces throughput to ~120 Mbps:
      1. Spoiler

         ./iperf3 -c 192.168.1.2
         Connecting to host 192.168.1.2, port 5201
         [  4] local 192.168.1.101 port 51756 connected to 192.168.1.2 port 5201
         [ ID] Interval           Transfer     Bandwidth
         [  4]   0.00-1.00   sec  17.7 MBytes   148 Mbits/sec            
         [  4]   1.00-2.00   sec  13.9 MBytes   117 Mbits/sec            
         [  4]   2.00-3.00   sec  14.2 MBytes   119 Mbits/sec            
         [  4]   3.00-4.00   sec  15.9 MBytes   133 Mbits/sec            
         [  4]   4.00-5.00   sec  14.2 MBytes   119 Mbits/sec            
         [  4]   5.00-6.00   sec  14.1 MBytes   118 Mbits/sec            
         [  4]   6.00-7.00   sec  14.9 MBytes   125 Mbits/sec            
         [  4]   7.00-8.00   sec  14.8 MBytes   124 Mbits/sec            
         [  4]   8.00-9.00   sec  13.7 MBytes   115 Mbits/sec            
         [  4]   9.00-10.00  sec  12.9 MBytes   109 Mbits/sec            
         - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
         [ ID] Interval           Transfer     Bandwidth
         [  4]   0.00-10.00  sec   146 MBytes   123 Mbits/sec                  sender
         [  4]   0.00-10.00  sec   146 MBytes   122 Mbits/sec                  receiver
         
         iperf Done.

   3. Moving the LAN end into the bedroom closet at the far end of the house drops the throughput significantly, down to ~20 Mbps:
      1. Spoiler

         ./iperf3 -c 192.168.1.2
         Connecting to host 192.168.1.2, port 5201
         [  4] local 192.168.1.101 port 52296 connected to 192.168.1.2 port 5201
         [ ID] Interval           Transfer     Bandwidth
         [  4]   0.00-1.00   sec  5.41 MBytes  45.3 Mbits/sec            
         [  4]   1.00-2.00   sec  2.55 MBytes  21.3 Mbits/sec            
         [  4]   2.00-3.00   sec  1.97 MBytes  16.5 Mbits/sec            
         [  4]   3.00-4.00   sec  2.02 MBytes  16.9 Mbits/sec            
         [  4]   4.00-5.00   sec  1.94 MBytes  16.3 Mbits/sec            
         [  4]   5.00-6.00   sec  2.00 MBytes  16.8 Mbits/sec            
         [  4]   6.00-7.00   sec  1.93 MBytes  16.2 Mbits/sec            
         [  4]   7.00-8.00   sec  1.97 MBytes  16.6 Mbits/sec            
         [  4]   8.00-9.00   sec  1.94 MBytes  16.3 Mbits/sec            
         [  4]   9.00-10.00  sec  1.98 MBytes  16.6 Mbits/sec            
         - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
         [ ID] Interval           Transfer     Bandwidth
         [  4]   0.00-10.00  sec  23.7 MBytes  19.9 Mbits/sec                  sender
         [  4]   0.00-10.00  sec  23.7 MBytes  19.9 Mbits/sec                  receiver
         
         iperf Done.

   4. All of this is fine for my intended application, e.g. two cameras at maximum of 8 Mbps each, but we'll see what happens when I transplant this whole shebang to my parents' house.
7. Once I had everything up and running, it was time to break it with firmware updates! Here's where things got frustrating, but not crippling.
   1. As mentioned above I scanned the QR code and ended up at us.comtrend.com. where the references to Nexuslink are buried pretty deep.
   2. But I was able to match the GPL-2000PT with the PG-9182PT and the GPL-2000PoE with the PG-9182 POE and download the latest firmware from the Resources tabs.
   3. The resources tab also has a section for Download upgrader tool for this product, which links to a PDF that reads simply:
      1. "Visit the User Interface. Then navigate to the “Device” page which allows you to update the system firmware to a more recent version."
      2. The User Manual (online, no hardcopy included!) reads:
         1. GPL-2000PT uses DHCP mode. It means GPL-2000PT has to get IP address via
            DHCP server. You should check what IP address is assigned to GPL-2000PT via your
            DHCP server and configure you PC IP address according to the IP address that was
            assigned to GPL-2000PT.
         2. I spent 30 minutes looking for the devices by MAC on my 192.168.1.0/24 network, searching my DHCP lease table, visiting every unidentified IP on the subnet, etc., but did not find any of the 3 devices.
      3. I re-read the user manual, and there's a section that reads:
         1. Start the Internet browser and enter the default IP address for the device
            in the Web address field. For example, if the default IP address is
            192.168.0.5, type
            http://192.168.0.5
            .
         2. They didn't, did they?
         3. Of course they did. All 3 units came with a static IP of 192.168.0.5, and DHCP turned off.
         4. So as soon as a user plugs in two of these units, which is what all users will do, they will immediately have an IP address conflict on their network, and even after I set my laptop up for a static IP in 192.168.0.1/24 and navigate to 192.168.0.5, I won't know which unit I'm talking to.
         5. Nowhere in the documentation does it say that the default IP is 192.168.0.5. It merely suggests here that it might be the case, hypothetically.
8. Once I logged in I was able to turn DHCP ON, change the admin password, turn on NTP, etc., but there are still a few niggling annoyances:
   1. The Security > New Configuration password has a single text entry field for a new admin password.
      1. Unlike every other network device I've used over the last 20 years, there is no duplicate password field to verify the new password. If you fat-finger your new password, you will probably have to do a factory reset.
   2. The user interface has only Comtrend graphics and Comtrend model numbers.
   3. The firmware update interface is poorly written.
      1. It does provide a helpful progress bar that updates via an automatic page refresh every 10 seconds, but the refreshing doesn't stop when it's done.
      2. There is a text field that updates to "Completed", but then it keeps updating every 10 seconds, so it's not clear that it's actually finished.
   4. The GPL-2000PT/PG-9182PT units updated and rebooted without issue, but the GPL-2000PoE/PG-9182 POE unit went into a boot loop after the update. I unplugged it for a few minutes, then plugged it back in, and then it was fine, but for awhile there I feared that I had bricked it.
   5. But all 3 units are now successfully updated to the latest firmware that's available on the website.
   6. There is no "Check for firmware update" button on the UI.
9. I did not re-test the throughput after updating the firmware, because it was 1:30 AM by the time I'd finished all of the above, but I may get a chance to do that tonight. I will also retest when I deploy at my parents' house, where the AC wiring is different.
10. Before I'd figured out the static IP address I sent a Help email to comtrend.com, and I received an email back this morning, which is nice responsiveness.
    1. Compare this to my online order, chat, and email with Nexuslink.com, which went unanswered for days, prompting me to cancel my order and re-order from amazon.
    2. This is very surprising, considering that comtrend.com is supposedly the site for OEM sales to ISPs, and Nexuslink is supposedly the site for direct-to-consumer.

So overall I am reasonably gruntled. I'm not sure the UI and firmware updates would be important to most people, unless tonight's testing demonstrates any significant performance improvement. And I won't know about throughput at my parents' house, nor reliability, for a little while.

 

[TheWaterbug]

Interesting. The new firmware is a mixed bag. In my original configuration, which is two GPL-2000PT units about 20' apart, iperf thoughput increased appreciably from ~180 Mbps up to ~250 Mbps:

Spoiler: iperf

./iperf3 -c 192.168.1.136
Connecting to host 192.168.1.136, port 5201
[  4] local 192.168.1.191 port 52304 connected to 192.168.1.136 port 5201
[ ID] Interval           Transfer     Bandwidth
[  4]   0.00-1.00   sec  33.5 MBytes   281 Mbits/sec                 
[  4]   1.00-2.00   sec  29.3 MBytes   246 Mbits/sec                 
[  4]   2.00-3.00   sec  29.8 MBytes   250 Mbits/sec                 
[  4]   3.00-4.00   sec  29.7 MBytes   249 Mbits/sec                 
[  4]   4.00-5.00   sec  29.4 MBytes   247 Mbits/sec                 
[  4]   5.00-6.00   sec  29.7 MBytes   248 Mbits/sec                 
[  4]   6.00-7.00   sec  29.5 MBytes   248 Mbits/sec                 
[  4]   7.00-8.00   sec  29.3 MBytes   246 Mbits/sec                 
[  4]   8.00-9.00   sec  29.0 MBytes   243 Mbits/sec                 
[  4]   9.00-10.00  sec  29.6 MBytes   248 Mbits/sec                 
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
[ ID] Interval           Transfer     Bandwidth
[  4]   0.00-10.00  sec   299 MBytes   251 Mbits/sec                  sender
[  4]   0.00-10.00  sec   299 MBytes   251 Mbits/sec                  receiver

iperf Done.

but when I put one unit at the other end of the house, throughput dropped from ~20 Mbps down to ~8 Mbps, and sometimes the link would just die and not come back up without a un/plug cycle:

Spoiler: iperf

./iperf3 -c 192.168.1.136
Connecting to host 192.168.1.136, port 5201
[  4] local 192.168.1.191 port 53012 connected to 192.168.1.136 port 5201
[ ID] Interval           Transfer     Bandwidth
[  4]   0.00-1.00   sec  1.95 MBytes  16.3 Mbits/sec                 
[  4]   1.00-2.00   sec  1.86 MBytes  15.6 Mbits/sec                 
[  4]   2.00-3.00   sec  1.01 MBytes  8.44 Mbits/sec                 
[  4]   3.00-4.00   sec   617 KBytes  5.05 Mbits/sec                 
[  4]   4.00-5.00   sec  1.55 MBytes  13.0 Mbits/sec                 
[  4]   5.00-6.00   sec   563 KBytes  4.61 Mbits/sec                 
[  4]   6.00-7.00   sec   563 KBytes  4.59 Mbits/sec                 
[  4]   7.00-8.00   sec   591 KBytes  4.86 Mbits/sec                 
[  4]   8.00-9.00   sec   503 KBytes  4.12 Mbits/sec                 
[  4]   9.00-10.00  sec   608 KBytes  4.98 Mbits/sec                 
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
[ ID] Interval           Transfer     Bandwidth
[  4]   0.00-10.00  sec  9.74 MBytes  8.17 Mbits/sec                  sender
[  4]   0.00-10.00  sec  9.73 MBytes  8.17 Mbits/sec                  receiver

iperf Done.

Unfortunately there's no "old firmware" link on the website, so I can't go backwards and see if this is repeatable.

Yeah, I can see why these get returned. The performance and reliability is so completely dependent on the house AC wiring, and it doesn't always seem to make logical sense.

Back in/near the kitchen I moved one of the units so that it was in an outlet on the opposite side of the same wall as the first unit, so presumably "closer" and on the same breaker. The link was unreliable.

Then I tried plugging both units into the same two-gang outlet, or almost as close as physically possible, and again the link was unreliable.

Then, because these are pass-through units, I actually tried stacking the two units into the same wall outlet (yes, I've seen this recommended as a way of sure-proof pairing before deployment), and they wouldn't even establish a link.

Then I moved one unit to the other side of the kitchen and got ~280 Mbps:

Spoiler: iperf

./iperf3 -c 192.168.1.136
Connecting to host 192.168.1.136, port 5201
[  4] local 192.168.1.191 port 53451 connected to 192.168.1.136 port 5201
[ ID] Interval           Transfer     Bandwidth
[  4]   0.00-1.00   sec  35.8 MBytes   300 Mbits/sec                 
[  4]   1.00-2.00   sec  33.2 MBytes   279 Mbits/sec                 
[  4]   2.00-3.00   sec  33.1 MBytes   278 Mbits/sec                 
[  4]   3.00-4.00   sec  32.9 MBytes   276 Mbits/sec                 
[  4]   4.00-5.00   sec  32.3 MBytes   271 Mbits/sec                 
[  4]   5.00-6.00   sec  33.2 MBytes   278 Mbits/sec                 
[  4]   6.00-7.00   sec  33.0 MBytes   276 Mbits/sec                 
[  4]   7.00-8.00   sec  32.9 MBytes   276 Mbits/sec                 
[  4]   8.00-9.00   sec  32.8 MBytes   275 Mbits/sec                 
[  4]   9.00-10.00  sec  32.9 MBytes   276 Mbits/sec                 
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
[ ID] Interval           Transfer     Bandwidth
[  4]   0.00-10.00  sec   332 MBytes   279 Mbits/sec                  sender
[  4]   0.00-10.00  sec   332 MBytes   279 Mbits/sec                  receiver

iperf Done.

So there's a fair amount of voodoo involved, and I'll have to experiment a bunch when I get to my parents' this weekend.

One logical hurdle I cleared is that it's the proximity of the two GPL-2000x units to each other that matters, and not the proximity of the LAN end to the LAN. As long as it's connected, it shouldn't matter. When I first started this exercise my brain got confused and I was thinking that the LAN end needed to be near the core switch. But that doesn't matter.

 

[TheWaterbug]

These don't suck.

Success! I plugged the endpoint unit into the AC socket under the eaves:



and then tried two locations in the house/garage where I had an Ethernet drop near an outlet. The first was right near the router and other assorted infrastructure, and that was bad. As soon as I plugged the master unit into power, the Link light lit up orange, which indicates a raw link rate of < 40 Mbps.

This was confirmed when I plugged it into Ethernet and logged into the admin page. There's a helpful Phy TX/Phy Rx status that shows up even if there's no Ethernet device plugged into the endpoint. It showed something like ~15 Mbps, so I didn't even bother iPerfing it, since that requires plugging my laptop Ethernet into the endpoint under the eaves and standing in the rain.

So that Link LED comes up in < 10 seconds, is really useful for trying different locations. You don't have to plug in real devices and iperf anything yet. If it comes up orange, move on and try a different socket. If it comes up green, then it's worth testing further.

The second place I tried was in the far corner of the sunroom, and there the Phy TX/Phy Rx displayed a raw link rate of ~130 - 150 Mbps:



iperf tends to run at about half the raw link rate, which is what I got at ~65 Mbps:

Spoiler: iperf

./iperf3 -c 192.168.90.2
Connecting to host 192.168.90.2, port 5201
[  4] local 192.168.90.167 port 56266 connected to 192.168.90.2 port 5201
[ ID] Interval           Transfer     Bandwidth
[  4]   0.00-1.00   sec  7.86 MBytes  65.9 Mbits/sec                 
[  4]   1.00-2.00   sec  7.70 MBytes  64.5 Mbits/sec                 
[  4]   2.00-3.00   sec  7.71 MBytes  64.8 Mbits/sec                 
[  4]   3.00-4.00   sec  7.63 MBytes  64.0 Mbits/sec                 
[  4]   4.00-5.00   sec  7.64 MBytes  64.0 Mbits/sec                 
[  4]   5.00-6.00   sec  7.70 MBytes  64.6 Mbits/sec                 
[  4]   6.00-7.00   sec  7.73 MBytes  64.8 Mbits/sec                 
[  4]   7.00-8.00   sec  7.64 MBytes  64.1 Mbits/sec                 
[  4]   8.00-9.00   sec  7.75 MBytes  65.1 Mbits/sec                 
[  4]   9.00-10.00  sec  7.64 MBytes  64.1 Mbits/sec                 
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
[ ID] Interval           Transfer     Bandwidth
[  4]   0.00-10.00  sec  77.0 MBytes  64.6 Mbits/sec                  sender
[  4]   0.00-10.00  sec  77.0 MBytes  64.6 Mbits/sec                  receiver

iperf Done.

That's > 4x what my two cameras will need, combined, so I didn't bother running around the house to find a better link. The sunroom is reasonably unobtrusive:



and will be even less so once I move it to the lower jack, swap in a white, 90º cable, tack that against the baseboard, and then move that chair back into place in front of the wiring.

The cameras are up in Blue Iris, pushing around 7.5 Mbps each for the main streams and sub streams combined.

So I'll call this a success! I'm not trying to get a Gigabit link out of these, and no one should, regardless of the labeling and marketing. These would be useful for a smart TV, a printer, or maybe an AirPlay target. They're ideal for security cameras, with the dual POE outputs.

I would not use these for a WAP backhaul, Plex server, or remote office backhaul, unless you have magic/lucky AC wiring, and you won't know that until you get a couple of these in hand and test them out. I'm not sure there's any way to predict when you'll have good performance, although I gather it is possible to predict when you'll have bad performance.

★★★★☆, with one star deducted for poor documentation and a brain-dead static IP by default.

 

[TonyR]

If you're not happy with the baseboard outcome, consider this => Legrand - Wiremold Cord Cover, White Cord Hider for Wall Mount TV, 9 Foot (108 Inches) Cord Cover Floor or Cord Cover Wall to Hide TV Cords for Wall Mount TV, C110