Internet and 1000ft of driveway

[PianoMan343]

Hello everyone,

I currently volunteer at a local non-profit organization, providing computer hardware repair, necessary light networking issues, etc.
The organization's current issue is that their main building is located a little over one-thousand feet from the main road, and local internet providers want to charge four-figures $$$ to run high-speed internet to the building.
So, I had an idea. The non-profit owns a small residential building at the front of the property, right next to the main road. Assuming we can run the desired internet into this building, my idea is to run the internet from the modem in this property into a ethernet-coaxial converter, and run a coaxial line down the property and into the main building at the other end, and reconvert to ethernet and into a router to redistribute throughout the building.
So, now for my questions:

1: Is there any reason I may have overlooked as to why this plan won't work?
2: Could you suggest a ethernet-coaxial converter that won't break the bank?
3: Does outdoor coaxial line exist that can be buried as is or that could survive outside?
4: Would I need to terminate the ends of the coaxial and how would I protect the end that are outdoors?

I appreciate any and all help! Thank you!

 

[bill001g]

The common converters to do ethernet to coax are called MoCA but they can not go that distance. You would need something similar to what a cable company uses but I am not sure if there is anything cost effective for a end consumer.

You could run plastic conduit and run fiber in it. The main issue with fiber is cutting and putting the ends on the fiber. You could likely have a long patch cable made and then carefully pull it through. Most fiber cable designed to run though conduit has 6 strands so it will cost more and you would need to have someone terminate it for you.

Most the cost to have someone terminate it is going to be the trip charge, they don't charge that much to terminate the cable since a good tech can do it in 10 minutes.

You can also get what is called ethernet extenders. This uses a method similar to DSL to transmit the signals over normal copper phone lines. It is not as fast as other technologies though....been years since I looked at it maybe they have vdsl versions.

You could look at point to point wireless from companies like ubiquiti. It depends if you have clear line of sight and how much speed you really need. It maybe easier than digging a trench

 

[eibgrad]

Sounds like you need MoCA adapters, which is basically an ethernet to coax bridge. However, I don't know its range. 1000 ft is pretty far, and would likely need amplifcation. And since the coax is routed outside, that's a serious negative in my book. While I always prefer wired solutions when possible, in this case, I'd be more inclined to use a point-to-point wireless bridge from somebody like Ubiquiti, esp. if you have line of sight between the buildings. It's pretty cheap, and so I'd be inclined to try that approach first, rather than trying manhandle a 1000 ft of coax cable. Would be a different story if coax already existed between the buildings.

 

[PianoMan343]

Thank you for the quick replies so far, gentlemen!
I should further elaborate that the NPO in question wishes to live-stream HD video content to social media over the desired internet. With that in mind:

1: So, if I go the fiber optic route, would the process be the same as to convert ethernet to fiber? And could you please suggest a converter?
2: Would a point to point ethernet bridge deliver the same speed?

Edit: The only connection currently in place is DSL, and that is spotty at best.

Thank you!

 

[eibgrad]

As far as wifi speed over a point-to-point connection, you're unlikely to get the same speed as any wired solution. But you have to weigh that against the cost and complexity of dealing w/ a 1000 ft of coax cable. That has to be secured so it's not damaged from weather or tampering, and probably amplication, which means delivering power to it. It will probably prove more onerous than most ppl would assume. Believe me, I'd *much* prefer a wired solution whenever possible, but 1000 ft complicates things. But then, none of us have any idea about the area. All we know is it's 1000 ft and two buildings.

With point-to-point wireless bridging, you're concentrating the signal, which makes for much better speeds and range. Plus, they do offer other freqs than your common 2.4GHx and 5GHz (e.g., 900MHz). Lower freqs are generally better for performance, although it typically cuts down on the range. But 1000 ft shouldn't be a problem. And you end up w/ less interference; there's just isn't as much competition on some other freqs. The cost of equipment and manpower required for a DIY wireless solution is relatively modest, perhaps $200-300, although you can always spend more and get better stuff if need be.

As far as your current DSL being spotty, well that's another issue entirely. Whatever means you choose to bridge the buildings, although your LAN speeds may be perfectly acceptable, your internet access speeds and reliability will only be as good as what your ISP already provides.

 

[camieabz]

Some added food for thought - https://electronics.stackexchange.com/questions/156031/very-long-distance-ethernet-connection-for-internet-and-other-data-2000-feet

Grounding, repeating and so on. It might be easier to dig the trench yourself and get a fibre installer to do a homer on the fibre termination.

 

[eibgrad]

Some added food for thought - https://electronics.stackexchange.com/questions/156031/very-long-distance-ethernet-connection-for-internet-and-other-data-2000-feet

Grounding, repeating and so on. It might be easier to dig the trench yourself and get a fibre installer to do a homer on the fibre termination.

Good information there. But for all we know, there's nothing but concrete and parking lots between the buildings. Might help to have a better description of the area and what lies between these buildings.

OP, is it just an open field?

 

[PianoMan343]

Once again, Gentlemen, thank you!

I shall elaborate on requested information.

The residential building at the front of the property is next to a highway, so bringing in cable-speed internet into that building shouldn't be a problem. I'd have to look one more time, but there may be a direct line of sight between building.

The driveway leading up to the main building has grass on both sides, with a tunnel at some point allowing potential cables to pass from one side to the other. It's has no major turns until the end, where it hooks right to the main building

The main building has it's parking lot facing away from the highway, so it's a straight shot from one building to the other as far as open grass is concerned.

 

[PianoMan343]

And also, to ask my next question:

Some of the point-to-point bridges i'm now looking at offer 100Mbps transfer speeds. Granted that the appropriate internet is used in conjunction, (NOT our current DSL, we will be upgrading) will this facilitate our live-streaming ambitions?

 

[bill001g]

Wireless bridges in general will not have any more issues than any other WiFi connection. They are less affected by outside signals since the traffic is in a narrow beam. They still to a point suffer from the half duplex issue but with only 2 devices talking you do not get as much overlapping.

Be very careful about the speeds. Like most wifi they tend to tell lies like combining the upload and download speeds. Now companies like ubiquiti sell full duplex equipment that can really do 1gbit in both directions but I am afraid to even look at what the costs are.