<article>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#article10_02_18_188222</id>
	<title>Suggestions For a Coax-To-Ethernet Solution?</title>
	<author>timothy</author>
	<datestamp>1266516540000</datestamp>
	<htmltext>watanabe writes <i>"I just moved from a house with Cat5e wiring to a house with ... a whole bunch of coax cables. Like, my living room has five coax cables coming out of a hole in the wall. All of them go back up to my attic.

The house is big, (and I like it, thank you), but I have realized that our digital usage pattern (media server + squeezeboxes + remote time machine backups to a linux box) will not work without wiring. I am currently bridging some old Linksys WRT54Gs to the right places, but of course, that slows everything down.

This got me thinking: 100mb ethernet is four wires, yes? And I have four wires for every two coax cables. What about a two coax-head -&gt; ethernet jack setup? Has anyone done this before? Searching online only gives me $100+ coaxethernet transceiver type boxes. At that price, a HomePNY system would make more sense.

I'm willing to solder if I have to, but I first wanted to get advice and holes shot in my plan, if there are any."</i></htmltext>
<tokenext>watanabe writes " I just moved from a house with Cat5e wiring to a house with ... a whole bunch of coax cables .
Like , my living room has five coax cables coming out of a hole in the wall .
All of them go back up to my attic .
The house is big , ( and I like it , thank you ) , but I have realized that our digital usage pattern ( media server + squeezeboxes + remote time machine backups to a linux box ) will not work without wiring .
I am currently bridging some old Linksys WRT54Gs to the right places , but of course , that slows everything down .
This got me thinking : 100mb ethernet is four wires , yes ?
And I have four wires for every two coax cables .
What about a two coax-head - &gt; ethernet jack setup ?
Has anyone done this before ?
Searching online only gives me $ 100 + coaxethernet transceiver type boxes .
At that price , a HomePNY system would make more sense .
I 'm willing to solder if I have to , but I first wanted to get advice and holes shot in my plan , if there are any .
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext>watanabe writes "I just moved from a house with Cat5e wiring to a house with ... a whole bunch of coax cables.
Like, my living room has five coax cables coming out of a hole in the wall.
All of them go back up to my attic.
The house is big, (and I like it, thank you), but I have realized that our digital usage pattern (media server + squeezeboxes + remote time machine backups to a linux box) will not work without wiring.
I am currently bridging some old Linksys WRT54Gs to the right places, but of course, that slows everything down.
This got me thinking: 100mb ethernet is four wires, yes?
And I have four wires for every two coax cables.
What about a two coax-head -&gt; ethernet jack setup?
Has anyone done this before?
Searching online only gives me $100+ coaxethernet transceiver type boxes.
At that price, a HomePNY system would make more sense.
I'm willing to solder if I have to, but I first wanted to get advice and holes shot in my plan, if there are any.
"</sentencetext>
</article>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_18_188222.31190634</id>
	<title>Re:ATT Uverse runs over coax</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1266486480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The Motorola boxes have an ethernet port and a coax port.<br>If you are connecting the Motorola box via coax, then the ethernet port can be used to "piggyback" another device onto the HomePNY network.<br>This is how I have my XBOX 360 connected right now.  Seems to work decently; no (noticable) performance issues.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The Motorola boxes have an ethernet port and a coax port.If you are connecting the Motorola box via coax , then the ethernet port can be used to " piggyback " another device onto the HomePNY network.This is how I have my XBOX 360 connected right now .
Seems to work decently ; no ( noticable ) performance issues .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The Motorola boxes have an ethernet port and a coax port.If you are connecting the Motorola box via coax, then the ethernet port can be used to "piggyback" another device onto the HomePNY network.This is how I have my XBOX 360 connected right now.
Seems to work decently; no (noticable) performance issues.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_18_188222.31187370</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_18_188222.31187416</id>
	<title>Use the Coax to pull CAT 5e cable</title>
	<author>Cassini2</author>
	<datestamp>1266520560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p> <b>If the coax is sitting loose in the walls, you can use it as a pull cable to thread in replacement UTP cable.</b>
</p><p>Old Ethernet worked over Coax.  I just doubt you have the correct kind of Coax.  Also, my experience with residential cable installs is that they tend to have damaged Coax cable, so it is pointless even trying to use it for high-bandwidth applications.
</p><p>Finally, while it is theoretically possible to substitute 4 "pairs" of twisted pair with 4 Coax cables, my suspicion would be that you would have severe impedance mismatch problems.  It might be good at 10 Mb, where the old Coaxial ethernet worked.  I doubt it would handle modern 1 Gb Ethernet signals.  Also, modern Ethernet expects all 4 pairs to be of approximately the same length, and it is unlikely someone would have 4 matched-length pairs of coaxial cable sitting in their wall.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>If the coax is sitting loose in the walls , you can use it as a pull cable to thread in replacement UTP cable .
Old Ethernet worked over Coax .
I just doubt you have the correct kind of Coax .
Also , my experience with residential cable installs is that they tend to have damaged Coax cable , so it is pointless even trying to use it for high-bandwidth applications .
Finally , while it is theoretically possible to substitute 4 " pairs " of twisted pair with 4 Coax cables , my suspicion would be that you would have severe impedance mismatch problems .
It might be good at 10 Mb , where the old Coaxial ethernet worked .
I doubt it would handle modern 1 Gb Ethernet signals .
Also , modern Ethernet expects all 4 pairs to be of approximately the same length , and it is unlikely someone would have 4 matched-length pairs of coaxial cable sitting in their wall .</tokentext>
<sentencetext> If the coax is sitting loose in the walls, you can use it as a pull cable to thread in replacement UTP cable.
Old Ethernet worked over Coax.
I just doubt you have the correct kind of Coax.
Also, my experience with residential cable installs is that they tend to have damaged Coax cable, so it is pointless even trying to use it for high-bandwidth applications.
Finally, while it is theoretically possible to substitute 4 "pairs" of twisted pair with 4 Coax cables, my suspicion would be that you would have severe impedance mismatch problems.
It might be good at 10 Mb, where the old Coaxial ethernet worked.
I doubt it would handle modern 1 Gb Ethernet signals.
Also, modern Ethernet expects all 4 pairs to be of approximately the same length, and it is unlikely someone would have 4 matched-length pairs of coaxial cable sitting in their wall.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_18_188222.31187540</id>
	<title>Cat5e vs Cat6?</title>
	<author>the\_macman</author>
	<datestamp>1266520920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Many of the posts suggest to pullout the coax and rewire with cat5e. My question to the community is why not Cat6? When I bulit a small network in my house I concluded that ca6 is slightly better than cat5e, especially for gigabit speeds. If you're going to wire your house why not use cat6?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Many of the posts suggest to pullout the coax and rewire with cat5e .
My question to the community is why not Cat6 ?
When I bulit a small network in my house I concluded that ca6 is slightly better than cat5e , especially for gigabit speeds .
If you 're going to wire your house why not use cat6 ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Many of the posts suggest to pullout the coax and rewire with cat5e.
My question to the community is why not Cat6?
When I bulit a small network in my house I concluded that ca6 is slightly better than cat5e, especially for gigabit speeds.
If you're going to wire your house why not use cat6?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_18_188222.31188556</id>
	<title>Re:10Base-2?</title>
	<author>vhfer</author>
	<datestamp>1266524040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Actually, hams sometimes use 75 ohm coax when all the equipment is designed for 50 ohm-- that represents a 1.5:1 mismatch, which is tolerable if you don't mind some loss. But the really bad thing about using 10Base2 for ethernet is the wiring restrictions- you can only put so many stations (devices) on one length of cable, and you have to have a BNC Tee connection for every one, and you have to have 50-ohm termination plugs at both ends, and an issue with ANY station on the cable will probably disable all of them- 10Base2 is bus-wired. I used to maintain a coax network, and it was trouble about 6 times a month at first. Things improved once I get the dicey connections replaced, but it never got better than about 2 or 3 failures a month.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Actually , hams sometimes use 75 ohm coax when all the equipment is designed for 50 ohm-- that represents a 1.5 : 1 mismatch , which is tolerable if you do n't mind some loss .
But the really bad thing about using 10Base2 for ethernet is the wiring restrictions- you can only put so many stations ( devices ) on one length of cable , and you have to have a BNC Tee connection for every one , and you have to have 50-ohm termination plugs at both ends , and an issue with ANY station on the cable will probably disable all of them- 10Base2 is bus-wired .
I used to maintain a coax network , and it was trouble about 6 times a month at first .
Things improved once I get the dicey connections replaced , but it never got better than about 2 or 3 failures a month .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Actually, hams sometimes use 75 ohm coax when all the equipment is designed for 50 ohm-- that represents a 1.5:1 mismatch, which is tolerable if you don't mind some loss.
But the really bad thing about using 10Base2 for ethernet is the wiring restrictions- you can only put so many stations (devices) on one length of cable, and you have to have a BNC Tee connection for every one, and you have to have 50-ohm termination plugs at both ends, and an issue with ANY station on the cable will probably disable all of them- 10Base2 is bus-wired.
I used to maintain a coax network, and it was trouble about 6 times a month at first.
Things improved once I get the dicey connections replaced, but it never got better than about 2 or 3 failures a month.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_18_188222.31187360</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_18_188222.31197528</id>
	<title>Re:Another alternative</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1266581280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>doesn't work great if you're doing 1gbit on cat-5e, uses all 4 pairs so the phone would now interfere.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>does n't work great if you 're doing 1gbit on cat-5e , uses all 4 pairs so the phone would now interfere .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>doesn't work great if you're doing 1gbit on cat-5e, uses all 4 pairs so the phone would now interfere.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_18_188222.31187824</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_18_188222.31190998</id>
	<title>Re:Related Questions</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1266487560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>If you're having a house built... get in there after the framers/before sheetrock and install a buncha SmurfTube...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>If you 're having a house built... get in there after the framers/before sheetrock and install a buncha SmurfTube.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If you're having a house built... get in there after the framers/before sheetrock and install a buncha SmurfTube...</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_18_188222.31187546</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_18_188222.31187508</id>
	<title>Different Philosophies of noise cancelation</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1266520860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Ethernet uses twisted pairs to keep the signal clean and strong. Coax uses a signal wire shielded inside a grounded return shell to keep the signal strong.</p><p>If the Coax is actually grounded anywhere it might really fnuck up what your trying to do. I'd also be-aware of signal boosters inline up at the attic. This setup was obviously made for cable/antenna and not made for data transmission.</p><p>You can try it. Get the pin-outs for ethernet get a crimper for cat 5 and coax and make your own adapters but beware of the grounding issue.</p><p>1000bt (very good for macs and time machine plus bigger DVR stuff) uses all 8 wires in ethernet and probably isn't going to tolerate a jury rigged adapter even if you have ridiculous numbers of coax runs.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Ethernet uses twisted pairs to keep the signal clean and strong .
Coax uses a signal wire shielded inside a grounded return shell to keep the signal strong.If the Coax is actually grounded anywhere it might really fnuck up what your trying to do .
I 'd also be-aware of signal boosters inline up at the attic .
This setup was obviously made for cable/antenna and not made for data transmission.You can try it .
Get the pin-outs for ethernet get a crimper for cat 5 and coax and make your own adapters but beware of the grounding issue.1000bt ( very good for macs and time machine plus bigger DVR stuff ) uses all 8 wires in ethernet and probably is n't going to tolerate a jury rigged adapter even if you have ridiculous numbers of coax runs .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Ethernet uses twisted pairs to keep the signal clean and strong.
Coax uses a signal wire shielded inside a grounded return shell to keep the signal strong.If the Coax is actually grounded anywhere it might really fnuck up what your trying to do.
I'd also be-aware of signal boosters inline up at the attic.
This setup was obviously made for cable/antenna and not made for data transmission.You can try it.
Get the pin-outs for ethernet get a crimper for cat 5 and coax and make your own adapters but beware of the grounding issue.1000bt (very good for macs and time machine plus bigger DVR stuff) uses all 8 wires in ethernet and probably isn't going to tolerate a jury rigged adapter even if you have ridiculous numbers of coax runs.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_18_188222.31188542</id>
	<title>Re:Related Questions</title>
	<author>jeff4747</author>
	<datestamp>1266523980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>This post is another vote for the 'run conduit' camp.</p><p>If you put the wire in before the walls are covered, the wires have to be stapled to the studs.  That means you'll never be able to remove that wire, nor use to to pull some new wire in the future.  This isn't true if you run conduit.  (Yes, one could theoretically open the walls back up, but that drastically increases the scope of the project.)</p><p>Put at least one conduit in each wall.  Have it run down to a 'blank' wall plate if you are currently not using it.  When your needs change, you have a nice tube to run the new wires.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>This post is another vote for the 'run conduit ' camp.If you put the wire in before the walls are covered , the wires have to be stapled to the studs .
That means you 'll never be able to remove that wire , nor use to to pull some new wire in the future .
This is n't true if you run conduit .
( Yes , one could theoretically open the walls back up , but that drastically increases the scope of the project .
) Put at least one conduit in each wall .
Have it run down to a 'blank ' wall plate if you are currently not using it .
When your needs change , you have a nice tube to run the new wires .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This post is another vote for the 'run conduit' camp.If you put the wire in before the walls are covered, the wires have to be stapled to the studs.
That means you'll never be able to remove that wire, nor use to to pull some new wire in the future.
This isn't true if you run conduit.
(Yes, one could theoretically open the walls back up, but that drastically increases the scope of the project.
)Put at least one conduit in each wall.
Have it run down to a 'blank' wall plate if you are currently not using it.
When your needs change, you have a nice tube to run the new wires.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_18_188222.31187546</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_18_188222.31187550</id>
	<title>It's not the same thing - "4 wires"</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1266520980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I very much doubt it would be possible to directly send a "modern" ethernet signal over coax. In cat5 cabling, the wire pairs are twisted together, and around each other in specific ways. This is required for shielding. A coax cable does not have the same layout - it is a single lead surrounded by a shield. While, at DC levels, the two cables might behave the same way, they will be very different when you try to send high-frequency signals. And, I don't even want to know what kind of reflection/impedance mismatch issues you will have when trying to mix cables like that.</p><p>If you are really feeling retro, you could try to run thinnet over the coax, but you'd have to look into impedance issues to make sure you have a suitable type of coax.<br>Hope this helps.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I very much doubt it would be possible to directly send a " modern " ethernet signal over coax .
In cat5 cabling , the wire pairs are twisted together , and around each other in specific ways .
This is required for shielding .
A coax cable does not have the same layout - it is a single lead surrounded by a shield .
While , at DC levels , the two cables might behave the same way , they will be very different when you try to send high-frequency signals .
And , I do n't even want to know what kind of reflection/impedance mismatch issues you will have when trying to mix cables like that.If you are really feeling retro , you could try to run thinnet over the coax , but you 'd have to look into impedance issues to make sure you have a suitable type of coax.Hope this helps .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I very much doubt it would be possible to directly send a "modern" ethernet signal over coax.
In cat5 cabling, the wire pairs are twisted together, and around each other in specific ways.
This is required for shielding.
A coax cable does not have the same layout - it is a single lead surrounded by a shield.
While, at DC levels, the two cables might behave the same way, they will be very different when you try to send high-frequency signals.
And, I don't even want to know what kind of reflection/impedance mismatch issues you will have when trying to mix cables like that.If you are really feeling retro, you could try to run thinnet over the coax, but you'd have to look into impedance issues to make sure you have a suitable type of coax.Hope this helps.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_18_188222.31190848</id>
	<title>I rewired mine when I moved in...</title>
	<author>lythander</author>
	<datestamp>1266487080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I used a combo wire which is 2 RG-6 and 2 Cat5e runs shrink-wrapped together into an impressive snake (http://www.smarthome.com/868261J/2-Cat-5e-2-RG6-Quad-Cable-Jacket-500-Feet-RG6-Coax-Cable/p.aspx).  I fact, I still have 200+" of it in my garage if you're going to pull new cable.  Very nice stuff, hit me up if you're interested.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I used a combo wire which is 2 RG-6 and 2 Cat5e runs shrink-wrapped together into an impressive snake ( http : //www.smarthome.com/868261J/2-Cat-5e-2-RG6-Quad-Cable-Jacket-500-Feet-RG6-Coax-Cable/p.aspx ) .
I fact , I still have 200 + " of it in my garage if you 're going to pull new cable .
Very nice stuff , hit me up if you 're interested .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I used a combo wire which is 2 RG-6 and 2 Cat5e runs shrink-wrapped together into an impressive snake (http://www.smarthome.com/868261J/2-Cat-5e-2-RG6-Quad-Cable-Jacket-500-Feet-RG6-Coax-Cable/p.aspx).
I fact, I still have 200+" of it in my garage if you're going to pull new cable.
Very nice stuff, hit me up if you're interested.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_18_188222.31188192</id>
	<title>Re:Cat5e vs Cat6?</title>
	<author>zildgulf</author>
	<datestamp>1266522960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I find that Cat6 is better than 6 cats in most applications.  The signal somehow doesn't run through 6 cats all that well.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I find that Cat6 is better than 6 cats in most applications .
The signal somehow does n't run through 6 cats all that well .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I find that Cat6 is better than 6 cats in most applications.
The signal somehow doesn't run through 6 cats all that well.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_18_188222.31187540</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_18_188222.31187324</id>
	<title>Use the Coax as a wirepull for the cat5</title>
	<author>mtippett</author>
	<datestamp>1266520260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>If you have lots of coax running through pipes and if it is free, then use the coax as a wirepull to rewire the house.</p><p>Cat5 provides many more options than cat5.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>If you have lots of coax running through pipes and if it is free , then use the coax as a wirepull to rewire the house.Cat5 provides many more options than cat5 .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If you have lots of coax running through pipes and if it is free, then use the coax as a wirepull to rewire the house.Cat5 provides many more options than cat5.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_18_188222.31187560</id>
	<title>Re:ATT Uverse runs over coax</title>
	<author>blippo</author>
	<datestamp>1266520980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Not very likely. Instead, they use one of the "cable modem" protocols, perhaps DOCSIS.</p><p>Sorry. You might be able to use coax cable with some baluns to run 2 or 10 mbit, but thats probably not what you want.</p><p>Connecting each pair of a cat5 tp cable to a coax cable each will not work for any reasonable cable lenght. (if at all)</p><p>Repla</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Not very likely .
Instead , they use one of the " cable modem " protocols , perhaps DOCSIS.Sorry .
You might be able to use coax cable with some baluns to run 2 or 10 mbit , but thats probably not what you want.Connecting each pair of a cat5 tp cable to a coax cable each will not work for any reasonable cable lenght .
( if at all ) Repla</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Not very likely.
Instead, they use one of the "cable modem" protocols, perhaps DOCSIS.Sorry.
You might be able to use coax cable with some baluns to run 2 or 10 mbit, but thats probably not what you want.Connecting each pair of a cat5 tp cable to a coax cable each will not work for any reasonable cable lenght.
(if at all)Repla</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_18_188222.31187370</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_18_188222.31187876</id>
	<title>Similar project for me</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1266521880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext>I researched this and found that the Actiontec MI424WR router that Verizon provides for their FiOS service makes a nice, high-speed coax-ethernet bridge. You can purchase them used from BCD Electro. I bought a pair to utilize the coax under my house that ran from the main cable splitter to my office. I re-routed the cable under the house to the location of my wireless router and hooked everything up so that my desktop internet connection went this way: desktop &lt;-ethernet-&gt; MI424WR &lt;-coax-&gt; MI424WR &lt;-ethernet-&gt; WRT54GL.

There are guides on how to set them up to act as bridges and it's pretty simple. For the cost of a decent USB WiFi adapter, I have hardwired connectivity that provides me with 2x the throughput as my now-dead USB WiFi that it replaced.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I researched this and found that the Actiontec MI424WR router that Verizon provides for their FiOS service makes a nice , high-speed coax-ethernet bridge .
You can purchase them used from BCD Electro .
I bought a pair to utilize the coax under my house that ran from the main cable splitter to my office .
I re-routed the cable under the house to the location of my wireless router and hooked everything up so that my desktop internet connection went this way : desktop MI424WR MI424WR WRT54GL .
There are guides on how to set them up to act as bridges and it 's pretty simple .
For the cost of a decent USB WiFi adapter , I have hardwired connectivity that provides me with 2x the throughput as my now-dead USB WiFi that it replaced .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I researched this and found that the Actiontec MI424WR router that Verizon provides for their FiOS service makes a nice, high-speed coax-ethernet bridge.
You can purchase them used from BCD Electro.
I bought a pair to utilize the coax under my house that ran from the main cable splitter to my office.
I re-routed the cable under the house to the location of my wireless router and hooked everything up so that my desktop internet connection went this way: desktop  MI424WR  MI424WR  WRT54GL.
There are guides on how to set them up to act as bridges and it's pretty simple.
For the cost of a decent USB WiFi adapter, I have hardwired connectivity that provides me with 2x the throughput as my now-dead USB WiFi that it replaced.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_18_188222.31188792</id>
	<title>Have you though of trying Ethernet over power?</title>
	<author>dstyle5</author>
	<datestamp>1266524760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Have you thought of trying Ethernet over power adapters instead?  I'm using older Linksys Ethernet over power adapters and they work very well.  I've had no problems with streaming, playing games, downloading torrents, etc.<br> <br>

<a href="http://www.linksysbycisco.com/US/en/products/PowerLine" title="linksysbycisco.com" rel="nofollow">http://www.linksysbycisco.com/US/en/products/PowerLine</a> [linksysbycisco.com]</htmltext>
<tokenext>Have you thought of trying Ethernet over power adapters instead ?
I 'm using older Linksys Ethernet over power adapters and they work very well .
I 've had no problems with streaming , playing games , downloading torrents , etc .
http : //www.linksysbycisco.com/US/en/products/PowerLine [ linksysbycisco.com ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Have you thought of trying Ethernet over power adapters instead?
I'm using older Linksys Ethernet over power adapters and they work very well.
I've had no problems with streaming, playing games, downloading torrents, etc.
http://www.linksysbycisco.com/US/en/products/PowerLine [linksysbycisco.com]</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_18_188222.31188054</id>
	<title>Crazy idea</title>
	<author>sveinb</author>
	<datestamp>1266522420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>How about this: Try to just attach some connectors and see how it works.</htmltext>
<tokenext>How about this : Try to just attach some connectors and see how it works .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>How about this: Try to just attach some connectors and see how it works.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_18_188222.31187954</id>
	<title>Re:Cat5e vs Cat6?</title>
	<author>jeffmeden</author>
	<datestamp>1266522120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Cost and flexibility?  I mean physically flexible; cat5 is thinner and lighter, and will bend around corners a lot easier if you are retrofitting a house with it.  Plus, it will handle gigabit speed in all but the most extreme circumstances.  Sure, all else considered Cat6 &gt; Cat5, but this guy needs to retrofit his house and he's a cheap ass; cat5 might be right up his alley.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Cost and flexibility ?
I mean physically flexible ; cat5 is thinner and lighter , and will bend around corners a lot easier if you are retrofitting a house with it .
Plus , it will handle gigabit speed in all but the most extreme circumstances .
Sure , all else considered Cat6 &gt; Cat5 , but this guy needs to retrofit his house and he 's a cheap ass ; cat5 might be right up his alley .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Cost and flexibility?
I mean physically flexible; cat5 is thinner and lighter, and will bend around corners a lot easier if you are retrofitting a house with it.
Plus, it will handle gigabit speed in all but the most extreme circumstances.
Sure, all else considered Cat6 &gt; Cat5, but this guy needs to retrofit his house and he's a cheap ass; cat5 might be right up his alley.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_18_188222.31187540</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_18_188222.31188132</id>
	<title>Older small workgroup hubs..</title>
	<author>Paracelcus</author>
	<datestamp>1266522840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>5 or 8 port, many had a 10 base 2 coax uplink port, this will limit you to 10mbps, also is the coax for CATV or data?  there is a difference.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>5 or 8 port , many had a 10 base 2 coax uplink port , this will limit you to 10mbps , also is the coax for CATV or data ?
there is a difference .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>5 or 8 port, many had a 10 base 2 coax uplink port, this will limit you to 10mbps, also is the coax for CATV or data?
there is a difference.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_18_188222.31188480</id>
	<title>Re:Related Questions</title>
	<author>rgviza</author>
	<datestamp>1266523740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Fiber is overkill. Fiber is only needed for runs longer than 100m, which is the max length of ethernet over copper.</p><p>Personally I'd roll with Cat 6a. It's the right combination of cost and future proofing. You can stream 1080p over 10Mbps with a ton of headroom. I can't realistically ever see data transmission requirements higher than 10Gbps for your house. 10Gbps is way more than enough for a family of 100 to each stream their own 1080p HD movie, surf the internet, and stream mp3s at the same time they are downloading a giant game patch.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Fiber is overkill .
Fiber is only needed for runs longer than 100m , which is the max length of ethernet over copper.Personally I 'd roll with Cat 6a .
It 's the right combination of cost and future proofing .
You can stream 1080p over 10Mbps with a ton of headroom .
I ca n't realistically ever see data transmission requirements higher than 10Gbps for your house .
10Gbps is way more than enough for a family of 100 to each stream their own 1080p HD movie , surf the internet , and stream mp3s at the same time they are downloading a giant game patch .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Fiber is overkill.
Fiber is only needed for runs longer than 100m, which is the max length of ethernet over copper.Personally I'd roll with Cat 6a.
It's the right combination of cost and future proofing.
You can stream 1080p over 10Mbps with a ton of headroom.
I can't realistically ever see data transmission requirements higher than 10Gbps for your house.
10Gbps is way more than enough for a family of 100 to each stream their own 1080p HD movie, surf the internet, and stream mp3s at the same time they are downloading a giant game patch.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_18_188222.31187546</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_18_188222.31192204</id>
	<title>Re:ATT Uverse runs over coax</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1266492420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I read this as Windows Millennium Edition and threw up in my mouth a little.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I read this as Windows Millennium Edition and threw up in my mouth a little .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I read this as Windows Millennium Edition and threw up in my mouth a little.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_18_188222.31187370</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_18_188222.31193834</id>
	<title>Moca</title>
	<author>tomz16</author>
	<datestamp>1266500880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>See If you can find some moca bridges (like the ones used in early verizon FIOS installs).  I got a pair of motorola NIMS, and can pull 100mbit over the coax in my house all day long  (internal signaling is 250mbits, but the port on the device is only 100mbit) .  WAY more reliable than the wireless bridge it replaced, and WAY faster than a powerline or phoneline network!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>See If you can find some moca bridges ( like the ones used in early verizon FIOS installs ) .
I got a pair of motorola NIMS , and can pull 100mbit over the coax in my house all day long ( internal signaling is 250mbits , but the port on the device is only 100mbit ) .
WAY more reliable than the wireless bridge it replaced , and WAY faster than a powerline or phoneline network !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>See If you can find some moca bridges (like the ones used in early verizon FIOS installs).
I got a pair of motorola NIMS, and can pull 100mbit over the coax in my house all day long  (internal signaling is 250mbits, but the port on the device is only 100mbit) .
WAY more reliable than the wireless bridge it replaced, and WAY faster than a powerline or phoneline network!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_18_188222.31187458</id>
	<title>Coax won't support 100mbps</title>
	<author>imgod2u</author>
	<datestamp>1266520740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>As others have said, it's better just to use the coax cable to rewire the house. Ethernet at high data rates requires a differential and high frequency cable twisted pair. Coax does not give you any of this. There's also the problem that the impedance of a coax cable is orders of magnitude greater than cat5, so you'll either have to have a high-powered driver and matching terminator at both ends or a modem.</p><p>All in all, it's not worth the effort unless someone out there has already designed something like that.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>As others have said , it 's better just to use the coax cable to rewire the house .
Ethernet at high data rates requires a differential and high frequency cable twisted pair .
Coax does not give you any of this .
There 's also the problem that the impedance of a coax cable is orders of magnitude greater than cat5 , so you 'll either have to have a high-powered driver and matching terminator at both ends or a modem.All in all , it 's not worth the effort unless someone out there has already designed something like that .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>As others have said, it's better just to use the coax cable to rewire the house.
Ethernet at high data rates requires a differential and high frequency cable twisted pair.
Coax does not give you any of this.
There's also the problem that the impedance of a coax cable is orders of magnitude greater than cat5, so you'll either have to have a high-powered driver and matching terminator at both ends or a modem.All in all, it's not worth the effort unless someone out there has already designed something like that.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_18_188222.31188490</id>
	<title>Different wireless hardware?</title>
	<author>Potent</author>
	<datestamp>1266523800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Other than biting the bullet and pulling some Cat5, you might consider some different wireless hardware.  I've used the WRT54G and found the performance to be dismal compared to high power Engenius stuff that costs about the same.  I manage a real 20-24 Mb in A or G mode / WPA2 around the office with ours.  Pair that with some sort of traffic shaping to prioritize what's going on (higher priority to media and lowest priority to backups, etc)  IPCop maybe?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Other than biting the bullet and pulling some Cat5 , you might consider some different wireless hardware .
I 've used the WRT54G and found the performance to be dismal compared to high power Engenius stuff that costs about the same .
I manage a real 20-24 Mb in A or G mode / WPA2 around the office with ours .
Pair that with some sort of traffic shaping to prioritize what 's going on ( higher priority to media and lowest priority to backups , etc ) IPCop maybe ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Other than biting the bullet and pulling some Cat5, you might consider some different wireless hardware.
I've used the WRT54G and found the performance to be dismal compared to high power Engenius stuff that costs about the same.
I manage a real 20-24 Mb in A or G mode / WPA2 around the office with ours.
Pair that with some sort of traffic shaping to prioritize what's going on (higher priority to media and lowest priority to backups, etc)  IPCop maybe?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_18_188222.31188166</id>
	<title>Here you go</title>
	<author>CranberryKing</author>
	<datestamp>1266522960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><a href="http://fourpair.com/ccp6\_09/index.php?app=ccp0&amp;ns=catshow&amp;ref=CAT6CAB" title="fourpair.com" rel="nofollow">http://fourpair.com/ccp6\_09/index.php?app=ccp0&amp;ns=catshow&amp;ref=CAT6CAB</a> [fourpair.com]

I ran one 'backbone' from north to south side of house and homeruns from various rooms to that point. Bought the cheapo crimpers, a bag of connectors, some wallplates. Done. Streaming hi quality video doesn't bottleneck.

You'll be glad you did it later when gigabit ethernet is not the ceiling anymore.</htmltext>
<tokenext>http : //fourpair.com/ccp6 \ _09/index.php ? app = ccp0&amp;ns = catshow&amp;ref = CAT6CAB [ fourpair.com ] I ran one 'backbone ' from north to south side of house and homeruns from various rooms to that point .
Bought the cheapo crimpers , a bag of connectors , some wallplates .
Done. Streaming hi quality video does n't bottleneck .
You 'll be glad you did it later when gigabit ethernet is not the ceiling anymore .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>http://fourpair.com/ccp6\_09/index.php?app=ccp0&amp;ns=catshow&amp;ref=CAT6CAB [fourpair.com]

I ran one 'backbone' from north to south side of house and homeruns from various rooms to that point.
Bought the cheapo crimpers, a bag of connectors, some wallplates.
Done. Streaming hi quality video doesn't bottleneck.
You'll be glad you did it later when gigabit ethernet is not the ceiling anymore.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_18_188222.31188994</id>
	<title>Re:Twisted pair, man</title>
	<author>nuckfuts</author>
	<datestamp>1266525300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The twisting is used to reduce interference. The idea is that if two wires occupy (nearly) the same physical space, then they should experience (nearly) the same interference, which would induce (nearly) no difference in potential between them.</p><p>Shielding, on the other hand, is highly effective at blocking out interference, so long as one end of the shield is properly grounded. Coax cable would probably provide better protection from interference for Ethernet signals than twisted pairs. As others have pointed out, however, the different impedance would adversely affect power transfer.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The twisting is used to reduce interference .
The idea is that if two wires occupy ( nearly ) the same physical space , then they should experience ( nearly ) the same interference , which would induce ( nearly ) no difference in potential between them.Shielding , on the other hand , is highly effective at blocking out interference , so long as one end of the shield is properly grounded .
Coax cable would probably provide better protection from interference for Ethernet signals than twisted pairs .
As others have pointed out , however , the different impedance would adversely affect power transfer .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The twisting is used to reduce interference.
The idea is that if two wires occupy (nearly) the same physical space, then they should experience (nearly) the same interference, which would induce (nearly) no difference in potential between them.Shielding, on the other hand, is highly effective at blocking out interference, so long as one end of the shield is properly grounded.
Coax cable would probably provide better protection from interference for Ethernet signals than twisted pairs.
As others have pointed out, however, the different impedance would adversely affect power transfer.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_18_188222.31187408</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_18_188222.31196836</id>
	<title>Responsible time machine use</title>
	<author>Engeekneer</author>
	<datestamp>1266573540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>remote time machine backups to a linux box</p></div><p>Finally someone who is responsible with their time machine use. Now when you go back in time and do something nasty that changes the future, just roll back to last Saturday morning with the nice bacon and eggs.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>remote time machine backups to a linux boxFinally someone who is responsible with their time machine use .
Now when you go back in time and do something nasty that changes the future , just roll back to last Saturday morning with the nice bacon and eggs .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>remote time machine backups to a linux boxFinally someone who is responsible with their time machine use.
Now when you go back in time and do something nasty that changes the future, just roll back to last Saturday morning with the nice bacon and eggs.
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_18_188222.31187810</id>
	<title>I wouldn't bother with cabling</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1266521640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The amount of time and effort it will take you to properly cable and put in jacks, just go wireless-N.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The amount of time and effort it will take you to properly cable and put in jacks , just go wireless-N .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The amount of time and effort it will take you to properly cable and put in jacks, just go wireless-N.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_18_188222.31187546</id>
	<title>Related Questions</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1266520980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>If you were building a house today, which kind of connectivity would you set up ?</p><p>Since the expensive part is probably paying someone to put the cable, it could make sense to set up both gigabit ethernet and optical fiber in all rooms. Do any slashdotters have some opinion on that ?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>If you were building a house today , which kind of connectivity would you set up ? Since the expensive part is probably paying someone to put the cable , it could make sense to set up both gigabit ethernet and optical fiber in all rooms .
Do any slashdotters have some opinion on that ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If you were building a house today, which kind of connectivity would you set up ?Since the expensive part is probably paying someone to put the cable, it could make sense to set up both gigabit ethernet and optical fiber in all rooms.
Do any slashdotters have some opinion on that ?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_18_188222.31191762</id>
	<title>It can be done</title>
	<author>majortom1981</author>
	<datestamp>1266490440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>What you are looking for is MoCa Alliance approved stuff.

MoCa 1.1 can do 175/175.

Verizon Uses Moca Equipment with their fios installs . The problem is its expensive.

Dlink has this <a href="http://www.dlink.com/products/?pid=668" title="dlink.com">http://www.dlink.com/products/?pid=668</a> [dlink.com]      but its $239


This is the Moca Alliance webpage. Its a list of certified products.
<a href="http://www.mocalliance.org/industry/certified\_products.php" title="mocalliance.org">http://www.mocalliance.org/industry/certified\_products.php</a> [mocalliance.org]</htmltext>
<tokenext>What you are looking for is MoCa Alliance approved stuff .
MoCa 1.1 can do 175/175 .
Verizon Uses Moca Equipment with their fios installs .
The problem is its expensive .
Dlink has this http : //www.dlink.com/products/ ? pid = 668 [ dlink.com ] but its $ 239 This is the Moca Alliance webpage .
Its a list of certified products .
http : //www.mocalliance.org/industry/certified \ _products.php [ mocalliance.org ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>What you are looking for is MoCa Alliance approved stuff.
MoCa 1.1 can do 175/175.
Verizon Uses Moca Equipment with their fios installs .
The problem is its expensive.
Dlink has this http://www.dlink.com/products/?pid=668 [dlink.com]      but its $239


This is the Moca Alliance webpage.
Its a list of certified products.
http://www.mocalliance.org/industry/certified\_products.php [mocalliance.org]</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_18_188222.31194992</id>
	<title>Re:Twisted pair, man</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1266508380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>Man, if I had that kind of money, an ass-house would be the last thing I'd spend it on.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Man , if I had that kind of money , an ass-house would be the last thing I 'd spend it on .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Man, if I had that kind of money, an ass-house would be the last thing I'd spend it on.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_18_188222.31187408</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_18_188222.31187820</id>
	<title>Got it</title>
	<author>AP31R0N</author>
	<datestamp>1266521700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>1) Buy a Delorean<br>2) Install flux capacitor<br>3) Drive 88 MPH<br>4) Go back to the coax era<br>5) Don't come back</p><p>or</p><p>Get rid of the early 90's tech.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>1 ) Buy a Delorean2 ) Install flux capacitor3 ) Drive 88 MPH4 ) Go back to the coax era5 ) Do n't come backorGet rid of the early 90 's tech .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>1) Buy a Delorean2) Install flux capacitor3) Drive 88 MPH4) Go back to the coax era5) Don't come backorGet rid of the early 90's tech.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_18_188222.31189842</id>
	<title>HPNA 3.0 or 3.1</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1266484440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>This is what HomePNA is for. The 3.0/3.1 spec provides for something like 200MB over coax. The adapters are generally simple bridge devices. You can have 20 devices on one segment.</p><p>It works great, I'm using it to distribute ethernet in my apartment for MythTV and other stuff best not run on wifi.</p><p>HPNA will play nice with DirecTV, Dish and other DSS/DBS equipment--but not with DOCSIS. Also, you may need to split the feed at the end for the adapter and a set top box--the passthrough sometimes doesn't work as advertised.</p><p>I also can't speak to compatibility with the new DirecTV SWM standards (or stackers/destackers--they may step on the freqs used by HPNA.)</p><p>The competing, less open standard is MOCA. MOCA is compatibile with DOCSIS but not with DSS/DBS (if I recall correctly.)</p><p>This is why cablecos use MOCA for triple-play services in homes, and satcos use HPNA.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>This is what HomePNA is for .
The 3.0/3.1 spec provides for something like 200MB over coax .
The adapters are generally simple bridge devices .
You can have 20 devices on one segment.It works great , I 'm using it to distribute ethernet in my apartment for MythTV and other stuff best not run on wifi.HPNA will play nice with DirecTV , Dish and other DSS/DBS equipment--but not with DOCSIS .
Also , you may need to split the feed at the end for the adapter and a set top box--the passthrough sometimes does n't work as advertised.I also ca n't speak to compatibility with the new DirecTV SWM standards ( or stackers/destackers--they may step on the freqs used by HPNA .
) The competing , less open standard is MOCA .
MOCA is compatibile with DOCSIS but not with DSS/DBS ( if I recall correctly .
) This is why cablecos use MOCA for triple-play services in homes , and satcos use HPNA .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This is what HomePNA is for.
The 3.0/3.1 spec provides for something like 200MB over coax.
The adapters are generally simple bridge devices.
You can have 20 devices on one segment.It works great, I'm using it to distribute ethernet in my apartment for MythTV and other stuff best not run on wifi.HPNA will play nice with DirecTV, Dish and other DSS/DBS equipment--but not with DOCSIS.
Also, you may need to split the feed at the end for the adapter and a set top box--the passthrough sometimes doesn't work as advertised.I also can't speak to compatibility with the new DirecTV SWM standards (or stackers/destackers--they may step on the freqs used by HPNA.
)The competing, less open standard is MOCA.
MOCA is compatibile with DOCSIS but not with DSS/DBS (if I recall correctly.
)This is why cablecos use MOCA for triple-play services in homes, and satcos use HPNA.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_18_188222.31187408</id>
	<title>Twisted pair, man</title>
	<author>Spy Handler</author>
	<datestamp>1266520560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>100mb ethernet is four wires, yes? And I have four wires for every two coax cables.</p></div><p>
The four wires in your coax are not twisted. It's not gonna work.<br> <br>
Pay $100 for those coax-ethernet transceiver things, or string some Cat5e. Seriously, if you can afford to buy a big ass house then what's another couple hundred??</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>100mb ethernet is four wires , yes ?
And I have four wires for every two coax cables .
The four wires in your coax are not twisted .
It 's not gon na work .
Pay $ 100 for those coax-ethernet transceiver things , or string some Cat5e .
Seriously , if you can afford to buy a big ass house then what 's another couple hundred ?
?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>100mb ethernet is four wires, yes?
And I have four wires for every two coax cables.
The four wires in your coax are not twisted.
It's not gonna work.
Pay $100 for those coax-ethernet transceiver things, or string some Cat5e.
Seriously, if you can afford to buy a big ass house then what's another couple hundred?
?
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_18_188222.31189012</id>
	<title>Re:Stop wasting your time</title>
	<author>III Man</author>
	<datestamp>1266525360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Actually, you can get this to work, using HPNA adapters.  It actually does work pretty well (I think it can get to 100 Mbit) IF you make each connection PERFECTLY.  That involves using connectors with compression connections (as opposed to crimped), and using a wrench to correctly torque every single connection, every time.

That being said, I completely agree with rickb928: Go CAT-5 or better and avoid the hassle.  Better yet, go wireless and get some repeaters.  The money you spend will be a great investment over time in avoiding hassle.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Actually , you can get this to work , using HPNA adapters .
It actually does work pretty well ( I think it can get to 100 Mbit ) IF you make each connection PERFECTLY .
That involves using connectors with compression connections ( as opposed to crimped ) , and using a wrench to correctly torque every single connection , every time .
That being said , I completely agree with rickb928 : Go CAT-5 or better and avoid the hassle .
Better yet , go wireless and get some repeaters .
The money you spend will be a great investment over time in avoiding hassle .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Actually, you can get this to work, using HPNA adapters.
It actually does work pretty well (I think it can get to 100 Mbit) IF you make each connection PERFECTLY.
That involves using connectors with compression connections (as opposed to crimped), and using a wrench to correctly torque every single connection, every time.
That being said, I completely agree with rickb928: Go CAT-5 or better and avoid the hassle.
Better yet, go wireless and get some repeaters.
The money you spend will be a great investment over time in avoiding hassle.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_18_188222.31188024</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_18_188222.31195812</id>
	<title>Thin Ethernet</title>
	<author>Baloo Uriza</author>
	<datestamp>1266515880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/10BASE2" title="wikipedia.org" rel="nofollow">10BASE2</a> [wikipedia.org] is always a possibility if you don't mind going back to the 1990s and 1Mbps LAN speeds...</htmltext>
<tokenext>10BASE2 [ wikipedia.org ] is always a possibility if you do n't mind going back to the 1990s and 1Mbps LAN speeds.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>10BASE2 [wikipedia.org] is always a possibility if you don't mind going back to the 1990s and 1Mbps LAN speeds...</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_18_188222.31188198</id>
	<title>electromagnetics</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1266523020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>What, no talk of the electromagnetics? This could be a fun experiment.</p><p>From what I remember, twisted pair uses differential signaling. The magnetic fields oppose and cancel each other and the electric field is contained in the gap between the conductors. The proximity between the conductors also means they tend to experience the same interference. What is important is that the difference in potential between the two conductors remains pretty much the same even if both have big changes in their potential relative to a fixed potential (eg ground)</p><p>Coax works entirely different using a fixed reference for the shield and the center conductor for signal. The cylindrical geometry means that the electric field is set up in a radial pattern and the magnetic field is normal to the radius. This contains the fields in the insulation of the coax and blocks outside interference.</p><p>So, in theory, if you had a transceiver, you could get away with using just 2 of the cables, 1 if you turn off full duplex. But the only ones I have ever seen were for 'thicknet', ran at 10Mb, and connected via AUI.<br>But I have no idea what the bandwidth of the cables are, or how the waveform used for twisted pair comes into play on the coax (it's not strait digital, at the very least, the clock is encoded into the signal, and I think it uses pulse amplitude modulation).</p><p>For fun, you could try using the center of each coax cable for each of the 4 wires used in 100BASE-TX to see what happens. But I suspect there will be issues with the signal from each half of the pair arriving at different times and screwing up the data.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>What , no talk of the electromagnetics ?
This could be a fun experiment.From what I remember , twisted pair uses differential signaling .
The magnetic fields oppose and cancel each other and the electric field is contained in the gap between the conductors .
The proximity between the conductors also means they tend to experience the same interference .
What is important is that the difference in potential between the two conductors remains pretty much the same even if both have big changes in their potential relative to a fixed potential ( eg ground ) Coax works entirely different using a fixed reference for the shield and the center conductor for signal .
The cylindrical geometry means that the electric field is set up in a radial pattern and the magnetic field is normal to the radius .
This contains the fields in the insulation of the coax and blocks outside interference.So , in theory , if you had a transceiver , you could get away with using just 2 of the cables , 1 if you turn off full duplex .
But the only ones I have ever seen were for 'thicknet ' , ran at 10Mb , and connected via AUI.But I have no idea what the bandwidth of the cables are , or how the waveform used for twisted pair comes into play on the coax ( it 's not strait digital , at the very least , the clock is encoded into the signal , and I think it uses pulse amplitude modulation ) .For fun , you could try using the center of each coax cable for each of the 4 wires used in 100BASE-TX to see what happens .
But I suspect there will be issues with the signal from each half of the pair arriving at different times and screwing up the data .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>What, no talk of the electromagnetics?
This could be a fun experiment.From what I remember, twisted pair uses differential signaling.
The magnetic fields oppose and cancel each other and the electric field is contained in the gap between the conductors.
The proximity between the conductors also means they tend to experience the same interference.
What is important is that the difference in potential between the two conductors remains pretty much the same even if both have big changes in their potential relative to a fixed potential (eg ground)Coax works entirely different using a fixed reference for the shield and the center conductor for signal.
The cylindrical geometry means that the electric field is set up in a radial pattern and the magnetic field is normal to the radius.
This contains the fields in the insulation of the coax and blocks outside interference.So, in theory, if you had a transceiver, you could get away with using just 2 of the cables, 1 if you turn off full duplex.
But the only ones I have ever seen were for 'thicknet', ran at 10Mb, and connected via AUI.But I have no idea what the bandwidth of the cables are, or how the waveform used for twisted pair comes into play on the coax (it's not strait digital, at the very least, the clock is encoded into the signal, and I think it uses pulse amplitude modulation).For fun, you could try using the center of each coax cable for each of the 4 wires used in 100BASE-TX to see what happens.
But I suspect there will be issues with the signal from each half of the pair arriving at different times and screwing up the data.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_18_188222.31188788</id>
	<title>pull more cable</title>
	<author>confused one</author>
	<datestamp>1266524760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Just pull CAT 5e.  It's not that much work.  </p><p>I know I'm being redundant; but, it's in the hopes you'll get the message.p&gt;</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Just pull CAT 5e .
It 's not that much work .
I know I 'm being redundant ; but , it 's in the hopes you 'll get the message.p &gt;</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Just pull CAT 5e.
It's not that much work.
I know I'm being redundant; but, it's in the hopes you'll get the message.p&gt;</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_18_188222.31188612</id>
	<title>Re:Related Questions</title>
	<author>vhfer</author>
	<datestamp>1266524160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>What kind of connectivity? My crystal ball being a little cloudy at the moment, I'd say PVC PIPE! Then you can put anything in it you want, any time.</htmltext>
<tokenext>What kind of connectivity ?
My crystal ball being a little cloudy at the moment , I 'd say PVC PIPE !
Then you can put anything in it you want , any time .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>What kind of connectivity?
My crystal ball being a little cloudy at the moment, I'd say PVC PIPE!
Then you can put anything in it you want, any time.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_18_188222.31187546</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_18_188222.31191268</id>
	<title>A cheaper solution</title>
	<author>SnarfQuest</author>
	<datestamp>1266488460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Instead of trying to muck around with using cables to do something they weren't designed to do, why not just buy some WIFI gear? You will get supported equipment, you don't have to screw around with soldering irons, you'll get faster access (100+mb versus 10-mb), and don't have to worry about what to do if any of the hard to find equipment ever fails.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Instead of trying to muck around with using cables to do something they were n't designed to do , why not just buy some WIFI gear ?
You will get supported equipment , you do n't have to screw around with soldering irons , you 'll get faster access ( 100 + mb versus 10-mb ) , and do n't have to worry about what to do if any of the hard to find equipment ever fails .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Instead of trying to muck around with using cables to do something they weren't designed to do, why not just buy some WIFI gear?
You will get supported equipment, you don't have to screw around with soldering irons, you'll get faster access (100+mb versus 10-mb), and don't have to worry about what to do if any of the hard to find equipment ever fails.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_18_188222.31189788</id>
	<title>Re:MoCa</title>
	<author>rawler</author>
	<datestamp>1266484260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I agree with parent.</p><p>I work for a large TV Broadcast Company operating over both Cable and IPTV.</p><p>A few years ago, we did extensive testing of the products of Quiqom (now Dican) with IPTV as payload. After a few initial hickups that were fixed in firmware, we eventually were able to stream 8 TV-channels, with FTP:ing and Torrents as background-noise, and with zero packet-loss or bit-errors. (And marginal delays, even though I don't recollect specifics). I were amazed to see how well it worked. At the end, I could not come up with any reasonable load to break the thing. (Wild torrenting, heavy load, peeling of parts of the isolation of the cable...)</p><p>I'm not sure if their products can be bought outside Sweden, let alone by home users (they're really for Network Operators), but if their MoCa-based product works that great, I'd say there's a fair chance others may as well.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I agree with parent.I work for a large TV Broadcast Company operating over both Cable and IPTV.A few years ago , we did extensive testing of the products of Quiqom ( now Dican ) with IPTV as payload .
After a few initial hickups that were fixed in firmware , we eventually were able to stream 8 TV-channels , with FTP : ing and Torrents as background-noise , and with zero packet-loss or bit-errors .
( And marginal delays , even though I do n't recollect specifics ) .
I were amazed to see how well it worked .
At the end , I could not come up with any reasonable load to break the thing .
( Wild torrenting , heavy load , peeling of parts of the isolation of the cable... ) I 'm not sure if their products can be bought outside Sweden , let alone by home users ( they 're really for Network Operators ) , but if their MoCa-based product works that great , I 'd say there 's a fair chance others may as well .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I agree with parent.I work for a large TV Broadcast Company operating over both Cable and IPTV.A few years ago, we did extensive testing of the products of Quiqom (now Dican) with IPTV as payload.
After a few initial hickups that were fixed in firmware, we eventually were able to stream 8 TV-channels, with FTP:ing and Torrents as background-noise, and with zero packet-loss or bit-errors.
(And marginal delays, even though I don't recollect specifics).
I were amazed to see how well it worked.
At the end, I could not come up with any reasonable load to break the thing.
(Wild torrenting, heavy load, peeling of parts of the isolation of the cable...)I'm not sure if their products can be bought outside Sweden, let alone by home users (they're really for Network Operators), but if their MoCa-based product works that great, I'd say there's a fair chance others may as well.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_18_188222.31187470</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_18_188222.31188318</id>
	<title>100Mb/s coax (or even 50)using DOCIS?</title>
	<author>Danathar</author>
	<datestamp>1266523320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>So if the cable companies can do it why can't somebody do coax at 100Mb inside the home? (theoretically speaking)</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>So if the cable companies can do it why ca n't somebody do coax at 100Mb inside the home ?
( theoretically speaking )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>So if the cable companies can do it why can't somebody do coax at 100Mb inside the home?
(theoretically speaking)</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_18_188222.31189512</id>
	<title>Baluns or wireless</title>
	<author>ubergeek65536</author>
	<datestamp>1266526680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>You can transmit a wireless AP signal through the coax.  75ohm coax will result in some signal loss but it will work for your needs.</p><p><a href="http://flakey.info/antenna/waveguide/" title="flakey.info" rel="nofollow">http://flakey.info/antenna/waveguide/</a> [flakey.info]</p><p>or use a balun to match the impedance or use one of these.</p><p><a href="http://www.etslan.com/Ethernet.htm" title="etslan.com" rel="nofollow">http://www.etslan.com/Ethernet.htm</a> [etslan.com]</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>You can transmit a wireless AP signal through the coax .
75ohm coax will result in some signal loss but it will work for your needs.http : //flakey.info/antenna/waveguide/ [ flakey.info ] or use a balun to match the impedance or use one of these.http : //www.etslan.com/Ethernet.htm [ etslan.com ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You can transmit a wireless AP signal through the coax.
75ohm coax will result in some signal loss but it will work for your needs.http://flakey.info/antenna/waveguide/ [flakey.info]or use a balun to match the impedance or use one of these.http://www.etslan.com/Ethernet.htm [etslan.com]</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_18_188222.31187682</id>
	<title>Clarification</title>
	<author>alop</author>
	<datestamp>1266521340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Just wanted to clarify that Ethernet refers to a standard, not a cable. You can have ethernet over UTP, coax, fiber, etc...</p><p>If the coax in your walls is RG6, that's probably better than Cat5.<br>Homes with Fios or UVerse have nifty little coax to rj45 boxes that allow for the home networking setup.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Just wanted to clarify that Ethernet refers to a standard , not a cable .
You can have ethernet over UTP , coax , fiber , etc...If the coax in your walls is RG6 , that 's probably better than Cat5.Homes with Fios or UVerse have nifty little coax to rj45 boxes that allow for the home networking setup .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Just wanted to clarify that Ethernet refers to a standard, not a cable.
You can have ethernet over UTP, coax, fiber, etc...If the coax in your walls is RG6, that's probably better than Cat5.Homes with Fios or UVerse have nifty little coax to rj45 boxes that allow for the home networking setup.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_18_188222.31189714</id>
	<title>Re:Stop wasting your time</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1266484020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>BS.  I use a Gefen Ethernet over Coax and it works great!  There is a limitation of 4 ethernet outputs per receiver, so you might need more receivers.  Note that both included units can transmit and/or receive.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>BS .
I use a Gefen Ethernet over Coax and it works great !
There is a limitation of 4 ethernet outputs per receiver , so you might need more receivers .
Note that both included units can transmit and/or receive .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>BS.
I use a Gefen Ethernet over Coax and it works great!
There is a limitation of 4 ethernet outputs per receiver, so you might need more receivers.
Note that both included units can transmit and/or receive.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_18_188222.31188024</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_18_188222.31187392</id>
	<title>pull lines</title>
	<author>sl0ppy</author>
	<datestamp>1266520440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Redundant</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>why not just use the existing coax cable as pull lines and replace them with cat5e?</p><p>should end up being cheaper than building out some weird hybrid solution.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>why not just use the existing coax cable as pull lines and replace them with cat5e ? should end up being cheaper than building out some weird hybrid solution .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>why not just use the existing coax cable as pull lines and replace them with cat5e?should end up being cheaper than building out some weird hybrid solution.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_18_188222.31187588</id>
	<title>Re:ATT Uverse runs over coax</title>
	<author>jeffmeden</author>
	<datestamp>1266521100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Despite your humility, you may have in fact contributed something.  If the OP doesn't want to invest money or significant time (if the house is indeed large the odds of using the coax as a pull string are very very low)...  Then he can always just subscribe to a service that accomplishes exactly what he wants.  While not the cheapest thing around, ATT will give you all the gear you need to make use of your coax.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Despite your humility , you may have in fact contributed something .
If the OP does n't want to invest money or significant time ( if the house is indeed large the odds of using the coax as a pull string are very very low ) ... Then he can always just subscribe to a service that accomplishes exactly what he wants .
While not the cheapest thing around , ATT will give you all the gear you need to make use of your coax .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Despite your humility, you may have in fact contributed something.
If the OP doesn't want to invest money or significant time (if the house is indeed large the odds of using the coax as a pull string are very very low)...  Then he can always just subscribe to a service that accomplishes exactly what he wants.
While not the cheapest thing around, ATT will give you all the gear you need to make use of your coax.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_18_188222.31187370</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_18_188222.31187716</id>
	<title>Re:Twisted pair, man</title>
	<author>Grishnakh</author>
	<datestamp>1266521400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>They don't have to be twisted; they're shielded, which is generally even better.  Of course, there's really only one wire in each coax cable (plus a shield).</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>They do n't have to be twisted ; they 're shielded , which is generally even better .
Of course , there 's really only one wire in each coax cable ( plus a shield ) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>They don't have to be twisted; they're shielded, which is generally even better.
Of course, there's really only one wire in each coax cable (plus a shield).</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_18_188222.31187408</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_18_188222.31187412</id>
	<title>d-link and netgear</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1266520560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>both D-link and netgear make MoCA boxes that can be  placed at each end of coax to convert ethernet.</p><p>www.netgear.com\%2FProducts\%2FPowerlineNetworking\%2FCoax\%2FMCAB1001.aspx&amp;ei=wYN9S4-cOovUnAf\_g-jXBw&amp;usg=AFQjCNGap3DaokxxUbp8WxstG9dTTJTKUg&amp;sig2=3YsnMh9tv1myz4zsV6qHlw</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>both D-link and netgear make MoCA boxes that can be placed at each end of coax to convert ethernet.www.netgear.com \ % 2FProducts \ % 2FPowerlineNetworking \ % 2FCoax \ % 2FMCAB1001.aspx&amp;ei = wYN9S4-cOovUnAf \ _g-jXBw&amp;usg = AFQjCNGap3DaokxxUbp8WxstG9dTTJTKUg&amp;sig2 = 3YsnMh9tv1myz4zsV6qHlw</tokentext>
<sentencetext>both D-link and netgear make MoCA boxes that can be  placed at each end of coax to convert ethernet.www.netgear.com\%2FProducts\%2FPowerlineNetworking\%2FCoax\%2FMCAB1001.aspx&amp;ei=wYN9S4-cOovUnAf\_g-jXBw&amp;usg=AFQjCNGap3DaokxxUbp8WxstG9dTTJTKUg&amp;sig2=3YsnMh9tv1myz4zsV6qHlw</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_18_188222.31187598</id>
	<title>Also highly recommend pulling UTP but if you must-</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1266521100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Coax would require a different signalling protocol to allow 100Mbps service over untwisted wires.  Several companies have developed products to try to fulfill this niche market such as DLink with the DXN-221 which allows around 220Mbps over coax.  The cost alone would likely make you reconsider pulling your own UTP cables.  There are many creative ways to rewire a house and trust me, its worth it in the end.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Coax would require a different signalling protocol to allow 100Mbps service over untwisted wires .
Several companies have developed products to try to fulfill this niche market such as DLink with the DXN-221 which allows around 220Mbps over coax .
The cost alone would likely make you reconsider pulling your own UTP cables .
There are many creative ways to rewire a house and trust me , its worth it in the end .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Coax would require a different signalling protocol to allow 100Mbps service over untwisted wires.
Several companies have developed products to try to fulfill this niche market such as DLink with the DXN-221 which allows around 220Mbps over coax.
The cost alone would likely make you reconsider pulling your own UTP cables.
There are many creative ways to rewire a house and trust me, its worth it in the end.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_18_188222.31205684</id>
	<title>CMTS oh yeah,</title>
	<author>almondo</author>
	<datestamp>1266581340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>No problem, put a cmts head end in your garage and a cable modem in every room, fire up DOCSIS and start charging your kids for network service.   "Uh, yeah, you can get unlimited bandwidth for $99, oh and bundles, we have bundles too.."  Bundle up, cough up,  it beuuutiful. "Sorry we spontaneously reset Bit Torrents..."</p><p>BPFH (bastard parent from hello operator, give me number nine)</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>No problem , put a cmts head end in your garage and a cable modem in every room , fire up DOCSIS and start charging your kids for network service .
" Uh , yeah , you can get unlimited bandwidth for $ 99 , oh and bundles , we have bundles too.. " Bundle up , cough up , it beuuutiful .
" Sorry we spontaneously reset Bit Torrents... " BPFH ( bastard parent from hello operator , give me number nine )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>No problem, put a cmts head end in your garage and a cable modem in every room, fire up DOCSIS and start charging your kids for network service.
"Uh, yeah, you can get unlimited bandwidth for $99, oh and bundles, we have bundles too.."  Bundle up, cough up,  it beuuutiful.
"Sorry we spontaneously reset Bit Torrents..."BPFH (bastard parent from hello operator, give me number nine)</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_18_188222.31190524</id>
	<title>Re:Another alternative</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1266486180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>CAUTION!<br>Ring signals on a telephone line are 90 volts or higher. That means as soon as someone calls you, you could/will fry your ethernet ports. If you do this, use equipment designed for the purpose or learn to like the smell of burning electronics.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>CAUTION ! Ring signals on a telephone line are 90 volts or higher .
That means as soon as someone calls you , you could/will fry your ethernet ports .
If you do this , use equipment designed for the purpose or learn to like the smell of burning electronics .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>CAUTION!Ring signals on a telephone line are 90 volts or higher.
That means as soon as someone calls you, you could/will fry your ethernet ports.
If you do this, use equipment designed for the purpose or learn to like the smell of burning electronics.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_18_188222.31187824</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_18_188222.31188242</id>
	<title>Re:Cat5e vs Cat6?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1266523140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Because I didn't get a free spool of new, unused Cat6 cable that was being thrown out from work.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Because I did n't get a free spool of new , unused Cat6 cable that was being thrown out from work .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Because I didn't get a free spool of new, unused Cat6 cable that was being thrown out from work.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_18_188222.31187540</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_18_188222.31187594</id>
	<title>Rewiring is your best option.</title>
	<author>getclear</author>
	<datestamp>1266521100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>First, any ethernet media converters you with coaxial as the medium, are going to be 10BASE-T 10Mbit connections.  You will no longer be able to utilize 100Mbit across ethernet.  Second, attempting to solder the wires from a twisted pair cable, and pinning it out over 4 shielded coaxial cables, is going to result in an extreme signal degredation and is completely out of the picture as a viable option.  The posters above me stated that using one of the original coaxial cable as a base for pulling a snagless Cat5e/6 cable, and that is the direction that you need to take.  If that is not an option, perhaps do some research and invest in a wireless setup that will suit your living area.
<br> <br>
In summary, please, don't solder an RJ-45 connecter and the 2 relevant pairs to 4 coaxial cables.  Please?<br> <br>
If you do, please, send pictures.</htmltext>
<tokenext>First , any ethernet media converters you with coaxial as the medium , are going to be 10BASE-T 10Mbit connections .
You will no longer be able to utilize 100Mbit across ethernet .
Second , attempting to solder the wires from a twisted pair cable , and pinning it out over 4 shielded coaxial cables , is going to result in an extreme signal degredation and is completely out of the picture as a viable option .
The posters above me stated that using one of the original coaxial cable as a base for pulling a snagless Cat5e/6 cable , and that is the direction that you need to take .
If that is not an option , perhaps do some research and invest in a wireless setup that will suit your living area .
In summary , please , do n't solder an RJ-45 connecter and the 2 relevant pairs to 4 coaxial cables .
Please ? If you do , please , send pictures .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>First, any ethernet media converters you with coaxial as the medium, are going to be 10BASE-T 10Mbit connections.
You will no longer be able to utilize 100Mbit across ethernet.
Second, attempting to solder the wires from a twisted pair cable, and pinning it out over 4 shielded coaxial cables, is going to result in an extreme signal degredation and is completely out of the picture as a viable option.
The posters above me stated that using one of the original coaxial cable as a base for pulling a snagless Cat5e/6 cable, and that is the direction that you need to take.
If that is not an option, perhaps do some research and invest in a wireless setup that will suit your living area.
In summary, please, don't solder an RJ-45 connecter and the 2 relevant pairs to 4 coaxial cables.
Please? 
If you do, please, send pictures.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_18_188222.31191892</id>
	<title>Re:Another alternative</title>
	<author>Chuk</author>
	<datestamp>1266490920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>We did that too in our house (~9 years old). In Canada if that makes a difference.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>We did that too in our house ( ~ 9 years old ) .
In Canada if that makes a difference .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>We did that too in our house (~9 years old).
In Canada if that makes a difference.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_18_188222.31187824</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_18_188222.31196130</id>
	<title>i think so</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1266520860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Im pretty sure this would work, from a tech point of view cat5 is just 8 wires, if you split it up it shouldnt be a problem. The twists in cat5 are just there to reduce crosstalk between the pairs so i dont think that would be an issue. Im pretty sure you will get a good signal across the middle cable of your coax but im not so sure if you will be able to use the outer shield as part of your pair, you may be able to but from memory only the middle in a coax cable is used for data in 10BASE-T</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Im pretty sure this would work , from a tech point of view cat5 is just 8 wires , if you split it up it shouldnt be a problem .
The twists in cat5 are just there to reduce crosstalk between the pairs so i dont think that would be an issue .
Im pretty sure you will get a good signal across the middle cable of your coax but im not so sure if you will be able to use the outer shield as part of your pair , you may be able to but from memory only the middle in a coax cable is used for data in 10BASE-T</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Im pretty sure this would work, from a tech point of view cat5 is just 8 wires, if you split it up it shouldnt be a problem.
The twists in cat5 are just there to reduce crosstalk between the pairs so i dont think that would be an issue.
Im pretty sure you will get a good signal across the middle cable of your coax but im not so sure if you will be able to use the outer shield as part of your pair, you may be able to but from memory only the middle in a coax cable is used for data in 10BASE-T</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_18_188222.31200278</id>
	<title>8 wires</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1266599880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>ethernet has 8 wires and why dont use us a cable modem??</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>ethernet has 8 wires and why dont use us a cable modem ?
?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>ethernet has 8 wires and why dont use us a cable modem?
?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_18_188222.31187580</id>
	<title>Powerline Networking</title>
	<author>rustutzman</author>
	<datestamp>1266521040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>How about Powerline Networking? See <a href="http://www.netgear.com/Products/PowerlineNetworking/PowerlineEthernetAdapters/HDXB101.aspx" title="netgear.com" rel="nofollow">http://www.netgear.com/Products/PowerlineNetworking/PowerlineEthernetAdapters/HDXB101.aspx</a> [netgear.com]

Russ</htmltext>
<tokenext>How about Powerline Networking ?
See http : //www.netgear.com/Products/PowerlineNetworking/PowerlineEthernetAdapters/HDXB101.aspx [ netgear.com ] Russ</tokentext>
<sentencetext>How about Powerline Networking?
See http://www.netgear.com/Products/PowerlineNetworking/PowerlineEthernetAdapters/HDXB101.aspx [netgear.com]

Russ</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_18_188222.31187446</id>
	<title>Bite the bullet!</title>
	<author>CyberBill</author>
	<datestamp>1266520680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>Cat5 cable is what they call "UTP" - Unshielded Twisted Pair.  Essentially, the losses and electrical noise of each pair of wires is canceled out because instead of comparing individual voltages, they compare differences of voltages between each wire in the pair.  If you try to hook up an ethernet cable pair using a coax wire, you're going to end up with one wire (the shield) picking up the electrical noise and the inside wire won't pick up the noise.  This is going to just make not work well.  It'll work for short distances (just like if you crimp an ethernet cable but mess up the coloring so the pairs aren't matched) but over long distances of 20+ feet, it is just going to crap out.<br> <br>
PLUS...  Dude, you're going to want gigabit eventually - and it uses 8 wires and is even more sensitive.<br> <br>
Bite the bullet - use the coax as a guide and hook up an ethernet jack in every room that needs one.  Use CAT-5E cable or CAT-6 cable so gigabit connections will work.  And then buy yourself a gigabit switch, and piggy back it onto your WRT54G to handle the internet routing (or buy a gigabit router).  Good luck!</htmltext>
<tokenext>Cat5 cable is what they call " UTP " - Unshielded Twisted Pair .
Essentially , the losses and electrical noise of each pair of wires is canceled out because instead of comparing individual voltages , they compare differences of voltages between each wire in the pair .
If you try to hook up an ethernet cable pair using a coax wire , you 're going to end up with one wire ( the shield ) picking up the electrical noise and the inside wire wo n't pick up the noise .
This is going to just make not work well .
It 'll work for short distances ( just like if you crimp an ethernet cable but mess up the coloring so the pairs are n't matched ) but over long distances of 20 + feet , it is just going to crap out .
PLUS... Dude , you 're going to want gigabit eventually - and it uses 8 wires and is even more sensitive .
Bite the bullet - use the coax as a guide and hook up an ethernet jack in every room that needs one .
Use CAT-5E cable or CAT-6 cable so gigabit connections will work .
And then buy yourself a gigabit switch , and piggy back it onto your WRT54G to handle the internet routing ( or buy a gigabit router ) .
Good luck !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Cat5 cable is what they call "UTP" - Unshielded Twisted Pair.
Essentially, the losses and electrical noise of each pair of wires is canceled out because instead of comparing individual voltages, they compare differences of voltages between each wire in the pair.
If you try to hook up an ethernet cable pair using a coax wire, you're going to end up with one wire (the shield) picking up the electrical noise and the inside wire won't pick up the noise.
This is going to just make not work well.
It'll work for short distances (just like if you crimp an ethernet cable but mess up the coloring so the pairs aren't matched) but over long distances of 20+ feet, it is just going to crap out.
PLUS...  Dude, you're going to want gigabit eventually - and it uses 8 wires and is even more sensitive.
Bite the bullet - use the coax as a guide and hook up an ethernet jack in every room that needs one.
Use CAT-5E cable or CAT-6 cable so gigabit connections will work.
And then buy yourself a gigabit switch, and piggy back it onto your WRT54G to handle the internet routing (or buy a gigabit router).
Good luck!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_18_188222.31193088</id>
	<title>Re:Stop wasting your time</title>
	<author>adolf</author>
	<datestamp>1266496680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Cannot?  Ever?  DOCSIS, anyone?</p><p>Others have mentioned HPNA, which also works fine on old wire, even with splitters and such buried in the walls, and RG-59 with crimped-on terminals.  A good friend of mine is actually using it this way at his house, which I cabled myself a long time ago (before I knew better).</p><p>Here are some <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HPNA#Advantages" title="wikipedia.org">specs</a> [wikipedia.org]:</p><p>Coexists with TV signals.<br>320Mbit/second.<br>QoS.<br>64 devices on a segment.<br>Thousands of feet (!) of distance over coax*.</p><p>Of course, it's always better to pull in some Cat5e or somesuch.  But not everyone wants to be a residential data networking installer in their spare time, which is loathsome work in most finished houses.</p><p>*:  Which is really interesting.  Even if it's a lie by an order of magnitude, or is based on best-case scenarios, it's easy to extrapolate that worst case (old RG-59, stapled wrongly, tired connections, sharp bends) is still pretty fucking useful.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Can not ?
Ever ? DOCSIS , anyone ? Others have mentioned HPNA , which also works fine on old wire , even with splitters and such buried in the walls , and RG-59 with crimped-on terminals .
A good friend of mine is actually using it this way at his house , which I cabled myself a long time ago ( before I knew better ) .Here are some specs [ wikipedia.org ] : Coexists with TV signals.320Mbit/second.QoS.64 devices on a segment.Thousands of feet ( !
) of distance over coax * .Of course , it 's always better to pull in some Cat5e or somesuch .
But not everyone wants to be a residential data networking installer in their spare time , which is loathsome work in most finished houses .
* : Which is really interesting .
Even if it 's a lie by an order of magnitude , or is based on best-case scenarios , it 's easy to extrapolate that worst case ( old RG-59 , stapled wrongly , tired connections , sharp bends ) is still pretty fucking useful .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Cannot?
Ever?  DOCSIS, anyone?Others have mentioned HPNA, which also works fine on old wire, even with splitters and such buried in the walls, and RG-59 with crimped-on terminals.
A good friend of mine is actually using it this way at his house, which I cabled myself a long time ago (before I knew better).Here are some specs [wikipedia.org]:Coexists with TV signals.320Mbit/second.QoS.64 devices on a segment.Thousands of feet (!
) of distance over coax*.Of course, it's always better to pull in some Cat5e or somesuch.
But not everyone wants to be a residential data networking installer in their spare time, which is loathsome work in most finished houses.
*:  Which is really interesting.
Even if it's a lie by an order of magnitude, or is based on best-case scenarios, it's easy to extrapolate that worst case (old RG-59, stapled wrongly, tired connections, sharp bends) is still pretty fucking useful.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_18_188222.31188024</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_18_188222.31188252</id>
	<title>Re:Twisted pair, man</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1266523200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>It wont work if he just connects the wires. what he wants is a balun, which converts the BALanced side (UTP) with the UNbalanced side (coax). The balun needs to properly impedance match, too. And still there's no guarantee that the quality of the coax is going to be sufficient for 100BaseT over large distances.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It wont work if he just connects the wires .
what he wants is a balun , which converts the BALanced side ( UTP ) with the UNbalanced side ( coax ) .
The balun needs to properly impedance match , too .
And still there 's no guarantee that the quality of the coax is going to be sufficient for 100BaseT over large distances .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It wont work if he just connects the wires.
what he wants is a balun, which converts the BALanced side (UTP) with the UNbalanced side (coax).
The balun needs to properly impedance match, too.
And still there's no guarantee that the quality of the coax is going to be sufficient for 100BaseT over large distances.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_18_188222.31187408</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_18_188222.31196578</id>
	<title>Re:Related Questions</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1266570120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Forget optical for a local network.  Like economical fusion power, it's always 20 years in the future.</p><p>20 years ago I worked in an office with fiber to the desktop.  After all, fiber was the future, right?  It turned out to be ungodly expensive with all the optical-to-thicknet transceivers needed for each computer/router/hub.  All for a whopping 10Mbps.</p><p>After sanity set in (years), the fiber was abandoned for UTP.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Forget optical for a local network .
Like economical fusion power , it 's always 20 years in the future.20 years ago I worked in an office with fiber to the desktop .
After all , fiber was the future , right ?
It turned out to be ungodly expensive with all the optical-to-thicknet transceivers needed for each computer/router/hub .
All for a whopping 10Mbps.After sanity set in ( years ) , the fiber was abandoned for UTP .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Forget optical for a local network.
Like economical fusion power, it's always 20 years in the future.20 years ago I worked in an office with fiber to the desktop.
After all, fiber was the future, right?
It turned out to be ungodly expensive with all the optical-to-thicknet transceivers needed for each computer/router/hub.
All for a whopping 10Mbps.After sanity set in (years), the fiber was abandoned for UTP.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_18_188222.31187546</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_18_188222.31193074</id>
	<title>Idea!</title>
	<author>multimediavt</author>
	<datestamp>1266496620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Redundant</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Use them to pull some nice Cat5e (or Cat6) of your own.  Those coaxial cables are pretty strong, and as long as they are not stapled to studs inside the wall you should be able to lop the connectors off the far end and pull some nice Cat5e/6 using the old coax as the puller.  Grip it and rip it, baby!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Use them to pull some nice Cat5e ( or Cat6 ) of your own .
Those coaxial cables are pretty strong , and as long as they are not stapled to studs inside the wall you should be able to lop the connectors off the far end and pull some nice Cat5e/6 using the old coax as the puller .
Grip it and rip it , baby !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Use them to pull some nice Cat5e (or Cat6) of your own.
Those coaxial cables are pretty strong, and as long as they are not stapled to studs inside the wall you should be able to lop the connectors off the far end and pull some nice Cat5e/6 using the old coax as the puller.
Grip it and rip it, baby!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_18_188222.31187882</id>
	<title>Try this</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1266521880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Try this:</p><p>http://www.netgear.com/Products/PowerlineNetworking/PowerlineEthernetAdapters/XE104.aspx</p><p>Turn Any Electrical Outlet into a Home Network Connection</p><p>
&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; * Extends home networks by using existing electrical wires<br>
&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; * Turns any outlet into four new Ethernet network connections<br>
&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; * Simple plug-and-play installation</p><p>Features</p><p>
&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; * Turns electrical sockets into home network/Internet points<br>
&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; * Delivers up to 85 Mbps wired speed<br>
&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; * Simply plug one XE104 into your router and a second XE104 into as many as 4 networked devices<br>
&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; * Connect desktop or laptop PCs, gaming consoles, network storage devices (NETGEAR SC101) or print server (NETGEAR PS121).<br>
&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; * Ideal for LAN gaming parties<br>
&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; * Supports Windows&#174; Vista</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Try this : http : //www.netgear.com/Products/PowerlineNetworking/PowerlineEthernetAdapters/XE104.aspxTurn Any Electrical Outlet into a Home Network Connection         * Extends home networks by using existing electrical wires         * Turns any outlet into four new Ethernet network connections         * Simple plug-and-play installationFeatures         * Turns electrical sockets into home network/Internet points         * Delivers up to 85 Mbps wired speed         * Simply plug one XE104 into your router and a second XE104 into as many as 4 networked devices         * Connect desktop or laptop PCs , gaming consoles , network storage devices ( NETGEAR SC101 ) or print server ( NETGEAR PS121 ) .
        * Ideal for LAN gaming parties         * Supports Windows   Vista</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Try this:http://www.netgear.com/Products/PowerlineNetworking/PowerlineEthernetAdapters/XE104.aspxTurn Any Electrical Outlet into a Home Network Connection
        * Extends home networks by using existing electrical wires
        * Turns any outlet into four new Ethernet network connections
        * Simple plug-and-play installationFeatures
        * Turns electrical sockets into home network/Internet points
        * Delivers up to 85 Mbps wired speed
        * Simply plug one XE104 into your router and a second XE104 into as many as 4 networked devices
        * Connect desktop or laptop PCs, gaming consoles, network storage devices (NETGEAR SC101) or print server (NETGEAR PS121).
        * Ideal for LAN gaming parties
        * Supports Windows® Vista</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_18_188222.31192532</id>
	<title>Time Machine</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1266494040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>"media server + squeezeboxes + remote time machine"</p><p>Maybe you can use your remote time machine to travel to the time of construction. Bring some ethernet with you...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>" media server + squeezeboxes + remote time machine " Maybe you can use your remote time machine to travel to the time of construction .
Bring some ethernet with you.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"media server + squeezeboxes + remote time machine"Maybe you can use your remote time machine to travel to the time of construction.
Bring some ethernet with you...</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_18_188222.31188152</id>
	<title>coax is really good cabling</title>
	<author>arkowitz</author>
	<datestamp>1266522900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Many years ago I was a network admin at a state agency which was converting from all 3270 (IBM mainframe terminal) wiring, which of course is coax - to IBM TokenRing, which started with expensive STP (shielded twisted pair) wiring but was transitioning to UTP.  There was a cool little device which would run the token ring over coax; it required two coax wires.  Worked great.
<br> <br>
Thing is, coax is great wiring - the shielding makes the signal run across the inner wire very clean.  This is why it is used for cable tv.  Cat5, I believe, is widely used not because it is better than coax but because it is cheaper.
<br> <br>
Still, as said by others, Ethernet over Cat5 goes as far as depending upon certain of the wires being twisted along with certain others.  Anyone who has crimped a rj45 knows that you can't even mix the pairs, let alone hook up to coax.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Many years ago I was a network admin at a state agency which was converting from all 3270 ( IBM mainframe terminal ) wiring , which of course is coax - to IBM TokenRing , which started with expensive STP ( shielded twisted pair ) wiring but was transitioning to UTP .
There was a cool little device which would run the token ring over coax ; it required two coax wires .
Worked great .
Thing is , coax is great wiring - the shielding makes the signal run across the inner wire very clean .
This is why it is used for cable tv .
Cat5 , I believe , is widely used not because it is better than coax but because it is cheaper .
Still , as said by others , Ethernet over Cat5 goes as far as depending upon certain of the wires being twisted along with certain others .
Anyone who has crimped a rj45 knows that you ca n't even mix the pairs , let alone hook up to coax .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Many years ago I was a network admin at a state agency which was converting from all 3270 (IBM mainframe terminal) wiring, which of course is coax - to IBM TokenRing, which started with expensive STP (shielded twisted pair) wiring but was transitioning to UTP.
There was a cool little device which would run the token ring over coax; it required two coax wires.
Worked great.
Thing is, coax is great wiring - the shielding makes the signal run across the inner wire very clean.
This is why it is used for cable tv.
Cat5, I believe, is widely used not because it is better than coax but because it is cheaper.
Still, as said by others, Ethernet over Cat5 goes as far as depending upon certain of the wires being twisted along with certain others.
Anyone who has crimped a rj45 knows that you can't even mix the pairs, let alone hook up to coax.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_18_188222.31188208</id>
	<title>Re:Cat5e vs Cat6?</title>
	<author>Zen-Mind</author>
	<datestamp>1266523020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Depending on the need and pricing of Cat6 cable, I would also lean toward Cat6. Both will do Gigabit, but I think Cat6 can also do 10Gbps, so it might last longer and prevent you from having to rewire your house in 3-5 years.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Depending on the need and pricing of Cat6 cable , I would also lean toward Cat6 .
Both will do Gigabit , but I think Cat6 can also do 10Gbps , so it might last longer and prevent you from having to rewire your house in 3-5 years .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Depending on the need and pricing of Cat6 cable, I would also lean toward Cat6.
Both will do Gigabit, but I think Cat6 can also do 10Gbps, so it might last longer and prevent you from having to rewire your house in 3-5 years.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_18_188222.31187540</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_18_188222.31190698</id>
	<title>Coax vs Twisted-Pair</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1266486660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>you cant sub two pairs of coax for 2 pairs of twisted pair.  actually, it might work, but only for really short distances....</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>you cant sub two pairs of coax for 2 pairs of twisted pair .
actually , it might work , but only for really short distances... .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>you cant sub two pairs of coax for 2 pairs of twisted pair.
actually, it might work, but only for really short distances....</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_18_188222.31187364</id>
	<title>use the coax to pull ethernet cables</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1266520380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Tie one end of the coax to an ethernet cable and use the coax to pull the ethernet cable through the walls to the attic.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Tie one end of the coax to an ethernet cable and use the coax to pull the ethernet cable through the walls to the attic .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Tie one end of the coax to an ethernet cable and use the coax to pull the ethernet cable through the walls to the attic.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_18_188222.31187928</id>
	<title>The internet is a series of tubes ...</title>
	<author>rrhal</author>
	<datestamp>1266522060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I would repurpose your plumbing if I were you.  After all the internet will get you through weeks of no showers better than daily showers will get you through weeks of no internet.
<p>
Fortunately the internet is not a big truck that you just dump something on.  Otherwise you would have to build roadways in your house.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I would repurpose your plumbing if I were you .
After all the internet will get you through weeks of no showers better than daily showers will get you through weeks of no internet .
Fortunately the internet is not a big truck that you just dump something on .
Otherwise you would have to build roadways in your house .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I would repurpose your plumbing if I were you.
After all the internet will get you through weeks of no showers better than daily showers will get you through weeks of no internet.
Fortunately the internet is not a big truck that you just dump something on.
Otherwise you would have to build roadways in your house.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_18_188222.31187640</id>
	<title>Coax to Ethernet Bridge</title>
	<author>cmholm</author>
	<datestamp>1266521220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The easiest way is to get some Ethernet to coax bridges: <a href="http://shop.ebay.com/i.html?\_kw=ethernet&amp;\_kw=coax" title="ebay.com">eBay</a> [ebay.com], <a href="http://www.google.com/search?client=safari&amp;rls=en&amp;q=ethernet+coax+bridge&amp;ie=UTF-8&amp;oe=UTF-8" title="google.com">Google</a> [google.com].</p><p>If you elect to replace the coax with Cat5 or Cat6, DO NOT try to pull it yourself. If you fuck it up, you'll end up paying someone else a lot more than if you just had an electrician do it in the first place.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The easiest way is to get some Ethernet to coax bridges : eBay [ ebay.com ] , Google [ google.com ] .If you elect to replace the coax with Cat5 or Cat6 , DO NOT try to pull it yourself .
If you fuck it up , you 'll end up paying someone else a lot more than if you just had an electrician do it in the first place .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The easiest way is to get some Ethernet to coax bridges: eBay [ebay.com], Google [google.com].If you elect to replace the coax with Cat5 or Cat6, DO NOT try to pull it yourself.
If you fuck it up, you'll end up paying someone else a lot more than if you just had an electrician do it in the first place.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_18_188222.31190716</id>
	<title>Almost there... Coax Transceiver</title>
	<author>Nethemas the Great</author>
	<datestamp>1266486660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Actually you were part way there...  There are consumer coax IP transceivers that you can <a href="http://www.vpi.us/eth-coax.html" title="www.vpi.us">buy</a> [www.vpi.us].  You'll have to run the math to decide whether it's more cost effective to pull CAT 5e/6 through the house (which could actually be pretty easy if you use the existing coax to pull it) or buy a coax transceiver.  Unless there's a persuasive reason against it, I personally would probably just set up 802.11n and pull CAT 5e/6 between the device(s) that actually need the speed.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Actually you were part way there... There are consumer coax IP transceivers that you can buy [ www.vpi.us ] .
You 'll have to run the math to decide whether it 's more cost effective to pull CAT 5e/6 through the house ( which could actually be pretty easy if you use the existing coax to pull it ) or buy a coax transceiver .
Unless there 's a persuasive reason against it , I personally would probably just set up 802.11n and pull CAT 5e/6 between the device ( s ) that actually need the speed .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Actually you were part way there...  There are consumer coax IP transceivers that you can buy [www.vpi.us].
You'll have to run the math to decide whether it's more cost effective to pull CAT 5e/6 through the house (which could actually be pretty easy if you use the existing coax to pull it) or buy a coax transceiver.
Unless there's a persuasive reason against it, I personally would probably just set up 802.11n and pull CAT 5e/6 between the device(s) that actually need the speed.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_18_188222.31187370</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_18_188222.31187388</id>
	<title>Pull in fresh cat5e?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1266520440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Why can't you tie a box of cat5e on a coax cable in your living room, then go to your attic and pull the coax (and cat5) up together?  Or just go to the attic and fish down cat5 wherever you actually want it?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Why ca n't you tie a box of cat5e on a coax cable in your living room , then go to your attic and pull the coax ( and cat5 ) up together ?
Or just go to the attic and fish down cat5 wherever you actually want it ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Why can't you tie a box of cat5e on a coax cable in your living room, then go to your attic and pull the coax (and cat5) up together?
Or just go to the attic and fish down cat5 wherever you actually want it?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_18_188222.31189176</id>
	<title>Re:Related Questions</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1266525780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I'd make sure you set up conduit for the intending drops, then pull the cable yourself later. Contractors charge far too much money to pull telecomm and coax lines in a house.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'd make sure you set up conduit for the intending drops , then pull the cable yourself later .
Contractors charge far too much money to pull telecomm and coax lines in a house .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'd make sure you set up conduit for the intending drops, then pull the cable yourself later.
Contractors charge far too much money to pull telecomm and coax lines in a house.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_18_188222.31187546</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_18_188222.31191930</id>
	<title>Re:Related Questions</title>
	<author>AJ Mexico</author>
	<datestamp>1266491040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Whatever cable types I chose, I would make sure to terminate them all in a single, central wiring panel or closet. So you can patch and mix and match later on if you change your mind about what room needs to be wired to what room.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Whatever cable types I chose , I would make sure to terminate them all in a single , central wiring panel or closet .
So you can patch and mix and match later on if you change your mind about what room needs to be wired to what room .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Whatever cable types I chose, I would make sure to terminate them all in a single, central wiring panel or closet.
So you can patch and mix and match later on if you change your mind about what room needs to be wired to what room.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_18_188222.31187546</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_18_188222.31188038</id>
	<title>lots of cat5/6</title>
	<author>Brit\_in\_the\_USA</author>
	<datestamp>1266522360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I deiced on a house before the sheet rock went in. So I had Coax and Cat5 routed to every room (x2 for the office). Usually in different locations at my best guess of where a TV and a PC/telephone might be. It was well worth it. In hind-site I would have put more than one run to a room (e.g. opposite walls to cover more layout possibilities). I might have even put more cat5 in for other applications such as serial, IR routers, sensors / hacks, USB extenders etc.<br> <br>
I'm using some of the cat5 for phone, some for mixed phone (2 conductors) +100 Mbit/s (4 conductors) network and some for Gigabit.<br> Everything terminates to a handy spot in the basement where I have punch down panel and a switch and the incoming phone line for the cat5 runs and a amp+splitter for the CATV.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I deiced on a house before the sheet rock went in .
So I had Coax and Cat5 routed to every room ( x2 for the office ) .
Usually in different locations at my best guess of where a TV and a PC/telephone might be .
It was well worth it .
In hind-site I would have put more than one run to a room ( e.g .
opposite walls to cover more layout possibilities ) .
I might have even put more cat5 in for other applications such as serial , IR routers , sensors / hacks , USB extenders etc .
I 'm using some of the cat5 for phone , some for mixed phone ( 2 conductors ) + 100 Mbit/s ( 4 conductors ) network and some for Gigabit .
Everything terminates to a handy spot in the basement where I have punch down panel and a switch and the incoming phone line for the cat5 runs and a amp + splitter for the CATV .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I deiced on a house before the sheet rock went in.
So I had Coax and Cat5 routed to every room (x2 for the office).
Usually in different locations at my best guess of where a TV and a PC/telephone might be.
It was well worth it.
In hind-site I would have put more than one run to a room (e.g.
opposite walls to cover more layout possibilities).
I might have even put more cat5 in for other applications such as serial, IR routers, sensors / hacks, USB extenders etc.
I'm using some of the cat5 for phone, some for mixed phone (2 conductors) +100 Mbit/s (4 conductors) network and some for Gigabit.
Everything terminates to a handy spot in the basement where I have punch down panel and a switch and the incoming phone line for the cat5 runs and a amp+splitter for the CATV.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_18_188222.31187546</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_18_188222.31189866</id>
	<title>Thinnet?</title>
	<author>jsimon12</author>
	<datestamp>1266484500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Where are my BNC connectors and 50ohm terminators!</p><p>Seriously coax is a nightmare and like others said use the coax as a wire pull for some nice CAT6.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Where are my BNC connectors and 50ohm terminators ! Seriously coax is a nightmare and like others said use the coax as a wire pull for some nice CAT6 .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Where are my BNC connectors and 50ohm terminators!Seriously coax is a nightmare and like others said use the coax as a wire pull for some nice CAT6.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_18_188222.31188520</id>
	<title>wiring</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1266523860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Well, if you want to go inexpensive (not cheap) I would still avoid the coax except as a wirepull -- and even then I would really look at putting your switch somewhere other than an attic.  For inexpensive I would go with base Cat-5 if they still make spools of it (they should).  While I'm not a fan of the PVC sheathing, it's less stiff than Plenum and decent for what it is.  But if you're feeling it I would absolutely go with the plenum sheathing and the extra cost a 1000' roll would bring.  Plenum is more fire resistant and IMO more resistant to the kind of stress you're going to exert pulling that stuff through drywall and ductwork.  If you spend a bit more for Cat-5e you can slap in some better connectors and theoretically get 1Gb/s out of those lines.</p><p>But if I had my options and I was investing in this house?  I'd wire the place in Cat-6a, Cat-7a if you can actually find it.  It's compatible with modern Ethernet and standard RJ-45 heads and 6a is the 10Gb/s option, 7a takes it up by another factor of 10.  Wire it with 10-20 feet of slack in the walls where you can so you can move it wherever later, upgrade the termination points when you're ready to take it to the next level (start with 6a heads and upgrade once your network cards can handle 7a speeds), and make sure you have at least a drop in every room in the house.  Offices use Power over Ethernet phones and while I think we're going to just go to cellular for personal communication, I can see appliances relying on this idea later.  (Ever want to see who's been drinking the orange juice and leaving an empty carton?)</p><p>Oh, and I'd find a nice closet on the first floor near your ISP tap to wire it all to, improve the ventilation and then slap a deadbolt on the door.</p><p>But again, that's just me.<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:)</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Well , if you want to go inexpensive ( not cheap ) I would still avoid the coax except as a wirepull -- and even then I would really look at putting your switch somewhere other than an attic .
For inexpensive I would go with base Cat-5 if they still make spools of it ( they should ) .
While I 'm not a fan of the PVC sheathing , it 's less stiff than Plenum and decent for what it is .
But if you 're feeling it I would absolutely go with the plenum sheathing and the extra cost a 1000 ' roll would bring .
Plenum is more fire resistant and IMO more resistant to the kind of stress you 're going to exert pulling that stuff through drywall and ductwork .
If you spend a bit more for Cat-5e you can slap in some better connectors and theoretically get 1Gb/s out of those lines.But if I had my options and I was investing in this house ?
I 'd wire the place in Cat-6a , Cat-7a if you can actually find it .
It 's compatible with modern Ethernet and standard RJ-45 heads and 6a is the 10Gb/s option , 7a takes it up by another factor of 10 .
Wire it with 10-20 feet of slack in the walls where you can so you can move it wherever later , upgrade the termination points when you 're ready to take it to the next level ( start with 6a heads and upgrade once your network cards can handle 7a speeds ) , and make sure you have at least a drop in every room in the house .
Offices use Power over Ethernet phones and while I think we 're going to just go to cellular for personal communication , I can see appliances relying on this idea later .
( Ever want to see who 's been drinking the orange juice and leaving an empty carton ?
) Oh , and I 'd find a nice closet on the first floor near your ISP tap to wire it all to , improve the ventilation and then slap a deadbolt on the door.But again , that 's just me .
: )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Well, if you want to go inexpensive (not cheap) I would still avoid the coax except as a wirepull -- and even then I would really look at putting your switch somewhere other than an attic.
For inexpensive I would go with base Cat-5 if they still make spools of it (they should).
While I'm not a fan of the PVC sheathing, it's less stiff than Plenum and decent for what it is.
But if you're feeling it I would absolutely go with the plenum sheathing and the extra cost a 1000' roll would bring.
Plenum is more fire resistant and IMO more resistant to the kind of stress you're going to exert pulling that stuff through drywall and ductwork.
If you spend a bit more for Cat-5e you can slap in some better connectors and theoretically get 1Gb/s out of those lines.But if I had my options and I was investing in this house?
I'd wire the place in Cat-6a, Cat-7a if you can actually find it.
It's compatible with modern Ethernet and standard RJ-45 heads and 6a is the 10Gb/s option, 7a takes it up by another factor of 10.
Wire it with 10-20 feet of slack in the walls where you can so you can move it wherever later, upgrade the termination points when you're ready to take it to the next level (start with 6a heads and upgrade once your network cards can handle 7a speeds), and make sure you have at least a drop in every room in the house.
Offices use Power over Ethernet phones and while I think we're going to just go to cellular for personal communication, I can see appliances relying on this idea later.
(Ever want to see who's been drinking the orange juice and leaving an empty carton?
)Oh, and I'd find a nice closet on the first floor near your ISP tap to wire it all to, improve the ventilation and then slap a deadbolt on the door.But again, that's just me.
:)</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_18_188222.31191084</id>
	<title>Moca is your friend</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1266487920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>In the world of cable you have a friend known as Moca.  Moca is a standard for delivering ethernet packets over RF.  It uses a frequency range up over 1Ghz to stay out of the current standard range for cable.  For it to work for you, you will need a Moca hub for each location in the house.  And you will need a choke at your house entry point (so that your traffic does not go to a neighbors).  Other than that, existing wiring should work, especially since the devices push at a whopping 70db to help deal with S/N issues caused by old wiring.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>In the world of cable you have a friend known as Moca .
Moca is a standard for delivering ethernet packets over RF .
It uses a frequency range up over 1Ghz to stay out of the current standard range for cable .
For it to work for you , you will need a Moca hub for each location in the house .
And you will need a choke at your house entry point ( so that your traffic does not go to a neighbors ) .
Other than that , existing wiring should work , especially since the devices push at a whopping 70db to help deal with S/N issues caused by old wiring .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>In the world of cable you have a friend known as Moca.
Moca is a standard for delivering ethernet packets over RF.
It uses a frequency range up over 1Ghz to stay out of the current standard range for cable.
For it to work for you, you will need a Moca hub for each location in the house.
And you will need a choke at your house entry point (so that your traffic does not go to a neighbors).
Other than that, existing wiring should work, especially since the devices push at a whopping 70db to help deal with S/N issues caused by old wiring.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_18_188222.31192870</id>
	<title>Re:Stop wasting your time</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1266495780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>HPNA?  MoCA?  Jeez...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>HPNA ?
MoCA ? Jeez.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>HPNA?
MoCA?  Jeez...</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_18_188222.31188024</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_18_188222.31188558</id>
	<title>MoCA</title>
	<author>nsayer</author>
	<datestamp>1266524040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I mostly agree with the folks who suggest using the coax to pull cat 5 cable as a replacement strategy.</p><p>But I would be remiss to not mention <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Multimedia\_over\_Coax\_Alliance" title="wikipedia.org">MoCA</a> [wikipedia.org], which aims to standardize home networking over coax in such a way that existing cable TV or terrestrial antenna signals will still work.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I mostly agree with the folks who suggest using the coax to pull cat 5 cable as a replacement strategy.But I would be remiss to not mention MoCA [ wikipedia.org ] , which aims to standardize home networking over coax in such a way that existing cable TV or terrestrial antenna signals will still work .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I mostly agree with the folks who suggest using the coax to pull cat 5 cable as a replacement strategy.But I would be remiss to not mention MoCA [wikipedia.org], which aims to standardize home networking over coax in such a way that existing cable TV or terrestrial antenna signals will still work.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_18_188222.31193276</id>
	<title>Wirepull</title>
	<author>Restil</author>
	<datestamp>1266497580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>As others have suggested, just use one of the coax lines to pull the cat5+ through.  If that for some reason doesn't work, just run your own wires.  It might be a pain, but those coax wires got installed SOMEHOW, so it can probably be done again.</p><p>As far as trying to throw together a solution with mixing multiple wires to achieve a pseudo cat5 connection, you probably don't want to bother.  Attaining the high speeds is highly dependent on shielding, resistance, and wire balance, not to mention the fact that each of the coax wires is likely a different length.  The speed of light might be fast, but it IS finite, and it starts to matter when you're working in the 10+ mbps range.  You can suffer serious speed reduction if you have so much as half an inch of wires untwisted at the connection point...  So yeah, trying to adapt the coax wires for an application they weren't designed for is not likely to have beneficial results.</p><p>-Restil</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>As others have suggested , just use one of the coax lines to pull the cat5 + through .
If that for some reason does n't work , just run your own wires .
It might be a pain , but those coax wires got installed SOMEHOW , so it can probably be done again.As far as trying to throw together a solution with mixing multiple wires to achieve a pseudo cat5 connection , you probably do n't want to bother .
Attaining the high speeds is highly dependent on shielding , resistance , and wire balance , not to mention the fact that each of the coax wires is likely a different length .
The speed of light might be fast , but it IS finite , and it starts to matter when you 're working in the 10 + mbps range .
You can suffer serious speed reduction if you have so much as half an inch of wires untwisted at the connection point... So yeah , trying to adapt the coax wires for an application they were n't designed for is not likely to have beneficial results.-Restil</tokentext>
<sentencetext>As others have suggested, just use one of the coax lines to pull the cat5+ through.
If that for some reason doesn't work, just run your own wires.
It might be a pain, but those coax wires got installed SOMEHOW, so it can probably be done again.As far as trying to throw together a solution with mixing multiple wires to achieve a pseudo cat5 connection, you probably don't want to bother.
Attaining the high speeds is highly dependent on shielding, resistance, and wire balance, not to mention the fact that each of the coax wires is likely a different length.
The speed of light might be fast, but it IS finite, and it starts to matter when you're working in the 10+ mbps range.
You can suffer serious speed reduction if you have so much as half an inch of wires untwisted at the connection point...  So yeah, trying to adapt the coax wires for an application they weren't designed for is not likely to have beneficial results.-Restil</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_18_188222.31188876</id>
	<title>Re:Cat5e vs Cat6?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1266524940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>for most of the runs Cat5e would more than suffice. If you're doing longer runs, the way Cat6 is designed will give you a little more reach. Also, Cat5/5e is slightly easier for a noob to crimp ends on. The plastic X in cat6 can make some ends a pain to get on and keep the wires positioned right for those who haven't ever put ends on Cat5/5e/6 before.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>for most of the runs Cat5e would more than suffice .
If you 're doing longer runs , the way Cat6 is designed will give you a little more reach .
Also , Cat5/5e is slightly easier for a noob to crimp ends on .
The plastic X in cat6 can make some ends a pain to get on and keep the wires positioned right for those who have n't ever put ends on Cat5/5e/6 before .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>for most of the runs Cat5e would more than suffice.
If you're doing longer runs, the way Cat6 is designed will give you a little more reach.
Also, Cat5/5e is slightly easier for a noob to crimp ends on.
The plastic X in cat6 can make some ends a pain to get on and keep the wires positioned right for those who haven't ever put ends on Cat5/5e/6 before.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_18_188222.31187540</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_18_188222.31193352</id>
	<title>Try HPNA</title>
	<author>veosi</author>
	<datestamp>1266498120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Instead of rewiring have you looked into a HPNA solution?  Actiontec makes a HPNA device that converts cat5 to coax.  I have tested up to 6 systems on one HPNA network with speeds up to 60 MB for each.  This protocol is designed to not interfere with current cable channels.  The only downfall is that you will need one Actiontec device for each room.  They run between $40 and $80.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Instead of rewiring have you looked into a HPNA solution ?
Actiontec makes a HPNA device that converts cat5 to coax .
I have tested up to 6 systems on one HPNA network with speeds up to 60 MB for each .
This protocol is designed to not interfere with current cable channels .
The only downfall is that you will need one Actiontec device for each room .
They run between $ 40 and $ 80 .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Instead of rewiring have you looked into a HPNA solution?
Actiontec makes a HPNA device that converts cat5 to coax.
I have tested up to 6 systems on one HPNA network with speeds up to 60 MB for each.
This protocol is designed to not interfere with current cable channels.
The only downfall is that you will need one Actiontec device for each room.
They run between $40 and $80.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_18_188222.31188942</id>
	<title>Re:Stop wasting your time</title>
	<author>really?</author>
	<datestamp>1266525180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>&gt;You cannot use RG-59 (CATV COAX) in any useful fashion for networking. Don't bother thinking about it any more.</p><p>My home network begs to differ. I am in a concrete building that has RG-59 in every room. Wireless sucked, and because of the layout pulling CAT-5 along the edges of the rooms was also a non-starter - too many places where it would have to cross open space.</p><p>So, I just scored a bunch of SMC branded - <a href="http://smc-bb.com/bhn\_hpna\_hcna.html" title="smc-bb.com">http://smc-bb.com/bhn\_hpna\_hcna.html</a> [smc-bb.com] - but also sold by others, HCNA adaptors and I could not be happier.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>&gt; You can not use RG-59 ( CATV COAX ) in any useful fashion for networking .
Do n't bother thinking about it any more.My home network begs to differ .
I am in a concrete building that has RG-59 in every room .
Wireless sucked , and because of the layout pulling CAT-5 along the edges of the rooms was also a non-starter - too many places where it would have to cross open space.So , I just scored a bunch of SMC branded - http : //smc-bb.com/bhn \ _hpna \ _hcna.html [ smc-bb.com ] - but also sold by others , HCNA adaptors and I could not be happier .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>&gt;You cannot use RG-59 (CATV COAX) in any useful fashion for networking.
Don't bother thinking about it any more.My home network begs to differ.
I am in a concrete building that has RG-59 in every room.
Wireless sucked, and because of the layout pulling CAT-5 along the edges of the rooms was also a non-starter - too many places where it would have to cross open space.So, I just scored a bunch of SMC branded - http://smc-bb.com/bhn\_hpna\_hcna.html [smc-bb.com] - but also sold by others, HCNA adaptors and I could not be happier.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_18_188222.31188024</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_18_188222.31188194</id>
	<title>Re:Twisted pair, man</title>
	<author>bannerman</author>
	<datestamp>1266523020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I'd guess he can afford the house because he doesn't throw money away when he doesn't have to. But I agree with pretty much everyone in this thread, including you: Just use the coax to pull new cable. I recently did this in an ancient three story house. It took a couple of hours to do all the runs but it was not really that difficult and saved a LOT of time and effort in the end.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'd guess he can afford the house because he does n't throw money away when he does n't have to .
But I agree with pretty much everyone in this thread , including you : Just use the coax to pull new cable .
I recently did this in an ancient three story house .
It took a couple of hours to do all the runs but it was not really that difficult and saved a LOT of time and effort in the end .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'd guess he can afford the house because he doesn't throw money away when he doesn't have to.
But I agree with pretty much everyone in this thread, including you: Just use the coax to pull new cable.
I recently did this in an ancient three story house.
It took a couple of hours to do all the runs but it was not really that difficult and saved a LOT of time and effort in the end.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_18_188222.31187408</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_18_188222.31187878</id>
	<title>Re:Use the Coax to pull CAT 5e cable</title>
	<author>TubeSteak</author>
	<datestamp>1266521880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Also, modern Ethernet expects all 4 pairs to be of approximately the same length, and it is unlikely someone would have 4 matched-length pairs of coaxial cable sitting in their wall.</p></div><p>That seems like the kind of problem a dedicated nerd would solve using a multimeter, an oscilloscope, an orange, and a pair of scissors.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Also , modern Ethernet expects all 4 pairs to be of approximately the same length , and it is unlikely someone would have 4 matched-length pairs of coaxial cable sitting in their wall.That seems like the kind of problem a dedicated nerd would solve using a multimeter , an oscilloscope , an orange , and a pair of scissors .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Also, modern Ethernet expects all 4 pairs to be of approximately the same length, and it is unlikely someone would have 4 matched-length pairs of coaxial cable sitting in their wall.That seems like the kind of problem a dedicated nerd would solve using a multimeter, an oscilloscope, an orange, and a pair of scissors.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_18_188222.31187416</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_18_188222.31188110</id>
	<title>Re:Why not wireless?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1266522720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Depends on what he's doing, besides 802.11g isn't really 56Mbps because it's not full duplex, so the max you can get with out overhead is 28Mbps.  Add in your overhead and you're looking at a max of 22-24Mbps for a single user before you start talking about interference.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Depends on what he 's doing , besides 802.11g is n't really 56Mbps because it 's not full duplex , so the max you can get with out overhead is 28Mbps .
Add in your overhead and you 're looking at a max of 22-24Mbps for a single user before you start talking about interference .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Depends on what he's doing, besides 802.11g isn't really 56Mbps because it's not full duplex, so the max you can get with out overhead is 28Mbps.
Add in your overhead and you're looking at a max of 22-24Mbps for a single user before you start talking about interference.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_18_188222.31187662</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_18_188222.31188234</id>
	<title>yuck</title>
	<author>rgviza</author>
	<datestamp>1266523080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>read up on what cat 5 is and you'll understand why that idea won't work. The impedance(resistance, ohms) is wrong and you need to have twisted pair to enable reliable 100Mbps transmission speed. The twist of the wire is critical for noise cancellation.</p><p>Anyway, by the time you solder up a jig on both ends to make such a solution work you could've pulled new cat5e and have gigabit for your LAN(or Cat 6a for 10Gbps)</p><p>If it does work you'll be likely to get errors.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>read up on what cat 5 is and you 'll understand why that idea wo n't work .
The impedance ( resistance , ohms ) is wrong and you need to have twisted pair to enable reliable 100Mbps transmission speed .
The twist of the wire is critical for noise cancellation.Anyway , by the time you solder up a jig on both ends to make such a solution work you could 've pulled new cat5e and have gigabit for your LAN ( or Cat 6a for 10Gbps ) If it does work you 'll be likely to get errors .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>read up on what cat 5 is and you'll understand why that idea won't work.
The impedance(resistance, ohms) is wrong and you need to have twisted pair to enable reliable 100Mbps transmission speed.
The twist of the wire is critical for noise cancellation.Anyway, by the time you solder up a jig on both ends to make such a solution work you could've pulled new cat5e and have gigabit for your LAN(or Cat 6a for 10Gbps)If it does work you'll be likely to get errors.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_18_188222.31193306</id>
	<title>Cat5</title>
	<author>lotho brandybuck</author>
	<datestamp>1266497820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>
We have cat5 and they're worthless.  They pee on my stuff, don't guard the house and require expensive stinky canned food.</htmltext>
<tokenext>We have cat5 and they 're worthless .
They pee on my stuff , do n't guard the house and require expensive stinky canned food .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>
We have cat5 and they're worthless.
They pee on my stuff, don't guard the house and require expensive stinky canned food.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_18_188222.31189700</id>
	<title>MoCA</title>
	<author>Thorizdin</author>
	<datestamp>1266483960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I can't believe someone hasn't already pointed out MoCA its what Verizon is using for their in house wiring for FioS installs.  You will need an adapter per device, which is kind of a drag since they are ~ $150.00 or so, but the 1.1 spec offers 175 mbps of through put.</p><p><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Multimedia\_over\_Coax\_Alliance" title="wikipedia.org">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Multimedia\_over\_Coax\_Alliance</a> [wikipedia.org]</p><p><a href="http://www.ecost.com/detail.aspx?edp=44551040&amp;source=k232270&amp;cm\_mmc=Affiliates-\_-Performics-\_-k232270-\_-Primary" title="ecost.com">http://www.ecost.com/detail.aspx?edp=44551040&amp;source=k232270&amp;cm\_mmc=Affiliates-\_-Performics-\_-k232270-\_-Primary</a> [ecost.com]</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I ca n't believe someone has n't already pointed out MoCA its what Verizon is using for their in house wiring for FioS installs .
You will need an adapter per device , which is kind of a drag since they are ~ $ 150.00 or so , but the 1.1 spec offers 175 mbps of through put.http : //en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Multimedia \ _over \ _Coax \ _Alliance [ wikipedia.org ] http : //www.ecost.com/detail.aspx ? edp = 44551040&amp;source = k232270&amp;cm \ _mmc = Affiliates- \ _-Performics- \ _-k232270- \ _-Primary [ ecost.com ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I can't believe someone hasn't already pointed out MoCA its what Verizon is using for their in house wiring for FioS installs.
You will need an adapter per device, which is kind of a drag since they are ~ $150.00 or so, but the 1.1 spec offers 175 mbps of through put.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Multimedia\_over\_Coax\_Alliance [wikipedia.org]http://www.ecost.com/detail.aspx?edp=44551040&amp;source=k232270&amp;cm\_mmc=Affiliates-\_-Performics-\_-k232270-\_-Primary [ecost.com]</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_18_188222.31195788</id>
	<title>Re:Just bite the bullet pull Cat6</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1266515580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Glad you clarified that fish sticks are fiberglass rods.  I can see someone trying to run wires with a bunch of Gorton's products and making a (stinking) mess...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Glad you clarified that fish sticks are fiberglass rods .
I can see someone trying to run wires with a bunch of Gorton 's products and making a ( stinking ) mess.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Glad you clarified that fish sticks are fiberglass rods.
I can see someone trying to run wires with a bunch of Gorton's products and making a (stinking) mess...</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_18_188222.31187424</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_18_188222.31192018</id>
	<title>Re:Why not wireless?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1266491460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Wireless in a big house necessitates repeaters (unless you don't mind bad signals), which means running some cables anyways.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Wireless in a big house necessitates repeaters ( unless you do n't mind bad signals ) , which means running some cables anyways .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Wireless in a big house necessitates repeaters (unless you don't mind bad signals), which means running some cables anyways.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_18_188222.31187662</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_18_188222.31187572</id>
	<title>Not another "pull Cat5 via Coax" Post</title>
	<author>Lookin4Trouble</author>
	<datestamp>1266521040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Would not recommend using the coax as a solder hack-job to RJ45 connectors.  Running all new cabling is easy provided you have the proper tools (flashlight, fish tape/rod, box of cable, cordless drill, long drill bit 3/8-1/2" head, box of draw-string, and a helper)
<p>
Do yourself a big favor, and when you pull in your shiny new ethernet, tie in some drawstrings so you never have to repeat the process.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Would not recommend using the coax as a solder hack-job to RJ45 connectors .
Running all new cabling is easy provided you have the proper tools ( flashlight , fish tape/rod , box of cable , cordless drill , long drill bit 3/8-1/2 " head , box of draw-string , and a helper ) Do yourself a big favor , and when you pull in your shiny new ethernet , tie in some drawstrings so you never have to repeat the process .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Would not recommend using the coax as a solder hack-job to RJ45 connectors.
Running all new cabling is easy provided you have the proper tools (flashlight, fish tape/rod, box of cable, cordless drill, long drill bit 3/8-1/2" head, box of draw-string, and a helper)

Do yourself a big favor, and when you pull in your shiny new ethernet, tie in some drawstrings so you never have to repeat the process.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_18_188222.31188120</id>
	<title>Re:Why not wireless?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1266522720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>Do you really need more that 56Mbps on a home LAN?</p></div></blockquote><p>Basically, yes.  Even 150Mbps isn't all that great.  I happen to be one of those people who uses 802.11n for the house network because I couldn't run cables, and frankly, I'm rather unhappy about it.  Big files don't copy as fast as they could, sometimes (though not as often as I feared) video stutters, etc.</p><p>Wireless is cool tech, but it is totally inferior to wires in situations where you <em>can</em> run wires.  And maybe some day there will be wireless gigabit, but imagine how fast wired ethernet will be <em>then</em>.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Do you really need more that 56Mbps on a home LAN ? Basically , yes .
Even 150Mbps is n't all that great .
I happen to be one of those people who uses 802.11n for the house network because I could n't run cables , and frankly , I 'm rather unhappy about it .
Big files do n't copy as fast as they could , sometimes ( though not as often as I feared ) video stutters , etc.Wireless is cool tech , but it is totally inferior to wires in situations where you can run wires .
And maybe some day there will be wireless gigabit , but imagine how fast wired ethernet will be then .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Do you really need more that 56Mbps on a home LAN?Basically, yes.
Even 150Mbps isn't all that great.
I happen to be one of those people who uses 802.11n for the house network because I couldn't run cables, and frankly, I'm rather unhappy about it.
Big files don't copy as fast as they could, sometimes (though not as often as I feared) video stutters, etc.Wireless is cool tech, but it is totally inferior to wires in situations where you can run wires.
And maybe some day there will be wireless gigabit, but imagine how fast wired ethernet will be then.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_18_188222.31187662</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_18_188222.31188158</id>
	<title>You can combine coax &amp; twisted pair, barely</title>
	<author>Fallon</author>
	<datestamp>1266522900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I would never recommend actually doing this, but way back in college....<br><br>We ran coax (10base2) through our hall of the dorm, as did the guys in the floor below us. However being a concrete dorm, we really couldn't drill through a foot of concrete in the ceiling/floor. One of the guys did work for comm &amp; could get us into the telephone room. We ended up finding a pair of cat3 (phone line) in a room upstairs &amp; downstairs &amp; got everything all patched together. We then proceed to solder the shielding to one wire &amp; the center conductor of the 10base2 to another wire of a single twisted pair. We had a coax hub at each end, and maybe 50+ feet of twisted pair spliced onto about 20 feet of coax at each end.<br><br>Disturbingly it actually worked. Not fast &amp; probably a lot of errors on the line, but it worked good enough for Duke Nukem &amp; Quake.<br><br>I doubt you could get modern speeds doing anything like that, but it worked back in the 10 megabit half duplex days.<br><br>You'll be much better off fishing Cat5e using the old coax if you can, or just running new cable completely.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I would never recommend actually doing this , but way back in college....We ran coax ( 10base2 ) through our hall of the dorm , as did the guys in the floor below us .
However being a concrete dorm , we really could n't drill through a foot of concrete in the ceiling/floor .
One of the guys did work for comm &amp; could get us into the telephone room .
We ended up finding a pair of cat3 ( phone line ) in a room upstairs &amp; downstairs &amp; got everything all patched together .
We then proceed to solder the shielding to one wire &amp; the center conductor of the 10base2 to another wire of a single twisted pair .
We had a coax hub at each end , and maybe 50 + feet of twisted pair spliced onto about 20 feet of coax at each end.Disturbingly it actually worked .
Not fast &amp; probably a lot of errors on the line , but it worked good enough for Duke Nukem &amp; Quake.I doubt you could get modern speeds doing anything like that , but it worked back in the 10 megabit half duplex days.You 'll be much better off fishing Cat5e using the old coax if you can , or just running new cable completely .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I would never recommend actually doing this, but way back in college....We ran coax (10base2) through our hall of the dorm, as did the guys in the floor below us.
However being a concrete dorm, we really couldn't drill through a foot of concrete in the ceiling/floor.
One of the guys did work for comm &amp; could get us into the telephone room.
We ended up finding a pair of cat3 (phone line) in a room upstairs &amp; downstairs &amp; got everything all patched together.
We then proceed to solder the shielding to one wire &amp; the center conductor of the 10base2 to another wire of a single twisted pair.
We had a coax hub at each end, and maybe 50+ feet of twisted pair spliced onto about 20 feet of coax at each end.Disturbingly it actually worked.
Not fast &amp; probably a lot of errors on the line, but it worked good enough for Duke Nukem &amp; Quake.I doubt you could get modern speeds doing anything like that, but it worked back in the 10 megabit half duplex days.You'll be much better off fishing Cat5e using the old coax if you can, or just running new cable completely.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_18_188222.31187618</id>
	<title>Pull Cable</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1266521160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Just pull new cables.</p><p>A spool of cat5e is pretty affordable.  Buy a cable tester, some jacks and plugs, a good crimper and punch set, and replace your old cables with new.  Tie on to the existing coax and use it to pull new cable thru the walls, crimp on new jacks/plugs connect to a switch in your attic and you are done.  Its not a trivial project, but the results are more than worth the weekends effort.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Just pull new cables.A spool of cat5e is pretty affordable .
Buy a cable tester , some jacks and plugs , a good crimper and punch set , and replace your old cables with new .
Tie on to the existing coax and use it to pull new cable thru the walls , crimp on new jacks/plugs connect to a switch in your attic and you are done .
Its not a trivial project , but the results are more than worth the weekends effort .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Just pull new cables.A spool of cat5e is pretty affordable.
Buy a cable tester, some jacks and plugs, a good crimper and punch set, and replace your old cables with new.
Tie on to the existing coax and use it to pull new cable thru the walls, crimp on new jacks/plugs connect to a switch in your attic and you are done.
Its not a trivial project, but the results are more than worth the weekends effort.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_18_188222.31187646</id>
	<title>MoCa to the rescue</title>
	<author>gad\_zuki!</author>
	<datestamp>1266521280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Sure, youre <a href="http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16833122243&amp;nm\_mc=OTC-Froogle&amp;cm\_mmc=OTC-Froogle-\_-Network+-+Powerline-\_-Netgear+Inc.-\_-33122243" title="newegg.com">dropping around 100 bucks per drop</a> [newegg.com] (less if you go with actiontec), but it saves you time and energy doing a cat5 conversion. The bitrates are pretty good too, although that depends on the quality and length of your wiring.</p><p>Powerline AV isnt bad, you can get a steady 40-50mbps with it, but that's pretty much wireless-N speeds, which is a lot cheaper.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Sure , youre dropping around 100 bucks per drop [ newegg.com ] ( less if you go with actiontec ) , but it saves you time and energy doing a cat5 conversion .
The bitrates are pretty good too , although that depends on the quality and length of your wiring.Powerline AV isnt bad , you can get a steady 40-50mbps with it , but that 's pretty much wireless-N speeds , which is a lot cheaper .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Sure, youre dropping around 100 bucks per drop [newegg.com] (less if you go with actiontec), but it saves you time and energy doing a cat5 conversion.
The bitrates are pretty good too, although that depends on the quality and length of your wiring.Powerline AV isnt bad, you can get a steady 40-50mbps with it, but that's pretty much wireless-N speeds, which is a lot cheaper.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_18_188222.31189408</id>
	<title>HomePlug Powerline ?</title>
	<author>Zoxed</author>
	<datestamp>1266526440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>What is "HomePNY" ? Is it the same as <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HomePlug\_Powerline\_Alliance" title="wikipedia.org">HomePlug Powerline</a> [wikipedia.org] which would be my suggestion (to not answer your question !!).</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>What is " HomePNY " ?
Is it the same as HomePlug Powerline [ wikipedia.org ] which would be my suggestion ( to not answer your question ! !
) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>What is "HomePNY" ?
Is it the same as HomePlug Powerline [wikipedia.org] which would be my suggestion (to not answer your question !!
).</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_18_188222.31188320</id>
	<title>Gefen ethernet over coax bridge</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1266523320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Gefen makes a coax bridge I use for connecting two apartments, it's been up for over a year and transmits consistently above 100mbit.<br>It has some thermal management problems, so keep it out of the sun or in warm environments.</p><p>http://www.gefen.com/gefentv/gtvproduct.jsp?prod\_id=5275</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Gefen makes a coax bridge I use for connecting two apartments , it 's been up for over a year and transmits consistently above 100mbit.It has some thermal management problems , so keep it out of the sun or in warm environments.http : //www.gefen.com/gefentv/gtvproduct.jsp ? prod \ _id = 5275</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Gefen makes a coax bridge I use for connecting two apartments, it's been up for over a year and transmits consistently above 100mbit.It has some thermal management problems, so keep it out of the sun or in warm environments.http://www.gefen.com/gefentv/gtvproduct.jsp?prod\_id=5275</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_18_188222.31193248</id>
	<title>Re:Worked for me with 6-conductor phone cable</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1266497460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>It might be possible to find a balun that can take you from the balanced line (ethernet pair) to the unbalanced (coax). You would want to check the impedances though...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It might be possible to find a balun that can take you from the balanced line ( ethernet pair ) to the unbalanced ( coax ) .
You would want to check the impedances though.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It might be possible to find a balun that can take you from the balanced line (ethernet pair) to the unbalanced (coax).
You would want to check the impedances though...</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_18_188222.31188112</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_18_188222.31188848</id>
	<title>Re:MoCa</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1266524940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Here's a relatively recent tom's hardware article comparing powerline, wireless, and MoCA networking:<br><a href="http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/powerline-wireless-networking,2470-5.html" title="tomshardware.com" rel="nofollow">http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/powerline-wireless-networking,2470-5.html</a> [tomshardware.com]</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Here 's a relatively recent tom 's hardware article comparing powerline , wireless , and MoCA networking : http : //www.tomshardware.com/reviews/powerline-wireless-networking,2470-5.html [ tomshardware.com ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Here's a relatively recent tom's hardware article comparing powerline, wireless, and MoCA networking:http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/powerline-wireless-networking,2470-5.html [tomshardware.com]</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_18_188222.31187470</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_18_188222.31190708</id>
	<title>Re:Use the Coax to pull CAT 5e cable</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1266486660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Ethernet coax was 50ohm, the stuff in your walls is probably 75ohm. They are not interchangeable.</p><p>Might I suggest you join us in the 21st century and just use 802.11n? USB dongles can be had for about the cost of a cat5 patch cable and 802.11n is as fast as 100mbps ethernet.</p><p>Plus you gain some nice lightning damage protection by eliminating the second electrical path.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Ethernet coax was 50ohm , the stuff in your walls is probably 75ohm .
They are not interchangeable.Might I suggest you join us in the 21st century and just use 802.11n ?
USB dongles can be had for about the cost of a cat5 patch cable and 802.11n is as fast as 100mbps ethernet.Plus you gain some nice lightning damage protection by eliminating the second electrical path .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Ethernet coax was 50ohm, the stuff in your walls is probably 75ohm.
They are not interchangeable.Might I suggest you join us in the 21st century and just use 802.11n?
USB dongles can be had for about the cost of a cat5 patch cable and 802.11n is as fast as 100mbps ethernet.Plus you gain some nice lightning damage protection by eliminating the second electrical path.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_18_188222.31187416</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_18_188222.31201938</id>
	<title>Re:Twisted pair, man</title>
	<author>watanabe</author>
	<datestamp>1266607320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I laughed outloud, you are so right..</p><p>Actually, it's a rental, which is one reason I don't want to go fishing around in the walls.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I laughed outloud , you are so right..Actually , it 's a rental , which is one reason I do n't want to go fishing around in the walls .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I laughed outloud, you are so right..Actually, it's a rental, which is one reason I don't want to go fishing around in the walls.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_18_188222.31189016</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_18_188222.31192308</id>
	<title>Re:MoCa</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1266493020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I agree, MoCA is the way to go here. It has real world performance over 100Mbps and supports 18 nodes. The current bridges only have 100Mbps Ethernet connections, but you can expect the same performance as CAT5 and still use the coax for cable TV or an antenna -- the retail bridges don't support satellite, but DirecTV does makes some that do.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I agree , MoCA is the way to go here .
It has real world performance over 100Mbps and supports 18 nodes .
The current bridges only have 100Mbps Ethernet connections , but you can expect the same performance as CAT5 and still use the coax for cable TV or an antenna -- the retail bridges do n't support satellite , but DirecTV does makes some that do .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I agree, MoCA is the way to go here.
It has real world performance over 100Mbps and supports 18 nodes.
The current bridges only have 100Mbps Ethernet connections, but you can expect the same performance as CAT5 and still use the coax for cable TV or an antenna -- the retail bridges don't support satellite, but DirecTV does makes some that do.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_18_188222.31187470</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_18_188222.31187432</id>
	<title>No problem, just mind the impedance!</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1266520620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>You need to transform 100 Ohm impedance of the CAT5 to the 50 Ohm (or 75 Ohm) impedance of the Coax cables.</p><p>50 Ohm case: </p><p>100 Ohm CAT 5 -&gt; 2x 25 Ohm resistors in series -&gt; 50 Ohm Coax -&gt; 100 Ohm resistor in parallel -&gt; 100 Ohm CAT 5 <br><nobr> <wbr></nobr>... and the other way round for for the other pair.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>You need to transform 100 Ohm impedance of the CAT5 to the 50 Ohm ( or 75 Ohm ) impedance of the Coax cables.50 Ohm case : 100 Ohm CAT 5 - &gt; 2x 25 Ohm resistors in series - &gt; 50 Ohm Coax - &gt; 100 Ohm resistor in parallel - &gt; 100 Ohm CAT 5 ... and the other way round for for the other pair .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You need to transform 100 Ohm impedance of the CAT5 to the 50 Ohm (or 75 Ohm) impedance of the Coax cables.50 Ohm case: 100 Ohm CAT 5 -&gt; 2x 25 Ohm resistors in series -&gt; 50 Ohm Coax -&gt; 100 Ohm resistor in parallel -&gt; 100 Ohm CAT 5  ... and the other way round for for the other pair.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_18_188222.31188448</id>
	<title>You can run new cables outside the walls too</title>
	<author>Orange Crush</author>
	<datestamp>1266523680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>It's not the prettiest option, but I'm too lazy to fish cables through walls, so when I move to a new place I usually just buy a box of Cat5e or Cat6 the same color as my baseboards and run the cable outside of the walls and around door frames as needed.  If your house is carpeted, you can run it underneath the carpet edges to hide it completely--just watch out that you don't impale any cables on the tack strips.  The liberal use of cable staples holds the cables in place and they're not very noticeable.  You can also use the "two cables down one cable" trick by splitting off the unused conductors to another termination point--be it a wall box or cable ends.  But note that this restricts that cable to 100 megabits.</htmltext>
<tokenext>It 's not the prettiest option , but I 'm too lazy to fish cables through walls , so when I move to a new place I usually just buy a box of Cat5e or Cat6 the same color as my baseboards and run the cable outside of the walls and around door frames as needed .
If your house is carpeted , you can run it underneath the carpet edges to hide it completely--just watch out that you do n't impale any cables on the tack strips .
The liberal use of cable staples holds the cables in place and they 're not very noticeable .
You can also use the " two cables down one cable " trick by splitting off the unused conductors to another termination point--be it a wall box or cable ends .
But note that this restricts that cable to 100 megabits .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It's not the prettiest option, but I'm too lazy to fish cables through walls, so when I move to a new place I usually just buy a box of Cat5e or Cat6 the same color as my baseboards and run the cable outside of the walls and around door frames as needed.
If your house is carpeted, you can run it underneath the carpet edges to hide it completely--just watch out that you don't impale any cables on the tack strips.
The liberal use of cable staples holds the cables in place and they're not very noticeable.
You can also use the "two cables down one cable" trick by splitting off the unused conductors to another termination point--be it a wall box or cable ends.
But note that this restricts that cable to 100 megabits.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_18_188222.31187960</id>
	<title>Give it a try!</title>
	<author>sillivalley</author>
	<datestamp>1266522120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I'd say give it a try -- either it works, or it doesn't!<br> <br>
The characteristic impedance of cat5/cat6 is 110 ohms.  Assuming your house is wired with RG6, that's 75 ohms.  You have an impedance mismatch, but it's not a really bad one -- swr around 1.4:1.<br> <br>
Reasonably good RG6 used for cable (or even broadcast) TV signal distribution should perform well up to 500 MHz, so frequency response shouldn't be a killer.<br> <br>
It might not handle gigabit, but mash it up, try it, and let us know!</htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'd say give it a try -- either it works , or it does n't !
The characteristic impedance of cat5/cat6 is 110 ohms .
Assuming your house is wired with RG6 , that 's 75 ohms .
You have an impedance mismatch , but it 's not a really bad one -- swr around 1.4 : 1 .
Reasonably good RG6 used for cable ( or even broadcast ) TV signal distribution should perform well up to 500 MHz , so frequency response should n't be a killer .
It might not handle gigabit , but mash it up , try it , and let us know !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'd say give it a try -- either it works, or it doesn't!
The characteristic impedance of cat5/cat6 is 110 ohms.
Assuming your house is wired with RG6, that's 75 ohms.
You have an impedance mismatch, but it's not a really bad one -- swr around 1.4:1.
Reasonably good RG6 used for cable (or even broadcast) TV signal distribution should perform well up to 500 MHz, so frequency response shouldn't be a killer.
It might not handle gigabit, but mash it up, try it, and let us know!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_18_188222.31195162</id>
	<title>Re:Related Questions</title>
	<author>John.Banister</author>
	<datestamp>1266509640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>If I were building a house today, I'd make the walls from cellular concrete type ICFs.  I'd rout a groove in the surface where I want the wiring to go, put EZ-Anchors in the back of the groove and install channel conduit. (Some of the plastic stuff can be bought in rolls.)  I'd glue the conduit cover to the back of fire rated polyurethane chair rail molding (eg Spectis).  Then when I want to change something, I have access to the wiring, and I don't have to deal with pulling wire through a tube.  If there was a bug highway issue (which tube type conduit could also have), I might have to block the cross section here and there with duct seal or firestop type urethane foam.</htmltext>
<tokenext>If I were building a house today , I 'd make the walls from cellular concrete type ICFs .
I 'd rout a groove in the surface where I want the wiring to go , put EZ-Anchors in the back of the groove and install channel conduit .
( Some of the plastic stuff can be bought in rolls .
) I 'd glue the conduit cover to the back of fire rated polyurethane chair rail molding ( eg Spectis ) .
Then when I want to change something , I have access to the wiring , and I do n't have to deal with pulling wire through a tube .
If there was a bug highway issue ( which tube type conduit could also have ) , I might have to block the cross section here and there with duct seal or firestop type urethane foam .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If I were building a house today, I'd make the walls from cellular concrete type ICFs.
I'd rout a groove in the surface where I want the wiring to go, put EZ-Anchors in the back of the groove and install channel conduit.
(Some of the plastic stuff can be bought in rolls.
)  I'd glue the conduit cover to the back of fire rated polyurethane chair rail molding (eg Spectis).
Then when I want to change something, I have access to the wiring, and I don't have to deal with pulling wire through a tube.
If there was a bug highway issue (which tube type conduit could also have), I might have to block the cross section here and there with duct seal or firestop type urethane foam.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_18_188222.31187546</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_18_188222.31193526</id>
	<title>Use the Coax?</title>
	<author>fm6</author>
	<datestamp>1266499020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>This really makes me feel old: I seem to be the only one here who remembers that Ethernet was originally coax-only.</p><p>OK, that's not quite the same as the coax cabling used for TV signals. But you can still run Ethernet over TV coax. There are two gotchas: maximum speed is 200Mbs (which is probably not a deal breaker for most users) and you have to spend about $100 a node for new transceivers (which probably <i>is</i> a deal breaker).</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>This really makes me feel old : I seem to be the only one here who remembers that Ethernet was originally coax-only.OK , that 's not quite the same as the coax cabling used for TV signals .
But you can still run Ethernet over TV coax .
There are two gotchas : maximum speed is 200Mbs ( which is probably not a deal breaker for most users ) and you have to spend about $ 100 a node for new transceivers ( which probably is a deal breaker ) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This really makes me feel old: I seem to be the only one here who remembers that Ethernet was originally coax-only.OK, that's not quite the same as the coax cabling used for TV signals.
But you can still run Ethernet over TV coax.
There are two gotchas: maximum speed is 200Mbs (which is probably not a deal breaker for most users) and you have to spend about $100 a node for new transceivers (which probably is a deal breaker).</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_18_188222.31187548</id>
	<title>Cat5 isn't "just" four wires</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1266520980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The key here is "twisted pair". I'm not an expert by any means, but my understanding is that the twisting design limits electrical interference and noise. Without that, you're likely to get an extremely error-prone connection.</p><p>Wiring a house isn't actually that hard or expensive, presuming you either have an attic to drop wire from or a crawl space to move up from. It takes some time, but do it yourself and you can do it right with Cat6, some higher quality coax for video distribution, and more. Look up "Structured Wiring" and go nuts.<br><a href="http://www.structuredhomewiring.com/" title="structuredhomewiring.com">http://www.structuredhomewiring.com/</a> [structuredhomewiring.com]</p><p>And although I really should get around to installing proper AC outlets one of these days, you get the idea:<br><a href="http://www.joshuaochs.com/Home/The\_House/Pages/Home\_Wiring.html#5" title="joshuaochs.com">http://www.joshuaochs.com/Home/The\_House/Pages/Home\_Wiring.html#5</a> [joshuaochs.com]</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The key here is " twisted pair " .
I 'm not an expert by any means , but my understanding is that the twisting design limits electrical interference and noise .
Without that , you 're likely to get an extremely error-prone connection.Wiring a house is n't actually that hard or expensive , presuming you either have an attic to drop wire from or a crawl space to move up from .
It takes some time , but do it yourself and you can do it right with Cat6 , some higher quality coax for video distribution , and more .
Look up " Structured Wiring " and go nuts.http : //www.structuredhomewiring.com/ [ structuredhomewiring.com ] And although I really should get around to installing proper AC outlets one of these days , you get the idea : http : //www.joshuaochs.com/Home/The \ _House/Pages/Home \ _Wiring.html # 5 [ joshuaochs.com ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The key here is "twisted pair".
I'm not an expert by any means, but my understanding is that the twisting design limits electrical interference and noise.
Without that, you're likely to get an extremely error-prone connection.Wiring a house isn't actually that hard or expensive, presuming you either have an attic to drop wire from or a crawl space to move up from.
It takes some time, but do it yourself and you can do it right with Cat6, some higher quality coax for video distribution, and more.
Look up "Structured Wiring" and go nuts.http://www.structuredhomewiring.com/ [structuredhomewiring.com]And although I really should get around to installing proper AC outlets one of these days, you get the idea:http://www.joshuaochs.com/Home/The\_House/Pages/Home\_Wiring.html#5 [joshuaochs.com]</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_18_188222.31188176</id>
	<title>Try this</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1266522960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>http://www.cyberguys.com/product-details/?productid=13855</p><p>If the link doesnt show go to cyber guys dot com, and search for product 13855</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>http : //www.cyberguys.com/product-details/ ? productid = 13855If the link doesnt show go to cyber guys dot com , and search for product 13855</tokentext>
<sentencetext>http://www.cyberguys.com/product-details/?productid=13855If the link doesnt show go to cyber guys dot com, and search for product 13855</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_18_188222.31187442</id>
	<title>Man up and pull some new wire</title>
	<author>enjar</author>
	<datestamp>1266520680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>You can use the existing wiring to pull the new stuff (If you don't have another use for it, of course), but really running some new Ethernet isn't so bad, get a long drill bit, some fishing tape and a helper.  Also keep in mind that it's pretty easy to go through the wall and run the wire on the outside of the building in a lot of cases -- it's pretty easy to hide CAT5/6.  Also you can get patch panels that give you a nice, clean, finished look and not a hack job.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>You can use the existing wiring to pull the new stuff ( If you do n't have another use for it , of course ) , but really running some new Ethernet is n't so bad , get a long drill bit , some fishing tape and a helper .
Also keep in mind that it 's pretty easy to go through the wall and run the wire on the outside of the building in a lot of cases -- it 's pretty easy to hide CAT5/6 .
Also you can get patch panels that give you a nice , clean , finished look and not a hack job .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You can use the existing wiring to pull the new stuff (If you don't have another use for it, of course), but really running some new Ethernet isn't so bad, get a long drill bit, some fishing tape and a helper.
Also keep in mind that it's pretty easy to go through the wall and run the wire on the outside of the building in a lot of cases -- it's pretty easy to hide CAT5/6.
Also you can get patch panels that give you a nice, clean, finished look and not a hack job.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_18_188222.31187984</id>
	<title>Baluns Baby!</title>
	<author>NetServices</author>
	<datestamp>1266522180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Baluns Baby... they ROCK!<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:P</htmltext>
<tokenext>Baluns Baby... they ROCK !
: P</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Baluns Baby... they ROCK!
:P</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_18_188222.31187846</id>
	<title>Don't despair</title>
	<author>onyxruby</author>
	<datestamp>1266521820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Nothing to worry about here at all Coax is very strong and won't break on you as pull on it to bring in some cat 6. Otherwise if you really wanted you could go back to the days of vampire taps and 10base2...</p><p>

Having been there, I really must recommend wiring your own house. It's a great way to learn a lot and in the end you get what you wanted where you wanted. All that being said, if at all possible, run some small pvc piping through the walls and wire things that way. If your that adverse to getting your hands dirty and doing the hardwork of wiring you could also look at things like Ethernet over <a href="http://www.netgear.com/Products/PowerlineNetworking/PowerlineEthernetAdapters/HDXB101.aspx" title="netgear.com">power.</a> [netgear.com] </p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Nothing to worry about here at all Coax is very strong and wo n't break on you as pull on it to bring in some cat 6 .
Otherwise if you really wanted you could go back to the days of vampire taps and 10base2.. . Having been there , I really must recommend wiring your own house .
It 's a great way to learn a lot and in the end you get what you wanted where you wanted .
All that being said , if at all possible , run some small pvc piping through the walls and wire things that way .
If your that adverse to getting your hands dirty and doing the hardwork of wiring you could also look at things like Ethernet over power .
[ netgear.com ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Nothing to worry about here at all Coax is very strong and won't break on you as pull on it to bring in some cat 6.
Otherwise if you really wanted you could go back to the days of vampire taps and 10base2...

Having been there, I really must recommend wiring your own house.
It's a great way to learn a lot and in the end you get what you wanted where you wanted.
All that being said, if at all possible, run some small pvc piping through the walls and wire things that way.
If your that adverse to getting your hands dirty and doing the hardwork of wiring you could also look at things like Ethernet over power.
[netgear.com] </sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_18_188222.31188378</id>
	<title>Re:Related Questions</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1266523440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>A hollow tube that support easy rewiring (i.e. no sharp bends or corners and plenty wiggle room) optionally shielded if you want to run it next to electrical wires.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>A hollow tube that support easy rewiring ( i.e .
no sharp bends or corners and plenty wiggle room ) optionally shielded if you want to run it next to electrical wires .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>A hollow tube that support easy rewiring (i.e.
no sharp bends or corners and plenty wiggle room) optionally shielded if you want to run it next to electrical wires.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_18_188222.31187546</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_18_188222.31187360</id>
	<title>10Base-2?</title>
	<author>Chris Lawrence</author>
	<datestamp>1266520380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>Well, <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/10BASE2" title="wikipedia.org">10Base-2</a> [wikipedia.org] uses coax.  I think I have an old hub that still has a coax connector.<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:)</htmltext>
<tokenext>Well , 10Base-2 [ wikipedia.org ] uses coax .
I think I have an old hub that still has a coax connector .
: )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Well, 10Base-2 [wikipedia.org] uses coax.
I think I have an old hub that still has a coax connector.
:)</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_18_188222.31188024</id>
	<title>Stop wasting your time</title>
	<author>rickb928</author>
	<datestamp>1266522300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>You cannot use RG-59 (CATV COAX) in any useful fashion for networking. Don't bother thinking about it any more.</p><p>Pull CAT-5 or better.  Bite the bullet.  Ignore the coax.</p><p>Even if it's RG-6 or whatever, if it's F connectors (screw-on) forget about it.</p><p>Now, if by some chance, you got RG-58 and BNC connectors, then you can maybe run 10MB over it. Another supreme waste of time.</p><p>I suspect all the media convertors that claimed to drive 100MB over wacko coax are finally gone, since none worked worth a damn.</p><p>And if you've got so much coax, you can use one as a pull string.  At least for one run.  You might be able to bribe a buddy to help you.  Once.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>You can not use RG-59 ( CATV COAX ) in any useful fashion for networking .
Do n't bother thinking about it any more.Pull CAT-5 or better .
Bite the bullet .
Ignore the coax.Even if it 's RG-6 or whatever , if it 's F connectors ( screw-on ) forget about it.Now , if by some chance , you got RG-58 and BNC connectors , then you can maybe run 10MB over it .
Another supreme waste of time.I suspect all the media convertors that claimed to drive 100MB over wacko coax are finally gone , since none worked worth a damn.And if you 've got so much coax , you can use one as a pull string .
At least for one run .
You might be able to bribe a buddy to help you .
Once .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You cannot use RG-59 (CATV COAX) in any useful fashion for networking.
Don't bother thinking about it any more.Pull CAT-5 or better.
Bite the bullet.
Ignore the coax.Even if it's RG-6 or whatever, if it's F connectors (screw-on) forget about it.Now, if by some chance, you got RG-58 and BNC connectors, then you can maybe run 10MB over it.
Another supreme waste of time.I suspect all the media convertors that claimed to drive 100MB over wacko coax are finally gone, since none worked worth a damn.And if you've got so much coax, you can use one as a pull string.
At least for one run.
You might be able to bribe a buddy to help you.
Once.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_18_188222.31238628</id>
	<title>the best solution and a not-so-good solution</title>
	<author>dajalas</author>
	<datestamp>1266844680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The best solution is to use the existing coax to pull Cat5 throughout your house.</p><p>Another partial solution would be to use old 10BT-to-coax transceivers. This would be easy. It'd cost rather little. But it'd probably end up being too for your needs.</p><p>The *best* solution is to re-wire or pay someone to do so. Even with newer technology, coax won't be as good.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The best solution is to use the existing coax to pull Cat5 throughout your house.Another partial solution would be to use old 10BT-to-coax transceivers .
This would be easy .
It 'd cost rather little .
But it 'd probably end up being too for your needs.The * best * solution is to re-wire or pay someone to do so .
Even with newer technology , coax wo n't be as good .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The best solution is to use the existing coax to pull Cat5 throughout your house.Another partial solution would be to use old 10BT-to-coax transceivers.
This would be easy.
It'd cost rather little.
But it'd probably end up being too for your needs.The *best* solution is to re-wire or pay someone to do so.
Even with newer technology, coax won't be as good.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_18_188222.31188706</id>
	<title>Transmission line theory</title>
	<author>mako1138</author>
	<datestamp>1266524520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I'm not expecting all of Slashdot to have gone through an EE E&amp;M course, but some of the things I see in this thread are just off base.</p><p>The beauty of transmission line theory is that you can abstract away the wires and conductors into a sort of tube with a particular impedance. RF engineering is all about matching impedances and ensuring efficient power transfer.</p><p><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transmission\_line" title="wikipedia.org">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transmission\_line</a> [wikipedia.org]</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'm not expecting all of Slashdot to have gone through an EE E&amp;M course , but some of the things I see in this thread are just off base.The beauty of transmission line theory is that you can abstract away the wires and conductors into a sort of tube with a particular impedance .
RF engineering is all about matching impedances and ensuring efficient power transfer.http : //en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transmission \ _line [ wikipedia.org ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'm not expecting all of Slashdot to have gone through an EE E&amp;M course, but some of the things I see in this thread are just off base.The beauty of transmission line theory is that you can abstract away the wires and conductors into a sort of tube with a particular impedance.
RF engineering is all about matching impedances and ensuring efficient power transfer.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transmission\_line [wikipedia.org]</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_18_188222.31191968</id>
	<title>what??</title>
	<author>Lord Ender</author>
	<datestamp>1266491100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>You can afford a huge house, but you can't come up with $100 for a tranceiver? That's absolutely daft.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>You can afford a huge house , but you ca n't come up with $ 100 for a tranceiver ?
That 's absolutely daft .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You can afford a huge house, but you can't come up with $100 for a tranceiver?
That's absolutely daft.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_18_188222.31197212</id>
	<title>Point to Point DSL</title>
	<author>Hydroksyde</author>
	<datestamp>1266577740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>You could try 75ohm to 120ohm Baluns, then some kind of point to point DSL setup, eg the Zyxel P-841C.... you might have some luck with that</htmltext>
<tokenext>You could try 75ohm to 120ohm Baluns , then some kind of point to point DSL setup , eg the Zyxel P-841C.... you might have some luck with that</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You could try 75ohm to 120ohm Baluns, then some kind of point to point DSL setup, eg the Zyxel P-841C.... you might have some luck with that</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_18_188222.31189596</id>
	<title>Try using PLC</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1266483660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I'm suprised that no-one has mentioned any of the PLC (Ethernet over Power Line) solutions. Depending on your setup it may be cheeper to place on of them in each room with a simple switch, then wait until you re-decorate before you pull new Cat5e cable.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'm suprised that no-one has mentioned any of the PLC ( Ethernet over Power Line ) solutions .
Depending on your setup it may be cheeper to place on of them in each room with a simple switch , then wait until you re-decorate before you pull new Cat5e cable .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'm suprised that no-one has mentioned any of the PLC (Ethernet over Power Line) solutions.
Depending on your setup it may be cheeper to place on of them in each room with a simple switch, then wait until you re-decorate before you pull new Cat5e cable.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_18_188222.31193806</id>
	<title>My Ethernet Run</title>
	<author>Admiral\_Grinder</author>
	<datestamp>1266500700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I used some cat6 ethernet I bought at newegg for cheap, and already crimped.  Then I bought some of these from newegg: <a href="http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16812993025" title="newegg.com" rel="nofollow">http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16812993025</a> [newegg.com].  I have seen other sites that carry them too, and they worked great in the plates that I got at home depot.  Finally, a trip to home depot for some low voltage boxes and some modular wall plates.  I have done 2 rooms for around $40 bucks, but most of my cost was the couplers and tools.  The boxes and plates are really cheap and I also picked up a bag of blank plugs and some coax cable plugs.</p><p>It helped that I have a drop ceiling, full basement, but Lowes sells a long flexible drill bit just for doing wiring.  I ended up putting a gig-e switch in my office and one in my basement.  I don't know how fast they are since I only have one gig-e computer, but the switches say they connect at gig-e.</p><p>I have some photos of what I done on flickr:</p><p><a href="http://www.flickr.com/photos/brianjpugh/sets/72157621578462074/" title="flickr.com" rel="nofollow">http://www.flickr.com/photos/brianjpugh/sets/72157621578462074/</a> [flickr.com]<br><a href="http://www.flickr.com/photos/brianjpugh/sets/72157622296384977/" title="flickr.com" rel="nofollow">http://www.flickr.com/photos/brianjpugh/sets/72157622296384977/</a> [flickr.com]</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I used some cat6 ethernet I bought at newegg for cheap , and already crimped .
Then I bought some of these from newegg : http : //www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx ? Item = N82E16812993025 [ newegg.com ] .
I have seen other sites that carry them too , and they worked great in the plates that I got at home depot .
Finally , a trip to home depot for some low voltage boxes and some modular wall plates .
I have done 2 rooms for around $ 40 bucks , but most of my cost was the couplers and tools .
The boxes and plates are really cheap and I also picked up a bag of blank plugs and some coax cable plugs.It helped that I have a drop ceiling , full basement , but Lowes sells a long flexible drill bit just for doing wiring .
I ended up putting a gig-e switch in my office and one in my basement .
I do n't know how fast they are since I only have one gig-e computer , but the switches say they connect at gig-e.I have some photos of what I done on flickr : http : //www.flickr.com/photos/brianjpugh/sets/72157621578462074/ [ flickr.com ] http : //www.flickr.com/photos/brianjpugh/sets/72157622296384977/ [ flickr.com ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I used some cat6 ethernet I bought at newegg for cheap, and already crimped.
Then I bought some of these from newegg: http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16812993025 [newegg.com].
I have seen other sites that carry them too, and they worked great in the plates that I got at home depot.
Finally, a trip to home depot for some low voltage boxes and some modular wall plates.
I have done 2 rooms for around $40 bucks, but most of my cost was the couplers and tools.
The boxes and plates are really cheap and I also picked up a bag of blank plugs and some coax cable plugs.It helped that I have a drop ceiling, full basement, but Lowes sells a long flexible drill bit just for doing wiring.
I ended up putting a gig-e switch in my office and one in my basement.
I don't know how fast they are since I only have one gig-e computer, but the switches say they connect at gig-e.I have some photos of what I done on flickr:http://www.flickr.com/photos/brianjpugh/sets/72157621578462074/ [flickr.com]http://www.flickr.com/photos/brianjpugh/sets/72157622296384977/ [flickr.com]</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_18_188222.31187370</id>
	<title>ATT Uverse runs over coax</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1266520380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext>I have AT&amp;T's Uverse for phone/TV/internet and its set-top boxes communicate over coax.  They are using IP over coax, since the router shows the boxes' IP addresses as though they were on a an Ethernet network.  The boxes run Windows Media Edition, for what it's worth.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I have AT&amp;T 's Uverse for phone/TV/internet and its set-top boxes communicate over coax .
They are using IP over coax , since the router shows the boxes ' IP addresses as though they were on a an Ethernet network .
The boxes run Windows Media Edition , for what it 's worth .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I have AT&amp;T's Uverse for phone/TV/internet and its set-top boxes communicate over coax.
They are using IP over coax, since the router shows the boxes' IP addresses as though they were on a an Ethernet network.
The boxes run Windows Media Edition, for what it's worth.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_18_188222.31188034</id>
	<title>Re:ATT Uverse runs over coax</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1266522360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>I have AT&amp;T's Uverse for phone/TV/internet and its set-top boxes communicate over coax. They are using IP over coax, since the router shows the boxes' IP addresses as though they were on a an Ethernet network. The boxes run Windows Media Edition, for what it's worth.</i> </p><p>Taking that to it's logical extension, each AT&amp;T Uverse set-top box has an ethernet port on it in addition to the coax port.  You can use coax as the network for the Uverse cable boxes, but then also plug ethernet devices into the ethernet port on the back of the settop box.  I use this for my Roku box since streaming over wireless sucks so badly.  You could just as easily connect a mini-switch and then connect multiple ethernet devices.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I have AT&amp;T 's Uverse for phone/TV/internet and its set-top boxes communicate over coax .
They are using IP over coax , since the router shows the boxes ' IP addresses as though they were on a an Ethernet network .
The boxes run Windows Media Edition , for what it 's worth .
Taking that to it 's logical extension , each AT&amp;T Uverse set-top box has an ethernet port on it in addition to the coax port .
You can use coax as the network for the Uverse cable boxes , but then also plug ethernet devices into the ethernet port on the back of the settop box .
I use this for my Roku box since streaming over wireless sucks so badly .
You could just as easily connect a mini-switch and then connect multiple ethernet devices .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I have AT&amp;T's Uverse for phone/TV/internet and its set-top boxes communicate over coax.
They are using IP over coax, since the router shows the boxes' IP addresses as though they were on a an Ethernet network.
The boxes run Windows Media Edition, for what it's worth.
Taking that to it's logical extension, each AT&amp;T Uverse set-top box has an ethernet port on it in addition to the coax port.
You can use coax as the network for the Uverse cable boxes, but then also plug ethernet devices into the ethernet port on the back of the settop box.
I use this for my Roku box since streaming over wireless sucks so badly.
You could just as easily connect a mini-switch and then connect multiple ethernet devices.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_18_188222.31187370</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_18_188222.31189514</id>
	<title>Re:ATT Uverse runs over coax</title>
	<author>NJRoadfan</author>
	<datestamp>1266526680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Verizon Fios uses a standard called Multimedia over Coax (MoCA) for its VOD system. Best thing is they make stand alone bridges for it that can sometimes be found for cheap. Look on ebay for Motorola NIM-100 boxes. They convert Cat-5 ethernet to MoCA coax. Of course lets not forget an obvious solution to the problem. Why not just wire the house for Cat-5e/6? In the long run it will be more flexible and less headaches.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Verizon Fios uses a standard called Multimedia over Coax ( MoCA ) for its VOD system .
Best thing is they make stand alone bridges for it that can sometimes be found for cheap .
Look on ebay for Motorola NIM-100 boxes .
They convert Cat-5 ethernet to MoCA coax .
Of course lets not forget an obvious solution to the problem .
Why not just wire the house for Cat-5e/6 ?
In the long run it will be more flexible and less headaches .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Verizon Fios uses a standard called Multimedia over Coax (MoCA) for its VOD system.
Best thing is they make stand alone bridges for it that can sometimes be found for cheap.
Look on ebay for Motorola NIM-100 boxes.
They convert Cat-5 ethernet to MoCA coax.
Of course lets not forget an obvious solution to the problem.
Why not just wire the house for Cat-5e/6?
In the long run it will be more flexible and less headaches.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_18_188222.31187370</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_18_188222.31190550</id>
	<title>If this is a larger/old house, you might try</title>
	<author>jamcc</author>
	<datestamp>1266486240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>it this way:

In your attic, place a switch, with runs to each of your upper floor rooms, and a run to the basement.

In your basement, place another switch, with runs to each of your lower floor rooms, and connect that attic switch in.

Now your whole house is chatting at up to 1000baseT if you splurge on the gig switches.  I've seen the attic/basement connection ran out a window and down the outside of a house.  I've also seen that line get hit by lightning and take out a bunch of gear, so think twice about that, or at least put some grounding straps on it (check with an electrician who can advise you on this) to keep the lightning at bay.

Typically, your older houses have hollow, easily accessible internal walls. Good for fishing wires up and thru.</htmltext>
<tokenext>it this way : In your attic , place a switch , with runs to each of your upper floor rooms , and a run to the basement .
In your basement , place another switch , with runs to each of your lower floor rooms , and connect that attic switch in .
Now your whole house is chatting at up to 1000baseT if you splurge on the gig switches .
I 've seen the attic/basement connection ran out a window and down the outside of a house .
I 've also seen that line get hit by lightning and take out a bunch of gear , so think twice about that , or at least put some grounding straps on it ( check with an electrician who can advise you on this ) to keep the lightning at bay .
Typically , your older houses have hollow , easily accessible internal walls .
Good for fishing wires up and thru .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>it this way:

In your attic, place a switch, with runs to each of your upper floor rooms, and a run to the basement.
In your basement, place another switch, with runs to each of your lower floor rooms, and connect that attic switch in.
Now your whole house is chatting at up to 1000baseT if you splurge on the gig switches.
I've seen the attic/basement connection ran out a window and down the outside of a house.
I've also seen that line get hit by lightning and take out a bunch of gear, so think twice about that, or at least put some grounding straps on it (check with an electrician who can advise you on this) to keep the lightning at bay.
Typically, your older houses have hollow, easily accessible internal walls.
Good for fishing wires up and thru.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_18_188222.31188210</id>
	<title>Re:MoCa</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1266523020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Yes, moca could be a good solution assuming that you have RG-6 coax, if RG-59, moca, at worst, will not work, or at best, will be slow.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Yes , moca could be a good solution assuming that you have RG-6 coax , if RG-59 , moca , at worst , will not work , or at best , will be slow .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Yes, moca could be a good solution assuming that you have RG-6 coax, if RG-59, moca, at worst, will not work, or at best, will be slow.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_18_188222.31187470</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_18_188222.31191114</id>
	<title>Re:Another alternative</title>
	<author>Deep Penguin</author>
	<datestamp>1266487980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Check that cable before you assume anything - telephone cable is frequently Cat3, not Cat5 - 10Mbps, not 100Mbps (if you can't find "Cat-anything" on the jacket, it's just about guaranteed to be no better than Cat3).   On top of that, household phone wiring topology is room-to-room daisychain, with multiple legs tied back to a common point before going to the demarcation point.  Nothing like endpoint-to-endpoint-with-no-branches-or-spurs UTP topology.</p><p>You can violate many physical network standards if your runs are short enough.  Just don't expect it to be robust.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Check that cable before you assume anything - telephone cable is frequently Cat3 , not Cat5 - 10Mbps , not 100Mbps ( if you ca n't find " Cat-anything " on the jacket , it 's just about guaranteed to be no better than Cat3 ) .
On top of that , household phone wiring topology is room-to-room daisychain , with multiple legs tied back to a common point before going to the demarcation point .
Nothing like endpoint-to-endpoint-with-no-branches-or-spurs UTP topology.You can violate many physical network standards if your runs are short enough .
Just do n't expect it to be robust .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Check that cable before you assume anything - telephone cable is frequently Cat3, not Cat5 - 10Mbps, not 100Mbps (if you can't find "Cat-anything" on the jacket, it's just about guaranteed to be no better than Cat3).
On top of that, household phone wiring topology is room-to-room daisychain, with multiple legs tied back to a common point before going to the demarcation point.
Nothing like endpoint-to-endpoint-with-no-branches-or-spurs UTP topology.You can violate many physical network standards if your runs are short enough.
Just don't expect it to be robust.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_18_188222.31187824</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_18_188222.31187684</id>
	<title>Try it</title>
	<author>tie\_guy\_matt</author>
	<datestamp>1266521340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>A good coax can handle higher frequencies than the twisted pair used in cat 6 (Not sure if YOUR coax cable is good enough to handle higher frequencies than twisted pair but you can get a type of coax that can.) Of course the coax in your house might not be properly impedance matched and all that but for small distances it might not matter. I say take apart the twisted pair in a cat5 or cat 6 cable and solder it to the coax. Just make sure that you solder the stripped color wire to the same coax as the solid color wire. And yes ethernet only uses two of the twisted pair wires (meaning you only have to use two coax wires.) What is the worst that could happen? You waste a little cat 5 cable and a couple of connectors in a test that doesn't end up working? If it works then post the results of what happened and maybe you can get your sight slashdotted!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>A good coax can handle higher frequencies than the twisted pair used in cat 6 ( Not sure if YOUR coax cable is good enough to handle higher frequencies than twisted pair but you can get a type of coax that can .
) Of course the coax in your house might not be properly impedance matched and all that but for small distances it might not matter .
I say take apart the twisted pair in a cat5 or cat 6 cable and solder it to the coax .
Just make sure that you solder the stripped color wire to the same coax as the solid color wire .
And yes ethernet only uses two of the twisted pair wires ( meaning you only have to use two coax wires .
) What is the worst that could happen ?
You waste a little cat 5 cable and a couple of connectors in a test that does n't end up working ?
If it works then post the results of what happened and maybe you can get your sight slashdotted !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>A good coax can handle higher frequencies than the twisted pair used in cat 6 (Not sure if YOUR coax cable is good enough to handle higher frequencies than twisted pair but you can get a type of coax that can.
) Of course the coax in your house might not be properly impedance matched and all that but for small distances it might not matter.
I say take apart the twisted pair in a cat5 or cat 6 cable and solder it to the coax.
Just make sure that you solder the stripped color wire to the same coax as the solid color wire.
And yes ethernet only uses two of the twisted pair wires (meaning you only have to use two coax wires.
) What is the worst that could happen?
You waste a little cat 5 cable and a couple of connectors in a test that doesn't end up working?
If it works then post the results of what happened and maybe you can get your sight slashdotted!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_18_188222.31187776</id>
	<title>Re:Related Questions</title>
	<author>Shotgun</author>
	<datestamp>1266521580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I wouldn't run wire.  I'd run conduit.</p><p>You have no idea what the future holds.  I've seen it, and Cat6 won't be good enough.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I would n't run wire .
I 'd run conduit.You have no idea what the future holds .
I 've seen it , and Cat6 wo n't be good enough .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I wouldn't run wire.
I'd run conduit.You have no idea what the future holds.
I've seen it, and Cat6 won't be good enough.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_18_188222.31187546</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_18_188222.31187394</id>
	<title>Or Just Run Cat5</title>
	<author>Princeofcups</author>
	<datestamp>1266520440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Redundant</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Get a strand of cat5.  Tie it to one end of the coax.  Go to the other room.  Pull the coax until you see the cat5.  Crimp ends.  Repeat.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Get a strand of cat5 .
Tie it to one end of the coax .
Go to the other room .
Pull the coax until you see the cat5 .
Crimp ends .
Repeat .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Get a strand of cat5.
Tie it to one end of the coax.
Go to the other room.
Pull the coax until you see the cat5.
Crimp ends.
Repeat.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_18_188222.31187470</id>
	<title>MoCa</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1266520740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext>I'm surprised no one has already mentioned MoCa,.

Several companies make MoCa adapters that runs 100Mb/s ethernet over Coax cables:
<a href="http://www.google.com/products/catalog?q=MOCA+adapter&amp;oe=utf-8&amp;rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&amp;client=firefox-a&amp;um=1&amp;ie=UTF-8&amp;cid=2590185696454305965&amp;ei=PoR9S5uIC4mWtge8z5GfBQ&amp;sa=X&amp;oi=product\_catalog\_result&amp;ct=image&amp;resnum=1&amp;ved=0CBQQ8gIwAA#" title="google.com" rel="nofollow">http://www.google.com/products/catalog?q=MOCA+adapter&amp;oe=utf-8&amp;rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&amp;client=firefox-a&amp;um=1&amp;ie=UTF-8&amp;cid=2590185696454305965&amp;ei=PoR9S5uIC4mWtge8z5GfBQ&amp;sa=X&amp;oi=product\_catalog\_result&amp;ct=image&amp;resnum=1&amp;ved=0CBQQ8gIwAA#</a> [google.com]

And read all about it on Wikipedia:
<a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Multimedia\_over\_Coax\_Alliance" title="wikipedia.org" rel="nofollow">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Multimedia\_over\_Coax\_Alliance</a> [wikipedia.org]</htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'm surprised no one has already mentioned MoCa, .
Several companies make MoCa adapters that runs 100Mb/s ethernet over Coax cables : http : //www.google.com/products/catalog ? q = MOCA + adapter&amp;oe = utf-8&amp;rls = org.mozilla : en-US : official&amp;client = firefox-a&amp;um = 1&amp;ie = UTF-8&amp;cid = 2590185696454305965&amp;ei = PoR9S5uIC4mWtge8z5GfBQ&amp;sa = X&amp;oi = product \ _catalog \ _result&amp;ct = image&amp;resnum = 1&amp;ved = 0CBQQ8gIwAA # [ google.com ] And read all about it on Wikipedia : http : //en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Multimedia \ _over \ _Coax \ _Alliance [ wikipedia.org ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'm surprised no one has already mentioned MoCa,.
Several companies make MoCa adapters that runs 100Mb/s ethernet over Coax cables:
http://www.google.com/products/catalog?q=MOCA+adapter&amp;oe=utf-8&amp;rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&amp;client=firefox-a&amp;um=1&amp;ie=UTF-8&amp;cid=2590185696454305965&amp;ei=PoR9S5uIC4mWtge8z5GfBQ&amp;sa=X&amp;oi=product\_catalog\_result&amp;ct=image&amp;resnum=1&amp;ved=0CBQQ8gIwAA# [google.com]

And read all about it on Wikipedia:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Multimedia\_over\_Coax\_Alliance [wikipedia.org]</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_18_188222.31189204</id>
	<title>Re:Related Questions</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1266525900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>2 RG-6, 2 Cat5 (or cat6!) per room. If you can afford it, add 2 fiber optic per room.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>2 RG-6 , 2 Cat5 ( or cat6 !
) per room .
If you can afford it , add 2 fiber optic per room .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>2 RG-6, 2 Cat5 (or cat6!
) per room.
If you can afford it, add 2 fiber optic per room.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_18_188222.31187546</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_18_188222.31194856</id>
	<title>Re:Why not wireless?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1266507300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>because perfect world wireless isn't 56Mbit and only extends about 5-15 feet from the AP.  real world wireless drops pkts for all kinds of reasons such as badly implemented radios, shitty drivers, and badly shieleded household appliances.  Nothing replaces a dedicated line.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>because perfect world wireless is n't 56Mbit and only extends about 5-15 feet from the AP .
real world wireless drops pkts for all kinds of reasons such as badly implemented radios , shitty drivers , and badly shieleded household appliances .
Nothing replaces a dedicated line .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>because perfect world wireless isn't 56Mbit and only extends about 5-15 feet from the AP.
real world wireless drops pkts for all kinds of reasons such as badly implemented radios, shitty drivers, and badly shieleded household appliances.
Nothing replaces a dedicated line.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_18_188222.31187662</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_18_188222.31191870</id>
	<title>2 coax lines != 4 pairs</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1266490800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>'This got me thinking: 100mb ethernet is four wires, yes? And I have four wires for every two coax cables.'</p><p>Four wires are only rated for 10mb.  Eight wires will do 10 and 100mb but 1gb will work too.  You should follow the good advice of others and pull new wire.  Cat5 will cost a lot less then cat6 in every way (wire/jacks/tools).  Pull sting is cheap.  Pull two pieces through and tie them on each end to make a loop.  You will never need another string in the wall.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>'This got me thinking : 100mb ethernet is four wires , yes ?
And I have four wires for every two coax cables .
'Four wires are only rated for 10mb .
Eight wires will do 10 and 100mb but 1gb will work too .
You should follow the good advice of others and pull new wire .
Cat5 will cost a lot less then cat6 in every way ( wire/jacks/tools ) .
Pull sting is cheap .
Pull two pieces through and tie them on each end to make a loop .
You will never need another string in the wall .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>'This got me thinking: 100mb ethernet is four wires, yes?
And I have four wires for every two coax cables.
'Four wires are only rated for 10mb.
Eight wires will do 10 and 100mb but 1gb will work too.
You should follow the good advice of others and pull new wire.
Cat5 will cost a lot less then cat6 in every way (wire/jacks/tools).
Pull sting is cheap.
Pull two pieces through and tie them on each end to make a loop.
You will never need another string in the wall.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_18_188222.31190320</id>
	<title>Re:Related Questions</title>
	<author>MaQleod</author>
	<datestamp>1266485700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Fiber is a wonderful thing, but for the price of fiber optic cable in association with the minimal uses for the average person, I don't think it is really worth the cost at this time. NICs and other equipment that can actually utilize fiber are very expensive and just excessive for most homes. Cat5e/6 are the way to go.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Fiber is a wonderful thing , but for the price of fiber optic cable in association with the minimal uses for the average person , I do n't think it is really worth the cost at this time .
NICs and other equipment that can actually utilize fiber are very expensive and just excessive for most homes .
Cat5e/6 are the way to go .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Fiber is a wonderful thing, but for the price of fiber optic cable in association with the minimal uses for the average person, I don't think it is really worth the cost at this time.
NICs and other equipment that can actually utilize fiber are very expensive and just excessive for most homes.
Cat5e/6 are the way to go.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_18_188222.31187546</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_18_188222.31187818</id>
	<title>Stick with Coax</title>
	<author>Chelmet</author>
	<datestamp>1266521700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I read a very good article last night, seems like its right up your street: <a href="http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/powerline-wireless-networking,2470.html" title="tomshardware.com" rel="nofollow">here</a> [tomshardware.com].</p><p>Its a comparison of different streaming options in a house that's not wired up to your specifications. Page 8 shows that with coax you should be able to get 68Mbps streaming video via UDP, which should be more than sufficient for your streaming needs. The only thing is that you'll have to buy a coax/ethernet adaptor. Not cheap, but a <em>whole</em> lot easier than rewiring.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I read a very good article last night , seems like its right up your street : here [ tomshardware.com ] .Its a comparison of different streaming options in a house that 's not wired up to your specifications .
Page 8 shows that with coax you should be able to get 68Mbps streaming video via UDP , which should be more than sufficient for your streaming needs .
The only thing is that you 'll have to buy a coax/ethernet adaptor .
Not cheap , but a whole lot easier than rewiring .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I read a very good article last night, seems like its right up your street: here [tomshardware.com].Its a comparison of different streaming options in a house that's not wired up to your specifications.
Page 8 shows that with coax you should be able to get 68Mbps streaming video via UDP, which should be more than sufficient for your streaming needs.
The only thing is that you'll have to buy a coax/ethernet adaptor.
Not cheap, but a whole lot easier than rewiring.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_18_188222.31204298</id>
	<title>Re:MoCa</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1266574860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I'm picked up a three used moca adapters off of ebay after I found out Verizon FiOS used it already for their installation in my house. Using 2 - one for for the Wii (which is too far from where my router install is to pick up it's wifi, and another in the kitchen where my wife's computer is, where we had no end of wifi deadspot and reliability issues. It gives your around 100mb, and in my case it was a relatively inexpensive and super easy stop-gap solution until I have the time to properly pull cable for gigabit all over, when wireless just wasn't cutting it.</p><p>Sure, it's not gigabit, but it'll do for now.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'm picked up a three used moca adapters off of ebay after I found out Verizon FiOS used it already for their installation in my house .
Using 2 - one for for the Wii ( which is too far from where my router install is to pick up it 's wifi , and another in the kitchen where my wife 's computer is , where we had no end of wifi deadspot and reliability issues .
It gives your around 100mb , and in my case it was a relatively inexpensive and super easy stop-gap solution until I have the time to properly pull cable for gigabit all over , when wireless just was n't cutting it.Sure , it 's not gigabit , but it 'll do for now .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'm picked up a three used moca adapters off of ebay after I found out Verizon FiOS used it already for their installation in my house.
Using 2 - one for for the Wii (which is too far from where my router install is to pick up it's wifi, and another in the kitchen where my wife's computer is, where we had no end of wifi deadspot and reliability issues.
It gives your around 100mb, and in my case it was a relatively inexpensive and super easy stop-gap solution until I have the time to properly pull cable for gigabit all over, when wireless just wasn't cutting it.Sure, it's not gigabit, but it'll do for now.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_18_188222.31187470</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_18_188222.31187424</id>
	<title>Just bite the bullet pull Cat6</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1266520560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>If you have access to the attic, it may be a full day's work to wire the whole house, but you'll be far better off pulling the correct wiring into place.  Buy a 500ft box of cable and the appropriate wall jacks and plates and make a day of it.  It's not hard with a fish tape or fish sticks (those bendy fiberglass poles for running wires).</p><p>I have been using an 802.11N bridge to connect my upstairs printer/scanner/thing and I have another computer up there with a wireless bridge and it's a pain compared to the situation downstairs where I ran Cat6 to a patch panel in the basement.</p><p>Buying all the cable, jacks and plates has cost less than the single 802.11N bridge, and I have gigabit Ethernet for my devices.  The wiring is simple and once it's in place it's done.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>If you have access to the attic , it may be a full day 's work to wire the whole house , but you 'll be far better off pulling the correct wiring into place .
Buy a 500ft box of cable and the appropriate wall jacks and plates and make a day of it .
It 's not hard with a fish tape or fish sticks ( those bendy fiberglass poles for running wires ) .I have been using an 802.11N bridge to connect my upstairs printer/scanner/thing and I have another computer up there with a wireless bridge and it 's a pain compared to the situation downstairs where I ran Cat6 to a patch panel in the basement.Buying all the cable , jacks and plates has cost less than the single 802.11N bridge , and I have gigabit Ethernet for my devices .
The wiring is simple and once it 's in place it 's done .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If you have access to the attic, it may be a full day's work to wire the whole house, but you'll be far better off pulling the correct wiring into place.
Buy a 500ft box of cable and the appropriate wall jacks and plates and make a day of it.
It's not hard with a fish tape or fish sticks (those bendy fiberglass poles for running wires).I have been using an 802.11N bridge to connect my upstairs printer/scanner/thing and I have another computer up there with a wireless bridge and it's a pain compared to the situation downstairs where I ran Cat6 to a patch panel in the basement.Buying all the cable, jacks and plates has cost less than the single 802.11N bridge, and I have gigabit Ethernet for my devices.
The wiring is simple and once it's in place it's done.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_18_188222.31189724</id>
	<title>Uverse?</title>
	<author>Raistlin77</author>
	<datestamp>1266484080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>If AT&amp;T Uverse is available in your location, you have a better solution - just get Uverse.  Since you have coax run everywhere, the installer(s) will use that to connect the boxes, and the unused ethernet jack on each box is still functional and tied into the network over the coax.  I've got a media streamer in the living room connected to the Uverse box there, my bedroom PC connected to the Uverse box, and in my son's room his Xbox and PC are connected to a 4-port hub connected to the Uverse box.  It all works perfectly!</htmltext>
<tokenext>If AT&amp;T Uverse is available in your location , you have a better solution - just get Uverse .
Since you have coax run everywhere , the installer ( s ) will use that to connect the boxes , and the unused ethernet jack on each box is still functional and tied into the network over the coax .
I 've got a media streamer in the living room connected to the Uverse box there , my bedroom PC connected to the Uverse box , and in my son 's room his Xbox and PC are connected to a 4-port hub connected to the Uverse box .
It all works perfectly !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If AT&amp;T Uverse is available in your location, you have a better solution - just get Uverse.
Since you have coax run everywhere, the installer(s) will use that to connect the boxes, and the unused ethernet jack on each box is still functional and tied into the network over the coax.
I've got a media streamer in the living room connected to the Uverse box there, my bedroom PC connected to the Uverse box, and in my son's room his Xbox and PC are connected to a 4-port hub connected to the Uverse box.
It all works perfectly!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_18_188222.31189452</id>
	<title>VZ Actiontec MoCA FTW!</title>
	<author>im\_electronic</author>
	<datestamp>1266526500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>MoCA with the older actiontec verizon fios routers, they can be had cheap, and are firmware compatible to just be a bridge.</htmltext>
<tokenext>MoCA with the older actiontec verizon fios routers , they can be had cheap , and are firmware compatible to just be a bridge .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>MoCA with the older actiontec verizon fios routers, they can be had cheap, and are firmware compatible to just be a bridge.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_18_188222.31194876</id>
	<title>Re:Similar project for me</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1266507420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>THANK YOU SO MUCH!!! This is exactly what I needed. Mod This guy to high heaven!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>THANK YOU SO MUCH ! ! !
This is exactly what I needed .
Mod This guy to high heaven !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>THANK YOU SO MUCH!!!
This is exactly what I needed.
Mod This guy to high heaven!</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_18_188222.31187876</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_18_188222.31187582</id>
	<title>Cat5 != 4 separate wires</title>
	<author>dsojourner</author>
	<datestamp>1266521040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Cat5 expects two pairs, each of which carries a differntial signal. If the wire lengths are too far off (and off the top of my head I would imagine is about 6 cm) it will not work.</p><p>(I got 6cm by using (a) speed in coax ~ 1/2 C, lamda = speed/2*pi*freq, matching needs 1/4 lamba or better)</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Cat5 expects two pairs , each of which carries a differntial signal .
If the wire lengths are too far off ( and off the top of my head I would imagine is about 6 cm ) it will not work .
( I got 6cm by using ( a ) speed in coax ~ 1/2 C , lamda = speed/2 * pi * freq , matching needs 1/4 lamba or better )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Cat5 expects two pairs, each of which carries a differntial signal.
If the wire lengths are too far off (and off the top of my head I would imagine is about 6 cm) it will not work.
(I got 6cm by using (a) speed in coax ~ 1/2 C, lamda = speed/2*pi*freq, matching needs 1/4 lamba or better)</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_18_188222.31187448</id>
	<title>Use the coax to pull cat5</title>
	<author>seanmcgrath</author>
	<datestamp>1266520680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Redundant</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Simple known process,<br>desired end result, low cost.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Simple known process,desired end result , low cost .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Simple known process,desired end result, low cost.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_18_188222.31195700</id>
	<title>Re:Twisted pair, man</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1266514500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Buy an Apple Airport Extreme. Stop being such a dirty jew.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Buy an Apple Airport Extreme .
Stop being such a dirty jew .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Buy an Apple Airport Extreme.
Stop being such a dirty jew.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_18_188222.31187408</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_18_188222.31189168</id>
	<title>Re:MoCa</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1266525780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I've got a couple of these and they work excellently:</p><p>http://www.netgear.com/Products/PowerlineNetworking/Coax/MCAB1001.aspx</p><p>You do need to be careful of cable splitters and filters however as the signal won't cross them. I did and wound up moving my cable "segments" onto the the same splitter. As filters will block the signal, they're a good way to prevent data leakage outside your home.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I 've got a couple of these and they work excellently : http : //www.netgear.com/Products/PowerlineNetworking/Coax/MCAB1001.aspxYou do need to be careful of cable splitters and filters however as the signal wo n't cross them .
I did and wound up moving my cable " segments " onto the the same splitter .
As filters will block the signal , they 're a good way to prevent data leakage outside your home .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I've got a couple of these and they work excellently:http://www.netgear.com/Products/PowerlineNetworking/Coax/MCAB1001.aspxYou do need to be careful of cable splitters and filters however as the signal won't cross them.
I did and wound up moving my cable "segments" onto the the same splitter.
As filters will block the signal, they're a good way to prevent data leakage outside your home.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_18_188222.31187470</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_18_188222.31191212</id>
	<title>Re:Related Questions</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1266488280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I used "structured wire": a bundle containing 2 Cat5e cables, 2 RG6 cables and 2 fiber strands. It costs $1 a foot and I paid a professional to pull the long runs (e.g., between my garage apartment and the main house). It is about an inch in diameter and has a fairly large minimum bending radius. I've not used the fiber, yet, but it is there for the future. The UTP and coax cables work fine.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I used " structured wire " : a bundle containing 2 Cat5e cables , 2 RG6 cables and 2 fiber strands .
It costs $ 1 a foot and I paid a professional to pull the long runs ( e.g. , between my garage apartment and the main house ) .
It is about an inch in diameter and has a fairly large minimum bending radius .
I 've not used the fiber , yet , but it is there for the future .
The UTP and coax cables work fine .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I used "structured wire": a bundle containing 2 Cat5e cables, 2 RG6 cables and 2 fiber strands.
It costs $1 a foot and I paid a professional to pull the long runs (e.g., between my garage apartment and the main house).
It is about an inch in diameter and has a fairly large minimum bending radius.
I've not used the fiber, yet, but it is there for the future.
The UTP and coax cables work fine.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_18_188222.31187546</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_18_188222.31189154</id>
	<title>HCNA is your friend</title>
	<author>really?</author>
	<datestamp>1266525720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Easiest solution:</p><p><a href="http://cgi.cafr.ebay.ca/SMC-EZ-Connect-Coax-Ethernet-Adapter-SMCHCNA2-ETH-New\_W0QQitemZ140372974872QQcmdZViewItemQQptZCOMP\_EN\_Hubs?hash=item20aee19d18" title="cafr.ebay.ca">http://cgi.cafr.ebay.ca/SMC-EZ-Connect-Coax-Ethernet-Adapter-SMCHCNA2-ETH-New\_W0QQitemZ140372974872QQcmdZViewItemQQptZCOMP\_EN\_Hubs?hash=item20aee19d18</a> [cafr.ebay.ca]</p><p>You are welcome,</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Easiest solution : http : //cgi.cafr.ebay.ca/SMC-EZ-Connect-Coax-Ethernet-Adapter-SMCHCNA2-ETH-New \ _W0QQitemZ140372974872QQcmdZViewItemQQptZCOMP \ _EN \ _Hubs ? hash = item20aee19d18 [ cafr.ebay.ca ] You are welcome,</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Easiest solution:http://cgi.cafr.ebay.ca/SMC-EZ-Connect-Coax-Ethernet-Adapter-SMCHCNA2-ETH-New\_W0QQitemZ140372974872QQcmdZViewItemQQptZCOMP\_EN\_Hubs?hash=item20aee19d18 [cafr.ebay.ca]You are welcome,</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_18_188222.31189246</id>
	<title>Re:Related Questions</title>
	<author>XSforMe</author>
	<datestamp>1266526020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>&gt; the expensive part is probably paying someone to put the cable</p><p>Pulling cable can be tricky, specially if you don't have a guide to do the job, but since the old coaxes are already there, why not use them as guides? Of course this shouldn't be attempted by a humanities major, but this is Slashdot.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>&gt; the expensive part is probably paying someone to put the cablePulling cable can be tricky , specially if you do n't have a guide to do the job , but since the old coaxes are already there , why not use them as guides ?
Of course this should n't be attempted by a humanities major , but this is Slashdot .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>&gt; the expensive part is probably paying someone to put the cablePulling cable can be tricky, specially if you don't have a guide to do the job, but since the old coaxes are already there, why not use them as guides?
Of course this shouldn't be attempted by a humanities major, but this is Slashdot.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_18_188222.31187546</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_18_188222.31192048</id>
	<title>Sounds good for a DS-3 line</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1266491580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>If you've got coax you can get a good 45Mbps DS-3 line going on it.  Just find some surplus telco gear and go to town.  I wouldn't mind a DS-3 in my house, just for historic grins and giggles.  Of course getting the 48 Volt power for the CSU/DSU may be an issue.  Dang, pull the cat-5.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>If you 've got coax you can get a good 45Mbps DS-3 line going on it .
Just find some surplus telco gear and go to town .
I would n't mind a DS-3 in my house , just for historic grins and giggles .
Of course getting the 48 Volt power for the CSU/DSU may be an issue .
Dang , pull the cat-5 .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If you've got coax you can get a good 45Mbps DS-3 line going on it.
Just find some surplus telco gear and go to town.
I wouldn't mind a DS-3 in my house, just for historic grins and giggles.
Of course getting the 48 Volt power for the CSU/DSU may be an issue.
Dang, pull the cat-5.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_18_188222.31188164</id>
	<title>Build a MoCA network using MI424WR's</title>
	<author>IGnatius T Foobar</author>
	<datestamp>1266522960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Verizon FiOS uses the Actiontec MI424WR router to bridge Ethernet to coax using MoCA (Multimedia Over Cable Alliance) technology.  This allows them to provide Internet access to your set top boxes without having to string Cat5 to the TV location.<br> <br>Used MI424WR routers can be found cheap on eBay.  Get a pair of them (or three or four or whatever), turn off the DHCP stuff, and you've got yourself a nice set of Ethernet-to-coax bridges.<br> <br>As an extra benefit, these have wifi in them, so you're also going to get a whole-house wifi setup at no extra charge.  And by the way, MoCA runs at &gt;1000 MHz so you can run cable TV on the same wiring plant without interference.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Verizon FiOS uses the Actiontec MI424WR router to bridge Ethernet to coax using MoCA ( Multimedia Over Cable Alliance ) technology .
This allows them to provide Internet access to your set top boxes without having to string Cat5 to the TV location .
Used MI424WR routers can be found cheap on eBay .
Get a pair of them ( or three or four or whatever ) , turn off the DHCP stuff , and you 've got yourself a nice set of Ethernet-to-coax bridges .
As an extra benefit , these have wifi in them , so you 're also going to get a whole-house wifi setup at no extra charge .
And by the way , MoCA runs at &gt; 1000 MHz so you can run cable TV on the same wiring plant without interference .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Verizon FiOS uses the Actiontec MI424WR router to bridge Ethernet to coax using MoCA (Multimedia Over Cable Alliance) technology.
This allows them to provide Internet access to your set top boxes without having to string Cat5 to the TV location.
Used MI424WR routers can be found cheap on eBay.
Get a pair of them (or three or four or whatever), turn off the DHCP stuff, and you've got yourself a nice set of Ethernet-to-coax bridges.
As an extra benefit, these have wifi in them, so you're also going to get a whole-house wifi setup at no extra charge.
And by the way, MoCA runs at &gt;1000 MHz so you can run cable TV on the same wiring plant without interference.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_18_188222.31191236</id>
	<title>Impedance matching</title>
	<author>cybergremlin</author>
	<datestamp>1266488340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>It is about more than just having the correct number of wires.  You have to look at the impedance of the lines.  One company was able to do a demo with 100baseT over barbed wire seperated by several inches of air, but only because that width of free space matches the impedance of cat5 UTP.</p><p>Unfortunatly Cat5 is 100ohm and RG6 is 75ohm.  Every incidance of impedance mismatch causes a reflection.  Going from 100ohm to 75ohm gives a negative reflection, and the reverse causes a positive one.  Realy short mismatches (like a conector) largely cancel out but long cable runs...</p><p>The short answer is that for a reliable high bandwidth solution you are probably better off ignoring the coax.  802.11n should give you all the wireless bandwidth you need, g tends to have a real throughput of around 20Mb but n claims 100Mb (DVD rate about 5Mbps, broadcast DTV up to 19.4Mbps, BlueRay up to 40Mbps).  Or you could future proof yourself and run Cat5e, works with Gigabit ethernet.</p><p>And yes, IAAEE (I Am An Electrical Engineer)</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It is about more than just having the correct number of wires .
You have to look at the impedance of the lines .
One company was able to do a demo with 100baseT over barbed wire seperated by several inches of air , but only because that width of free space matches the impedance of cat5 UTP.Unfortunatly Cat5 is 100ohm and RG6 is 75ohm .
Every incidance of impedance mismatch causes a reflection .
Going from 100ohm to 75ohm gives a negative reflection , and the reverse causes a positive one .
Realy short mismatches ( like a conector ) largely cancel out but long cable runs...The short answer is that for a reliable high bandwidth solution you are probably better off ignoring the coax .
802.11n should give you all the wireless bandwidth you need , g tends to have a real throughput of around 20Mb but n claims 100Mb ( DVD rate about 5Mbps , broadcast DTV up to 19.4Mbps , BlueRay up to 40Mbps ) .
Or you could future proof yourself and run Cat5e , works with Gigabit ethernet.And yes , IAAEE ( I Am An Electrical Engineer )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It is about more than just having the correct number of wires.
You have to look at the impedance of the lines.
One company was able to do a demo with 100baseT over barbed wire seperated by several inches of air, but only because that width of free space matches the impedance of cat5 UTP.Unfortunatly Cat5 is 100ohm and RG6 is 75ohm.
Every incidance of impedance mismatch causes a reflection.
Going from 100ohm to 75ohm gives a negative reflection, and the reverse causes a positive one.
Realy short mismatches (like a conector) largely cancel out but long cable runs...The short answer is that for a reliable high bandwidth solution you are probably better off ignoring the coax.
802.11n should give you all the wireless bandwidth you need, g tends to have a real throughput of around 20Mb but n claims 100Mb (DVD rate about 5Mbps, broadcast DTV up to 19.4Mbps, BlueRay up to 40Mbps).
Or you could future proof yourself and run Cat5e, works with Gigabit ethernet.And yes, IAAEE (I Am An Electrical Engineer)</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_18_188222.31187456</id>
	<title>Adapting Coax to Twisted Pairs</title>
	<author>veektor</author>
	<datestamp>1266520740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>You have more problems than just selecting 4 wires.  Each pair of wires from the 100 megabit Ethernet is a balanced pair, and coax is unbalanced.  Also, the coax impedance is probably 75 ohms (if I remember correctly) and the twisted pair is around 120 ohms.  So you would need a transformer for each pair to match the impedances and handle the balanced to unbalanced conversion.  Finally, these transformers would need to be small and broadband to avoid unintentional impedance mismatches.

Like the others have suggested, just use the coax as a pull wire for Cat 5e.</htmltext>
<tokenext>You have more problems than just selecting 4 wires .
Each pair of wires from the 100 megabit Ethernet is a balanced pair , and coax is unbalanced .
Also , the coax impedance is probably 75 ohms ( if I remember correctly ) and the twisted pair is around 120 ohms .
So you would need a transformer for each pair to match the impedances and handle the balanced to unbalanced conversion .
Finally , these transformers would need to be small and broadband to avoid unintentional impedance mismatches .
Like the others have suggested , just use the coax as a pull wire for Cat 5e .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You have more problems than just selecting 4 wires.
Each pair of wires from the 100 megabit Ethernet is a balanced pair, and coax is unbalanced.
Also, the coax impedance is probably 75 ohms (if I remember correctly) and the twisted pair is around 120 ohms.
So you would need a transformer for each pair to match the impedances and handle the balanced to unbalanced conversion.
Finally, these transformers would need to be small and broadband to avoid unintentional impedance mismatches.
Like the others have suggested, just use the coax as a pull wire for Cat 5e.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_18_188222.31191750</id>
	<title>Umm...</title>
	<author>TheSHAD0W</author>
	<datestamp>1266490380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>That might be acceptable for running one link.  You'll need one $170 adapter for each end of each cable.  Wiring the entire house that way would be pretty darn expensive.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>That might be acceptable for running one link .
You 'll need one $ 170 adapter for each end of each cable .
Wiring the entire house that way would be pretty darn expensive .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>That might be acceptable for running one link.
You'll need one $170 adapter for each end of each cable.
Wiring the entire house that way would be pretty darn expensive.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_18_188222.31187470</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_18_188222.31197554</id>
	<title>Re:Another alternative</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1266581520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>NB: this works for 100Mb ethernet, but not 1000Mb ethernet.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>NB : this works for 100Mb ethernet , but not 1000Mb ethernet .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>NB: this works for 100Mb ethernet, but not 1000Mb ethernet.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_18_188222.31187824</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_18_188222.31188992</id>
	<title>Re:Cat5e vs Cat6?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1266525240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Yeah, you might as well use Cat6, it's not that much more expensive. The building trend now seems to be two Cat6 jacks and two RG-6 (coax) jacks per room.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Yeah , you might as well use Cat6 , it 's not that much more expensive .
The building trend now seems to be two Cat6 jacks and two RG-6 ( coax ) jacks per room .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Yeah, you might as well use Cat6, it's not that much more expensive.
The building trend now seems to be two Cat6 jacks and two RG-6 (coax) jacks per room.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_18_188222.31187540</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_18_188222.31200658</id>
	<title>not gonna work</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1266601320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I see what you're trying to do. I know it seems clever, but it'll never work.Cat5 is manufactured as twisted pairs of cable to reduce crosstalk (better known as electrical interference). At high speeds, (like 100 mbit), even a little interference is deadly. If you look at the differences between cat5, cat 5e, and cat6, you'll actually see that most of the difference is just in how tight the twists are. (In other words, the twists are important). Coax is straight, not twisted. Not only that, one of the two wires in the coax cable is not really a wire at all, it's a shield. That wire is guaranteed to have interference problems from external sources, and I almost guarantee you if it carries current (instead of just ground like coax does), it'll interfere with the wire inside it too. I know it sounds brilliant, but it just ain't gonna work. If you really want to avoid wiring up the house with cat5, you could just use the existing wire and run a 10 base 2 network, but do you really want to do that? Your best bet is to just buy a spool of cat5 (or cat5e or cat6), tie one end to the coax cable, go to the other end, and pull. Viola - cat5 running through your walls.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I see what you 're trying to do .
I know it seems clever , but it 'll never work.Cat5 is manufactured as twisted pairs of cable to reduce crosstalk ( better known as electrical interference ) .
At high speeds , ( like 100 mbit ) , even a little interference is deadly .
If you look at the differences between cat5 , cat 5e , and cat6 , you 'll actually see that most of the difference is just in how tight the twists are .
( In other words , the twists are important ) .
Coax is straight , not twisted .
Not only that , one of the two wires in the coax cable is not really a wire at all , it 's a shield .
That wire is guaranteed to have interference problems from external sources , and I almost guarantee you if it carries current ( instead of just ground like coax does ) , it 'll interfere with the wire inside it too .
I know it sounds brilliant , but it just ai n't gon na work .
If you really want to avoid wiring up the house with cat5 , you could just use the existing wire and run a 10 base 2 network , but do you really want to do that ?
Your best bet is to just buy a spool of cat5 ( or cat5e or cat6 ) , tie one end to the coax cable , go to the other end , and pull .
Viola - cat5 running through your walls .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I see what you're trying to do.
I know it seems clever, but it'll never work.Cat5 is manufactured as twisted pairs of cable to reduce crosstalk (better known as electrical interference).
At high speeds, (like 100 mbit), even a little interference is deadly.
If you look at the differences between cat5, cat 5e, and cat6, you'll actually see that most of the difference is just in how tight the twists are.
(In other words, the twists are important).
Coax is straight, not twisted.
Not only that, one of the two wires in the coax cable is not really a wire at all, it's a shield.
That wire is guaranteed to have interference problems from external sources, and I almost guarantee you if it carries current (instead of just ground like coax does), it'll interfere with the wire inside it too.
I know it sounds brilliant, but it just ain't gonna work.
If you really want to avoid wiring up the house with cat5, you could just use the existing wire and run a 10 base 2 network, but do you really want to do that?
Your best bet is to just buy a spool of cat5 (or cat5e or cat6), tie one end to the coax cable, go to the other end, and pull.
Viola - cat5 running through your walls.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_18_188222.31190072</id>
	<title>Anonymous Coward</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1266485040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Seriously, why cant you just use WiFi? All this trouble seems worthless to me, unless your are working with Gigabytes of data that need to be access by these devices and have a genuine need to Gigabit Ethernet. If all you are going to get, at best, is 10Base2, just think of WiFi.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Seriously , why cant you just use WiFi ?
All this trouble seems worthless to me , unless your are working with Gigabytes of data that need to be access by these devices and have a genuine need to Gigabit Ethernet .
If all you are going to get , at best , is 10Base2 , just think of WiFi .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Seriously, why cant you just use WiFi?
All this trouble seems worthless to me, unless your are working with Gigabytes of data that need to be access by these devices and have a genuine need to Gigabit Ethernet.
If all you are going to get, at best, is 10Base2, just think of WiFi.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_18_188222.31193536</id>
	<title>Verizon FiOS routers from eBay</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1266499080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The cheapest (and probably one of the fastest) solution would be to go to ebay and buy a couple verizon fios routers and use them as a MoCA bridge. Google is your friend to learn more about MoCA and old verizon fios routers. I picked up a pair of routers for about $30 shipped but that was 6 months ago..</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The cheapest ( and probably one of the fastest ) solution would be to go to ebay and buy a couple verizon fios routers and use them as a MoCA bridge .
Google is your friend to learn more about MoCA and old verizon fios routers .
I picked up a pair of routers for about $ 30 shipped but that was 6 months ago. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The cheapest (and probably one of the fastest) solution would be to go to ebay and buy a couple verizon fios routers and use them as a MoCA bridge.
Google is your friend to learn more about MoCA and old verizon fios routers.
I picked up a pair of routers for about $30 shipped but that was 6 months ago..</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_18_188222.31187832</id>
	<title>Wifi-over-Coax</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1266521760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Wifo over coax was sold for hotel rooms. If you connect the access point and end point to coax you will have a great connection and no interference. This may be a very good solution.</p><p>Coax has huge damping at 2.5 GHz, but that should not be a problem for the receivers used.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Wifo over coax was sold for hotel rooms .
If you connect the access point and end point to coax you will have a great connection and no interference .
This may be a very good solution.Coax has huge damping at 2.5 GHz , but that should not be a problem for the receivers used .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Wifo over coax was sold for hotel rooms.
If you connect the access point and end point to coax you will have a great connection and no interference.
This may be a very good solution.Coax has huge damping at 2.5 GHz, but that should not be a problem for the receivers used.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_18_188222.31188468</id>
	<title>Re:Related Questions</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1266523740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>IMHO, fiber is overkill.  Lots of folks will be happy to sell it to you, but there's very little that you can do with fiber that you can't do with Cat5e gigabit.  It may have its use if you live in an FTTH area, but that's just to your firewall.  10 GBit on copper requires Cat6A (a.k.a. Class EA) wire, and is far more than most people need.  So pick 5e or 6A.</p><p>I'm streaming video from a server to two media boxes (all Linux) and have BitTorrent running on the server as well.  All this over Gigabit, and if I start playing an MMO on top of all this, the bottleneck will be my cable modem, not the house net.</p><p>My house is wired up with a <a href="http://www.leviton.com/OA\_HTML/ibeCCtpSctDspRte.jsp?section=10349&amp;minisite=10027" title="leviton.com" rel="nofollow">Leviton structured wiring box</a> [leviton.com] in my closet.  <a href="http://www.homedepot.com/Electrical-Wall-Plates-Commodity-Wallplates/h\_d1/N-5yc1vZ1xr5Zbm8f/R-100356955/h\_d2/ProductDisplay?langId=-1&amp;storeId=10051&amp;catalogId=10053" title="homedepot.com" rel="nofollow">Four-gang (2xRJ45 + 2xCoax) wall panels</a> [homedepot.com] are placed in the bedrooms.  Rooms with less electronics (kitchen, laundry room) get one RJ45 and maybe a coax, if that.  The living rooms get plates with more jacks (3 each in my house) and also speaker connections that run to matching plates on the other side of the room (for surround channels).  Make sure to place enough wall plates so that you never have to run a cable across the floor or over a door.</p><p>Remember that standard phones can be plugged into RJ45 jacks.  These jacks need to be connected to the phone lines, not a network hub, in the wiring closet.  Unless you're using IP phones; those get network ports.  But the point is that there's no justification for Cat3 phone wire or RJ11 wall jacks anywhere.</p><p>As always, don't waste money on Monster cable.  The sound quality for surround channels using 14 AWG lamp cord is just fine.  Just make sure that you don't run the speaker or network wires parallel to power wires.</p><p>It took about three days of work for my friends and I (well, three for me and one for them) to wire my place (which I bought used).  30 Cat5e and 30 coax drops, including two coaxes to the south wall for future satellite TV and a cat5e + coax to the wall with the utilities, and two each drops to the kitchen which I haven't wired yet (gonna remodel soon).  It's worked very well for me for seven years now.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>IMHO , fiber is overkill .
Lots of folks will be happy to sell it to you , but there 's very little that you can do with fiber that you ca n't do with Cat5e gigabit .
It may have its use if you live in an FTTH area , but that 's just to your firewall .
10 GBit on copper requires Cat6A ( a.k.a .
Class EA ) wire , and is far more than most people need .
So pick 5e or 6A.I 'm streaming video from a server to two media boxes ( all Linux ) and have BitTorrent running on the server as well .
All this over Gigabit , and if I start playing an MMO on top of all this , the bottleneck will be my cable modem , not the house net.My house is wired up with a Leviton structured wiring box [ leviton.com ] in my closet .
Four-gang ( 2xRJ45 + 2xCoax ) wall panels [ homedepot.com ] are placed in the bedrooms .
Rooms with less electronics ( kitchen , laundry room ) get one RJ45 and maybe a coax , if that .
The living rooms get plates with more jacks ( 3 each in my house ) and also speaker connections that run to matching plates on the other side of the room ( for surround channels ) .
Make sure to place enough wall plates so that you never have to run a cable across the floor or over a door.Remember that standard phones can be plugged into RJ45 jacks .
These jacks need to be connected to the phone lines , not a network hub , in the wiring closet .
Unless you 're using IP phones ; those get network ports .
But the point is that there 's no justification for Cat3 phone wire or RJ11 wall jacks anywhere.As always , do n't waste money on Monster cable .
The sound quality for surround channels using 14 AWG lamp cord is just fine .
Just make sure that you do n't run the speaker or network wires parallel to power wires.It took about three days of work for my friends and I ( well , three for me and one for them ) to wire my place ( which I bought used ) .
30 Cat5e and 30 coax drops , including two coaxes to the south wall for future satellite TV and a cat5e + coax to the wall with the utilities , and two each drops to the kitchen which I have n't wired yet ( gon na remodel soon ) .
It 's worked very well for me for seven years now .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>IMHO, fiber is overkill.
Lots of folks will be happy to sell it to you, but there's very little that you can do with fiber that you can't do with Cat5e gigabit.
It may have its use if you live in an FTTH area, but that's just to your firewall.
10 GBit on copper requires Cat6A (a.k.a.
Class EA) wire, and is far more than most people need.
So pick 5e or 6A.I'm streaming video from a server to two media boxes (all Linux) and have BitTorrent running on the server as well.
All this over Gigabit, and if I start playing an MMO on top of all this, the bottleneck will be my cable modem, not the house net.My house is wired up with a Leviton structured wiring box [leviton.com] in my closet.
Four-gang (2xRJ45 + 2xCoax) wall panels [homedepot.com] are placed in the bedrooms.
Rooms with less electronics (kitchen, laundry room) get one RJ45 and maybe a coax, if that.
The living rooms get plates with more jacks (3 each in my house) and also speaker connections that run to matching plates on the other side of the room (for surround channels).
Make sure to place enough wall plates so that you never have to run a cable across the floor or over a door.Remember that standard phones can be plugged into RJ45 jacks.
These jacks need to be connected to the phone lines, not a network hub, in the wiring closet.
Unless you're using IP phones; those get network ports.
But the point is that there's no justification for Cat3 phone wire or RJ11 wall jacks anywhere.As always, don't waste money on Monster cable.
The sound quality for surround channels using 14 AWG lamp cord is just fine.
Just make sure that you don't run the speaker or network wires parallel to power wires.It took about three days of work for my friends and I (well, three for me and one for them) to wire my place (which I bought used).
30 Cat5e and 30 coax drops, including two coaxes to the south wall for future satellite TV and a cat5e + coax to the wall with the utilities, and two each drops to the kitchen which I haven't wired yet (gonna remodel soon).
It's worked very well for me for seven years now.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_18_188222.31187546</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_18_188222.31190302</id>
	<title>Re:MoCa</title>
	<author>N1ck0</author>
	<datestamp>1266485640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>D-Link, Netgear, etc all make a multimedia over coax converter, they typically allow you to hit 100mbps using existing lines via frequencies boosted way over the TV range (essentially the same way networking via powerlines work).</p><p>It really sounds like he doesn't want to pay any money, he just wants to fiddle some connectors together and connect from a UTP equipment to coax.  I've seen people to really ad-hoc things over short distances and be able to get buy with high amounts of loss and very slow speeds. To do anything decent you really to deal with signal processing hardware...your never going to get the appropriate voltages, line conditioning, noise handling, etc unless you make your own layer 1 &amp; 2 hardware.</p><p>Now you might have luck with playing with something that runs on a more forgiving medium...possibly modifying the antenna controller in a set of older single antenna (non-MIMO ) wireless routers and use the coax between them. But its probably not going to work without a lot of tweaking which puts you back in with dealing with signaling, plus the wireless would have worked over the air; and also this would cost you just as much as replacing the coax, or buying a proper media converter.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>D-Link , Netgear , etc all make a multimedia over coax converter , they typically allow you to hit 100mbps using existing lines via frequencies boosted way over the TV range ( essentially the same way networking via powerlines work ) .It really sounds like he does n't want to pay any money , he just wants to fiddle some connectors together and connect from a UTP equipment to coax .
I 've seen people to really ad-hoc things over short distances and be able to get buy with high amounts of loss and very slow speeds .
To do anything decent you really to deal with signal processing hardware...your never going to get the appropriate voltages , line conditioning , noise handling , etc unless you make your own layer 1 &amp; 2 hardware.Now you might have luck with playing with something that runs on a more forgiving medium...possibly modifying the antenna controller in a set of older single antenna ( non-MIMO ) wireless routers and use the coax between them .
But its probably not going to work without a lot of tweaking which puts you back in with dealing with signaling , plus the wireless would have worked over the air ; and also this would cost you just as much as replacing the coax , or buying a proper media converter .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>D-Link, Netgear, etc all make a multimedia over coax converter, they typically allow you to hit 100mbps using existing lines via frequencies boosted way over the TV range (essentially the same way networking via powerlines work).It really sounds like he doesn't want to pay any money, he just wants to fiddle some connectors together and connect from a UTP equipment to coax.
I've seen people to really ad-hoc things over short distances and be able to get buy with high amounts of loss and very slow speeds.
To do anything decent you really to deal with signal processing hardware...your never going to get the appropriate voltages, line conditioning, noise handling, etc unless you make your own layer 1 &amp; 2 hardware.Now you might have luck with playing with something that runs on a more forgiving medium...possibly modifying the antenna controller in a set of older single antenna (non-MIMO ) wireless routers and use the coax between them.
But its probably not going to work without a lot of tweaking which puts you back in with dealing with signaling, plus the wireless would have worked over the air; and also this would cost you just as much as replacing the coax, or buying a proper media converter.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_18_188222.31187470</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_18_188222.31191806</id>
	<title>Re:Another alternative</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1266490620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Phone ring signal is also -90vdc, way higher than ethernet. Good ethernet cards have filters, but if you are unlucky, you could blow out the transceiver circuit in a cheap ethernet card when your phone rings.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Phone ring signal is also -90vdc , way higher than ethernet .
Good ethernet cards have filters , but if you are unlucky , you could blow out the transceiver circuit in a cheap ethernet card when your phone rings .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Phone ring signal is also -90vdc, way higher than ethernet.
Good ethernet cards have filters, but if you are unlucky, you could blow out the transceiver circuit in a cheap ethernet card when your phone rings.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_18_188222.31187824</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_18_188222.31188216</id>
	<title>Re:Related Questions</title>
	<author>mariushm</author>
	<datestamp>1266523080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I'd run conduit with fiber AND utp Cat5(e).  Cat5e is good for up to 1gbps, fiber is also good and there are no fiber to utp adapters for 60-100$ a piece (up to 1gbps) and in the future there will be adapters for 10 gbps and the fiber will be re-usable.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'd run conduit with fiber AND utp Cat5 ( e ) .
Cat5e is good for up to 1gbps , fiber is also good and there are no fiber to utp adapters for 60-100 $ a piece ( up to 1gbps ) and in the future there will be adapters for 10 gbps and the fiber will be re-usable .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'd run conduit with fiber AND utp Cat5(e).
Cat5e is good for up to 1gbps, fiber is also good and there are no fiber to utp adapters for 60-100$ a piece (up to 1gbps) and in the future there will be adapters for 10 gbps and the fiber will be re-usable.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_18_188222.31187546</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_18_188222.31192498</id>
	<title>Re:Why not wireless?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1266493800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Do you really need more that 56Mbps on a home LAN?</p></div><p>Yes.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Do you really need more that 56Mbps on a home LAN ? Yes .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Do you really need more that 56Mbps on a home LAN?Yes.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_18_188222.31187662</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_18_188222.31188600</id>
	<title>Cable pull?</title>
	<author>ericrost</author>
	<datestamp>1266524160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Why not just use the coax to pull cat5e/cat6 along the same runs? You're making it more complicated than it is, I think.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Why not just use the coax to pull cat5e/cat6 along the same runs ?
You 're making it more complicated than it is , I think .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Why not just use the coax to pull cat5e/cat6 along the same runs?
You're making it more complicated than it is, I think.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_18_188222.31188464</id>
	<title>Try ethernet over powerline</title>
	<author>woboyle</author>
	<datestamp>1266523740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I have found that some of the newer ethernet-over-powerline adapters work quite well in the home for this sort of bridging, and can handle up to a couple hundred mbps. I have a 200mbps Netgear pair that I use to bridge my home-office network to my wife's home-office network that is on another floor and other end of a long house.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I have found that some of the newer ethernet-over-powerline adapters work quite well in the home for this sort of bridging , and can handle up to a couple hundred mbps .
I have a 200mbps Netgear pair that I use to bridge my home-office network to my wife 's home-office network that is on another floor and other end of a long house .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I have found that some of the newer ethernet-over-powerline adapters work quite well in the home for this sort of bridging, and can handle up to a couple hundred mbps.
I have a 200mbps Netgear pair that I use to bridge my home-office network to my wife's home-office network that is on another floor and other end of a long house.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_18_188222.31192484</id>
	<title>Re:Just bite the bullet pull Cat6</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1266493740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>It's not hard with a fish tape or fish sticks</p></div><p>Do you like fishsticks ?</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>It 's not hard with a fish tape or fish sticksDo you like fishsticks ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It's not hard with a fish tape or fish sticksDo you like fishsticks ?
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_18_188222.31187424</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_18_188222.31187568</id>
	<title>Re:10Base-2?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1266520980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Well, 10Base-2 uses coax. I think I have an old hub that still has a coax connector.<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:)</p></div><p>I was going to write my own "10base2" comment, but instead I'll just reply to this one. Yes, your coax cables are essentially 10base2 cables - but may have a different connector. Sounds like you're willing to do a little work - so, get a cable conversion tool and add some correct connectors.</p><p>Once you have that, you'll need to have some 10base2-to-10baseT converters. You can probably get them cheaper elsewhere, but here's <a href="http://www.amazon.com/Media-Converter-10Base-T-10Base-2-Thinnet/dp/B000AA794U" title="amazon.com">one at Amazon</a> [amazon.com].</p><p>My first workplace was wired entirely with 10base2, even in our server room. Some of our servers didn't support 10base2, so they had the media converters to go with them.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Well , 10Base-2 uses coax .
I think I have an old hub that still has a coax connector .
: ) I was going to write my own " 10base2 " comment , but instead I 'll just reply to this one .
Yes , your coax cables are essentially 10base2 cables - but may have a different connector .
Sounds like you 're willing to do a little work - so , get a cable conversion tool and add some correct connectors.Once you have that , you 'll need to have some 10base2-to-10baseT converters .
You can probably get them cheaper elsewhere , but here 's one at Amazon [ amazon.com ] .My first workplace was wired entirely with 10base2 , even in our server room .
Some of our servers did n't support 10base2 , so they had the media converters to go with them .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Well, 10Base-2 uses coax.
I think I have an old hub that still has a coax connector.
:)I was going to write my own "10base2" comment, but instead I'll just reply to this one.
Yes, your coax cables are essentially 10base2 cables - but may have a different connector.
Sounds like you're willing to do a little work - so, get a cable conversion tool and add some correct connectors.Once you have that, you'll need to have some 10base2-to-10baseT converters.
You can probably get them cheaper elsewhere, but here's one at Amazon [amazon.com].My first workplace was wired entirely with 10base2, even in our server room.
Some of our servers didn't support 10base2, so they had the media converters to go with them.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_18_188222.31187360</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_18_188222.31188374</id>
	<title>Cables schmables.</title>
	<author>Existential Wombat</author>
	<datestamp>1266523440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Lots of good suggestions here!


Actually today there's also something called 'wireless ethernet'.


You should look it up. (Ethernet N is fine for multimedia...)</htmltext>
<tokenext>Lots of good suggestions here !
Actually today there 's also something called 'wireless ethernet' .
You should look it up .
( Ethernet N is fine for multimedia... )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Lots of good suggestions here!
Actually today there's also something called 'wireless ethernet'.
You should look it up.
(Ethernet N is fine for multimedia...)</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_18_188222.31187554</id>
	<title>Use the coax.... To pull CAT6</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1266520980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Cut the coax and use it to pull the CAT6!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Cut the coax and use it to pull the CAT6 !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Cut the coax and use it to pull the CAT6!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_18_188222.31188786</id>
	<title>Re:Just bite the bullet pull Cat6</title>
	<author>Seakip18</author>
	<datestamp>1266524760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Just to extend on the parent, when making straight drops, use string + weight.</p><p>It'll go a lot quicker than trying to feed the fish tape in a small opening. Other than that...go with fish tape.</p><p>Can't wait till I'm living somewhere long enough to warrant the effort and cable to do this myself.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Just to extend on the parent , when making straight drops , use string + weight.It 'll go a lot quicker than trying to feed the fish tape in a small opening .
Other than that...go with fish tape.Ca n't wait till I 'm living somewhere long enough to warrant the effort and cable to do this myself .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Just to extend on the parent, when making straight drops, use string + weight.It'll go a lot quicker than trying to feed the fish tape in a small opening.
Other than that...go with fish tape.Can't wait till I'm living somewhere long enough to warrant the effort and cable to do this myself.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_18_188222.31187424</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_18_188222.31188090</id>
	<title>Wiring Choices</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1266522600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Folks, the latest and greatest wiring is Augmented Cat6 cable. It is rated for 10 Gig speeds. If you are going to install new cabling, and in this case I would, this is the stuff to get. Wiring categories range from 5 to 5E to 6 and now 6a.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Folks , the latest and greatest wiring is Augmented Cat6 cable .
It is rated for 10 Gig speeds .
If you are going to install new cabling , and in this case I would , this is the stuff to get .
Wiring categories range from 5 to 5E to 6 and now 6a .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Folks, the latest and greatest wiring is Augmented Cat6 cable.
It is rated for 10 Gig speeds.
If you are going to install new cabling, and in this case I would, this is the stuff to get.
Wiring categories range from 5 to 5E to 6 and now 6a.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_18_188222.31188624</id>
	<title>2 cable modems</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1266524220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>you might try 2 cable modems, one at each end and create a bridge</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>you might try 2 cable modems , one at each end and create a bridge</tokentext>
<sentencetext>you might try 2 cable modems, one at each end and create a bridge</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_18_188222.31189638</id>
	<title>HomePNA</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1266483780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>It's what AT&amp;T uVerse uses by default for the gateway to reach the set top boxes.  AT&amp;T's set top boxes also bridge to ethernet.  However, as there is STP, creating a loop makes things go thud.</p><p>http://www.homepna.org/<br>for the organization behind the spec.</p><p>As someone else mentioned, there are plenty of hits with google products.</p><p>Given time and resources I'd really prefer to replace the connections to the set top boxes with cat5e.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It 's what AT&amp;T uVerse uses by default for the gateway to reach the set top boxes .
AT&amp;T 's set top boxes also bridge to ethernet .
However , as there is STP , creating a loop makes things go thud.http : //www.homepna.org/for the organization behind the spec.As someone else mentioned , there are plenty of hits with google products.Given time and resources I 'd really prefer to replace the connections to the set top boxes with cat5e .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It's what AT&amp;T uVerse uses by default for the gateway to reach the set top boxes.
AT&amp;T's set top boxes also bridge to ethernet.
However, as there is STP, creating a loop makes things go thud.http://www.homepna.org/for the organization behind the spec.As someone else mentioned, there are plenty of hits with google products.Given time and resources I'd really prefer to replace the connections to the set top boxes with cat5e.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_18_188222.31193196</id>
	<title>Re:Why not wireless?</title>
	<author>pyrbrand</author>
	<datestamp>1266497220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Because wireless is slow and unreliable, especially in a big house?  Because you've got interference at 2.4Ghz (microwaves, wireless phones and toys, lots of neighbors, other signals etc)?  There are a lot of scenarios that even with good signal don't work so well over wireless - media streaming, file backup, gaming if the connection is even a little wonky.  In an ideal scenario where you're getting about ~50mbps (and I don't really see even 802.11n getting these speeds in my 2BR apt) on wireless, you're still 20x slower than 1gbps, which can still be frustratingly slow to copy files over.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Because wireless is slow and unreliable , especially in a big house ?
Because you 've got interference at 2.4Ghz ( microwaves , wireless phones and toys , lots of neighbors , other signals etc ) ?
There are a lot of scenarios that even with good signal do n't work so well over wireless - media streaming , file backup , gaming if the connection is even a little wonky .
In an ideal scenario where you 're getting about ~ 50mbps ( and I do n't really see even 802.11n getting these speeds in my 2BR apt ) on wireless , you 're still 20x slower than 1gbps , which can still be frustratingly slow to copy files over .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Because wireless is slow and unreliable, especially in a big house?
Because you've got interference at 2.4Ghz (microwaves, wireless phones and toys, lots of neighbors, other signals etc)?
There are a lot of scenarios that even with good signal don't work so well over wireless - media streaming, file backup, gaming if the connection is even a little wonky.
In an ideal scenario where you're getting about ~50mbps (and I don't really see even 802.11n getting these speeds in my 2BR apt) on wireless, you're still 20x slower than 1gbps, which can still be frustratingly slow to copy files over.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_18_188222.31187662</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_18_188222.31188112</id>
	<title>Worked for me with 6-conductor phone cable</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1266522720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext>In the current house I'm renting, I needed a connection between a computer in a bedroom and the living room, and didn't want to use wireless. There was some 6-conductor phone cable in the jacks, and a single phone line only needs two (I like having a landline), so I figured I could use the other four for 10BASE-T Ethernet. It worked once I got the pairs right (the phone cable is three twisted pairs, and I had to have TX on one pair, and RX on the other, rather than split across two pairs). There's about 100 feet of phone cable between the two. On the dining room end, the phone jack isn't next to the computer, so I ran about 25 more feet of 6-conductor phone cable to the desk for the computer and phone. Again I had to get the Ethernet pairs next to each other. In the end, 10BASE-T and 100BASE-TX work, though I notched it down to 10BASE-T just to be on the safe side, and my Internet connection is less than 1 Mbps anyway. And yes, I realize I'm probably broadcasting every bit of data I send across this connection, due to the phone cable being unshielded.

<p>Coax cable might behave a bit differently, because one of the conductors is exposed and can pick up signals, but the other isn't, unlike a twisted pair. Differential signaling relies on both picking up the <i>same</i> signal, so that it can be rejected at the receiver by finding the difference between the two. You mentioned it having five coax cables; with that, you could use four coax cables, with the outer layer grounded on each. This way neither will pick up much of anything extra. It sure seems worth a try to me.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>In the current house I 'm renting , I needed a connection between a computer in a bedroom and the living room , and did n't want to use wireless .
There was some 6-conductor phone cable in the jacks , and a single phone line only needs two ( I like having a landline ) , so I figured I could use the other four for 10BASE-T Ethernet .
It worked once I got the pairs right ( the phone cable is three twisted pairs , and I had to have TX on one pair , and RX on the other , rather than split across two pairs ) .
There 's about 100 feet of phone cable between the two .
On the dining room end , the phone jack is n't next to the computer , so I ran about 25 more feet of 6-conductor phone cable to the desk for the computer and phone .
Again I had to get the Ethernet pairs next to each other .
In the end , 10BASE-T and 100BASE-TX work , though I notched it down to 10BASE-T just to be on the safe side , and my Internet connection is less than 1 Mbps anyway .
And yes , I realize I 'm probably broadcasting every bit of data I send across this connection , due to the phone cable being unshielded .
Coax cable might behave a bit differently , because one of the conductors is exposed and can pick up signals , but the other is n't , unlike a twisted pair .
Differential signaling relies on both picking up the same signal , so that it can be rejected at the receiver by finding the difference between the two .
You mentioned it having five coax cables ; with that , you could use four coax cables , with the outer layer grounded on each .
This way neither will pick up much of anything extra .
It sure seems worth a try to me .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>In the current house I'm renting, I needed a connection between a computer in a bedroom and the living room, and didn't want to use wireless.
There was some 6-conductor phone cable in the jacks, and a single phone line only needs two (I like having a landline), so I figured I could use the other four for 10BASE-T Ethernet.
It worked once I got the pairs right (the phone cable is three twisted pairs, and I had to have TX on one pair, and RX on the other, rather than split across two pairs).
There's about 100 feet of phone cable between the two.
On the dining room end, the phone jack isn't next to the computer, so I ran about 25 more feet of 6-conductor phone cable to the desk for the computer and phone.
Again I had to get the Ethernet pairs next to each other.
In the end, 10BASE-T and 100BASE-TX work, though I notched it down to 10BASE-T just to be on the safe side, and my Internet connection is less than 1 Mbps anyway.
And yes, I realize I'm probably broadcasting every bit of data I send across this connection, due to the phone cable being unshielded.
Coax cable might behave a bit differently, because one of the conductors is exposed and can pick up signals, but the other isn't, unlike a twisted pair.
Differential signaling relies on both picking up the same signal, so that it can be rejected at the receiver by finding the difference between the two.
You mentioned it having five coax cables; with that, you could use four coax cables, with the outer layer grounded on each.
This way neither will pick up much of anything extra.
It sure seems worth a try to me.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_18_188222.31187958</id>
	<title>If you can't repull</title>
	<author>zeet</author>
	<datestamp>1266522120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>The HPNA Coax adapters are only about $70, and the best solution if you can't repull new Category 5 cable. <a href="http://www.google.com/products?q=hpna&amp;hl=en&amp;aq=f" title="google.com">Google Products</a> [google.com] shows plenty of stores with them in stock. You will get 100Mbit and the reliability of the ones I've used has been quite good. They are also available in phone line versions if that's the sort of wiring you have around.</htmltext>
<tokenext>The HPNA Coax adapters are only about $ 70 , and the best solution if you ca n't repull new Category 5 cable .
Google Products [ google.com ] shows plenty of stores with them in stock .
You will get 100Mbit and the reliability of the ones I 've used has been quite good .
They are also available in phone line versions if that 's the sort of wiring you have around .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The HPNA Coax adapters are only about $70, and the best solution if you can't repull new Category 5 cable.
Google Products [google.com] shows plenty of stores with them in stock.
You will get 100Mbit and the reliability of the ones I've used has been quite good.
They are also available in phone line versions if that's the sort of wiring you have around.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_18_188222.31188772</id>
	<title>Re:Cat5e vs Cat6?</title>
	<author>BitZtream</author>
	<datestamp>1266524700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Ignorance/inexperience would be my guess.</p><p>'cat5e can do gigabit'</p><p>Yea, thats great, but I've already got 10Ge in my (small) office.  If I'm already seeing it in the wild at small offices, then its close enough to consumer grade that not installing cat6 now is just retarded.</p><p>The effort (thicker/stiffer cable) to run and the cost differences right now are FAR FAR less than running cat5e now and then running cat6 in a few years to get reliable 10Ge.</p><p>Of course in reality, if the runs are short enough, cat5e and cat6 (well hell, cat5 as well) aren't THAT much different that you'll notice serious problems over short runs.</p><p>Financially though, unless you have no plans to ever go beyond gigabit on copper, its silly to install cat5e now and then 6 later.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Ignorance/inexperience would be my guess .
'cat5e can do gigabit'Yea , thats great , but I 've already got 10Ge in my ( small ) office .
If I 'm already seeing it in the wild at small offices , then its close enough to consumer grade that not installing cat6 now is just retarded.The effort ( thicker/stiffer cable ) to run and the cost differences right now are FAR FAR less than running cat5e now and then running cat6 in a few years to get reliable 10Ge.Of course in reality , if the runs are short enough , cat5e and cat6 ( well hell , cat5 as well ) are n't THAT much different that you 'll notice serious problems over short runs.Financially though , unless you have no plans to ever go beyond gigabit on copper , its silly to install cat5e now and then 6 later .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Ignorance/inexperience would be my guess.
'cat5e can do gigabit'Yea, thats great, but I've already got 10Ge in my (small) office.
If I'm already seeing it in the wild at small offices, then its close enough to consumer grade that not installing cat6 now is just retarded.The effort (thicker/stiffer cable) to run and the cost differences right now are FAR FAR less than running cat5e now and then running cat6 in a few years to get reliable 10Ge.Of course in reality, if the runs are short enough, cat5e and cat6 (well hell, cat5 as well) aren't THAT much different that you'll notice serious problems over short runs.Financially though, unless you have no plans to ever go beyond gigabit on copper, its silly to install cat5e now and then 6 later.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_18_188222.31187540</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_18_188222.31190336</id>
	<title>what I did MoCa Bridge</title>
	<author>splatter</author>
	<datestamp>1266485700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>It was brought up before in the conversation and I just wanted to chime in. I set up my house which is three stories and needed a internet connection in every room with a TV for my DVR's.</p><p>I bought a lot (5) of used Actiontechs on ebay for like 30 or 40 dollars and used the b side of coax cable which was no longer used as the bridge for my XBMC server downstairs and 2 DVRs. One of my five routers didn't work and was happily replaced by my seller.</p><p>Its not the fastest compared to fiber (If I remember it clocked in just under my FIOS Speed, so faster the 10b but not 100b  but I regularly watch movies downstairs over MoCa and have done so with the computer upstairs hammering away on a torrent. without so much as a hick up.</p><p>Some people give actiontech a bad rap mostly about it's NAT tables but I have 4 running &amp; 1 in the closet as a backup with little trouble including using torrents and these routers can be programmed six different ways to sunday.</p><p>how to set up a Actiontech moca bridge:</p><p><a href="http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showthread.php?t=1145636" title="avsforum.com">http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showthread.php?t=1145636</a> [avsforum.com]</p><p>If the Original poster or someone setting this up has any other questions, I'll be happy to answer.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It was brought up before in the conversation and I just wanted to chime in .
I set up my house which is three stories and needed a internet connection in every room with a TV for my DVR 's.I bought a lot ( 5 ) of used Actiontechs on ebay for like 30 or 40 dollars and used the b side of coax cable which was no longer used as the bridge for my XBMC server downstairs and 2 DVRs .
One of my five routers did n't work and was happily replaced by my seller.Its not the fastest compared to fiber ( If I remember it clocked in just under my FIOS Speed , so faster the 10b but not 100b but I regularly watch movies downstairs over MoCa and have done so with the computer upstairs hammering away on a torrent .
without so much as a hick up.Some people give actiontech a bad rap mostly about it 's NAT tables but I have 4 running &amp; 1 in the closet as a backup with little trouble including using torrents and these routers can be programmed six different ways to sunday.how to set up a Actiontech moca bridge : http : //www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showthread.php ? t = 1145636 [ avsforum.com ] If the Original poster or someone setting this up has any other questions , I 'll be happy to answer .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It was brought up before in the conversation and I just wanted to chime in.
I set up my house which is three stories and needed a internet connection in every room with a TV for my DVR's.I bought a lot (5) of used Actiontechs on ebay for like 30 or 40 dollars and used the b side of coax cable which was no longer used as the bridge for my XBMC server downstairs and 2 DVRs.
One of my five routers didn't work and was happily replaced by my seller.Its not the fastest compared to fiber (If I remember it clocked in just under my FIOS Speed, so faster the 10b but not 100b  but I regularly watch movies downstairs over MoCa and have done so with the computer upstairs hammering away on a torrent.
without so much as a hick up.Some people give actiontech a bad rap mostly about it's NAT tables but I have 4 running &amp; 1 in the closet as a backup with little trouble including using torrents and these routers can be programmed six different ways to sunday.how to set up a Actiontech moca bridge:http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showthread.php?t=1145636 [avsforum.com]If the Original poster or someone setting this up has any other questions, I'll be happy to answer.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_18_188222.31192924</id>
	<title>coax != "2 wires"</title>
	<author>dAzED1</author>
	<datestamp>1266496020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>coax has 1 core, and a sheath.  the core could probably serve well enough, but the sheath? a mesh of metal that wasn't in any way designed to carry (or even ground for) data at 100Mb with little to no data loss?  Uhhh....no.</p><p>Others have suggested you use the coax to pull the cat5.  Unfortunately, I happen to know that if the coax was put in as the walls were going up, it was likely put in the same way the romex (electric) was; staples along studs will prevent you from just pulling it out.  Best bet is to just cut it, shove it in the wall, and start over.  Hate to be the 50th person to say that, but having a house full of coax doesn't in any way get you any closer to having a cat5 wired house.</p><p>All that said, the overwhelming expense - even if you're doing it youself- of putting in cat5 cable is the labor, not the cable.  So, you should go for the gusto and put in cat6, if not even <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category\_7\_cable" title="wikipedia.org">cat 7</a> [wikipedia.org].  That way, 10 years from now you won't be looking at your house full of cabling that is as out-dated as coax, and needing to scrap it all and start over.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>coax has 1 core , and a sheath .
the core could probably serve well enough , but the sheath ?
a mesh of metal that was n't in any way designed to carry ( or even ground for ) data at 100Mb with little to no data loss ?
Uhhh....no.Others have suggested you use the coax to pull the cat5 .
Unfortunately , I happen to know that if the coax was put in as the walls were going up , it was likely put in the same way the romex ( electric ) was ; staples along studs will prevent you from just pulling it out .
Best bet is to just cut it , shove it in the wall , and start over .
Hate to be the 50th person to say that , but having a house full of coax does n't in any way get you any closer to having a cat5 wired house.All that said , the overwhelming expense - even if you 're doing it youself- of putting in cat5 cable is the labor , not the cable .
So , you should go for the gusto and put in cat6 , if not even cat 7 [ wikipedia.org ] .
That way , 10 years from now you wo n't be looking at your house full of cabling that is as out-dated as coax , and needing to scrap it all and start over .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>coax has 1 core, and a sheath.
the core could probably serve well enough, but the sheath?
a mesh of metal that wasn't in any way designed to carry (or even ground for) data at 100Mb with little to no data loss?
Uhhh....no.Others have suggested you use the coax to pull the cat5.
Unfortunately, I happen to know that if the coax was put in as the walls were going up, it was likely put in the same way the romex (electric) was; staples along studs will prevent you from just pulling it out.
Best bet is to just cut it, shove it in the wall, and start over.
Hate to be the 50th person to say that, but having a house full of coax doesn't in any way get you any closer to having a cat5 wired house.All that said, the overwhelming expense - even if you're doing it youself- of putting in cat5 cable is the labor, not the cable.
So, you should go for the gusto and put in cat6, if not even cat 7 [wikipedia.org].
That way, 10 years from now you won't be looking at your house full of cabling that is as out-dated as coax, and needing to scrap it all and start over.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_18_188222.31188484</id>
	<title>Worth a shot...</title>
	<author>vtTom</author>
	<datestamp>1266523800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>What you need is a set of 4 75-Ohm unbalanced to 100-Ohm balance transformers (aka baluns).  But as you have found those are pricey.  You could instead try a set of these:<br>
<br>
<a href="http://www.radioshack.com/product/index.jsp?productId=2062054" title="radioshack.com" rel="nofollow">http://www.radioshack.com/product/index.jsp?productId=2062054</a> [radioshack.com] <br>
<br>
Use them in pairs at each end of the coax.  Connect the F connector end to the coax and the screw terminals to the appropriate pins of an RJ45 jack.</htmltext>
<tokenext>What you need is a set of 4 75-Ohm unbalanced to 100-Ohm balance transformers ( aka baluns ) .
But as you have found those are pricey .
You could instead try a set of these : http : //www.radioshack.com/product/index.jsp ? productId = 2062054 [ radioshack.com ] Use them in pairs at each end of the coax .
Connect the F connector end to the coax and the screw terminals to the appropriate pins of an RJ45 jack .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>What you need is a set of 4 75-Ohm unbalanced to 100-Ohm balance transformers (aka baluns).
But as you have found those are pricey.
You could instead try a set of these:

http://www.radioshack.com/product/index.jsp?productId=2062054 [radioshack.com] 

Use them in pairs at each end of the coax.
Connect the F connector end to the coax and the screw terminals to the appropriate pins of an RJ45 jack.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_18_188222.31190608</id>
	<title>Timing</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1266486360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Oh - if timings your issue, how about token-ring over it? I'm sure you can find TONS of token-ring cards that use coax CHEAP.....<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:^)</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Oh - if timings your issue , how about token-ring over it ?
I 'm sure you can find TONS of token-ring cards that use coax CHEAP..... : ^ )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Oh - if timings your issue, how about token-ring over it?
I'm sure you can find TONS of token-ring cards that use coax CHEAP..... :^)</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_18_188222.31187772</id>
	<title>Nope</title>
	<author>joeyblades</author>
	<datestamp>1266521520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>
First, to the original question. D-Link makes a product that lets you do this. Not that I'm recommending you buy their product, but they claim that, due to bandwidth limitations, your performance would be lower than 802.11n. Now D-link is doing some signal processing, before the packets hit the wire, so I suspect that trying to run a raw signal over coax will produce less than reliable results.
</p><p>
To all those people recommending using the coax to pull cat5 - that probably won't work. Generally the coax will be stapled or otherwise tied to the studs.
</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>First , to the original question .
D-Link makes a product that lets you do this .
Not that I 'm recommending you buy their product , but they claim that , due to bandwidth limitations , your performance would be lower than 802.11n .
Now D-link is doing some signal processing , before the packets hit the wire , so I suspect that trying to run a raw signal over coax will produce less than reliable results .
To all those people recommending using the coax to pull cat5 - that probably wo n't work .
Generally the coax will be stapled or otherwise tied to the studs .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>
First, to the original question.
D-Link makes a product that lets you do this.
Not that I'm recommending you buy their product, but they claim that, due to bandwidth limitations, your performance would be lower than 802.11n.
Now D-link is doing some signal processing, before the packets hit the wire, so I suspect that trying to run a raw signal over coax will produce less than reliable results.
To all those people recommending using the coax to pull cat5 - that probably won't work.
Generally the coax will be stapled or otherwise tied to the studs.
</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_18_188222.31194286</id>
	<title>Transmission Line Theory</title>
	<author>drizato</author>
	<datestamp>1266504120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Google "Transmission Line Theory."  After reading you will realize that both the characteristic impedance of the coax and the far end crosstalk associated with soldering would sufficiently degrade the carrier waveform such that the BER would significantly reduce your data transmission rate.  My advice is to use the coax as a cable puller.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Google " Transmission Line Theory .
" After reading you will realize that both the characteristic impedance of the coax and the far end crosstalk associated with soldering would sufficiently degrade the carrier waveform such that the BER would significantly reduce your data transmission rate .
My advice is to use the coax as a cable puller .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Google "Transmission Line Theory.
"  After reading you will realize that both the characteristic impedance of the coax and the far end crosstalk associated with soldering would sufficiently degrade the carrier waveform such that the BER would significantly reduce your data transmission rate.
My advice is to use the coax as a cable puller.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_18_188222.31188426</id>
	<title>Re:Use the Coax to pull CAT 5e cable</title>
	<author>BitZtream</author>
	<datestamp>1266523620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>Old Ethernet worked over Coax. I just doubt you have the correct kind of Coax. Also, my experience with residential cable installs is that they tend to have damaged Coax cable, so it is pointless even trying to use it for high-bandwidth applications.</p></div></blockquote><p>Ahhh the ignorance of the digital age.</p><p>You do realize that standard coax, from the cable company that comes into your house carries more data with it than any connection you have in your home, probably any connection you've seen.</p><p>Analog has an infinite number of possible values for any given 'bit' of time.  Digital has 1.</p><p>Analog has far more bandwidth, and far less reliability of data integrity.  We are happy to trade off massive amounts of bandwidth available in the unreliable analog signaling methods and use digital signaling methods since its far easier for computers to deal with and has a far high reliability level at its reduced resolution.</p><p>As for your other points.  Cat5 requires the pairs be twisted in a specific pattern, that pattern reduces cross talk between the lines in order obtain high quality signal at the ends.  Impedance wouldn't be your problem, the length wouldn't be that big of an issue either for non-gigabit connections.  Might be different for gigE since it uses a different signaling method and more than one pair in each direction.  Ethernet only cares about 2 pairs, and if they are off by a several feet, it won't really matter for runs well under the 100m length limit (imposed by timing issues, which is where your length actually comes into play.</p><p>Theres a good chance he could 'make it work' just by taking advantage of all the tolerances this sort of equipment has built into it.  Its unlikely however that he's going to see a reliable 100Mb across it, and gigabit is certainly out, or unlikely enough that I'm going to say its out anyway.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Old Ethernet worked over Coax .
I just doubt you have the correct kind of Coax .
Also , my experience with residential cable installs is that they tend to have damaged Coax cable , so it is pointless even trying to use it for high-bandwidth applications.Ahhh the ignorance of the digital age.You do realize that standard coax , from the cable company that comes into your house carries more data with it than any connection you have in your home , probably any connection you 've seen.Analog has an infinite number of possible values for any given 'bit ' of time .
Digital has 1.Analog has far more bandwidth , and far less reliability of data integrity .
We are happy to trade off massive amounts of bandwidth available in the unreliable analog signaling methods and use digital signaling methods since its far easier for computers to deal with and has a far high reliability level at its reduced resolution.As for your other points .
Cat5 requires the pairs be twisted in a specific pattern , that pattern reduces cross talk between the lines in order obtain high quality signal at the ends .
Impedance would n't be your problem , the length would n't be that big of an issue either for non-gigabit connections .
Might be different for gigE since it uses a different signaling method and more than one pair in each direction .
Ethernet only cares about 2 pairs , and if they are off by a several feet , it wo n't really matter for runs well under the 100m length limit ( imposed by timing issues , which is where your length actually comes into play.Theres a good chance he could 'make it work ' just by taking advantage of all the tolerances this sort of equipment has built into it .
Its unlikely however that he 's going to see a reliable 100Mb across it , and gigabit is certainly out , or unlikely enough that I 'm going to say its out anyway .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Old Ethernet worked over Coax.
I just doubt you have the correct kind of Coax.
Also, my experience with residential cable installs is that they tend to have damaged Coax cable, so it is pointless even trying to use it for high-bandwidth applications.Ahhh the ignorance of the digital age.You do realize that standard coax, from the cable company that comes into your house carries more data with it than any connection you have in your home, probably any connection you've seen.Analog has an infinite number of possible values for any given 'bit' of time.
Digital has 1.Analog has far more bandwidth, and far less reliability of data integrity.
We are happy to trade off massive amounts of bandwidth available in the unreliable analog signaling methods and use digital signaling methods since its far easier for computers to deal with and has a far high reliability level at its reduced resolution.As for your other points.
Cat5 requires the pairs be twisted in a specific pattern, that pattern reduces cross talk between the lines in order obtain high quality signal at the ends.
Impedance wouldn't be your problem, the length wouldn't be that big of an issue either for non-gigabit connections.
Might be different for gigE since it uses a different signaling method and more than one pair in each direction.
Ethernet only cares about 2 pairs, and if they are off by a several feet, it won't really matter for runs well under the 100m length limit (imposed by timing issues, which is where your length actually comes into play.Theres a good chance he could 'make it work' just by taking advantage of all the tolerances this sort of equipment has built into it.
Its unlikely however that he's going to see a reliable 100Mb across it, and gigabit is certainly out, or unlikely enough that I'm going to say its out anyway.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_18_188222.31187416</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_18_188222.31201926</id>
	<title>Re:ATT Uverse runs over coax</title>
	<author>toastar</author>
	<datestamp>1266607260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The Cool Part about the Uverse Set top boxes is if you plug them in via coax you can use the ethernet port as a switch, This is how my ps3 is hooked up, beats wireless anyday.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The Cool Part about the Uverse Set top boxes is if you plug them in via coax you can use the ethernet port as a switch , This is how my ps3 is hooked up , beats wireless anyday .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The Cool Part about the Uverse Set top boxes is if you plug them in via coax you can use the ethernet port as a switch, This is how my ps3 is hooked up, beats wireless anyday.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_18_188222.31187370</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_18_188222.31187870</id>
	<title>Wow... what are the odds</title>
	<author>litui</author>
	<datestamp>1266521820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I was just searching for this same thing today and a friend of mine suggested this product:</p><p><a href="http://www.netsys-direct.com/proddetail.php?prod=NH-310CEKIT&amp;cat=27" title="netsys-direct.com">http://www.netsys-direct.com/proddetail.php?prod=NH-310CEKIT&amp;cat=27</a> [netsys-direct.com]</p><p>It's a 200Mb ethernet-over-coax solution that makes use of existing coax installs and uses traditional cable.  We'll be testing it soon for a 200 metre install.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I was just searching for this same thing today and a friend of mine suggested this product : http : //www.netsys-direct.com/proddetail.php ? prod = NH-310CEKIT&amp;cat = 27 [ netsys-direct.com ] It 's a 200Mb ethernet-over-coax solution that makes use of existing coax installs and uses traditional cable .
We 'll be testing it soon for a 200 metre install .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I was just searching for this same thing today and a friend of mine suggested this product:http://www.netsys-direct.com/proddetail.php?prod=NH-310CEKIT&amp;cat=27 [netsys-direct.com]It's a 200Mb ethernet-over-coax solution that makes use of existing coax installs and uses traditional cable.
We'll be testing it soon for a 200 metre install.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_18_188222.31188062</id>
	<title>Here are some other products that will work.</title>
	<author>manigment</author>
	<datestamp>1266522420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>Try these converters.

<a href="http://www.veracityusa.com/products/products.php" title="veracityusa.com" rel="nofollow">http://www.veracityusa.com/products/products.php</a> [veracityusa.com]</htmltext>
<tokenext>Try these converters .
http : //www.veracityusa.com/products/products.php [ veracityusa.com ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Try these converters.
http://www.veracityusa.com/products/products.php [veracityusa.com]</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_18_188222.31188436</id>
	<title>Moca</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1266523680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>You can have up to 16 devices on MOCA. Try these ActionTec devices, they are the ones who make moca equipment for Verizon.</p><p>http://www.provantage.com/actiontec-hme2200-02~7ACTI04X.htm</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>You can have up to 16 devices on MOCA .
Try these ActionTec devices , they are the ones who make moca equipment for Verizon.http : //www.provantage.com/actiontec-hme2200-02 ~ 7ACTI04X.htm</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You can have up to 16 devices on MOCA.
Try these ActionTec devices, they are the ones who make moca equipment for Verizon.http://www.provantage.com/actiontec-hme2200-02~7ACTI04X.htm</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_18_188222.31187592</id>
	<title>Impedance differeneces</title>
	<author>Skuld-Chan</author>
	<datestamp>1266521100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>You really can't adapt this - the impedance for this coax is likely 70 ohm (for cable tv) and cat 5 is 100 ohms. You could build a balun, but you'd probably have some weird distance/speed related issues you've never had before. Anyhow if anyone had the parts it would be these guys:</p><p><a href="http://www.blackbox.com/Store/Detail.aspx/CATV-Balun/IC448A-R2" title="blackbox.com">http://www.blackbox.com/Store/Detail.aspx/CATV-Balun/IC448A-R2</a> [blackbox.com]</p><p>I know that's the wrong way, but it gives you an idea of how much you'd have to pay.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>You really ca n't adapt this - the impedance for this coax is likely 70 ohm ( for cable tv ) and cat 5 is 100 ohms .
You could build a balun , but you 'd probably have some weird distance/speed related issues you 've never had before .
Anyhow if anyone had the parts it would be these guys : http : //www.blackbox.com/Store/Detail.aspx/CATV-Balun/IC448A-R2 [ blackbox.com ] I know that 's the wrong way , but it gives you an idea of how much you 'd have to pay .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You really can't adapt this - the impedance for this coax is likely 70 ohm (for cable tv) and cat 5 is 100 ohms.
You could build a balun, but you'd probably have some weird distance/speed related issues you've never had before.
Anyhow if anyone had the parts it would be these guys:http://www.blackbox.com/Store/Detail.aspx/CATV-Balun/IC448A-R2 [blackbox.com]I know that's the wrong way, but it gives you an idea of how much you'd have to pay.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_18_188222.31187824</id>
	<title>Another alternative</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1266521700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext>How old is the house? It it's not too old, the telephone may be run on cat5. You can actually piggy-back ethernet and telephone on the same cat5 cable. I did that in a couple of rooms in my house and it worked great.</htmltext>
<tokenext>How old is the house ?
It it 's not too old , the telephone may be run on cat5 .
You can actually piggy-back ethernet and telephone on the same cat5 cable .
I did that in a couple of rooms in my house and it worked great .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>How old is the house?
It it's not too old, the telephone may be run on cat5.
You can actually piggy-back ethernet and telephone on the same cat5 cable.
I did that in a couple of rooms in my house and it worked great.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_18_188222.31188356</id>
	<title>Re:Cat5e vs Cat6?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1266523380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>My question to you is why not Cat7?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>My question to you is why not Cat7 ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>My question to you is why not Cat7?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_18_188222.31187540</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_18_188222.31189768</id>
	<title>How about media distribution instead of network?</title>
	<author>Em Ellel</author>
	<datestamp>1266484260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>If you are looking for strictly media solution, you may want to consider a different aproach. it may be wise to keep the coax and invest in a media distribution system. So you do not NEED to bother with running media clients and media servers all over the place, but instead put all your equipment in a single location (living room or attic) and simply use TV with coax and a remote as a controller for it. The SD versions of this are dirt cheap now (and if you are using 100Mbit, you are unlikely to do HD), but HD distribution systems are coming out now (though they are still pricey). But it makes live SO much nicer and is so much more reliable (and much more wife-friendly). Plus you can watch/listen to same thing on 3 TVs at same time if you want to.</p><p>Of course this is for media only, and you may still want to run cat* for computers.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>If you are looking for strictly media solution , you may want to consider a different aproach .
it may be wise to keep the coax and invest in a media distribution system .
So you do not NEED to bother with running media clients and media servers all over the place , but instead put all your equipment in a single location ( living room or attic ) and simply use TV with coax and a remote as a controller for it .
The SD versions of this are dirt cheap now ( and if you are using 100Mbit , you are unlikely to do HD ) , but HD distribution systems are coming out now ( though they are still pricey ) .
But it makes live SO much nicer and is so much more reliable ( and much more wife-friendly ) .
Plus you can watch/listen to same thing on 3 TVs at same time if you want to.Of course this is for media only , and you may still want to run cat * for computers .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If you are looking for strictly media solution, you may want to consider a different aproach.
it may be wise to keep the coax and invest in a media distribution system.
So you do not NEED to bother with running media clients and media servers all over the place, but instead put all your equipment in a single location (living room or attic) and simply use TV with coax and a remote as a controller for it.
The SD versions of this are dirt cheap now (and if you are using 100Mbit, you are unlikely to do HD), but HD distribution systems are coming out now (though they are still pricey).
But it makes live SO much nicer and is so much more reliable (and much more wife-friendly).
Plus you can watch/listen to same thing on 3 TVs at same time if you want to.Of course this is for media only, and you may still want to run cat* for computers.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_18_188222.31189016</id>
	<title>Re:Twisted pair, man</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1266525360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The extra hundred is probably something he'll have to explain to his S.O.</p><p>Sometimes it's easier to freakin' sell the house.<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:-)</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The extra hundred is probably something he 'll have to explain to his S.O.Sometimes it 's easier to freakin ' sell the house .
: - )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The extra hundred is probably something he'll have to explain to his S.O.Sometimes it's easier to freakin' sell the house.
:-)</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_18_188222.31187408</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_18_188222.31189002</id>
	<title>What you need is a Ethernet to Broadband bridge</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1266525300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>10base2 used 50 ohm coax with 50 ohm termination resistors to deliver a baseband ethernet signal.       Unfortunately as noted it does not work on 75 ohm coax</p><p>What you need is something that was common in the early 90s which is a baseband to broadband Ethernet bridge.     This was the technology that has evolved into the DOCSIS Cable Modem standards.  Unfortunately, no vendor ended up making a low cost consumer grade bridge other than cable modems which are by design tied to a cable modem  provider network.</p><p>- Awp</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>10base2 used 50 ohm coax with 50 ohm termination resistors to deliver a baseband ethernet signal .
Unfortunately as noted it does not work on 75 ohm coaxWhat you need is something that was common in the early 90s which is a baseband to broadband Ethernet bridge .
This was the technology that has evolved into the DOCSIS Cable Modem standards .
Unfortunately , no vendor ended up making a low cost consumer grade bridge other than cable modems which are by design tied to a cable modem provider network.- Awp</tokentext>
<sentencetext>10base2 used 50 ohm coax with 50 ohm termination resistors to deliver a baseband ethernet signal.
Unfortunately as noted it does not work on 75 ohm coaxWhat you need is something that was common in the early 90s which is a baseband to broadband Ethernet bridge.
This was the technology that has evolved into the DOCSIS Cable Modem standards.
Unfortunately, no vendor ended up making a low cost consumer grade bridge other than cable modems which are by design tied to a cable modem  provider network.- Awp</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_18_188222.31197710</id>
	<title>ethernet over powerlines</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1266583380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>what about http://www.netgear.com/Products/PowerlineNetworking/PowerlineEthernetAdapters/HDXB101.aspx ? no need to install/rip up any cables, plus it's faster than wired and wireless (gigabit not withstanding).</p><p>but honestly, i would just wire up the whole house with cat5e cause as it was mentioned before, you will want gigabit at some point in the near future.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>what about http : //www.netgear.com/Products/PowerlineNetworking/PowerlineEthernetAdapters/HDXB101.aspx ?
no need to install/rip up any cables , plus it 's faster than wired and wireless ( gigabit not withstanding ) .but honestly , i would just wire up the whole house with cat5e cause as it was mentioned before , you will want gigabit at some point in the near future .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>what about http://www.netgear.com/Products/PowerlineNetworking/PowerlineEthernetAdapters/HDXB101.aspx ?
no need to install/rip up any cables, plus it's faster than wired and wireless (gigabit not withstanding).but honestly, i would just wire up the whole house with cat5e cause as it was mentioned before, you will want gigabit at some point in the near future.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_18_188222.31188672</id>
	<title>Re:MoCa</title>
	<author>kazinator</author>
	<datestamp>1266524340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext>Those Netgear MoCa adapters work well (up to ~ 100Mb with decent coax and no splitters in their path). They blow away the performance of an 802.11n network. I made the switch 6 months ago and never looked back.

They are also compatible with most existing MoCa systems.    i.e., if you have a ActionTec Verizon Fios Router, it will act as a third adapter. So if you have Fios, this is any easy/efficient way to add access to your network without going wireless.

For those you in apartments or with shared coax, MoCa has built in security password mechanisms (although these are disabled by default for ease of use)</htmltext>
<tokenext>Those Netgear MoCa adapters work well ( up to ~ 100Mb with decent coax and no splitters in their path ) .
They blow away the performance of an 802.11n network .
I made the switch 6 months ago and never looked back .
They are also compatible with most existing MoCa systems .
i.e. , if you have a ActionTec Verizon Fios Router , it will act as a third adapter .
So if you have Fios , this is any easy/efficient way to add access to your network without going wireless .
For those you in apartments or with shared coax , MoCa has built in security password mechanisms ( although these are disabled by default for ease of use )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Those Netgear MoCa adapters work well (up to ~ 100Mb with decent coax and no splitters in their path).
They blow away the performance of an 802.11n network.
I made the switch 6 months ago and never looked back.
They are also compatible with most existing MoCa systems.
i.e., if you have a ActionTec Verizon Fios Router, it will act as a third adapter.
So if you have Fios, this is any easy/efficient way to add access to your network without going wireless.
For those you in apartments or with shared coax, MoCa has built in security password mechanisms (although these are disabled by default for ease of use)</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_18_188222.31187470</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_18_188222.31198580</id>
	<title>Use the cable as WiFi transmision lines</title>
	<author>gustavojuri</author>
	<datestamp>1266591660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I've been thinking all night about this post, and it came to me that you could put a WiFi router up in the attic and from there, build antennas for 2.5GHz at the end of all the coaxs, at the other end of the cables you do the same (build 2.5GHz antennas).
This way you are using the cables to boost (or transmit) the WiFi signal to the rooms where the coax ends. The antennas can be built right out of the same coax as a 1/4 wave antenna, without spending any money.
An even better thing would be to have a RF splitter for 2.5 or 5 GHz, but I doubt you could get one of those, if so, you can directly connect the coax to the WiFi router, getting a better RF signal in the rooms.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I 've been thinking all night about this post , and it came to me that you could put a WiFi router up in the attic and from there , build antennas for 2.5GHz at the end of all the coaxs , at the other end of the cables you do the same ( build 2.5GHz antennas ) .
This way you are using the cables to boost ( or transmit ) the WiFi signal to the rooms where the coax ends .
The antennas can be built right out of the same coax as a 1/4 wave antenna , without spending any money .
An even better thing would be to have a RF splitter for 2.5 or 5 GHz , but I doubt you could get one of those , if so , you can directly connect the coax to the WiFi router , getting a better RF signal in the rooms .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I've been thinking all night about this post, and it came to me that you could put a WiFi router up in the attic and from there, build antennas for 2.5GHz at the end of all the coaxs, at the other end of the cables you do the same (build 2.5GHz antennas).
This way you are using the cables to boost (or transmit) the WiFi signal to the rooms where the coax ends.
The antennas can be built right out of the same coax as a 1/4 wave antenna, without spending any money.
An even better thing would be to have a RF splitter for 2.5 or 5 GHz, but I doubt you could get one of those, if so, you can directly connect the coax to the WiFi router, getting a better RF signal in the rooms.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_18_188222.31191604</id>
	<title>Re:Related Questions</title>
	<author>NerveGas</author>
	<datestamp>1266489840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Fiber has been the "You should do this for future-proofing" for over a decade.  But it never quite comes true... copper keeps being sneaky.</p><p>I would just run a few cat6 lines to each room, and call it good.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Fiber has been the " You should do this for future-proofing " for over a decade .
But it never quite comes true... copper keeps being sneaky.I would just run a few cat6 lines to each room , and call it good .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Fiber has been the "You should do this for future-proofing" for over a decade.
But it never quite comes true... copper keeps being sneaky.I would just run a few cat6 lines to each room, and call it good.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_18_188222.31187546</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_18_188222.31189026</id>
	<title>If you can't use it to pull cables...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1266525360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>...don't try to use it for data transfer.  Using wifi G or N bridging is going to get you a better experience from a performance and a pain perspective.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>...do n't try to use it for data transfer .
Using wifi G or N bridging is going to get you a better experience from a performance and a pain perspective .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>...don't try to use it for data transfer.
Using wifi G or N bridging is going to get you a better experience from a performance and a pain perspective.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_18_188222.31189410</id>
	<title>802.11</title>
	<author>eexaa</author>
	<datestamp>1266526440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Just stick the coaxes into antenna plugs on wireless routers, and simulate point-to-point wireless. Possibilities are:</p><p>- 2 average home routers for 2x$20 with 802.11b/g over coax, can-do 25Mbit real. Not sure how 5Ghz 802.11a would do, I would guess 30-40Mbit.<br>- 2 better routers (mikrotiks) for around 2x$45 each - specifically mikrotiks can do several nstreme interfaces easily with 150Mbit on one cable (tried that)<br>- 802.11n - not sure how efficient this would be, imho can do 70Mbit real. cost is for 2x$30 approx.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Just stick the coaxes into antenna plugs on wireless routers , and simulate point-to-point wireless .
Possibilities are : - 2 average home routers for 2x $ 20 with 802.11b/g over coax , can-do 25Mbit real .
Not sure how 5Ghz 802.11a would do , I would guess 30-40Mbit.- 2 better routers ( mikrotiks ) for around 2x $ 45 each - specifically mikrotiks can do several nstreme interfaces easily with 150Mbit on one cable ( tried that ) - 802.11n - not sure how efficient this would be , imho can do 70Mbit real .
cost is for 2x $ 30 approx .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Just stick the coaxes into antenna plugs on wireless routers, and simulate point-to-point wireless.
Possibilities are:- 2 average home routers for 2x$20 with 802.11b/g over coax, can-do 25Mbit real.
Not sure how 5Ghz 802.11a would do, I would guess 30-40Mbit.- 2 better routers (mikrotiks) for around 2x$45 each - specifically mikrotiks can do several nstreme interfaces easily with 150Mbit on one cable (tried that)- 802.11n - not sure how efficient this would be, imho can do 70Mbit real.
cost is for 2x$30 approx.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_18_188222.31187452</id>
	<title>DOCSIS devices</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1266520680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Well, if you have lots of money to waste on very expensive Cisco DOCSIS  (cable modem) backend gear, and you are a mental masochist for wanting to configure such gear, then you might be able to use the coax to carry the DOCSIS RF signals around your house.</p><p>Think of DOCSIS as kind of like 802.11b/g/n WiFi networking, but instead of transmitting the RF thru the air over antennas, it just encodes networking into RF and transmits/receives the RF over coax cables instead, and it runs at very different frequencies than 2.4GHz.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Well , if you have lots of money to waste on very expensive Cisco DOCSIS ( cable modem ) backend gear , and you are a mental masochist for wanting to configure such gear , then you might be able to use the coax to carry the DOCSIS RF signals around your house.Think of DOCSIS as kind of like 802.11b/g/n WiFi networking , but instead of transmitting the RF thru the air over antennas , it just encodes networking into RF and transmits/receives the RF over coax cables instead , and it runs at very different frequencies than 2.4GHz .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Well, if you have lots of money to waste on very expensive Cisco DOCSIS  (cable modem) backend gear, and you are a mental masochist for wanting to configure such gear, then you might be able to use the coax to carry the DOCSIS RF signals around your house.Think of DOCSIS as kind of like 802.11b/g/n WiFi networking, but instead of transmitting the RF thru the air over antennas, it just encodes networking into RF and transmits/receives the RF over coax cables instead, and it runs at very different frequencies than 2.4GHz.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_18_188222.31189104</id>
	<title>Just wire your house...</title>
	<author>aarongadberry</author>
	<datestamp>1266525600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I bought everything from <a href="http://www.deepsurplus.com/" title="deepsurplus.com" rel="nofollow">http://www.deepsurplus.com/</a> [deepsurplus.com] for  $100.  I paid a guy $125 to run 8 drops.  It's less than a $250 problem.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I bought everything from http : //www.deepsurplus.com/ [ deepsurplus.com ] for $ 100 .
I paid a guy $ 125 to run 8 drops .
It 's less than a $ 250 problem .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I bought everything from http://www.deepsurplus.com/ [deepsurplus.com] for  $100.
I paid a guy $125 to run 8 drops.
It's less than a $250 problem.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_18_188222.31187662</id>
	<title>Why not wireless?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1266521280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Redundant</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>This sounds like a question from the 90s.</p><p>Why not just make the jump to wireless? Do you really need more that 56Mbps on a home LAN?</p><p>I did that six years ago when I started having to deal with my kids having their own computers on their desks to do homework for high school. (Mostly because after five minutes investigation I decided I never wanted to go into the insulated attic of my new house ever again if at all possible. Blown insulation is cheap an effective but it kind of makes the attic unusable without significant effort.)</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>This sounds like a question from the 90s.Why not just make the jump to wireless ?
Do you really need more that 56Mbps on a home LAN ? I did that six years ago when I started having to deal with my kids having their own computers on their desks to do homework for high school .
( Mostly because after five minutes investigation I decided I never wanted to go into the insulated attic of my new house ever again if at all possible .
Blown insulation is cheap an effective but it kind of makes the attic unusable without significant effort .
)</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This sounds like a question from the 90s.Why not just make the jump to wireless?
Do you really need more that 56Mbps on a home LAN?I did that six years ago when I started having to deal with my kids having their own computers on their desks to do homework for high school.
(Mostly because after five minutes investigation I decided I never wanted to go into the insulated attic of my new house ever again if at all possible.
Blown insulation is cheap an effective but it kind of makes the attic unusable without significant effort.
)</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_18_188222.31187936</id>
	<title>Re:Use the Coax to pull CAT 5e cable</title>
	<author>leachlife4</author>
	<datestamp>1266522060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Ethernet cable pairs are not simply "4 pairs<nobr> <wbr></nobr>...of approximately the same length" it is 4 pairs twisted together in a precise pattern such that NEXT/FEXT is minimized and optimum signal quality is obtained.  The pairs each have a different tightness in their twists resulting in (especially in longer runs approaching the 100m limit) significantly different wire lengths.

I recommend using the existing coax to pull Cat5/6 through and leave one or two coax in case they are ever needed later.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Ethernet cable pairs are not simply " 4 pairs ...of approximately the same length " it is 4 pairs twisted together in a precise pattern such that NEXT/FEXT is minimized and optimum signal quality is obtained .
The pairs each have a different tightness in their twists resulting in ( especially in longer runs approaching the 100m limit ) significantly different wire lengths .
I recommend using the existing coax to pull Cat5/6 through and leave one or two coax in case they are ever needed later .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Ethernet cable pairs are not simply "4 pairs ...of approximately the same length" it is 4 pairs twisted together in a precise pattern such that NEXT/FEXT is minimized and optimum signal quality is obtained.
The pairs each have a different tightness in their twists resulting in (especially in longer runs approaching the 100m limit) significantly different wire lengths.
I recommend using the existing coax to pull Cat5/6 through and leave one or two coax in case they are ever needed later.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_18_188222.31187416</parent>
</comment>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_18_188222_72</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_18_188222.31187824
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_18_188222.31191892
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_18_188222_11</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_18_188222.31187546
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_18_188222.31189204
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_18_188222_69</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_18_188222.31187546
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_18_188222.31188480
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_18_188222_3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_18_188222.31187470
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_18_188222.31190302
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_18_188222_71</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_18_188222.31188024
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_18_188222.31193088
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_18_188222_73</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_18_188222.31187540
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_18_188222.31188992
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_18_188222_45</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_18_188222.31187408
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_18_188222.31195700
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_18_188222_36</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_18_188222.31187470
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_18_188222.31192308
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_18_188222_59</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_18_188222.31187546
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_18_188222.31190998
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_18_188222_6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_18_188222.31187370
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_18_188222.31187560
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_18_188222_52</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_18_188222.31187546
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_18_188222.31188038
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_18_188222_35</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_18_188222.31187408
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_18_188222.31188252
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_18_188222_66</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_18_188222.31187408
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_18_188222.31188194
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_18_188222_0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_18_188222.31187470
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_18_188222.31191750
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_18_188222_42</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_18_188222.31187416
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_18_188222.31190708
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_18_188222_28</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_18_188222.31187662
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_18_188222.31193196
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_18_188222_10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_18_188222.31187540
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_18_188222.31188876
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_18_188222_70</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_18_188222.31187470
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_18_188222.31188210
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_18_188222_67</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_18_188222.31187546
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_18_188222.31188612
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_18_188222_1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_18_188222.31187824
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_18_188222.31191114
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_18_188222_58</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_18_188222.31187824
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_18_188222.31191806
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_18_188222_29</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_18_188222.31187370
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_18_188222.31188034
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_18_188222_34</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_18_188222.31188112
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_18_188222.31193248
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_18_188222_57</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_18_188222.31187370
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_18_188222.31189514
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_18_188222_48</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_18_188222.31187546
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_18_188222.31191212
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_18_188222_64</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_18_188222.31187416
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_18_188222.31187878
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_18_188222_25</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_18_188222.31188024
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_18_188222.31189714
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_18_188222_15</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_18_188222.31187824
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_18_188222.31197554
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_18_188222_49</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_18_188222.31187370
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_18_188222.31190634
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_18_188222_77</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_18_188222.31187546
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_18_188222.31196578
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_18_188222_22</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_18_188222.31187546
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_18_188222.31187776
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_18_188222_56</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_18_188222.31187370
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_18_188222.31201926
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_18_188222_39</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_18_188222.31187408
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_18_188222.31188994
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_18_188222_4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_18_188222.31188024
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_18_188222.31188942
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_18_188222_61</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_18_188222.31187546
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_18_188222.31188468
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_18_188222_46</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_18_188222.31188024
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_18_188222.31192870
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_18_188222_23</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_18_188222.31187546
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_18_188222.31190320
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_18_188222_51</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_18_188222.31187546
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_18_188222.31189246
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_18_188222_14</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_18_188222.31187424
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_18_188222.31195788
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_18_188222_76</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_18_188222.31187470
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_18_188222.31188672
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_18_188222_13</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_18_188222.31187470
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_18_188222.31188848
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_18_188222_75</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_18_188222.31187876
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_18_188222.31194876
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_18_188222_7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_18_188222.31187540
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_18_188222.31188208
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_18_188222_9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_18_188222.31187546
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_18_188222.31191604
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_18_188222_20</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_18_188222.31187546
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_18_188222.31188216
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_18_188222_38</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_18_188222.31187424
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_18_188222.31192484
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_18_188222_43</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_18_188222.31187540
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_18_188222.31188356
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_18_188222_68</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_18_188222.31187408
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_18_188222.31189016
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_18_188222.31201938
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_18_188222_2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_18_188222.31187662
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_18_188222.31188120
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_18_188222_50</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_18_188222.31187370
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_18_188222.31187588
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_18_188222_33</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_18_188222.31188024
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_18_188222.31189012
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_18_188222_12</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_18_188222.31187546
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_18_188222.31189176
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_18_188222_40</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_18_188222.31187662
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_18_188222.31192498
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_18_188222_26</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_18_188222.31187360
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_18_188222.31187568
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_18_188222_74</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_18_188222.31187540
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_18_188222.31188772
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_18_188222_5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_18_188222.31187662
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_18_188222.31188110
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_18_188222_65</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_18_188222.31187824
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_18_188222.31190524
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_18_188222_41</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_18_188222.31187540
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_18_188222.31187954
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_18_188222_32</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_18_188222.31187546
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_18_188222.31195162
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_18_188222_27</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_18_188222.31187470
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_18_188222.31189788
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_18_188222_55</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_18_188222.31187824
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_18_188222.31197528
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_18_188222_60</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_18_188222.31187540
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_18_188222.31188192
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_18_188222_31</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_18_188222.31187360
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_18_188222.31188556
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_18_188222_62</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_18_188222.31187370
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_18_188222.31192204
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_18_188222_19</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_18_188222.31187416
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_18_188222.31187936
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_18_188222_24</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_18_188222.31187408
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_18_188222.31187716
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_18_188222_47</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_18_188222.31187370
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_18_188222.31190716
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_18_188222_63</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_18_188222.31187662
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_18_188222.31194856
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_18_188222_8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_18_188222.31187408
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_18_188222.31194992
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_18_188222_54</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_18_188222.31187546
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_18_188222.31191930
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_18_188222_37</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_18_188222.31187540
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_18_188222.31188242
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_18_188222_30</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_18_188222.31187546
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_18_188222.31188542
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_18_188222_53</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_18_188222.31187546
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_18_188222.31188378
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_18_188222_16</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_18_188222.31187662
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_18_188222.31192018
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_18_188222_44</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_18_188222.31187470
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_18_188222.31204298
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_18_188222_18</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_18_188222.31187424
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_18_188222.31188786
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_18_188222_21</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_18_188222.31187416
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_18_188222.31188426
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_18_188222_17</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_18_188222.31187470
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_18_188222.31189168
</commentlist>
</thread>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_18_188222.27</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_18_188222.31188792
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_18_188222.24</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_18_188222.31187546
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_18_188222.31188468
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_18_188222.31188612
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_18_188222.31191212
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_18_188222.31191604
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_18_188222.31189204
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_18_188222.31195162
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_18_188222.31188216
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_18_188222.31189176
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_18_188222.31189246
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_18_188222.31190998
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_18_188222.31191930
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_18_188222.31190320
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_18_188222.31188038
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_18_188222.31188542
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_18_188222.31187776
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_18_188222.31196578
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_18_188222.31188378
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_18_188222.31188480
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_18_188222.0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_18_188222.31191968
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_18_188222.33</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_18_188222.31187412
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_18_188222.1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_18_188222.31187772
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_18_188222.15</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_18_188222.31192924
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_18_188222.34</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_18_188222.31188198
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_18_188222.10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_18_188222.31188152
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_18_188222.23</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_18_188222.31187392
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_18_188222.8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_18_188222.31187388
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_18_188222.20</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_18_188222.31187456
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_18_188222.16</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_18_188222.31193526
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_18_188222.29</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_18_188222.31187870
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_18_188222.26</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_18_188222.31187324
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_18_188222.2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_18_188222.31200658
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_18_188222.35</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_18_188222.31187592
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_18_188222.11</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_18_188222.31187540
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_18_188222.31187954
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_18_188222.31188192
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_18_188222.31188772
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_18_188222.31188356
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_18_188222.31188992
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_18_188222.31188208
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_18_188222.31188876
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_18_188222.31188242
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_18_188222.17</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_18_188222.31187416
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_18_188222.31190708
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_18_188222.31187878
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_18_188222.31187936
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_18_188222.31188426
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_18_188222.3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_18_188222.31187682
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_18_188222.7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_18_188222.31188464
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_18_188222.30</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_18_188222.31187662
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_18_188222.31192018
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_18_188222.31188110
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_18_188222.31194856
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_18_188222.31192498
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_18_188222.31193196
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_18_188222.31188120
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_18_188222.36</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_18_188222.31188024
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_18_188222.31193088
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_18_188222.31192870
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_18_188222.31189012
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_18_188222.31189714
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_18_188222.31188942
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_18_188222.22</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_18_188222.31187824
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_18_188222.31190524
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_18_188222.31191114
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_18_188222.31191892
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_18_188222.31197554
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_18_188222.31197528
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_18_188222.31191806
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_18_188222.18</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_18_188222.31187548
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_18_188222.12</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_18_188222.31187846
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_18_188222.25</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_18_188222.31188706
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_18_188222.28</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_18_188222.31187432
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_18_188222.5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_18_188222.31187424
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_18_188222.31192484
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_18_188222.31195788
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_18_188222.31188786
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_18_188222.4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_18_188222.31187876
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_18_188222.31194876
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_18_188222.31</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_18_188222.31187360
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_18_188222.31187568
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_18_188222.31188556
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_18_188222.37</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_18_188222.31187370
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_18_188222.31187560
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_18_188222.31201926
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_18_188222.31187588
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_18_188222.31188034
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_18_188222.31192204
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_18_188222.31189514
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_18_188222.31190716
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_18_188222.31190634
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_18_188222.19</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_18_188222.31187646
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_18_188222.13</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_18_188222.31187458
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_18_188222.32</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_18_188222.31188788
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_18_188222.9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_18_188222.31187442
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_18_188222.21</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_18_188222.31191268
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_18_188222.6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_18_188222.31188112
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_18_188222.31193248
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_18_188222.38</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_18_188222.31187470
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_18_188222.31189788
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_18_188222.31192308
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_18_188222.31190302
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_18_188222.31191750
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_18_188222.31188210
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_18_188222.31188672
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_18_188222.31204298
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_18_188222.31189168
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_18_188222.31188848
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_18_188222.14</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_18_188222.31187408
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_18_188222.31189016
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_18_188222.31201938
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_18_188222.31194992
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_18_188222.31188194
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_18_188222.31188994
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_18_188222.31195700
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_18_188222.31187716
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_18_188222.31188252
</commentlist>
</conversation>
