Is reddit right about copper cables between buildings?

[Webfont]

A family member is my next door neighbor; our houses are about 10ft apart.
I'd like to setup some cameras on that house, and have them run from my BI/NAS.
Instead of wiring the cams to go straight to my switch like my cams, I was thinking of installing a small poe switch over there, and then trunking both switches with some gel-filled outdoor cat6 that was routed behind some shrubs through the backyards.

I was looking about something unrelated on fiber optic cables for my servers and some reddit post said to never use copper cables between buildings.
Searching about that a bit further, it seems that redditors go apoplectic about that topic; ground loops, lightning, total loss of every electronic device, and so on and the consensus is never run copper, always fiber optic.

How much truth is there to that?

We already have plenty of outdoor copper for our ip cameras, so is the building to building problem the fact both switches are connected to different power panels but have a copper connection between them?

 

[Starglow]

A family member is my next door neighbor; our houses are about 10ft apart.
I'd like to setup some cameras on that house, and have them run from my BI/NAS.
Instead of wiring the cams to go straight to my switch like my cams, I was thinking of installing a small poe switch over there, and then trunking both switches with some gel-filled outdoor cat6 that was routed behind some shrubs through the backyards.

I was looking about something unrelated on fiber optic cables for my servers and some reddit post said to never use copper cables between buildings.
Searching about that a bit further, it seems that redditors go apoplectic about that topic; ground loops, lightning, total loss of every electronic device, and so on and the consensus is never run copper, always fiber optic.

How much truth is there to that?

We already have plenty of outdoor copper for our ip cameras, so is the building to building problem the fact both switches are connected to different power panels but have a copper connection between them?

I have a similar situation with my son living next door. We ran about 80 feet of gray PVC conduit underground between the houses and then pulled a fiber optic cable which is for network use and not cameras but same difference. If you don't use shielded Ethernet cable between the houses then there won't be a ground loop issue, but fiber optic would be the better choice. What you don't want to do is connect the grounds of the two houses together which is a big no-no.

 

[looktall]

so is the building to building problem the fact both switches are connected to different power panels but have a copper connection between them?

exactly this.
i would strongly advise against it.

 

[TonyR]

+1 to both the above.
Avoid the issue entirely if running copper by running the POE from the POE switch in your house, no switches, etc. plugged in at his place.
Ten feet length on the ground, in shrubs, etc, would be akin to being in your crawl space, pretty much.
Fiber would be the best, in conduit. Both end would power their own media converter.
Or a Layer 2 Wireless Bridge, somewhat silly for 10 feet though, IMO.

 

[bp2008]

I'm sure that regular ethernet cable can be used safely, I just wouldn't be able to tell you how with any confidence, because I don't know.

Fiber optics are really easy anyway, so you might as well just do it with fiber.

For example, you could simply start with this media converter kit which converts regular ethernet cable into fiber optic and back.

https://amazon.com/dp/B0C1Z34M3K

Then you just need a sufficiently long fiber patch cable that uses the right type of fiber ("single mode") and connector ("LC").
Here's one:

https://amazon.com/dp/B08B3J9H22

Or this if you want one that is "armored":

https://amazon.com/dp/B07W1YLJ6Z

Most fiber cables are sold as "duplex" meaning they have two separate fibers each with LC connectors. You only need one of the fibers for the media converter I linked above, so you can simply remove the plastic thingy holding the two LC connectors together, and use one strand of fiber on each end.

 

[bp2008]

Perhaps the best part is, once you have this connection between houses, you can use it to share internet too just as easily as cameras (just don't tell the internet provider you're doing it, and they will have no way of knowing).

 

[wpiman]

Electrical engineer here. You can run copper..... the grounding won't be an issue.

I highly suggest using ubiquity surge protectors at each end of the wire. I have several outdoor runs on my own property... lightning is your enemy...

 

[Teken]

Electrical engineer here. You can run copper..... the grounding won't be an issue.

I highly suggest using ubiquity surge protectors at each end of the wire. I have several outdoor runs on my own property... lightning is your enemy...

WTF are you talking about?!?!

 

[Webfont]

If you don't use shielded Ethernet cable between the houses then there won't be a ground loop issue, but fiber optic would be the better choice. What you don't want to do is connect the grounds of the two houses together which is a big no-no.

The cable I already have is unshielded.

Avoid the issue entirely if running copper by running the POE from the POE switch in your house, no switches, etc. plugged in at his place.
Ten feet length on the ground, in shrubs, etc, would be akin to being in your crawl space, pretty much.

I should have mentioned that 10ft is the 'birds eye view' distance, but that the actual cable would need to be 130ft cause there's a paved driveway between the houses and I'd need to run the cable all the way to the back garden, behind the driveway, and back towards the house.
So extending every camera's cable by 130 ft is very inefficient, hence why I wanted a local switch over there.

Or a Layer 2 Wireless Bridge, somewhat silly for 10 feet though, IMO.

I thought about it, would certainly make it easier instead of running cabling outdoors, but doesn't that go against the mantra of "no wireless for anything ip camera"?
I'm planning on having 7 cams over there (so far) so that'd be a constant ~100mbps traffic

I'm sure that regular ethernet cable can be used safely, I just wouldn't be able to tell you how with any confidence, because I don't know.

Fiber optics are really easy anyway, so you might as well just do it with fiber.

For example, you could simply start with this media converter kit which converts regular ethernet cable into fiber optic and back.

https://amazon.com/dp/B0C1Z34M3K

View attachment 180218

Then you just need a sufficiently long fiber patch cable that uses the right type of fiber ("single mode") and connector ("LC").
Here's one:

https://amazon.com/dp/B08B3J9H22

View attachment 180219

Or this if you want one that is "armored":

https://amazon.com/dp/B07W1YLJ6Z

Most fiber cables are sold as "duplex" meaning they have two separate fibers each with LC connectors. You only need one of the fibers for the media converter I linked above, so you can simply remove the plastic thingy holding the two LC connectors together, and use one strand of fiber on each end.

The switches I planned on using for this already have sfp ports in them so I'd just need to get the adaptors.
What do you think of those: Lot of 2 Finisar FTLF8524P2BNV-HD Ethernet Transceiver SFP Duplex | eBay

https://edt.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/06/FTLF8524P2BNV.pdf

Is 850nm "good"?
Can any non-plus sfp do 4.25gpbs?

I think I need to read up more about the whole fiber optics stuff and come back with specific questions. brb.

Perhaps the best part is, once you have this connection between houses, you can use it to share internet too just as easily as cameras (just don't tell the internet provider you're doing it, and they will have no way of knowing).

That's part of the plan for this project

 

[TonyR]

I thought about it, would certainly make it easier instead of running cabling outdoors, but doesn't that go against the mantra of "no wireless for anything ip camera"?
I'm planning on having 7 cams over there (so far) so that'd be a constant ~100mbps traffic

Now the 130 ft. is another story.
I'm not talking about Wi-Fi....it's a purpose built, wireless link using proprietary protocol. 7 cams no issue.
Can be configured, installed and operating in 1/2 a day.
Assuming you have clear LOS (Line Of Sight) and power at both ends, a Ubiquiti Layer 2 Transparent Bridge would work well.

I have installed several of the following schema:

 

[Webfont]

Now the 130 ft. is another story.
I'm not talking about Wi-Fi....it's a purpose built, wireless link using proprietary protocol. 7 cams no issue.
Can be configured, installed and operating in 1/2 a day.
Assuming you have clear LOS (Line Of Sight) and power at both ends, a Ubiquiti Layer 2 Transparent Bridge would work well.

I have installed several of the following schema:

View attachment 180232

The specs of NanoStations only list a 100mbps Ethernet port. Is there anything out there that does gigabit to allow more non-camera traffic?

 

[garycrist]

Running copper from 1 home to another can be disaster!! Both services will be at potential differences
that will be satisfied via the Ethernet cable. Bonding both homes together will help but, you will have ground loops.
An example would be when the A/C kicks on or off, a back pulse is generated that must be drained back to ground.
One of the grounds will always be at a different potential or will have excessive electricity (electrons) and they will balance out
via the easiest path.

Damage to the electrical components are cumulative and will not show up at the time of the spike.
Use the FIBER.

 

[Teken]

Running copper from 1 home to another can be disaster!! Both services will be at potential differences
that will be satisfied via the Ethernet cable. Bonding both homes together will help but, you will have ground loops.
An example would be when the A/C kicks on or off, a back pulse is generated that must be drained back to ground.
One of the grounds will always be at a different potential or will have excessive electricity (electrons) and they will balance out
via the easiest path.

Damage to the electrical components are cumulative and will not show up at the time of the spike.
Use the FIBER.

But, but, but, the Engineer guy said its OK?!?!

 

[garycrist]

 

[bp2008]

Yes there are gigabit speed solutions for wireless bridging. airMAX GigaBeam - Ubiquiti Store United States

A lot pricier than fiber if you are willing to run a fiber cord.

 

[Webfont]

Yes there are gigabit speed solutions for wireless bridging. airMAX GigaBeam - Ubiquiti Store United States

A lot pricier than fiber if you are willing to run a fiber cord.

Thanks for that. I'll keep an eye on it and see if it comes back in stock before summer when I planned on doing this.
Once you add the cost of pvc piping, fittings, pulling rods, and time to dig/cover, it might actually come out cheaper to run these wireless radios.
Fiber would allow better future speeds, but 1gbps should be plenty for our usecase.

 

[tigerwillow1]

If I may offer some facts and conclusions...

Fact: With non-POE ports the ethernet spec requires 1,500 volt RMS isolation between all of the port lines and frame ground and other ports (there are more details to the spec, but this captures the bulk of it).
My conclusion: If using non-POE ports and not using shielded cable, the only equipment risk because of using copper cables is lightning. The other claims are nonsense.

Fact: With POE ports, the electrical isolation spec is in force between the port lines and frame ground. It may or may not be in force between different ports on the same device. Environment A devices do not have isolation between ports, Environment B devices have isolation between ports.

My conclusion 1: To conform to the ethernet spec, a POE port from an Environment A switch cannot be connected to a switch port powered by a separately grounded distribution system, e.g. a different house. Personally, I don't see how this is an equipment risk or personnel hazard when only 2 separately grounded systems are in play, but the gobbledygook specs are what they are.

My conclusion 2: When POE ports on both ends are from environment B devices, you're good to go connecting to different buildings. Ditto between an Environment B device POE port and a non-POE port. My Cicso small business switch is an Environment A device, leading me to believe (without evidence) that Environment B devices are rare and/or expensive.

Final conclusion: No problem (other than lightning) connecting switches in different buildings using non-POE ports. If using POE ports you may or may not have a problem.

I'm open to having the conclusions challenged. Hopefully the facts are correct.

Regulatory 802.3 .....
Navigating the IEEE 802.3af Standard for PoE

 

[looktall]

Then you just need a sufficiently long fiber patch cable that uses the right type of fiber ("single mode")

Why would you use single mode over multi mode for such a short distance?

 

[bp2008]

Why would you use single mode over multi mode for such a short distance?

Because both work equally well at short distance, and the price is basically the same, and single mode is the type of transceivers that come in the media converter kit I linked. Basically, chosen at random.

 

[wpiman]

WTF are you talking about?!?!

Lightning. That bright light in the sky that occasionally hits the ground. Creates magnetic fields....

Nothing wrong with optically coupling either- but not required...