Path: utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!mailrus!husc6!bu-cs!kwe
From: kwe@bu-cs.BU.EDU (kwe@bu-it.bu.edu (Kent W. England))
Newsgroups: comp.dcom.lans
Subject: Re: high speed networking between buildings
Message-ID: <38352@bu-cs.BU.EDU>
Date: 18 Sep 89 18:59:03 GMT
References: <4574@ursa-major.SPDCC.COM> <337@ai.etl.army.mil>
Reply-To: kwe@buit13.bu.edu (Kent England)
Followup-To: comp.dcom.lans
Organization: Boston U. Information Technology
Lines: 26

In article <337@ai.etl.army.mil> hoey@ai.etl.army.mil (Dan Hoey) writes:
>In article <4574@ursa-major.SPDCC.COM> eli@ursa-major.spdcc.COM  writes:
>
>>	consider using broadband coax as well....
>
>But of course, in the words of Charles Hedrick, ``We do not recommend running
>copper of any kind between buildings.  You can sometimes get away with it, but
>it's asking for trouble.''
>

	That generalization is too broad.  "Copper" when taken in the
context of Ethernet is bad news over any great distance, since there
are potential ground loop and lightning induction problems that
Ethernet per se does not deal with.

	Broadband coax is specifically designed for running between
buildings and ground loops, lightning, and other electrical problems
are specifically dealt with.  The fact that you might run Ethernet
frames on the broadband medium is of no consequence.

	However, given the choice of broadband or fiber for a simple
little two point link, I would take the fiber as much simpler to
install and maintain.  You want to broadcast TV, avoid fiber and go
with broadband coax.

	Kent England, Boston University