A Broadband and ADSL forum. BroadbanterBanter

Welcome to BroadbanterBanter.

You are currently viewing as a guest which gives you limited access to view most discussions and other FREE features. By joining our free community you will have access to post topics, communicate privately with other members (PM), respond to polls, upload your own photos and access many other special features. Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free so please, join our community today.

Go Back   Home » BroadbanterBanter forum » Newsgroup Discussions » uk.telecom.broadband (UK broadband)
Site Map Home Register Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

uk.telecom.broadband (UK broadband) (uk.telecom.broadband) Discussion of broadband services, technology and equipment as provided in the UK. Discussions of specific services based on ADSL, cable modems or other broadband technology are also on-topic. Advertising is not allowed.

CCTV



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #11  
Old February 14th 20, 07:15 PM posted to uk.telecom.broadband
David Wade[_3_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 38
Default CCTV

On 13/02/2020 20:04, Woody wrote:
Can anyone recommend a wireless IP camera that works without needing to
talk to a server somewhere at a cost, and itself doesn't cost the earth?
I want to be able to view its output from my phone.

Ideally the camera should be waterproof so it can be outside, and need
only a power supply from a wall-wart. I don't need an internal SD card
for storage, and I don't need it to be remotely moveable, just have a
lens and some IR LEDs for night-time.

TIA


I have a Motorola Hubble and a KK Moon both of which can be viewed via a
remote server but without a charge. The KK Moon can also be viewed
directly. The Motorola needs a flash enabled browser so its going to be
fun ...

Dave
  #12  
Old February 14th 20, 08:08 PM posted to uk.telecom.broadband
Java Jive
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 585
Default CCTV

On 14/02/2020 18:13, Jeff Layman wrote:

On 14/02/20 16:53, Java Jive wrote:

But you may have security issues* -* there have been cases of thieves
and other criminals hacking into WiFi connected security cameras and
using them to spy on the occupants of the house, so that they know when
it's safe to break in!* This can't happen with a cabled ethernet
connection.


Out of interest, could you use a powerline adaptor to carry the signal
from, for example, the loft to anywhere in the house? That might limit
the holes needed for the Ethernet cable to just one - from the loft to
the camera (on the assumption that there is usually a ring main cable
accessible in the loft) to connect one powerline adaptor to. Also, the
powerline to powerline transmission is encrypted, so hacking is unlikely.


It may be possible, but I wouldn't be the person to be able to tell you.
I suspect that an easier route would be to use a Power-Over-Ethernet
(POE) model, as I think someone has already suggested, so that you can
just drill one hole to take the ethernet cable.
  #13  
Old February 14th 20, 09:49 PM posted to uk.telecom.broadband
NY[_2_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 78
Default CCTV

"Chris Green" wrote in message
...
NY wrote:
"Woody" wrote in message
...
On Fri 14/02/2020 16:16, Graham J wrote:
NY wrote:
I always prefer to use Ethernet rather than wifi for anything if
there's
the choice ;-) If it involves drilling holes through walls or
ceilings
to run Cat 5, wifi is usually considerably easier...

Easier and reliable are often mutually exclusive !


True. Going between one room and another by Ethernet involves drilling a
hole through a wall, big enough to take an RJ45 plug as well as the cable


Not really, it's not that difficult to DIY etherenet UTP cables, all
you have to do is thread the cable and then crimp the RJ45 on the end.

(I've tried IDC plugs that you crimp onto the wires, but it was
incredibly
fiddly to get all the wires to stay in the right order as I crimped), or


Ah, sorry, just do it a few times and it becomes easier.


I probably ought to buy a job lot of IDC RJ45s and a length of Cat5 and keep
trying till I get it right. I put the cable in the tool and let it cut the
individual wires to the right length, but I found it very difficult to keep
all the wires in separate holes in the IDC at the same time as I inserted
the plug into the crimping part of the tool. And then having crimped one
end, I obviously needed to get (and keep) wires of the same colours in the
same holes at the other end.

I was obviously doing something wrong because I thought "this should be
easy - anyone should be able to do it".

I thought I'd done it right after several false starts: I checked and all
the colours were in the same place at both ends (it wasn't a crossover
cable) but it still didn't work, so maybe one wire wasn't making good
contact - and, sod's law, I didn't have my test meter on me to check
continuity of pin 1 at each end, followed by the others.

I decided to drill a slightly bigger hole so I could pass a cable through
that already had plugs on both ends - having remembered to wrap clingfilm
round the RJ45 so the little tab didn't break off as I poked the plug
through the hole in the wall.

  #14  
Old February 14th 20, 10:46 PM posted to uk.telecom.broadband
Graham J[_3_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 232
Default CCTV

NY wrote:
"Woody" wrote in message
...
On Fri 14/02/2020 16:16, Graham J wrote:
NY wrote:
I always prefer to use Ethernet rather than wifi for anything if
there's the choice ;-) If it involves drilling holes through walls
or ceilings to run Cat 5, wifi is usually considerably easier...

Easier and reliable are often mutually exclusive !


True. Going between one room and another by Ethernet involves drilling a
hole through a wall, big enough to take an RJ45 plug as well as the
cable (I've tried IDC plugs that you crimp onto the wires, but it was
incredibly fiddly to get all the wires to stay in the right order as I
crimped), or else relies on running Cat 5 through doorways under the
metal strip between one carpet and another. At least the modern flat Cat
5 is easier to hide under the edge of a carpet or a metal doorway strip
than the older round fat cable.


The "proper" way to do this is to run solid-cored Cat5 (or Cat6) cable
terminated at each end in RJ45 sockets mounted in standard wall-boxes.
Each wire is punched into the socket individually, using a standard
Krone punchdown tool - much easier than crimping on RJ45 plugs. Then
test the cable with a proper cable tester - one that uses a Time Domain
Reflectometer to test for pin mapping, breaks, shorts, or bad kinks.

Then you can use ready-made patch leads to connect the equipment to the
wall sockets. If the barbs on their RJ45 plugs break then you simply
replace the whole patch lead.

It is possible to learn to crimp on RJ45 plugs but probably best to be
shown an effective technique - a demonstration is worth more than any
explanation. But ***always*** confirm your work with the proper tester.


Given an access point is only a few feet away the other side of a wall
I doubt I will have any signal issues!


Don't bet on it. My laptop (which I'm currently using as a backup PVR
for times when we need to record a second overlapping programme) is
about 2 feet from the router with nothing in the way. But for copying or
reading recordings by SMB share, the transfer rate is *very* slow by
wifi compared with Ethernet. Over wifi, when copying a 1 GB file, the
laptop usually reports about 70-80 Mbps and achieves a maximum of about
30% usage of that 70-80 Mbps (as reported by Task Manager | Networking),
whereas over Ethernet it reports 1 Gbps and achieves about 90-100%
usage. And whereas over Ethernet it's a pretty constant flat-out
transfer rate, over wifi it's up and down and all over the place in a
roughly sawtooth pattern wrt time, with a period of about 10 seconds.


This is quite understandable. Wifi is a shared media and shared
spectrum communication mechanism. In the early days of networking,
Ethernet was carried over fat co-ax cable using CSMA-CD. See:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carrier-sense_multiple_access_with_collision_detection

The Carrier Sense process took place in the first few cells of a packet,
so was very quick, as was the collision detection. And the single wire
carried packets in both directions. So bi-directional traffic was
carried at something approaching the full 10Mbits/sec that the wire was
specified for.

Now although WiFi is potentially faster, several packets may be
exchanged to establish which device is entitled to send its payload, see:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carrier-sense_multiple_access_with_collision_avoidance

Further, all the devices on the LAN share the same wireless spectrum (as
the wired version shares the same cable) so the available bandwidth is
shared between all the devices on the LAN.

By contrast UTP cable in conjunction with a network switch (rather than
a repeater) treat each link between switch and device as a full-duplex
link capable of 100Mbits/sec (or 1Gb/s, or 10Gb/s) simultaneously in
both directions. So it's perfectly obvious that wired Ethernet will be
very significantly faster than WiFi.


Maybe it's a dodgy wifi adaptor in my laptop; if I had a USB one I'd try
that for comparison.


Thunderbolt probably goes faster than 100Mbit/sec Ethernet

Wifi is great for completely wireless access for low data-rate usage
(web browsing, accessing emails) but for high throughput and 100% "it
just works, no fuss or downtime" I'd go for Ethernet every time.


+1

So much so that for a commercial customer I would not recommend WiFi
unless there were an overriding concern about the client devices being
constantly in motion, or that the clients only supported WiFi.


--
Graham J
  #15  
Old February 15th 20, 07:55 AM posted to uk.telecom.broadband
Jeff Layman
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 33
Default CCTV

On 14/02/20 20:08, Java Jive wrote:
On 14/02/2020 18:13, Jeff Layman wrote:

On 14/02/20 16:53, Java Jive wrote:

But you may have security issues* -* there have been cases of thieves
and other criminals hacking into WiFi connected security cameras and
using them to spy on the occupants of the house, so that they know when
it's safe to break in!* This can't happen with a cabled ethernet
connection.


Out of interest, could you use a powerline adaptor to carry the signal
from, for example, the loft to anywhere in the house? That might limit
the holes needed for the Ethernet cable to just one - from the loft to
the camera (on the assumption that there is usually a ring main cable
accessible in the loft) to connect one powerline adaptor to. Also, the
powerline to powerline transmission is encrypted, so hacking is unlikely.


It may be possible, but I wouldn't be the person to be able to tell you.
I suspect that an easier route would be to use a Power-Over-Ethernet
(POE) model, as I think someone has already suggested, so that you can
just drill one hole to take the ethernet cable.


One of the respondents didn't think that his camera supported PoE, which
in itself would be an issue. But even if it did, the other end of the
Ethernet cable has to go somewhere, and that will involve another hole
through a wall or ceiling somewhere. Or were you assuming an Ethernet
hub (perhaps with PoE capability) already available in the loft?

--

Jeff
  #16  
Old February 15th 20, 11:31 AM posted to uk.telecom.broadband
NY[_2_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 78
Default CCTV

"Graham J" wrote in message
...
In the early days of networking, Ethernet was carried over fat co-ax cable
using CSMA-CD. See:


Yes I remember "Thick Ethernet" with the big metal clamps onto the cable
(only allowed at certain positions, presumably due to the spacing of nulls
and maxima because of reflections); from each clamp there was a
"transceiver" with a fairly thick drop cable to the computer's network card.
All the cables were thick and stiff, and had a mind of their own when you
tried to route them behind desks! They used a D connector rather like a MIDI
one, though with a sliding latch which locked them in place.

Then came "Thin Ethernet" which used coax cable and T pieces with BNC
connectors to the computer's network card. That was a pain if you wanted to
connect an extra computer because you had to break the cable to insert
another T piece; even the act of unplugging a T piece from a network card
would sometimes cause a glitch that would affect connections such as
terminal sessions or large file transfers elsewhere on the LAN.

As you say, both of these put *all* the traffic on *all* the LAN; no
intelligent switches to confine traffic to the LAN segments that needed it.

Eventually there was the big upheaval while all the coax was removed and
replaced with UTP to switches/hubs. It used a *lot* more cable, but cable's
cheap. And for the first time traffic was kept as local as it needed to be.

I remember the excitement when 100 Mbps equipment was installed in place of
10 Mbps. Luckily the Infrastructure Services people had had the foresight to
use 100 Mbps-rated cable from the outset. (*)

(As an aside, I remember the "joys" of having to maintain a static list of
IP addresses in a HOSTS file on every computer, to avoid accidentally giving
two computers the same address and so one computer knew how to talk to
another by its name - in the days before DHCP and before decent
name-to-address resolution. Things we take for granted nowadays.)


By contrast UTP cable in conjunction with a network switch (rather than a
repeater) treat each link between switch and device as a full-duplex link
capable of 100Mbits/sec (or 1Gb/s, or 10Gb/s) simultaneously in both
directions. So it's perfectly obvious that wired Ethernet will be very
significantly faster than WiFi.


Yes I can expect that. But on a quiet wifi network (no other devices
communicating) I'm surprised how poor the comms speed is and how "lumpy" the
transfer rate is. Not normally a problem until you come to transfer a large
file, where the total transfer time is long enough that you can measure the
difference in transfer time. I'm surprised how much the negotiated link
speed varies over time, even in good reception conditions, because that
ought to be fairly close to the theoretical maximum for the standard (B, G,
N etc) that is common to router and wifi adaptor, with only the % usage
varying if there is competing traffic.

Wifi is brilliant, but it's not the *universal* panacea that many people
assume it is. It has its limitations.


(*) Likewise I remember the excitement when I got a new router the other
year which could support 1 Gbps (the computer cards had supported it for a
while) - now PC-to-PC comms really motored along. How did we ever manage
with 10 Mbps?

  #17  
Old February 15th 20, 11:55 AM posted to uk.telecom.broadband
Woody
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 812
Default CCTV

On Sat 15/02/2020 11:31, NY wrote:
"Graham J" wrote in message
...
In the early days of networking, Ethernet was carried over fat co-ax
cable using CSMA-CD. See:


Yes I remember "Thick Ethernet" with the big metal clamps onto the cable
(only allowed at certain positions, presumably due to the spacing of
nulls and maxima because of reflections); from each clamp there was a
"transceiver" with a fairly thick drop cable to the computer's network
card. All the cables were thick and stiff, and had a mind of their own
when you tried to route them behind desks! They used a D connector
rather like a MIDI one, though with a sliding latch which locked them in
place.

Then came "Thin Ethernet" which used coax cable and T pieces with BNC
connectors to the computer's network card. That was a pain if you wanted
to connect an extra computer because you had to break the cable to
insert another T piece; even the act of unplugging a T piece from a
network card would sometimes cause a glitch that would affect
connections such as terminal sessions or large file transfers elsewhere
on the LAN.

As you say, both of these put *all* the traffic on *all* the LAN; no
intelligent switches to confine traffic to the LAN segments that needed it.

Eventually there was the big upheaval while all the coax was removed and
replaced with UTP to switches/hubs. It used a *lot* more cable, but
cable's cheap. And for the first time traffic was kept as local as it
needed to be.

I remember the excitement when 100 Mbps equipment was installed in place
of 10 Mbps. Luckily the Infrastructure Services people had had the
foresight to use 100 Mbps-rated cable from the outset. (*)

(As an aside, I remember the "joys" of having to maintain a static list
of IP addresses in a HOSTS file on every computer, to avoid accidentally
giving two computers the same address and so one computer knew how to
talk to another by its name - in the days before DHCP and before decent
name-to-address resolution. Things we take for granted nowadays.)


By contrast UTP cable in conjunction with a network switch (rather
than a repeater) treat each link between switch and device as a
full-duplex link capable of 100Mbits/sec (or 1Gb/s, or 10Gb/s)
simultaneously in both directions.* So it's perfectly obvious that
wired Ethernet will be very significantly faster than WiFi.


Yes I can expect that. But on a quiet wifi network (no other devices
communicating) I'm surprised how poor the comms speed is and how "lumpy"
the transfer rate is. Not normally a problem until you come to transfer
a large file, where the total transfer time is long enough that you can
measure the difference in transfer time. I'm surprised how much the
negotiated link speed varies over time, even in good reception
conditions, because that ought to be fairly close to the theoretical
maximum for the standard (B, G, N etc) that is common to router and wifi
adaptor, with only the % usage varying if there is competing traffic.

Wifi is brilliant, but it's not the *universal* panacea that many people
assume it is. It has its limitations.


(*) Likewise I remember the excitement when I got a new router the other
year which could support 1 Gbps (the computer cards had supported it for
a while) - now PC-to-PC comms really motored along. How did we ever
manage with 10 Mbps?


If you want to know what 'lumpy' is about, try transferring a handful of
RAW picture files (on my camera around 20-22Mb each) by (even) USB3 from
an SD card to a hard drive. W10Pro usefully puts up a transfer rate
graph which goes up and down surprisingly much.
Then transfer those same files over a Gb network to a NASDrive and the
same graph is displayed. Yes it is about three times quicker, but it
still fluctuates up and down more than you would ever expect.

--
Woody

harrogate three at ntlworld dot com
  #18  
Old February 15th 20, 02:08 PM posted to uk.telecom.broadband
Java Jive
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 585
Default CCTV

On 15/02/2020 07:55, Jeff Layman wrote:

On 14/02/20 20:08, Java Jive wrote:

On 14/02/2020 18:13, Jeff Layman wrote:

Out of interest, could you use a powerline adaptor to carry the signal
from, for example, the loft to anywhere in the house? That might limit
the holes needed for the Ethernet cable to just one - from the loft to
the camera (on the assumption that there is usually a ring main cable
accessible in the loft) to connect one powerline adaptor to. Also, the
powerline to powerline transmission is encrypted, so hacking is
unlikely.


It may be possible, but I wouldn't be the person to be able to tell you.
** I suspect that an easier route would be to use a Power-Over-Ethernet
(POE) model, as I think someone has already suggested, so that you can
just drill one hole to take the ethernet cable.


One of the respondents didn't think that his camera supported PoE, which
in itself would be an issue. But even if it did, the other end of the
Ethernet cable has to go somewhere, and that will involve another hole
through a wall or ceiling somewhere. Or were you assuming an Ethernet
hub (perhaps with PoE capability) already available in the loft?


I was dealing more with the issue of drilling through to the outside
wall, obviously the fewer number of holes, the better. Incidentally,
while I'm still on that topic, make any holes drilled slope slightly
downwards towards the outside, so that if any water manages to get into
it, it will tend to go outside rather than come into the house, and when
all the cables have been passed through and the system has been checked
as safely up and running, and will not require modification in the
immediately foreseeable future, seal around the cables at the outside
end of the hole with silicone sealant (I think Americans might call that
'mastic', or is that something else?).

But as far as inside the house is concerned, that is likely to be highly
variable as to individual circumstances, particularly where the
broadband connection comes into the house, because the router is likely
to be nearby, and whether there are any other devices requiring, or at
least able to use, POE - such as IP phones, wireless access points,
etc - the physical location of these within the property, and whether
there is already power there, etc. Switches with inbuilt POE tend to be
quite expensive, as they are viewed as 'professional' rather than 'SOHo'
kit, and priced accordingly, for example ...
https://www.draytek.co.uk/products/l...orswitch-p1090
.... so if there's only one item requiring POE, it'd probably be cheaper
to pass the ethernet cable for the camera through a power injector
before it goes outside the building, for example ...
https://www.draytek.co.uk/products/a...s/vigorpoe-600
.... (in both cases, other brands are available and may be cheaper) and
where either approach is done best will depend on the sorts of
considerations already listed above.
  #19  
Old February 16th 20, 04:03 PM posted to uk.telecom.broadband
Peter Johnson[_3_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 6
Default CCTV

On Sat, 15 Feb 2020 14:08:22 +0000, Java Jive
wrote:



Switches with inbuilt POE tend to be
quite expensive, as they are viewed as 'professional' rather than 'SOHo'
kit, and priced accordingly, for example ...
https://www.draytek.co.uk/products/l...orswitch-p1090


That model has been replaced by the P1092 at around 150, which is not
cheap, but I found the https://www.amazon.co.uk/gp/product/B00BP0SSAS
to be adequate at just short of 40 when I bought one a couple of
years ago; it's price has increased since. (I haven't done a
line-by-line comparison with the Draytek.)
 




Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)
 
Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Compatibility of 2.4Ghz Router with 2.4Ghz CCTV Howard Neil uk.comp.home-networking (UK home networking) 7 April 7th 06 09:47 AM
CCTV over internet TX2 uk.telecom.broadband (UK broadband) 27 November 8th 03 10:09 PM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 11:47 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2020, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.Content Relevant URLs by vBSEO 2.4.0
Copyright 2004-2020 BroadbanterBanter.
The comments are property of their posters.