Reusing existing coax for IP cameras can cut installation costs dramatically. However, there are endless numbers of Ethernet over coax adapters available, all with differing price points and feature sets, so choosing the right ones can be daunting.
To find out what works best in EoC applications, we bought five models of popular Ethernet over coax adapters, including:
The models we tested were the most requested. We do know a couple folks using Vigitron, as well as ComNet and Nitek, but nowhere near the amount requesting Veracity, NVT, or Altronix. We included the two low cost options (EnConn and EoC Box) simply because they were so much cheaper than others we wanted to show the difference in what you get.
Vigitron makes great products but they don't have a clue how to market them.
Lol to who ever marked my post "unhelpful". I am not making this up. We tested Veracity and another no name EOC solution over 1500ft RG-59 runs at customers site before we sold them a solution. Nether Veracity or the no name EOC unit would connect. Vigitron connects and powers the POE+ PTZ cameras without issue for over 1 year now. The units at the camera end are mounted in 2gang weather proof boxes on the roof with the sun and snow beating down on them. Ethan knows this location very well.
The manufacturers suggested that, yes. But without them doing further testing, it's not confirmed. It certainly does seem like it's requesting too much power at boot, though, because it behaves exactly the same as when IR illuminators kick on and drop the link.
The NVT splitter is a splitter. It's not a hub. You can use off the shelf T adapters, too. I don't know if you could use it on other manufacturers and I wouldn't try without asking them first.
I believe NVT for sure allows you to use baluns on the same adapters to use UTP. Not sure it will work with everyone. My hunch is maybe, but you're going to see reduced distances over a single pair, especially since you're using 24 AWG on UTP vs. 20 AWG on RG-59. If you use more than one pair, maybe it would run the same distance, but again, that's up to manufacturer support and differences in skew on UTP vs. RG-59, etc.
It certainly does seem like it's requesting too much power at boot, though, because it behaves exactly the same as when IR illuminators kick on and drop the link.
IMHO, that sounds like what happens when the cable run is too long and the camera PSU attempts to compensate for the voltage drop by decreasing it's resistance, which thereby increases its amps.
Technically the camera is requesting the same power; but at some point the switch shuts off the device because the power needed by the camera + power lost in transmission > 15w. But saying this is a fault of the camera is wrong I think.. Not that you said it was a fault of the camera.
The NVT splitter is a splitter. It's not a hub.
IMHO, a hub, from a connectivity standpoint, is just a powered 4 wire splitter instead of a 2 wire one. All the respective points are electrically common to each other.
The reason for mentioning it was to point out that, like a hub, the splitter must share the bandwidth between the connections and is therefore subject to CSMA/CD limitations. I see Dick addresses this below, so moot.
Chris, NVT offers a simple 'coax to 8-wire' screw terminal adapter whereby you can connect 1 pair of an 8 wire UTP, STP or a 18ga/2 conductor cable to the adapter thus giving you 4 cameras into the headend adapter via these cable types.
Very good comparison in general, however, as an NVT rep, I feel compelled to comment on a couple of issues. You make a point to disclose the fact that NVT can combine 4 cameras (and end adapters) into 1 headend adapter thus reducing the total number required for 4 cameras from 8 total adapters (competition) to only 5 with NVT, you don't make that distinction when comparing pricing per channel between NVT and the comptetitors. With the street price of under $1200 for a 4 channel kit, this brings the cost per channel (camera) for NVT to under $300. Far less that the $475/pair pricing referenced, although that would be accurate for only 1 camera. How many migrations are only 1 camera though? Also not discussed are factors such as built-in surge suppression, warranty (NVT has lifetime warranty) and the fact that NVT works equally well in a 2-wire application. This opens up the effectiveness of migrating from analog to IP in legacy applications such as Access Control, Video Intercom and others that would utilize 2-wire (or more) installations in the past. These differences make NVT certainly worth taking a closer look than just baseing a decision on a single camera channel price. Not to mention the rack or wall 'real estate' in placing 60 of the competitors adapters (in a 60 camera deployment) at the headend vs. only 15 NVT units. Other than that, great report.. :-)
You make a point to disclose the fact that NVT can combine 4 cameras (and end adapters) into 1 headend adapter thus reducing the total number required for 4 cameras from 8 total adapters (competition) to only 5 with NVT.
Dick, I didn't see you mention anything about the impact of the 4-way splitter on bandwidth. Would the measured throughput at 53 Mbps for one camera need to be quartered to 11 Mbps 13 Mbps for four?
Undisclosed 1 - Not sure where you got the 53 Mbps figure or if that was just an example. NVT's 1701 will transmit 93Mpbs as an 'aggregate' throughput. Yes, you will share that bandwidth among the cameras attached. It does not necessarily divide it equally but will look at individual camera bandwidth requirements to determine 'Total' aggregate bandwidth up to the 93Mbps.
I tested some 10 EoC 1-2 years ago, and I found not many of them (in fact, was only NVT) would support multi-cast, which is a vital feature on a large and complex network. Would you please comment on this. thx
Good question. The only manufacturer in this test that makes it a point to specifically call out multicast support is NVT. Others don't mention it in their specs. We'll get in touch with other manufacturers and report back.
NVT supports it, with a full page dedicated to multicast support and possible issues in their manual (page 13).
So far the only other manufacturer to comment on multicast support is Veracity, who says it is supported:
HIGHWIRE does not act like a switch, but more like a transparent Ethernet packet repeater. There are no switching, routing or other functions inside HIGHWIRE at all, which is why it doesn’t have an IP address. HIGHWIRE doesn’t even buffer multiple network packets as it is a point-to-point network device and just transmits each packet as it receives it. Therefore multicast packets will be transmitted just like any other network packet.
An Axis 5512 PTZ replacing an analog PTZ on a pole with a local power source. the cable (UV resistant outdoor RG59u ) Is in good shape. Very difficult site regarding EMI. 4 standard power transformers within 10' of the aerial run up to the roof of the bldg then across and parallel to power and data feeders to a full up 200' cell tower. the axis/Veracity units would NOT sync and were useless in this environment. I tried an Altronix eBridge - 100% uptime since. These units are obviously more immune to EMI and/or induced noise on the cable.
For what it is worth. A real world application not 2 months ago. I am a believer....
Paul , I think i is far from being an encrypting .. its just the security value between the pair... like we do with WPA Wifi or with PLC. The key is shared between 2 units and create a bridge where a third unit could no get into the bridge because missing the key.
Nice test. I'm doing similar Iperf comparison tests here
I would recommend to change the iperf Windows packet size to 128KB or even to 254Kb because modulation demodulation occur errors when using too small packet so your results could be distorted: EOC, VDSL and PLC , like WIFI/WIMESH are using Modulo/demolo frequencies and don't support well micro binary packets. Same with GB Twisted pair using higher frequencies.
For example, some PLC (yes, you read well : power line communication but not usig 110V for sure ) device can reach 180 Mbit/s real throughput with Iperf , but using higher packet value during test.
In real life I remind that a camera usually delivers more than 3Mbit/s so you can imagine the number of contiuous TCP/IP packets to transmit a single video (or 2 High/low streams ...) with a TCP packet limited to 1500B ! so better don't use anymore small value as 63KB, it was ok when using 10 Mb TP.
For example all my testing with Iperf on Veracity/Axis or NVT/Phybridge or Comnet or Muxlab are all giving exactly 94/95 Mbit/s with symetic results up to 500 meters.
Losing 0,5 W per 100 meters , some technologies are losing 1W/100 meters
Autopowered POE units are generally taken 2W from the POE budget
We can compare with Cat5E Twisted pair which can lose 5W each 100 Meters..
We've used the NVT's EoC's in the past and they've worked well for the most part. The thing to remember is when they say built in surge suppresion, they are also saying "don't use surge suppression with these", as we tried using some RJ45 surge supressors after the EoC end point and they caused problems, which NVT advised not to use since the units had built in surge. Took our the RJ45 surge suppressors and everything worked fine. The South East manager Mike Stark is very helpful and they'll help you design the implementatio of these.
Another thing to account for is the NVT units require a pairing or "device association" process where they have to get to know each other first using a short cable. I don't know why. But if one fails in the field, you can't just slap another one on and have it work. You have to go to the head end and pair it with a short cable first, then put install it at the end point.
I actually didn't read the manual at first and didn't know we had to pair the devices. Then apparently I failed to read the part where it said to use a short cable, because we did it over 500' of coax and it worked fine.
That being said, if it were at the other end of a long coax run and you wanted to pair it, you'd need two people or a really fast walking speed, because I think you only have 10 or 20 seconds to push pair on the other unit, unless I remember that wrong.
I have had you case, with guys from Gunnenbo calling me after installing 12 cameras at 20 feets heigth with IP coax mediaconverter ..without writting the MAC address which are mandatory for remote pairing ..
That is one of the most common mistake from people doing analog and now moving to IP. Old habits ... used to deliver camera and connection accessories directly to the customer premisses and believing pairing and IP can be setup on the fiield.. Of couse we all know these times are over. We need to preconfigure everything before being on site. If it is working home (levl2 and 3) , then we just have to worry about wires issues.(level 1)
Worst IP upcoming cases will be maintenance ....dealing with several brands and technologies and networks
Ahh, maybe like Marc said below, the short cable was just so you could pair them where you could see them together and verify they paired, so probably my misunderstanding of why exactly the short cable.
We had a tech go to replace one of these units who ignored our instructions for pairing it and couldn't figure out why it wouldn't connect until he called us and we had to tell him what to do again.
Luis, surge suppressor are cutting the line, so decreasing the POE performances and budget and adding latencies (time out issues) This wil be the same for other standard POE repeaters.
The NVT mandatory short cable pairing you are talking about is a PLC Homeplug AV Pairing using the IEEE P1901 standard for PLC (as we are doing with standard Power Line Plugs by clicking the small pairing button ) . Phybridge who has recently taking over NVT is more using EoC technology. I have heard that PLC device rack encountered some techical issues.
It wasn't a promotional attempt or I could have just posted without disclosing my name. I wanted your organizaiton to look at it and hopefully test it vs the others. Since IPVM is considered like the comsumer digest of our industry or I wouldn't be a member. I should have made my request clearer.
The Case since you asked;
The ECR series are POE+ up to 1000m.
Offer 4, 8, & 16 channel receiving units with built in Gigabit Swithes.
Up to 90MB at 1000m if only point to point or 40MB when using the 4,8, or 16 units.
The SCL series come in non and POE verison.
SLC2 Series can do both an Analog Video and IP Camera over the same single Coax.
The SCL series has a 1U 10 Slot rack unit
American Fibertek been around for 30 years made in NJ.
Integrated Switches, POE or POE+, Competive Pricing.
Posting undisclosed wouldn't have changed anything. IPVM admins still see the true name and I still would have criticized the post.
Unfortunately, you are not close to convincing me. To convince me you need to make a clear case why you are better (in some meaningful way) against your competitors (the companies listed here). Simply listing your features and specs is not enough. I am happy to listen if you try again with a more precise case about why you are better than your competitors.
Try phrases like 'Compared to X...' or 'We are the only to do...' or 'Our offering is X dollars less than A, B or C for doing Z'
I would actually like to see some comparisons with Comnet. I have used their devices since their inception, and have never had issues with their performance. But it would be nice to see some competitive data.
Strange question, but have any of you used an EOC to link between two switches? We have found that the Everfocus Palun will only work if there is a PoE device at the receiver end of the link. We have previously only used them for a switch to camera connection.
Everfocus now is making a new device called the NETCO that will link two switches. It will still be PoE powered at the sender end, but won't require a PoE device at the receiver end to initiate the connection.
They are so new that only ADI has them listed as Special Order. Everfocus sales said they are available for drop shipping now through ADI and should be in their store inventories soon.
Sometimes yes, mostly NVT's, but we did not find it very reliable and you are limited to 100mb in most products. We've started using Nitek's and even though we've found they are little more stable, for switch to switch links we decided it was better to run CAT or fiber, even if it cost more, for better reliability.
That Comnet SFP is a pretty neat device and very versatile. But given our past experiences trying to extend Ethernet over copper, I'd still be wary and probably still prefer a fiber run. But if it saves a costly trenching job like in Jon's case, that's a tough call.
I'd want to set it up in a lab with constant performance measurement to detect dips in bandwidth and drops in connection, under load, for a week before trusting it.
In this case, it possibly would have been trenching 200' across pavement to lay new conduit. The existing COAX wire was working fine for the old analog camera and tests fine. We just wanted to add a switch on the pole to add an additional two cameras. We would have went wireless if the COAX didn't work, not trench for fiber or CAT cable.