low cost networking suggestions needed

Mark wrote:
> 
... snip ...
> 
> Thanks everyone for the info.  I think the issue with any copper-based
> solution is the difficulties associated with running it outdoors over
> long distances.  Fibre gets around all these issues, but then we have
> to have fibre-ethernet conversion in each weather station.  We don't
> have alot of experience running these kinds of distances.  Has anyone
> here seen this work with a copper-based solution?

Yes.  Besides, current loops have been in use for a century and a
half, with very little weather protection, etc. and have been
reliable all that time.  You don't always have to use a shiny new
toy.

-- 
"If you want to post a followup via groups.google.com, don't use
 the broken "Reply" link at the bottom of the article.  Click on 
 "show options" at the top of the article, then click on the 
 "Reply" at the bottom of the article headers." - Keith Thompson
More details at: <http://cfaj.freeshell.org/google/>
Also see <http://www.safalra.com/special/googlegroupsreply/>

Mark wrote:
> Thanks everyone for the info.  I think the issue with any copper-based
> solution is the difficulties associated with running it outdoors over long
> distances.  Fibre gets around all these issues, but then we have to have
> fibre-ethernet conversion in each weather station.  We don't have alot of
> experience running these kinds of distances.  Has anyone here seen this work
> with a copper-based solution?

 Your problems are no different from what telephone companies do with
their $multi-million computer.  If damaged, there is no telephone
service for a week.  Interface electronics can cost upwards of $10,000.
  Copper based communication - reliable and without damage - is well
proven, inexpensive, routine, and found in virtually every town.  Yes
fiber can be used.  But you stated 'low cost'.  Fiber becomes low cost
only when data rates are massive.