Ethernet cable to wifi extender?

Cramgirl

Following some worrying trends in the neighbourhood, I’m looking to install a home cctv system for added security / peace of mind.
I’ve been recommended a 4 camera system (which I’m reasonable comfortable with installing) which comes with a 1TB DVR box.
Due to the ease of running cables from the 4 cameras through my loft space and down through an existing cable route, I’m looking to site the DVR box in my 3rd bedroom (study) , where I can also connect it to an existing tv/monitor in there.
The cctv system allows for pictures to be viewed on a smart phone subject to connecting the DVR to my router (BT Home Hub 5). In my ignorance, I kind of expected that this would be achieved wirelessly, but I now notice that the DVR has to be hard wired via Ethernet cable to my router.
The router is situated in my downstairs living room and a long Ethernet cable between the DVR and router is not an option.
From what I understand (and this is where my knowledge is sketchy), I could buy a wifi extender with Ethernet port to hardwire my DVR and then connect to my router that way, or I buy a couple of powerline adapters for the same purpose.
Is one a better option than the other? Are there other options?
I already have an excellent wifi signal throughout the house if that makes a difference.
I’m currently leaning towards the wifi extender option (assuming no compelling case for other options) – are there any reasonably priced models that anyone would recommend?
Thanks in advance.

Neil_Jones

What you need is a pair of these which makes a long wired connection without a need to run cable:
https://www.amazon.co.uk/TL-PA4010KIT-Powerline-Configuration-Required-UK/dp/B01BECPIMC
(this is a set of two so you only need one starter kit)

Other examples are available but this is the basic principle:

Plug homeplugs into wall socket one by Hub and one by DVR.
Run a network cable from your Home Hub to the nearest homeplug.
Run a network cable from the DVR to the other homeplug.
Switch both plugs on.
Job is done. Homeplug uses existing electrical wiring to effectively create a wired network without any of the need to run a physical cable.

AnotherJoe

I agree, powerline.

debitcardmayhem

Might be more practical to get "passthru" type adaptors so you don't lose a power socket, and probably you want at least 1200Mbps ones

psychic_teabag

Strictly speaking, you wouldn't have to connect the cameras to your master router. A second wifi router acting independently would do the job fine - you can probably get one off freecycle, or there are plenty in charity shops. It would mean that you'd have to connect the smartphone to that second network to view, but that needn't be an issue.

In effect, you'd have two independent wifi networks operating within the house (ideally on different channels).

This wouldn't allow you to access the cameras from outside the house, over the internet - not sure if that's something you wanted to be able to do.

Another option : do you have a pc in your study, connected to the router via wifi ? (But with an unused ethernet port.) It ought to be possible to use it to route packets. I know it's trivial to set that up on linux, but if you're using windows you'd have to get someone else to advise on that.

arciere

psychic_teabag wrote: »

Strictly speaking, you wouldn't have to connect the cameras to your master router. A second wifi router acting independently would do the job fine - you can probably get one off freecycle, or there are plenty in charity shops. It would mean that you'd have to connect the smartphone to that second network to view, but that needn't be an issue.

In effect, you'd have two independent wifi networks operating within the house (ideally on different channels).

This wouldn't allow you to access the cameras from outside the house, over the internet - not sure if that's something you wanted to be able to do.

Another option : do you have a pc in your study, connected to the router via wifi ? (But with an unused ethernet port.) It ought to be possible to use it to route packets. I know it's trivial to set that up on linux, but if you're using windows you'd have to get someone else to advise on that.

I don't see OP mentioning IP cameras, so I guess they are analog.
If they are indeed IP, you don't need any additional router, all you need is a switch (if the DVR doesn't already have one) that connects to your existing network (powerline if direct cable is not possible).
No need to install any additional wifi network.

psychic_teabag

Sorry, I meant connecting the DVR, not the cameras, to the network.

Obviously it's not ideal to have a second wifi network in the house. I was merely pointing out that it was an option, and possibly cheaper, given how easy it is to obtain old broadband routers.

The whole point of the OP is that direct cabling is not an option. I agree that powerline is simplest, just pointing out that there are alternatives.

arciere

psychic_teabag wrote: »

Sorry, I meant connecting the DVR, not the cameras, to the network.

Obviously it's not ideal to have a second wifi network in the house. I was merely pointing out that it was an option, and possibly cheaper, given how easy it is to obtain old broadband routers.

The whole point of the OP is that direct cabling is not an option. I agree that powerline is simplest, just pointing out that there are alternatives.

A second router, without any connection to the external world, is pretty much useless, you'd need to connect it to the main router anyway, so easier and cheaper to just run a cable or use powerline. Routers 'route', but if they are separated from the rest of the world, no routing can happen.
The DVR will still have a monitor connected to it (or can have one), so I can't see much benefit if you can see it on your phone only if you are there.

Cramgirl

psychic_teabag wrote: »

Another option : do you have a pc in your study, connected to the router via wifi ? (But with an unused ethernet port.) It ought to be possible to use it to route packets. I know it's trivial to set that up on linux, but if you're using windows you'd have to get someone else to advise on that.

Yes, there is a windows 10 PC in the study, with an unused ethernet port, connected to router via wifi. Though I'm guessing that (even assuming I can figure out initial set-up) that the PC would have to remain permanently on (for example while I'm on holiday) to maintain the connection to the router?


With regard to other comments, yes, I do indeed want to be able access cameras while I am away from the house.


It seems that the general consensus is that the powerline option is better than the wifi extender option. With this in mind I do agree that the passthru type appear more practical to preserve socket availability. However, one poster suggested I should be getting at least 1200 Mbps ones. I know its a false economy to get something cheaper that can't cope with data transmission speeds but it is a fair price jump from the 500 Mbps model mentioned in the first response. Is min 1200 Mbps strictly necessary for the use I have in mind?

arciere

Cramgirl, no need to use another computer.

The best thing you can do is buy a pair of powerline adaptors, one sits next to the DVR, the other one next to the existing router. 500 Mbps is more than enough if you are only connecting the DVR, chances are your internet connection is nowhere near those speeds anyway.

If you want to spend the extra money, go for the 1200 version, but that's entirely up to you, a 4-camera system can work perfectly well with that.

To give you an example, I have an IP camera with 4K resolution that needs approx 5-6Mbps at maximum quality.

Also, keep in mind that from your phone you will normally be looking at one camera at a time and nowhere near the 4K resolution.

What internet connection do you have at home?

Neil_Jones

A four camera system can work happily down a 150Mbps wireless connection down a 38Mb fibre connection so a pair of 500Mpbs homeplug can easily cope. 200Mbps as an absolute minimum I'd say.