Computer Networks?

Question

Would Running a Fiber Optic Cable for a network connection between two seperate buildings less then or equal to 100 Meters be more benificial then Using a UTP Network cable? This includes cost and overall effectiveness.

Also pros and cons of each type of cable would also be benificial.

Answer 1

100m is stretching the limits for CAT 5 or 6 UTP. It might work, but I personally would not do it. Over a pair of fibers, you can run much further, even with Gigabit Ethernet (or for that matter, with the emerging 10GigE standard).

UTP is less expensive, but you will be operating at the hairy edge of its capability. Fiber is more expensive (and requires a little more care during installation), but is reasonably "future proof." Unless cost is just an overwhelming requirement, you'll be much smarter to run fibre. --oh, and while you're at it, don't just run single pair! Run several pair -- the cost of labor to run one pair or 4 pair is virtually identical.

Answer 2

First the pros and cons ...

UTP: Less expensive, shorter range (unless you use a repeater), slower throughput.

Fiber: More expensive, longer range, generally faster throughput.

If you can afford it, fiber-optic to link the buildings would work. Then use UTP within each building.

If cost is a big issue, you could use UTP with a repeater which will let you get past the 100-meter mark. The trade-off is that UTP will probably be slower.

Hope that helps.

Answer 3

It comes down to Cost V Performance really. You would pay more for the fiber ( not for the fiber cable itself as such but the terminating equipment/cards etc) but you would get a better performance with less restriction and interferences.

I would not use UTP between 2 buildings networks. It would be cheaper but also give you more problems in the network.

Answer 4

Fiber would be better for a number of reasons. The best reason I can think of is that fiber has a much higher transmission rate, so it won't ever been a bottleneck for you.

Second, a fiber link would not be prone to EMF (static), which might rise up and bite you in the butt from time to time (and you'd go nuts trying to figure it out).

Third, Fiber would be the commonly-accepted solution, and most consultants and techs would expect fiber.

The major downside, of course is cost. Fiber is expensive.

For the record, I don't think that fiber is THAT fragile. 99% of the time when I hear of a fiber break, copper would've broken too (backhoe, etc).

Answer 5

Yes it would be better, but the more protection teh lower the connection.

Answer 6

i think will work must ask spider man