Comparison of twisted pair coaxial cable and optical fiber

Comparison And Contrast Between Cat. 6 Unshielded Twisted Pair (UTP), Coaxial, And Single Mode Fiber Optic Cabling Types

Provide a Comparison and contrast between cat. 6 unshielded twisted pair (UTP), coaxial, and single mode fiber optic cabling types. Describe one or two of the advantages and/or disadvantages associated with using each cable type for a business’s network infrastructure. Consider the (a) cost per foot or meter; (b) termination/installation cost; (c) bandwidth; (d) cable length/transmission distance; (e) end point devices (i.e., workstation, wireless access point, switch, router, server, SAN, etc.); (f) use – in-building horizontal or vertical; and (g) conversion or interface equipment. Be sure to support your information with the appropriate citation(s).

The paper must use APA 6th ed., 7th printing formatting and contain a title page, 3 pages of content, and a minimum of three peer-reviewed references.

Assignment Resource(s):

Horizontal Cabling Costs: Fiber vs. Copper Calculations - All-fiber networks often provide both short- and long-term cost benefits.
The Difference between Fiber Optic Cable, Twisted Pair and Coaxial Cable
Eight Advantages of Choosing Fiber Over Copper Cable - Choosing fiber optic cable over copper cable is often advantageous.
Comparative Study between Fiber Optic and Copper in Communication - Here is a performance comparison between fiber optics and cable wire in communication.
Chapter 4 – Transmission Media - Transmission media is discussed in Chapter 4.

COMPARING AND CONTRASTING COMMUNICATION CABLES 7

Comparison and Contrast between cat. 6 Unshielded Twisted Pair (UTP), Coaxial, and Single Mode Fiber Optic Cabling Types

Name:

Institution:

Comparison and Contrast between Cat. 6 Unshielded Twisted Pair (UTP), Coaxial, and Single Mode Fiber Optic Cabling Types

Cat. 6 Unshielded Twisted Pair (UTP) is made up of four pairs of twisted wires that transmit data from a circuit (Coles, Cunningham & Methley, 1995). UTP is majorly used in Local Area Network setup. Some of the basic advantages of using UTP is that it prevents unnecessary signal noise (cross-talk) due to its twisted nature.

Coaxial is made up of a solid copper wire with a high-frequency. The cable has a metallic shielding that prevents outside interference. The main advantages of coax are: it has a broadband system; it has greater channel capacity; it has a greater bandwidth (it provide nearly 1000 times more capacity); and lower rates of error ("Molecular wires: Miniature coaxial cables", 2010). Some of Coax the disadvantages of UTP include: it requires a bidirectional upgrade; it has greater noise; it has a higher installation cost, and susceptibility to lightning strikes damage. Coax is used in TV cabling.

Single-Mode Optical Fiber transmits data through an optical fiber using beams of life. The fibers are contained in protective tubes to prevent outside interference. They are also insulated with a plastic layer. Optical Fiber is the most recent innovation of the three cabling types (S.K., Palodiya, Kumar & Kumar, 2014). This cabling type is more advantageous that the first two types in nearly every area. Some of the advantages include: faster speeds (can transmit data at a speed that is only 31% slower than the speed of light), greater bandwidth, longer transmission distances (can carry signals up to 25 miles), thinner and light in weight, better reliability (resistant to temperature variation and other harsh climatic conditions), and more flexibility for future manipulation (S.K., Palodiya, Kumar & Kumar, 2014). The main disadvantage of Single-Mode Optical fiber is the higher purchase and installation costs.

Comparing the Cables in terms of:

a. Cost per foot

Cat. 6 UTP cost an average of $1.5 per foot. It is the cheapest of the three cables. The average cost per foot for Coaxial cable is $3 hence slightly more expensive than Cat. 6 UTP. Single Mode Fiber Optic is the most expensive of the three cables. A foot of Single-Mode Fiber Optic costs an average of $13 ("Fiber Optic Cable-Fiber Optic Cable Manufacturers, Suppliers, and Exporters on Alibaba.comFiber Optic Equipment", 2018).

b. Installation cost

The installation cost of these cables differs depending on location and the company offering the service. However, looking at the general comparison, Cat. 6 UTP has the cheapest installation coast. Installing this cable neither attracts extra cost nor requires extra skills since it is a plug and play principled cable ("Molecular wires: Miniature coaxial cables", 2010). Coaxial cable is the second easiest and cheapest to install after Cat. 6 UTP. An optical fiber is the most difficult to install hence requires more skills. Installing Single-Mode Optical Fiber is more expensive compared to the rest of the two cabling types.

c. Bandwidth

Coaxial cable has the lowest bandwidth among the three cabling types; bandwidth of ten Megabits per second - 10 Mbps ("Molecular wires: Miniature coaxial cables", 2010). Cat.6 UTP cabling has a one Gigabits per second (1 Gbps) bandwidth. Single-Mode Optical Fiber has a bandwidth of 20 GHz and transmits data at 10Mbps.

d. Cable length/transmission distance

Cat. 6 UTP cable transmission distance is limited to around 100 meters. Coaxial cable can transmit data to a maximum distance of 500 meters (Coles, Cunningham & Methley, 1995). A Single Mode Fiber Optic can transmit data up to 40 kilometers distance (Zediker et al., 2016). However, fiber optics may not manage to meet the maximum possible transmission distance due to factors such as the type of cable, the network, and the wavelength.

e. Endpoint Devices

Cat.6 UTP is compatible with modular data endpoint such as those of the Ethernet cables. Coaxial uses a switch endpoint such as the ones for television. Unlike Cat. 6 UTP and Coaxial cabling that are compatible with a single endpoint, Optical Fiber cabling type uses multiple endpoints (Coles, Cunningham & Methley, 1995). They include a wireless access point, router, server, or storage area network.

f. Use -in-building horizontal or vertical

All these three cabling types can be used in vertical cabling. However, fiber optic cable proves the most appropriate choice for buckhorn cabling since it provides much higher bandwidth than Cat. 6 UTP and Coaxial cables ("Molecular wires: Miniature coaxial cables", 2010). Also, fiber optics can transmit data over long distance hence more appropriate for taller buildings. Again, both Fiber cables and UTP cables can be used in horizontal cabling. Four-pair Cat. 6 UTP is mostly preferred for voice transmission. Fiber optics is preferred for transmission of data.

g. Conversion or interface equipment

Media converter is the common tool used in optimizing and implementing fiber links in all these cabling types: Cat. 6 UTP, Coaxial cabling, and Single-mode optical converter (Zediker et al., 2016).

Reference:

Coles, A., Cunningham, D., & Methley, S. (1995). 100 Mb/s data transmission on UTP and STP cabling for demand priority networks. IEEE Journal On Selected Areas In Communications, 13(9), 1684-1691. http://dx.doi.org/10.1109/49.475540

Fiber Optic Cable-Fiber Optic Cable Manufacturers, Suppliers and Exporters on Alibaba.comFiber Optic Equipment. (2018). Alibaba.com. Retrieved 27 March 2018, from https://www.alibaba.com/premium/fiber_optic_cable.html?src=sem_ggl&cmpgn=894379828&adgrp=45552000395&fditm=&tgt=aud-345300272839:kwd-296797782403&locintrst=&locphyscl=1009824&mtchtyp=b&ntwrk=g&device=c&dvcmdl=&creative=209568174676&plcmnt=&plcmntcat=&p1=&p2=&aceid=&position=1t1&gclid=Cj0KCQjw1-fVBRC3ARIsAIifYOP9i_9mPhYEvPxcGyRG8hpBHLbl1w9zw984yFDbhq6EQD3pW_cHiM8aAsI-EALw_wcB

Molecular wires: Miniature coaxial cables. (2010). NPG Asia Materials, 2(2). http://dx.doi.org/10.1038/asiamat.2010.9

Palodiya, V., Kumar, A., & Kumar, S. (2014). EXPERIMENTAL CHARACTERIZATION OF FIBER OPTIC COMMUNICATION LINK FOR DIGITAL TRANSMISSION SYSTEM. ICTACT Journal On Communication Technology, 05(01), 868-876. http://dx.doi.org/10.21917/ijct.2014.0123

Zediker, M. S., Rinzler, C. C., Faircloth, B. O., Moxley, J. F., & Koblick, Y. (Zediker et al., 2016). U.S. Patent No. 9,347,271. Washington, DC: U.S. Patent and Trademark Office.