I am curious to see which one of these options are preferred.
A variant of DSL, broadband, or high-speed fiber. I know different scenarios can sway the outcome, but which one do you recommend, and why?
High speed fiber if possible. it has the capability of bandwidth increase. This is more suitable if you want high speed download as well as upload. DSL and Broadband highly consider download bandwidth. not upload. so its littlebit difficult to run a web server smoothly if you have highly web access from outside.
Highspeee is much preferable if you want to have downloads with very high speeds as well as it can work with flexibility when we consider bandwidth limits.
with respect to speed, connectivity, and scalability Broadband is more suitable one but need to manage in case implementation with LOS Line- of-Sight).
I'll also go with fiber in principle (for fixed installations of course), but not necessarily in practice. A fiber link should have the greatest potential for speed, but it also requires more labor-intensive intervention to install.
If your house is already wired with coax, say cable TV, then DOCSIS will give you lots of capacity, with perhaps only a change of modem required.
If your house is not wired for cable TV, then xDSL variants would continue to make use of the voice grade twisted pair, and again, only the modem installation would be required. Which the user can do on his own.
RF broadband for a home situation is usually going to cost more than other options, as a recurring cost, and reception where you need it may not be trivial. So there might be some cable installations or antenna installation involved.
So as always, a complete answer depends on legacy.
Legacy tends to happen more often these days; however, I have a feeling IPv6 will be around for quite some time Albert, and as you said, it all depends on the scenario, and with the possibility of so many different variables, it is like "Pick your Poison" because eventually something is going to interrupt your service. It seems that almost everyone prefers High Speed Fiber, and of course. Although, what if cost becomes an issue? Hmm, then we have a problem.
Since you mentioned how everyone seems to prefer fiber, that may not be as true as it seems.
In the US, Verizon decided to go with fiber-to-the-home (FTTH) big time, in a service offering they call FiOS. For whatever reason, Verizon chose to install just a fiber cable to each home, with no electrical conductors at all. on your premises, Verizon installs a box that converts the fiber-optic signal into coax, for the modem and WiFi router (MOCA standard), and voice grade twisted pair for the POTS telephones.
Consequence of this decision: the backup power for the telephone function has to be installed in your premises, battery-based, and it may well not last as long as some of the more protracted power outages, especially in neighborhoods with exposed electric cables. Had Verizon installed a fiber cable with a couple of copper conductors, they could at least have provided the backup power for the conversion electronics, if not for your cordless phones and WiFi.
So, combine the high installation costs and the customer opposition to having such limited backup power for his telephone, and Verizon decided to stop expanding the system. I think it will only cover 20 percent of potential Verizon customers.
That's why I'm not so sure whether everyone really does prefer fiber. Maybe they do, until confronted with actual choices. My preference is fast broadband, with the least amount of disruption inside the house, and without being saddled with having to fuss with the UPS battery myself!
Agreed...I use Broadband myself. To me it looks as if Verizon made the move as cheap as possible, or they would have spent the extra to provide copper. My fast broadband does just fine and it is reliable. When I referred to "Most Everyone" I was talking about the people who posted, but I get what you are saying Albert, and I did not know this information you have shared. Thank you my friend.
- Badges
- Science topic