Comparison Between Communication Cables - Paper Example

In each communication system, it is the channels that play a crucial role in the process of transferring data. Basically, communication channels can be divided into two categories: wireless and physical connections. A physical connection utilizes a solid substance such as a cable or wire to link sending and receiving devices. The most commonly used types of cables include twisted pair, co-axial and fiber optic cable. This essay compares and contrasts unshielded twisted pair (UTP), coaxial, and single mode fiber optic cabling types. It will also outline several merits and demerits associated with using each cable type for a business network infrastructure.

Twisted pair cables are made up of two insulated wires that have been twisted together in order to minimize noise emanating from outside sources. As much as this does help in a way, these cables are still quite prone to outside noise. They are the most cost effective of the three options although they result in high attenuation and lower bandwidth. These cables can be divided into two types: shielded twisted pair (STP) and unshielded twisted pair (UTP). Unshielded in UTP means that it does not have a metallic shield surrounding the copper wires. The design of twisted-pair cables helps reduce electronic interference by making a balanced signal transmission possible, thus there is no need for a physical shield. Additionally, different twist rates, which are the varying number of twists between different pairs, can be utilized in minimizing crosstalk. Since these protections depend on the manner in which the wires are laid out physically, excessive stretching or bending a UTP cable can cause damage to the pairs and increase the chances of interference occurring (Kateeb, AlOtaibi, Burton, Peluso & Sowells, 2013).

Co-axial cables are high frequency transmission lines consisting of a single core made up of solid copper. They transfer data electronically through the inner conductor and have about eighty times more transmission capacity when compared to twisted pair cables. This kind of cable is often used to connect computers within a certain network, and to deliver television signals since it has a higher bandwidth that makes it more ideal for video applications. In addition to stable transmission of data, co-axial cables have anti-jamming features and are capable of effectively protecting signals from interference. However, they are slightly when compared to twisted-pair cables although they are considered more economical than their fiber optic counterparts. According to Oliviero & Woodward (2014), co-axial cables come in two types: 50 Ohm and 75 Ohm. 50 Ohm cables are mainly used in transmitting data signals in 2-way communication systems. Notable examples include AM/FM radio receivers, computer Ethernet backbones, cell phone systems, police scanners, and GPS antennas. 75 Ohm cables are mainly used in transmitting video signals, often acting as a link between different components such as VCRs, DVDs, or A/V receiver cables.

Fiber optic cables are the latest form of cable transmission technology. Rather than transferring data through copper wires, they have optical fibers capable of transmitting it via light instead of electricity pulses. Every optical fiber has a plastic layer coating and is contained in a protective tube that gives it excellent resistance against external interference. All these features bring about fast and reliable connections with tens of thousands times more transmission capacity that twisted-pair cables, although they are much more expensive. Fiber optics are divided into single mode and multimode cables. Single mode cables contain a small core, with only one mode of light allowed to propagate at a go. As a result of this feature, the amount of light reflections reduces as they go through the core. What results is low attenuation and data capable of traveling further and faster. Single mode cables are commonly utilized in CATV networks, telecom and higher institutions of learning (Strobel, Stolle & Utschick, 2013).

Notable advantages of UTP cables include the fact that they are perceived to be the fastest copper-based data transmission mediums. They are cheaper when compared to STP cables, making them more affordable in addition to being easily dispensable. Their lesser external diameter makes them easier to handle during installation as they do not fill wiring ducts as quickly as other cables. These cables are available in various categories ranging from Level One for in-home phone wiring to Level Six for Ethernet networking. UTP cables happen to be the most compatible form of cabling that does not need grounding and can be used in conjunction with other major networking systems. Perhaps their only shortcoming is that they are prone to RFI (radio frequency interference) and EMI (electromagnetic interference). Also, they are more susceptible to electronic interference and noise when compared to other cables.

Co-axial cables have enough frequency range to support several channels at once, something that makes it possible for a much greater throughput. Every one of the multiple channels provides substantial capacity. Also, when compared to twisted-pair cables, co-axial offers greater bandwidth system-wide as well as in terms of each channel. Since it has more bandwidth per channel, it is capable of supporting wide range of services such as data, voice, multimedia, and even video. A notable shortcoming of co-axial cables is related to issues of the deployment architecture. They are deployed under the bus topology that is quite prone to noise, congestion, and security risks.

References

Kateeb, I. A., AlOtaibi, K. F., Burton, L., Peluso, M. S., & Sowells, E. R. (2013). The Fundamental Component of Telecommunications Cabling.

Oliviero, A., & Woodward, B. (2014). Cabling: the complete guide to copper and fiber-optic networking. John Wiley & Sons.

Strobel, R., Stolle, R., & Utschick, W. (2013). Wideband modeling of twisted-pair cables for MIMO applications. In Global Communications Conference (GLOBECOM), 2013 IEEE (pp. 2828-2833). IEEE.