dslreports logo
uniqs
2

TomS_
Git-r-done
MVM
join:2002-07-19
London, UK

TomS_ to IPtrans

MVM

to IPtrans

Re: Fibre vs PtP

said by IPtrans:

it makes sense to put in a future proof solution with enough headroom to accommodate any usage growth

The OP hasnt even said what the boat house requirements are in terms of bandwidth.

There are no real details about whats even going to go on in the boat house, so whats to say a wireless link cant supply a decent enough chunk of bandwidth to suffice?

No one has actually discussed that, so no one can actually say.
said by IPtrans:

it's crazy to consider wireless to be the primary and potentially only choice

Ive never said dont put fibre in, but to certainly give yourself the option to do so.

To me the burning question is why wireless isnt suitable - its a short shot (250 feet, 75 metres), so shouldnt require anything fancy on the wireless side, certainly not hundreds of dollars worth in my comparatively limited knowledge of wireless engineering.

For example, whats a pair of Ubiquity radios? Local pricing puts me at about USD$140 for a pair of NanoBeam 5ACs (up to 450mbps claimed throughput) which should at least cover the current Internet connection and then some...
IPtrans
Premium Member
join:2015-08-24

IPtrans

Premium Member

Tom,

I think we can both agree on that fiber and wireless are approximately the same cost to implement in this case and that while wireless has enough bandwidth in the short term, fiber has more headroom.

However, even if you set all that aside, a hardline is always a hardline. All things being equal, always go for the hardline.