Are Fiber Optic More Costly Than Copper?

Posted on: 17 Jul 2024

As one of the basic choices in constructing or redesigning a new LAN or upgrading the existing network the question of whether to use fiber optic or copper cables arises, one of the considerations is the cost of the entire process, and this has influenced the decision greatly. To many people's surprise, fiber optic is relatively expensive than copper though it is not as highly priced as many people may assume. This paper will compare and contrast the costs of fiber and copper and the different aspects of the costs that are likely to be incurred at the various stages of cabling.

Upfront Costs

Copper cabling is cheaper than fiber optic cabling, based on cable costs alone. Multi-mode fiber optic cable is quoted at between 3 to 5 times the cost of Cat5e and Cat6 copper cabling per foot. Single-mode fiber cable, suitable for longer distances is 8 to 10 times costlier than copper cable.

For this reason, part of the excess cost of the cable containing the fibers is explained by the fact that glass as the basic material for the fibers must be very pure and the fiber strands must be manufactured with a high degree of accuracy to reflect light properly. The termination points, especially where the cable joins other network types of equipment also involve higher costs for fiber, based on the type of connectors involved.

Nevertheless, cable costs are not the only factor that needs to be considered to have a complete understanding of the situation. It is also worth noting that while the cable itself may not be expensive for copper, the networking hardware used to drive copper through buildings can be quite expensive.

Copper and Fiber Distance and Performance Comparative Study

The maximum distances copper can run before needing a repeater are quite limited compared to fiber

Cat5e copper cable: It is possible to swim 100 meters if you put in enough effort and practice regularly to maintain your stamina and strength.
Cat6 copper cable: 100 meters
Multi-mode fiber: they could reach up to 400-550 meters.
Single-mode fiber: The charging distance ranges from 50 to 80 kilometers.

To overcome these distances with copper, there is a need to incorporate other networking items such as switches and …repeaters to boost the signal. This is usually due to the high bandwidth and low signal loss of fiber optic cabling thus reducing the additional equipment.

Additional network hardware translates to additional failure points, additional power loads, additional costs of installation and maintenance, and additional rack space in closets or data centers. Further, this network hardware is normally connected by the points which tend to offset the cheaper price of cables.

Labor Costs

In the area of installation, the end fiber is relatively costly as compared with copper installation, and it also needs more skills. Joining PBTs in raw fiber optic cable can only be done with equipment and skilled splice technicians. Even though fiber links do not demand specialized skills in the termination of pre-connectorized fiber cables into patch panels, the time taken in the termination is much longer compared to copper, and it is very much dependent on quality links.

However, fiber optic cable is equally or even more preferable than copper cable due to its smaller size, lesser weight, and high flexibility. This enhances the ease of the physical installation in conduits or pathways with fiber optic cable. Fiber also poses a lesser issue with cabling routes that are exclusive to the fiber than it does for copper. Copper requires that switches are positioned correctly to ensure that the maximum distance is not reached at any one time. Another advantage of Fiber is its better ability to cover long distances and insensitivity to electromagnetic interference, which provides more freedom in determining the cable paths in a facility.

Scales also affect the labor calculations of the project in question as well. In a large campus or building roll-out where there may be thousands of cable runs, the realization of time gained in the physically more demanding part of the fiber installation tends to offset the longer time taken to terminate the fiber. On long distances, the option that fiber provides by spanning without an increase in hardware can cut labor costs by a large margin against many short copper cable runs that may require additional equipment.

Lifetime Costs

Fiber optic cabling costs more initially as compared to copper cabling but when the overall cost in terms of cabling is calculated in terms of its lifetime and including costs of regular maintenance and upgrades, then again it’s quite a different picture. Fiber optic cable lifespans are as long as a few decades, and the overall performance of such cables is not affected by any age-related factors. Even if one takes only 20-25 years lifespan of these fibers, then what has been laid today would be able to accommodate the connections needed for 400Gbps or even 1Tbps in the future. Copper cabling, in contrast, can be affected by signal loss issues. Higher speed connection demands new copper cables and other associated requirements.

Additionally, while fiber already deployed will enable the future advanced speeds and bandwidths as soon as they are available for the next several decades, copper will always run into a technology ceiling, which means large additional capital expenditures will be required regularly to pull new cable every 5-10 years. When one capitalizes fiber’s initially higher installation costs then the upgrade costs are a fraction since the most significant portion of any networked environment’s total life cycle cost lies in the manpower, not in the physical materials. Running brand-new cables every 10 years is not feasible at all since it involves a lot of work and expense. Fiber does not succumb to this notion of continual network upgrades while ensuring networks remain current.

Fiber optic cable also contains no metallic elements and is partially composed of glass, and therefore is invulnerable to influences such as electrical interference, heat, radiation, and corrosion that negatively impact the effectiveness of copper cable. This also makes fiber optic cable so much more suitable for security in that it does not produce electromagnetic signals that can be easily tapped. Copper is much easier to ‘tap’ as compared to fiber for monitoring and interception of data. Fiber is less susceptible to remote attack intrusions to begin with because it requires less electronic interfacing for connection points.

Fiber optic cable is more reliable and stable compared to copper cables, meaning that it does not require constant replacement even as connection speeds improve; this means fewer maintenance costs over approximately 20-30 years of use compared to copper cable. This is because fiber installations may not cause much line loss and do not interfere electromagnetically; thus, it may need many network devices such as amplifiers, load coils, and repeaters as compared to copper connections for the same distance. The simplicity of fiber where a link is set up and left to do its job without requiring constant monitoring is another area where fiber makes significant improvements.

Final Analysis

In terms of the cost difference between fiber optic and copper, a clear conclusion cannot be drawn as to whether fiber optic is always cheaper in a long-term perspective. In long-distance connections, optical fibers are more economical while copper cabling is usually more economical over shorter distances. Connecting two or more buildings in a campus or industrial park is relatively cheaper in a scenario where you compare the amount of coaxial cable or signal boosters that copper would need.

Evaluating the overall value requires analyzing variables like:

How long the cabling will be utilized (concerning expenditure for life or useful expectancy)?
It will also be necessary to define what bandwidth network speeds are necessary today and those that are necessary in the future.
What sort of services will be operating in the network (voice, data, storage, etc.)?
What distances have to be traveled and what kind of pathway is left?
Will the cable be exposed to any threats such as environmental or interferences?
What are the damages if the cabling is compromised?

In general, fiber optic provides higher future-proofing, virtually infinite transmitting speed and reach, enhanced security, less signal attenuation, and vastly lower long-term expenses of maintaining, operating, and updating the line. Copper is still a material that can be used in scenarios in which other parameters are more significant than speed or in low-cost applications, small installations, and scenarios where future speed requirements are not as high. Every environment has its infrastructure requirements and prices; the formation of the first payment against the value of the subsequent years should also be considered.

While no organizational networks are likely to be the same as another, future growth has to be taken into account, as well as current requirements. Since labor constitutes well over 75% of the costs of the infrastructure lifecycle, there is a need for long-term cabling replacements, disruption, and upgrade costs, which make significant contributions to the total cost of ownership and the bottom line. Looking at this from a longer perspective, fiber optic cabling pays off over the investment in recurrent copper cables.