|
IMHO, the latter.
Dedicated "proper" data networking infrastructure is always going to be more robust and reliable than, clever as they are, technology such as HomePlug which is reverse engineering something that was never designed for data transmission - ie the mains - for a different purpose. Low "quality" assets such as mains designed for low frequency power transmission must be replete with all sorts of horrific HF interference, some of which could be highly transient, that doesn't "matter" to a panel heater, fridge, washing machine, etc. but could be a nightmare for HF data signals.
Wi-Fi is an option, but of course Wi-Fi is also a little fickle because you do not "own" the transmission medium, ie the radio airwaves, and everyone has to "play nice" together.
If you put in your own UTP and/or fibre optic cables, they are yours and no-one else's and they were designed for data networking from the get go. (Actually that's a slight lie - originally they were designed for telephone, but that's another story.)
A more robust Wi-Fi solution might be a point-to-point bridge using highly directional antenna such as Yagi's or parabolic which as well as extending the range help reject co-channel interference.
It might be interesting to assess the relative costs of all three solutions - new plugs, Wi-Fi bridge, dig up garden install duct and some UTP and see how they compare. If it's (say) "only" 100 quid more to dig up the garden etc. than a new set of plugs, you might judge that it's "worth it" - especially when the end product will be faster and more reliable. It's something of a value judgement.
Incidentally, the "protocol efficiency" (amount of "user" data transferred versus "management" overhead) of ethernet is higher than the others. It's about 97% for ethernet, typically 65-75% (ish) for Wi-Fi (there's a lot of variance, it gets worse as the signalling conditions deteriorate) and around 45-55% typical is oft cited for HomePlug, though these are old figures and I haven't checked the detail recently. |
|