Talk:Fiber to the x

Merging and splitting with other articles; Multiple meanings of FTTx
I suggest that FTTx shall be merged into this article.--Willpo 07:10, 4 March 2006 (UTC)
 * I've merged it. &#126;MDD4696 06:28, 12 March 2006 (UTC)


 * I have restructured the article moving outside of it parts that were already explained in other articles cgbraschi 26 February 2007


 * Because this article is about a consumer term that is often used to mislead consumers, it would be a mistake to leave it in vendor POV. The distinction in where the fiber ends is not very important to the people who don't make the fine distinction between curb/kerb, pole/node, and the building.  The most meaningful distinctions to the consumer would be related to power integration and smart meters which is how an increasingly number of fiber deployments are paid for, e.g. in Australia where this is the primary strategy.  Rather than introduce even more terminology (like fiber near the transformer or fiber to the smart meter or whatever), I've added some meaningful consumer questions up front, so that the vast majority of people who come to this article, to find out what they are being sold, will learn how to ask the questions that actually affect them.  Be wary of any attempt to distract people by pretending that fiber that comes further in to the home is necessarily "better".  There are several reasons to doubt this:
 * It's exponentially more costly to support fibre deeper into the home
 * As it penetrates further, it bypasses and fails to integrate AC devices and discourages use of other power-saving and monitoring technologies like powered Ethernet, which can far more easily pay for themselves and use existing wiring
 * No ISP is going to ever support gigabit access to the open Internet for average consumers, the math doesn't work - accordingly choosing fiber for future-proofing is absurd and guaranteed to result in less universal and more costly deployments. Gigabit is gigabit, period.
 * Fibre pipe is far more likely to be jammed by heavy file sharing users and without latency and no-throttling and VoIP-friendly service guarantees, fibre can be actually worse performing than a low-latency fixed wireless broadband network that is primarily used for VoIP and business VPN.
 * —Preceding unsigned comment added by 142.177.103.73 (talk) 17:58 and 18:06, 25 May 2009 (UTC)
 * All the articles on broadband need to have prefaces from consumer point of view to help them sort out the various misleading claims and lies they get told.
 * —Preceding unsigned comment added by 142.177.103.73 (talk) 17:58, 25 May 2009

Dear IP, some of your stuff possibly war usefull, but we write an encyclopedia and no user/consumer advice.
 * Sections recently added were rewritten to third person style to address this concern. However, there is nothing wrong with them, and I asked above that someone make some effort to differentiate various types of FTTx from service/deliverable/economic perspectives so that an ordinary encyclopedia user would actually care or be able to make decisions - this being the purpose of an encyclopedia, obviously.
 * —Preceding unsigned comment added by 142.177.103.86 (talk) 23:30, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

Please read WP:NOT before editing again
 * It's you who need to read WP:NOT. Wikipedia is not a trade publication and a term like FTTx which has a narrow technical meaning irrelevant to its actual use in practice, and a broader meaning arising from its popular understanding (to mean gigabit WAN or gigabit broadband) needs to be covered clearly from both perspectives - especially when the vendor/promotional context is conflicted.  If you want to write an article that uses the term in some strict technical sense, ignoring its actual usage, you can do that at Wikinfo .org where they allow sympathetic point of view and some degree of ownership of terms by those that originate them, as opposed to reflecting their use in practice (as an encyclopedia and dictionary do, by definition they must reflect usage and distinctions and differentiations that are made by ordinary persons)
 * If the current version cannot evolve into something mutually acceptable that does not simply propagate distinctions of interest to at most 0.001% of users of the FTTx terminology, then, this article will have to merge with broadband or high speed broadband or something else to avoid confusing people who read FTTx in the 99.9999% of documents that use this terminology to mean "fast networking with fibre in it somewhere".  Another option is to remove all the material on FTTN, FTTC, etc., to narrow technical articles that can remain from vendor POV, but leave this one from an economic, service, customer, deliverable perspective - that is, an encyclopedic perspective.
 * —Preceding unsigned comment added by 142.177.103.86 (talk) 23:30, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

and please ad your text at the end of this page and sign. Yours --Kgfleischmann (talk) 21:26, 25 May 2009 (UTC)
 * If you remove substantial valid text from an article, it's your duty to add it to the talk page, not mine. You are breaking protocol here, and rather seriously.  Do not, also, tell people to sign, there's no obligation of IP-only users to do so, if there was, the bot would do it automatically.
 * If you want to refactor the talk so that questions about merging and splitting into multiple articles are all kept together, certainly that is a good idea. But the major decisions from 2007 (prior to the rise of G.hn and BPL and use of broadband to replace PSTN thus requiring power reliability - and their central role in fiber architectures) need to be revisited now for reasons explained in the latest version.
 * —Preceding unsigned comment added by 142.177.103.86 (talk) 23:30, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

Dear IP, at first the article is better now. I personally see no reason for bigger reverts any longer. But you have some habits which are simply not wikilike: You possibly should consider reading WP:TALK. Best Regards --Kgfleischmann (talk) 19:38, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
 * 1) It is not usual to edit into other people's text, what you did. In some cases it could be seen as vandalism or at least as bad habit
 * 2) IPs are asked to sign too, they have no special rights in this case.
 * 3) "If you remove substantial valid text from an article, it's your duty to add it to the talk page, not mine". What's that? Nobody must, should or will transfer deleted text to a talk page. But if you begin a new discussion topic you should ad it at the end of the discussion page.

I find that all references to the fact that the existence of G.hn and BPL makes the deployment of FTTx irrelevant are unsubstantiated, as the term FTTx is still used to refer to the architecture of existing deployments of fiber before the "upcoming" prevalence of BPL (which in my opinion in 2009 is not supported by any reality). The article is really in need of more NPOV, it used to be biased to telco and cable networks, not it is very BPL-biased. It can be updated to support also BPL-based FTTx, but it should retain its orientation of describing telecommunications networks architecture and its neutrality until the deployments are more consolidated (at the moment, FTTN, FTTB and FTTH being the more prevalent). I also agree that Wikipedia is not a customer guide, so it should describe the architectures and the expected technical performances, not the buying or comparison criteria among architectures or services. --Cgbraschi (talk) 11:06, 31 May 2009 (UTC)


 * The conclusion is, the chapters "Use of FTTx terminology as shorthand to describe gigabit broadband in general" and  "Evaluating FTTx variants versus other ways of delivering broadband" are both still widly unencyclopedic and break the rules of WP:NOT, especially 2.2 and 2.7. All customer advices  should be cleared! --Kgfleischmann (talk) 04:03, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

The URL for the reference "Flexibility is key to successful fiber to the premises deployments" has changed due to a website redesign. The new URL is http://www.lightwaveonline.com/about-us/lightwave-issue-archives/issue/flexibility-is-key-to-successful-fiber-to-the-premises-deployments-53914857.html. Stephenhlightwave (talk) 04:06, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

Fibre to the cabinet
I am moving fibre to the cabinet to the fibre to the node line to align with the article it refers to (is redirected to fibre to the node) --Cgbraschi 15:31, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Title change
I propose changing the title of this article from "FTTX" to "Fiber to the x" in order to make it more consistent with Wikipedia's naming conventions on acronyms in titles. Such a change could be done using Wikipedia's article moving feature, which would allow two good things: Riick 04:44, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
 * 1) the current edit history would be preserved under the new name
 * 2) anyone searching for "FTTX" would be automatically redirected to "Fiber to the x"
 * No one has written any comments and it has been over a week, so I have proceeded with the move. (We can use "move" to go back to the acronym title if we really need to.)  If anyone objects to the spelled-out name, please discuss here before taking action. Riick 06:03, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
 * This name is fine. We should be clear that this is a consumer term and should focus on making this article meaningful to the consumer, not full of vendor framed distinctions. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 142.177.103.73 (talk) 18:06, 25 May 2009

Restructuring proposal
In current usage, the difference between FTTC and FTTN is very subtle, as both usually have in the end a similar architecture, the only difference being if the Curb is nearer than the node. Given that the main tecnology behind both of them (VDSL2) is not able to reach more than 700m, any deployment farther away from the home is not practical, and the difference between the two disappears. Look this article or if you don't want to register in google for "communications breakdown telecom magazine" and look at the cache of the first article.

I propose unifying both terms in the same line, and then consequently merging the FTTC and FTTN articles into one, leaving only three concepts inside FTTx: FTTH, FTTB and FTTN. This is the current use in the industry. --Cgbraschi 15:16, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
 * I was aware that there was an overlap between FTTN and FTTC, but not that FTTC was neccessarily a subset of FTTN. I thought that in cases where the switching equipment served just 2 or 3 houses it was not considered FTTN, and therefore should not be included in an FTTN article. We'll need to find some supporting references for this; please give me a week to investigate.  In the meantime, if anyone knows of any evidence that either supports or denies the idea that FTTC is a type of FTTN, please post it here. (If we can establish this, then such a merge would be consistent with Wikipedia's discussion of merging, which states, "If a page is very short and cannot or should not be expanded terribly much, it often makes sense to merge it with a page on a broader topic.")  I have also posted tags on fiber to the node and fiber to the curb which link to this discussion.  Riick 22:09, 24 March 2007 (UTC)


 * There is little business case into using an equipment to serve just 2 or 3 houses (or even 10), usually the remaining copper loop is so small is worthwhile putting fibre instead. And no deployments. So even if it is a theoretical possibility, it has little deployment in practice, and very little architectural difference between FTTN and FTTC. I'd like to point out that FTTx is about architectures, and then there are different technologies. --Cgbraschi 17:11, 3 April 2007 (UTC)


 * I agree that FTTN and FTTC are nearly identical architectures. What I am not yet conviced of is the idea that current industry usage has FTTN referring to both. So I searched for examples where the term "FTTN" is used to describe FTTC-style architectures.


 * I did find a few articles where it might be possible to argue (based on the context) that FTTN is being used to include FTTC. Unfortunately, these articles do not specifically clarify what they mean by "FTTN", so it is hard to tell.  One article (see page "106") does specifically state that FTTC is a type of FTTN.  (It further states that FTTP is a type of FTTN- for them FTTP means FTTB.)  With the exception of that one article, any articles which specifically describe the situation where the fiber comes close to the customer (ie less than 1000 ft) consistently draw a distinction between FTTC and FTTN. (Some use the term FTTCab instead of FTTN). Some of these articles acknowledge that there are borderline situations (where the ONT is 1000 feet from the farthest customer) in which either term could be used.  But none give the impression that the term FTTN can be used in place of FTTC aside from these borderline situations.


 * So the question remains- Would most experts agree that the term "FTTN" includes those architectures where all customers are within less than 1000 feet (300 meters) of the fiber? If the answer is yes, then it would make sense to merge FTTC into FTTN.  However, most of what I have seen so far indicates the answer is generally no.  Therefore I don't yet agree with merging FTTC into FTTN.
 * —This is part of a comment by Riick which got interrupted by the following:


 * I would ask it in another way: Is there any difference in the real architecture or technologies used between FTTN and FTTC? Although that may be self-appointing myself expert, I do think there is no practical difference. And you will have difficulties finding any practical instance of deployments with such a difference. And is difficult to prove that something does not exist. Unfortunately, it's not so easy to get everybody to agree, so I will expect for articles to keep on being inconsistent for a while. When and if have some more free time, I'll try to get references. --Cgbraschi 17:11, 3 April 2007 (UTC)


 * I agree that FTTN and FTTC are so similar that it would be nice if the industry would just agree to call them the same thing. The difference seems to lie merely in the distance between the cabinet and the home.  As you have argued, is this really enough difference to constitute seperate architectures?


 * However, finding good references is crucial.  Edits based on our own opinions and sense of logic have no place in Wikipedia and violate Original research, Neutral point of view, and Attribution.  Our edits should first of all reflect the predominant view, regardless of whether we think it should be the predominant view (see the "neutral point of view" article, particularly wp:npov). Riick 15:45, 5 April 2007 (UTC)


 * The distinctions are generally bogus. There are excellent cost arguments to exploit existing metal including electrical service cables (almost always aluminum) and twisted pair copper and any coax - that's why the G.hn standard exists and is spreading.  Whether someone thinks it makes technical "sense" to leave it there depends on who they are, whether power-integrated services or smart meters are part of the architecture, whether there are power guarantees on some services (like voice), etc..  The only neutral and predominant perspective is that of a business case from the consumer side.  As things stood before the most recent edits of May 2009, the article was giving undue weight to distinctions only a monopolist service provider or one-service network manager would care about. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 142.177.103.73 (talk) 18:06, 25 May 2009


 * Speaking of references, I should list my own references rather than just vaguely referring to them.
 * The references I encountered which support the view that FTTN and FTTC are different architectures (ie FTTN does not include FTTC) are:
 * (McKenney 1996), (speedguide glossary), (Critical Telecom 2005), (Doiron 2005), (Engebretson, 2006), (Bennington), (ADC white paper 2007), (JDSU 2005), and (Bourgeois, 2005). Additionally, (McCullough 2005a) and (McCullough 2005b) draw a distinction both in distance and in the optical protocols used.


 * The references I encountered which support the view that FTTN is broad enough to include FTTC are:
 * (Gorshe 2006, p.106) and possibly (Schmitt 2006).
 * —This is part of a comment by Riick which got interrupted by the following:


 * Another one from ARCEP ARCEP "Very High Speed Points of Reference and Outlook" (2006) --Cgbraschi 08:48, 18 April 2007 (UTC)


 * And the references which I found not particularly convincing either way include:
 * (Converge 2006), (broadbandreports.com 2002), (Polaris 2007), (Buckley, 2006), (IGI 2004), (rp photonics encyclopedia), (Hongyuan 2006), (Light Reading 2007),(Lindstrom 2001), (Gill-More 2004), (Teledata 2004), (Broadband Networks Chapter 7), (Entropic Communications), and (FTTX Resouce Center ad).


 * Those are just the ones that don't use FTTCab in place of FTTN. I will post the FTTCab list as the need arises.  Riick 15:45, 5 April 2007 (UTC)


 * This said, I do think it might be appropriate to include a paragraph saying that although the meaning of FTTN is generally distinct from FTTC, some people use it more broadly so that FTTN = FTTCab + FTTC + FTTB. Riick 00:25, 28 March 2007 (UTC)


 * I don't think it would be such a good idea, it would add to the confusion... And I thought it was already agreed that FTTN = FTTCab. --Cgbraschi 17:11, 3 April 2007 (UTC)


 * For me, when conflicting views are printed side by side it actually helps to aleviate confusion. At any rate, Neutral point of view makes it clear that we do need to at least mention the alternate FTTN definitions in use (unless they are really fringe).  Riick 15:45, 5 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Well FWIW, I work for (the former) Bellsouth. Bellsouth has a system that is described out of the box as a FTTC platform. The MX DISCs is designed to drop a fiber to the serving terminal of the customer linking them back to a larger node. It serves generally 1-24 lines with an engineered design range of roughly 1000ft or less. They make a clear distinction that the MX is a FTTC platform as opposed to normal DISCs which is designed as a FTTN system. We don't use FTTN interchangebly with FTTC though but the distinction between them is rather soft. For example, a DISCS can be placed inside of a large business or a MX shelf can be placed inside of an apartment complex but we never call either one a FTTP platform. It really depends upon how the manufacturer bills the equipments' use. That's my informal understanding of it all.209.183.34.49 16:17, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

I say that fibre to the curb is an American term and should not be merged as the sole name of the network type, as usage of the term fibre to the curb would not be understood my most non Americans. Don't flame me :P Lord fabs 11:05, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Merging the diagram
I added a diagram showing the differences between FTTN, FTTC, FTTB, and FTTH. If and when we do the merge, I offer to remove FTTC from the diagram in such a way that it still looks "nice". This should not be too difficult to do. Riick 20:23, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Remove merge tags
I would like to remove the merge tags that have to do with this talk section's proposal (of merging the FTTC meaning into that of FTTN). Partly this is to reduce confusion in light of the alternate merge proposal now in existence (see talk:fiber to the x). Also it is because there has not been much recent discussion of this topic. Any objections? Riick 19:01, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

Larger merger
Yes, the diagram is very informative, but why keep all the little linked articles for each subtle distinction? Yes, different times and circumstances may call for running fiber to the neighborhood, kerbstone, basement, TV set or whatever, but why separate articles? They should all be sections, or perhaps merely bullet points, in one article called, Fiber to the x, Fiber in the loop, Optical local loop, Local fibre connection, Optical subscriber line, or whatever. It's not a big editing job; perhaps the difficult part will be agreeing a name for the consolidated article. Jim.henderson 20:13, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
 * In regards to the comment about "fiber to the TV set or whatever", it is important to realize that FTTN/FTTCab, FTTC/FTTK, FTTB, and FTTH are industry terms with specific meanings and implications. For example, Fiber to the building does not just mean bringing a fiber to a building, but instead refers a specific network design where, among other things, the fiber that goes to the building is to be shared by multiple user groups.
 * In regards to merging FTTN/FTTCab, FTTC/FTTK, FTTB, and FTTH into the FTTX article, this would make sense for the FTTN and FTTC article(s) since they are stubs. However, it would be a huge mistake to eliminate the FTTP article (in which FTTB and FTTH are described), because it has enough length, detail, and structure that it is far better as a stand-alone article.  Instead, summaries of FTTB and FTTH could be incorporated into the FTTX article.  Such summaries would need to contain a link to their more detailed description under their main article, FTTP.  (See Template:Main for implimentation of link.  See solar cell for an example of an article where some sections are actually summaries of more detailed articles.)
 * Riick 17:48, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

Merge "Fiber in the Loop"?
FITL seems almost identical to this article, and not as good. I propose merging it in... Greg 23:49, 30 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Perhaps. Here are some points that should be discussed before taking action:
 * As I understand it, fiber in the loop is only applicable to telephone networks, whereas fiber to the x applies to both telephone and cable TV networks. If I have this right, then fiber in the loop would be a type of fiber to the x and could be merged.
 * Are there some ways to implement fiber in the loop which do not qualify as fiber to the x implementations? If so, then the merge should not be done.
 * Riick 16:35, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Not a problem, far as I see. It just means FitL becomes the telco paragraph of FTTx instead of vice versa.  Or if FTTx isn't a neutral name between catv and telco uses, pick a new and neutral name like Local fiber.  So far as I see, the world's telephone exchanges and cable headends pretty much all got fibered together in the 1980s, and now we are in a second transition stage of reaching out to the last couple miles (few Km) to the end customers.
 * Right in the earliest decade or two of the century it sometimes makes sense to reach only nineteen twentienths or three quarters of the way and use the old metallic connections for the final bit, thus we have these short articles on ftt kerbstone, cabinet, pedestal, neighbourhood, whatever. These short articles should all be merged into one, probably as sections of this one.  The final fiber development stage where the fiber goes into the house and desk, that's already the topic of a large FttH article that talks about individual countries and service corporations, which should remain an independent article.  Jim.henderson 20:40, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Fiber in the loop has been removed since August. If it gets re-incorporated here it might be good to make it a part of a larger section discussing the ways in which the FTTx concept can have alternate names depending on what industry implements it. (Or is it depending on what the legacy cable plant is?) I think such a section should also briefly summarize HFC and have a link to that article. If names exist for fiber-BPL or fiber-wireless FTTx implementations, then those should also be included in the new section. In the meantime I have set fiber in the loop back up as its own page so that the information exists at least somewhere! -Riick (talk) 05:06, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

Request for performance data
The above heading was inserted by Riick (talk) 19:57, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

I just wanted to know what speeds could be achieved on these technologies, & whether they're symmetric. Any chance of adding same in? Dublinblue (Simon in Dublin) (talk) 12:32, 16 January 2009 (UTC)


 * I agree, thats what I came to this page to look for --94.192.245.121 (talk) 19:56, 31 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Fiber to the x refers to a topology, not to the transmission technology. The speeds depend on many things like fiber type, the devices at the edges and so on. Discussing these in detail is beyond he scope of this article. --Kgfleischmann (talk) 05:26, 1 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Speed does not limited by fibre type, not in the access network, but it does depend on network architecture and the equipment you hang on the ends of the link. I think it would be worth adding a sentence or two here, but we should point users to passive optical network for more details.  OK, so that's another article that needs work (sigh). Opticalgirl (talk) 12:09, 27 August 2009 (UTC)


 * No, he is right. There are various types of fiber. For an added twist to this whole thing, GPON can be used the FTTC as well. Keeping the article as just being about topology is best 99.55.70.227 (talk) 17:10, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

Links to additional discussion
Additional action-packed discussion exists on pages previously merged into this one. The following links are provided for convenience of historical edification:


 * Fiber to the premises merged 6-2008 discussion


 * Fiber to the Telecom Enclosure merged 5-2008 removed 8-2009 discussion


 * Fiber in the loop merged 1-2008 removed 8-2009 discussion


 * Fiber to the node merged 1-2008 discussion


 * Fiber to the curb merged 1-2008 discussion


 * FTTx merged 3-2006 discussion

- Riick (talk) 16:53, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

(updated by Riick (talk) 21:32, 15 January 2010 (UTC))

Local loop and Fiber to the Telecommunications Enclosure
There may be a contradiction in the article. The article implies that all of the following are true: But it is not possible logically for all three to be true because it would mean that on-premises wiring is necessarily in the local loop. So which of those three "facts" is incorrect? (Or how they can all be true simultaneously?) So far my own research has revealed little. Riick (talk) 20:54, 4 March 2009 (UTC)
 * FTTx is always limited to the local loop.
 * Fiber to the Telecommunications Enclosure is a type of FTTx.
 * Fiber to the Telecommunications Enclosure is a form of on-premises wiring.


 * The article at present does a terrible job of factoring the various architectures, and the terminology itself is largely obsolete as of 2009 and G.hn considerations. Above see reasons to move service issues to gigabit broadband as the primary article, deprecate the FTTx terminology entirely as meaningless to any real world decision (making it essentially a redirect to gigabit WAN or to gigabit broadband), and carefully explaining issues like BPL in on-premises wiring.  Terms like "local loop" probably must be avoided except where you mean PSTN and include power provisioning as PSTN does.  This whole thing is a mess.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 142.177.103.86 (talk) 23:34, 25 May 2009 (UTC)


 * I hope my addition has clarified this. FTTE is not an access network architecture, it's structured wiring used in LANs.  If anyone wants to add info about FTTE, or FTTD (D=desk), then it belongs under structured wiring. Opticalgirl (talk) 12:15, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

Fibre to the home
The link at the bottom to "Fiber to the home" is a self referential redirect. Someone either needs to make a fibre to the home article or add a section for it in this article 58.105.220.149 (talk) 06:06, 21 July 2009 (UTC)


 * I've removed the link for now. Mind  matrix  15:43, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

Unsourced statements
This page used to be quite clear, but now it is full of unsourced statements, written in an unencyclopedic style, like "Many misinformed customers, for instance, pay for expensive hubs or switches in their homes that do nothing to network all AC powered devices... An optimal deployment, by contrast, would have paid for everything with the power savings and required no more than one unified device near the transformer." Does anyone object if I remove all these? --Ipj20 (talk) 09:05, 14 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Absolutely not, go for it.  Nelson50 T   21:57, 14 August 2009 (UTC)
 * The rest of the article is pretty bad, too. I just tagged it with cleanup, so hopefully some people will be spurred into helping a little. (I would, but it's 2 AM and you don't want me rewriting articles when I need sleep.) &mdash; SheeEttin {T/C} 06:03, 18 August 2009 (UTC)


 * I agree that this article could do with a cleanup, and am willing to have a go. Some of the facts in here are wrong, some are in the wrong place - it's an article about FTTx not BPL.  Fibre is becoming a mainstream topic these days, with governments putting their money behind it in some cases, so the page should better reflect why they did that.  I'm new to wikipaedia, so tried out a simple edit to start with by adding a ref for the definitions of FTTx.  I have plenty more references to add, but would also want to restructure the article a bit.  Any objections? Opticalgirl (talk) 16:09, 25 August 2009 (UTC)


 * This page smacks of propaganda of companies who do not wish to roll out FTTH.. Seriously this needs some cleanup of nonsense.. Half the crap in here is pure tripe that should be removed. It can be compared to FTTH systems all over the world and none of them have half the garbage spewed in this article of how they work. Take a stab at it and fix it this is crazy. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.11.153.178 (talk) 02:59, 27 August 2009 (UTC)


 * @User:Opticalgirl, you did a great job transforming one heap of G.hn promotion to another. Please be aware, what Wikipedia is not and consider reading NOTADVOCATE. This article is worth to be deleted --Kgfleischmann (talk) 20:39, 27 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Hold your horses, I haven't really started yet... all I've done so far is tidy up duplicate information (even though it is clearly biased!). I didn't want to welly in too hard, as I'm new around here, and wanted to make sure I got the hang of how wikipaedia works.  Also, there's a lot to say about FTTH so wanted to give it some thought and do it right - need a bit longer. Opticalgirl (talk) 10:11, 28 August 2009 (UTC)
 * O.K. My horses are back in the stable! --Kgfleischmann (talk) 16:19, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

(context: The above talk topic may be largely the result of this significant May 2009 edit.) Riick (talk) 04:16, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

Optical Line Termination
I think OLT (optical line termination ) should not redirect here, but should rather have it's own stub page. Nothing in this article discusses OLT directly, despite a number of pages linking here with OLT. I'm trying to work out what it is (from technical perspective) and what it does, and this page does not help with that! Dkp (talk) 02:26, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

Excellent point. I have revived the old "optical line termination" article. I think it had some very good information which became inaccessible when the page was changed to a redirect! Riick (talk) 04:50, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

Other FTTx
According to chinese wikipedia, there are few more type of FTTx: Except some of them mentioned in the article, some others do nnopt appear in the article (like FTTZ). Should the article inllude them? C933103 (talk) 10:57, 19 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Interesting to know that.To include the types, we need a source other than a Wikipeda. --Kgfleischmann (talk) 12:11, 19 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Some of the neat things listed above may not belong in this article, even if sourced. This article is about access network architectures (running between the provider and the subscriber). As such it does exclude (and I think correctly so) fiber networks which lie entirely on the subscriber end.  This is why on-premises wiring architectures such as fiber to the telecom enclosure are not included in this article, despite the fact that they start with "fiber to the" and use an acronym which starts with FTT.
 * (There may be a bigger issue here though. If the industry commonly uses the the exact phrase "fiber to the x" to denote on-premises wiring architectures, then we may need to discuss a new name this article. I do not recommend doing that unless ample evidence shows the phrase is commonly used that way!) Riick (talk) 18:24, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

Yet more merges
I ran across Next-generation access which seems a European and/or British term for roughly the same thing, so perhaps that should also merge. I hate "next-generation" in any title because it is guaranteed to be dated at some point when the generation after that comes along. I also noted that Optical Distribution Network and Optical distribution network redirect to ODN which is a disambig page, which includes a link on it back to itself. That does not seem right. W Nowicki (talk) 23:23, 24 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Next Generation Access (NGA) is a term used by BT (British Telecom) in the UK to describe the infrastructure for delivering faster (>25Mb/s) broadband access (also called "Superfast Broadband" - another tag that will rapidly loose currency; I look forward to ultrahypermegafast broadband). NGA is a performance intention / aspiration, and does not strictly imply a particular implementation technology, although it will in fact be delivered by FTTX technology in most cases. Given this specific regional usage, I do not think merging is appropriate (a link to FTTX would be more appropriate). FredV (talk) 10:06, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Fiber to the x. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20111001173226/http://nxtcommnews.com/ethernet/news08/active-ethernet-pon/ to http://nxtcommnews.com/ethernet/news08/active-ethernet-pon
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20131008080350/http://www.ftthcouncil.eu/documents/Publications/FTTH_Definition_of_Terms-Revision_2011-Final.pdf to http://ftthcouncil.eu/documents/Publications/FTTH_Definition_of_Terms-Revision_2011-Final.pdf
 * Added archive https://archive.is/20120708114306/http://ar2010.telekomaustria.com/en/facts_and_figures_2010.html to http://ar2010.telekomaustria.com/en/facts_and_figures_2010.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 09:04, 30 September 2017 (UTC)