This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Fiber to the x article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
![]() | The contents of the Fiber in the loop page were merged into Fiber to the x on 26 January 2018. For the contribution history and old versions of the redirected page, please see its history; for the discussion at that location, see its talk page. |
![]() | The contents of the Next-generation access page were merged into Fiber to the x on 26 January 2018. For the contribution history and old versions of the redirected page, please see its history; for the discussion at that location, see its talk page. |
![]() | This article is written in American English, which has its own spelling conventions (color, defense, traveled) and some terms that are used in it may be different or absent from other varieties of English. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus. |
![]() | This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to multiple WikiProjects. | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
I suggest that FTTx shall be merged into this article.-- Willpo 07:10, 4 March 2006 (UTC)
Dear IP, some of your stuff possibly war usefull, but we write an encyclopedia and no user/consumer advice.
Please read WP:NOT before editing again
and please ad your text at the end of this page and sign. Yours -- Kgfleischmann ( talk) 21:26, 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)
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 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)
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)
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)
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 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)
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)
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#Larger merger). Also it is because there has not been much recent discussion of this topic. Any objections? Riick 19:01, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
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)
FITL seems almost identical to this article, and not as good. I propose merging it in... Greg 23:49, 30 April 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)
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)
Additional action-packed discussion exists on pages previously merged into this one. The following links are provided for convenience of historical edification:
- Riick ( talk) 16:53, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
(updated by Riick ( talk) 21:32, 15 January 2010 (UTC))
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)
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)
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)
(context: The above talk topic may be largely the result of this significant May 2009 edit.) Riick ( talk) 04:16, 19 January 2010 (UTC)
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)
According to chinese wikipedia, there are few more type of FTTx:
* FTTN:Fiber To the Node或Fiber to the Neighborhood,意謂光纖到節點或光纖到鄰里。
* FTTE:Fiber to the Exchange,意謂光纖到交換機。
* FTTR:Fiber To the Remote Terminal,意謂光纖到遠端接點。
* FTTC:Fiber To the Curb,意謂光纖到街角。
* FTTB:Fiber To the Building,意謂光纖到大樓。
* FTTZ:Fiber To the Zone,意謂光纖到區域。
* FTTO:Fiber to the Office,意謂光纖到辦公室。
* FTTH:Fiber To the Home,意謂光纖到府。
* FTTD:Fiber to the Desk,意謂光纖到書桌。
* FTTP:Fiber to the premises,意謂光纖到房屋。
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)
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)
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:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 09:04, 30 September 2017 (UTC)
This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Fiber to the x article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
![]() | The contents of the Fiber in the loop page were merged into Fiber to the x on 26 January 2018. For the contribution history and old versions of the redirected page, please see its history; for the discussion at that location, see its talk page. |
![]() | The contents of the Next-generation access page were merged into Fiber to the x on 26 January 2018. For the contribution history and old versions of the redirected page, please see its history; for the discussion at that location, see its talk page. |
![]() | This article is written in American English, which has its own spelling conventions (color, defense, traveled) and some terms that are used in it may be different or absent from other varieties of English. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus. |
![]() | This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to multiple WikiProjects. | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
I suggest that FTTx shall be merged into this article.-- Willpo 07:10, 4 March 2006 (UTC)
Dear IP, some of your stuff possibly war usefull, but we write an encyclopedia and no user/consumer advice.
Please read WP:NOT before editing again
and please ad your text at the end of this page and sign. Yours -- Kgfleischmann ( talk) 21:26, 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)
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 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)
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)
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)
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 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)
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)
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#Larger merger). Also it is because there has not been much recent discussion of this topic. Any objections? Riick 19:01, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
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)
FITL seems almost identical to this article, and not as good. I propose merging it in... Greg 23:49, 30 April 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)
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)
Additional action-packed discussion exists on pages previously merged into this one. The following links are provided for convenience of historical edification:
- Riick ( talk) 16:53, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
(updated by Riick ( talk) 21:32, 15 January 2010 (UTC))
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)
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)
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)
(context: The above talk topic may be largely the result of this significant May 2009 edit.) Riick ( talk) 04:16, 19 January 2010 (UTC)
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)
According to chinese wikipedia, there are few more type of FTTx:
* FTTN:Fiber To the Node或Fiber to the Neighborhood,意謂光纖到節點或光纖到鄰里。
* FTTE:Fiber to the Exchange,意謂光纖到交換機。
* FTTR:Fiber To the Remote Terminal,意謂光纖到遠端接點。
* FTTC:Fiber To the Curb,意謂光纖到街角。
* FTTB:Fiber To the Building,意謂光纖到大樓。
* FTTZ:Fiber To the Zone,意謂光纖到區域。
* FTTO:Fiber to the Office,意謂光纖到辦公室。
* FTTH:Fiber To the Home,意謂光纖到府。
* FTTD:Fiber to the Desk,意謂光纖到書桌。
* FTTP:Fiber to the premises,意謂光纖到房屋。
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)
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)
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:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 09:04, 30 September 2017 (UTC)