Talk:Fiber to the x

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

I suggest that FTTx shall be merged into this article.--Willpo 07:10, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

I've merged it. ~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

Contents

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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:

  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"

Riick 04:44, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

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)

[edit] 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 Wikipedia:Original research, Wikipedia:Neutral point of view, and Wikipedia: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#undue weight). Riick 15:45, 5 April 2007 (UTC)


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, Wikipedia: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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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#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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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:
  1. 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.
  2. 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)