Talk:Fiber to the premises

FTTP-HTTP

Many people might think that FTTP is another kind of protocol. Isn't the name confusing in that respect? Camilo Sanchez (talk) 16:47, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

New article suggestion for Fiber To The Home

Fiber To The Home is the main article because when we are talking about fiver optics we usually mean broadband high speed internet to the home or small (home) business. Large businesses have their own telecommunications networks. Usually, other than small start up businesses, there would typically be security, networking and internet networks installed. In this case it would be an issue of fiber optic telecommunication because there would be other systems installed and it's obvious that it would go into a building, premises or vessel of some kind. The "last mile" issue topically refers to residential access. Residential areas have the lowest density and thus the highest cost, which is why they are the last to be converted to fiber. Business and commercial areas have higher density and usually already have fiber. Unless it's a low tech or a small business, there are already all kinds of wires going into it. Fiber to x mainly refers to fiber to the home or residential broadband internet as it is the main hurdle and the biggest issue today.

Fiber to x is a telecommunications issue and split up into different types of configurations of fiber optics. Fiber to the home is a completely different term and not a type of configurations. Fiber to the home typically refers to the mainstream implementation of fiber optics or the main hurdle to be overcome in the progress of the internet aka the last mile. It is not so much of a configuration as a social, or marketing term referring to the mainstream implementation of fiber optics.

Fiber to the Home

Shouldn't FTTP article be renamed to Fiber to the Premises? See Wikipedia:Naming_conventions#Prefer_spelled-out_phrases_to_acronyms Tygar 06:37, Feb 25, 2005 (UTC)

1. Noticed that there is a Fiber to the Home article (instead of FTTH)... renamed as per acronyms/vs spelled out names link above. Tygar 06:43, Feb 25, 2005 (UTC)

Is this article a duplicate of Fiber to the Home ? bogdan ʤjuʃkə | ^Talk 09:35, 8 May 2005 (UTC)

Fiber to the Home now redirects here. There were originally two, completely redundant, articles. Mirror Vax 11:08, 8 May 2005 (UTC)

FTTH is not the same thing as FTTP. FTTH is a subset of FTTP. But I certainly agree with redirecting the fiber to the home article to this one because there is not currently enough FTTH information in this article to merit breaking it off into its own article. Riick 23:02, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Fiber to the building

Isn't FTTB synonymous with FTTP? If so, I propose putting it back in the introduction. Riick 21:01, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

I have discovered that FTTB is actually a subset of FTTP. I have put mention of FTTB back into the introduction but I have clarified its meaning. Riick 23:02, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Usually FTTB is used for when there is fibre to the basement of the building (or another convenient place) and then there is a copper loop (or the existing one) up to the home of the user. It is usually used for multi-dwelling units. FTTP I understand is a synonymous to FTTH, by which the fiber goes up to the final user house, without any equipment in between. Cgbraschi 14:47, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

FTTP == FTTH ???

Seems like verizon's FIOS is directly to the home, but SBC's is only to the node. [1]

Do the terms FTTP and FTTH differntiate between the two in those scenarios, or are they truly interchangeable? - Brewthatistrue 5 July 2005 23:19 (UTC)

FTTH and FTTP are used interchangably. They mean that the fiber goes at least to the building of the subscriber. Inside the building may be copper. Mirror Vax 12:25, 26 July 2005 (UTC)

Yes, SBC/ATT's is to the curb, NOT to the home. --speedoflight | talk to me 23:05, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

No, fiber to the curb is something else again. SBC is talking about distances of 5000ft - much longer than "curb". Mirror Vax 23:40, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

AT&T is FTTN. What you will find is that FTTP is a broad term used to combine FTTH and FTTB. FTTP is only when a physical fiber is run to the building. FTTN and FTTC use copper or coax runs to the building Krocheck 08:05, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

The reason that FTTH/FTTP are classified as "Extreme Broadband" or "3G Broadband" is because they are the only technologies that deliver fiber all the way to the outer wall of the consumer's home or to the outer wall of a business's building. Fiber to the Node/Neighborhood and Fiber to the Curb fall short of this achievement, hence, they are not considered to be "Extreme Broadband" or "3G Broadband". Since Internet 2 requires end-to-end, fiber-to-fiber connections of all users, in the future only those homes or offices wired to the wall with fiber (FTTP) could be easily converted to extend the fiber all the way to the end computing equipment, in order to be Internet 2 compliant.

I can't find any outside references that use those terms for FTTP. "Extreme Broadband" is used as a marketing term for an Australian ADSL service. "3G Broadband" references a wireless data network. Neither are used for fiber networks. Bifferoo 19:00, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

Both Siemens and Deutsche Telecom refer to the term "Extreme Broadband" in their communications to describe the upgrade from copper to fiber to the home many, many times. Here is one example where it is used to talk about the upcoming Broadband World Forum in Paris, in the last paragraph to showcase this service: http://www.lightreading.com/document.asp?doc_id=104681.

FTTH and FTTP are actually not the same thing. FTTH is a subset of FTTP; thus the terms are not completely interchangeable. One report which makes this distinction pretty clear is http://www.pwc.com/techforecast/pdfs/fttp_webx.pdf. Other sources of clarification on what FTTH is (and what it is not) include: http://www.europeftthcouncil.com/extra/Press_Release/Definition_of_FTTH_FINAL_25_September_2006.pdf, http://www.iec.org/online/tutorials/fiber_home/topic05.html, and http://www.linleygroup.com/columns/nikkei0206.html Riick 23:02, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Having looked into this a little further, it seems that the real problem here is that FTTP has conflicting definitions throughout the industry. To some sources it only means FTTH. To others it only means FTTB. To some it is an umbrella term that encompasses both FTTH and FTTB. Still others claim it is a third entity that describes neither FTTB nor FTTH. (In contrast, the definitions of FTTB and FTTH are both a little more consistent. The only confusion that might arise there is whether FTTH can truely apply to an office building, even one equipped entirely with fiber on its interior.) I have added a section (with sources cited) to deal with the ambiguities in FTTP's usage. Riick 04:36, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

The terms seem interchangable enough to me, but it would seem to depend on who your target customer is. You don't want to call your network FTTH if you plan on offering service to small businesses. Being that Verizon services both homes and businesses, FTTP is most accurate. Toddyboy711 02:48, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

Split into three articles?

^{The above heading was inserted as a place-marker by Riick 08:00, 27 March 2007 (UTC)}

If the meaning of FTTP (I don't usually use that term, and I thought it was synonymous with FTTH) is both FTTB and FTTH, then FTTP should have a separate article. FTTH and FTTB have quite different architectures (FTTB has always active equipment, and has two different stretches with fiber and copper) and most of the article refers to FTTH proper. All three separate architectures discussed: home run fiber, AON and PON apply only to FTTH. Most of the deployments mentioned apply only to FTTH. Cgbraschi 14:59, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

I think there may be more overlap in FTTH and FTTB architectures than Cgbraschi indicates, so at this point I support keeping them in the same article. At issue is whether or not all three architectures (active, PON, and home run fiber) are possible for FTTB. Certainly active is possible, as Cgbraschi indicates. (A seperate issue is whether it would still be called AON in the FTTB context; at this point I haven't seen any evidence indicating it could not.) As for PON, I understand that it simply means any fiber optic network that is passively split, regardless of whether it is being used for FTTH, FTTB, or some other application like a computer network within an office building. I have seen it used in the context of FTTH, FTTB, and even FTTC- see Unifying the access network with fiber and Experience of deployment of broadband optical access system and its future vista (especially figure 6). In my town, my understanding is that Verizon is using its PON architecture to support both FTTH and FTTB (the FTTB acheives higher bandwidth by being split into fewer branches). As for home run fiber, it certainly seems likely that some companies implement their FTTB as a dedicated fiber direct from each building to the central office. (However, would it still be called "home run fiber" in this case? There must be some term for any dedicated direct-to-the-CO fiber. But again, what to call it is a seperate issue than whether it should be included.)

I argue that all three implementations are applicable to both FTTH and FTTB, so splitting is not necessary. Instead, maybe we could indicate in the text that active is the preferred method for FTTB (if this true), and maybe we could find a better term than "home-run-fiber." Riick 17:00, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

There is some confusion about all the terminology. Current use has converged into calling FTTN, FTTB and FTTH (and their synonyms) into models or architectures of deployment (the article is irregular in its use of what is what). The difference being what the amount of fibre in the deployment (as the figure 6 you cited illustrates). Then, PON, AON and point to point are real technologies used to implement various parts of the model (as specific protocols like EPON or GPON are implemented). In the figure 6, only one technology is used (as the figure comes from the specifier of that technology), but other things are possible.

The differentiating part between FTTH and FTTB is that FTTH only needs one technology (AON, PON or point to point), but FTTB necessarily needs two different technologies (one for the fibre part and one for the copper part). Going forward with that, perhaps it would be better to refer to the PON and AON pages from FTTP, there is some not-so-good page on PON that could receive more substance from FTTP article

Verizon is using PON for FTTB, but then they use VDSL2 to run up the building to the end user. For example in Japan I think NTT is using point to point to the building and then VDSL2 to the home.

And regarding home-run fibre, a better term would be point-to-point fibre. --Cgbraschi 09:57, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

These look like useful observations and I will investigate and perhaps incorporate them into the article over the coming days or weeks (unless someone else does it first, of course). As for your original suggestion of splitting this article, I should be clearer (for the record) about my reasons for wanting this article be kept in one piece. You originally suggested that FTTH and FTTB are different enough that it would be useful to split them into their own articles. However, I believe that advantages of keeping the article in one piece outweigh the advantages of splitting for the following reasons:

1. Keeping FTTP, FTTH, and FTTB in one article ensures the accuracy of the strangely popular "Deployment history" section. What I forsee with the split is that three seperate "Deployment history" sections will evolve. Someone who calls their FTTH service FTTP will record its arrival under FTTP. Someone who calls their FTTH service FTTH will record it under FTTH. Someone who just got FTTB service might put it under FTTP, FTTB, or even (incorrectly) FTTH, depending on what their provider calls it. Even if we try to confine deployment history to just one article, I suspect that eventually it will end up scattered piecemeal in all three. But they should all be together. Why? Companies usually use the same infrastructure for FTTB and FTTH, which together make FTTP, so a deployment of one is actually a deployment of all three.
2. Keeping all three together simplifies explaining the all-too-often misunderstood relationship between FTTP, FTTB, and FTTH. It makes it easier to maintain the characterization of this relationship since it only has to be edited in one place. It eliminates the potential for conflicting charicterizations of this relationship to evolve between articles, which would be particularly bad for the user given the existing confusion throughout the industry. It increases chances that users will actually learn what the relationship is (and that there is confusion), since they will see it no matter which of the three they came here to learn about or add to.
3. FTTH and FTTB have more similarities than differences. They can both provide broadband. They are both affected by confusion over the meaning the fttp. They usually share deployment histories. They usually share the same infrastructure between the CO and the ONT. They are usually provided by the same company. They both bring fiber right onto private property. When there is so much overlap, keeping articles together allows the user to conveniently get all the information s/he needs from one place. In contrast, splitting would either create a whole lot of repeated information or it would create two stubs that point to a third article.
4. "Wikipedia is not a dictionary; there does not need to be a separate entry for every concept in the universe." - WP:MERGE#Merging

I believe that your concerns can be adequately adressed, but I think this should be accomplished without splitting. Riick 08:00, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Speed capabilities of FTTP?

I do believe we need to state the speed capabilities of FTTP in connecting to the internet. People are comparing internet connections by their download/upload speed nowadays, so putting it might be a leap to featured article status...--202.156.6.54 17:00, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

Speeds vary. UTOPIA boasts speeds of 100Mbit or 1Gbit depending the type of connection you get. On the other-hand, companies like Verizon boast speeds in the realm of 30Mbit. It all depends on the service provider and what they wish to provide. Krocheck 08:07, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

Deployment History

This section of talk was formerly titled "Availability". Riick 19:41, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

I do not think that the availability section is appropriate in its current form. It has specific information, like a consumer's guide, rather than general information, which is appropriate for an encyclopedia. Besides being unencyclopedic, it is very difficult to keep such content current. For example, the article says that FTTP is available in Ascension Parish, LA and is offered by EATEL and its services include "telephone, broadband Internet, and television (Video on Demand and regular broadcasts)." An encyclopedia article should say something like, "FTTP has limited availability in the United States. Some companies such as Verizon, AT&T, Broadweave Networks and EATEL offer it in a few pilot locations. In addition, some municipal utilities and planned communities are developing FTTP networks." I suggest replacing this section with something similar. -- Kjkolb 10:55, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

The availability section is still filled with specifics, but I removed the external links. The external links within the text itself were replaced with internal links when possible. It had turned into a spam magnet with new links being added constantly, regardless of project size, company size and importance. The section still needs work. -- Kjkolb 11:39, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

I propose changing the title of the Availability by Country section to Deployments or Deployments by Country. Such a wording change would be aimed at giving the section more of a history and current events feel appropriate for an encyclopedia, as opposed to the consumer's guide feel mentioned above by Kjkolb. I want to get at least a little consensus on this before I act because it seems that many people have put a lot of time into the section and maybe they have some preference for the Availability wording. (Note that Deployments is the wording used to label a very similar section in the cable television article. Riick 04:50, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

I haven't heard anything in more than a week, so I've gone ahead with the name change. The section is now called "Deployment History". I have also changed the name of the related talk section. Hopefully this will encourage editors to make entries in a more encyclopedic style, such as "In March 2007, FiberPush introduced FTTH..." rather than "FiberPush is now introducing FTTH...". (The latter might look pretty silly to someone viewing this article in 2017, after FiberPush had been bought out by OmniGlutton and FTTH had been replaced by some newer technology!) Riick 19:41, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

This entire section isn't appropriate for an encyclopedia entry. It a list of companies and their products that use FTTP technology. It is not information about the actual FTTP technology. The information on the various products seems to be updated by the companies employees and users, and much of it is out of date. It is basically an area for companies to advertise their products. It should be moved to a separate page, or possibly moved out of Wikipedia all together. Bifferoo 17:53, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

I agree that this section is mostly just thinly-veiled product promotion. However, I would point out that (1) moving it to another page is not going to make the content any more encyclopedic, and (2) the section does contain some valid historic deployment info hidden amongst all the advertising. I consider this section a "problem section", but there don't really seem to be any great solutions. (By the way, a past proposal to move this section can be found under the heading Time to break out a separate article for FTTP projects?) -Riick 17:27, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

In general, I find the deployment section extremely useful. It's nice to have real examples of the faster FTTP deployments. Many service providers only upgrade their bandwidth, particularly upload speed when faced with a competitor in the local market. Having this article as a reference to faster services allows people to see what is possible and ask for more from their providers. It's also useful for those who negotiate with the companies, city councils, reporters, consumers etc. We need this information to get more than the 6 Mbps down / 1 Mbps up. Why shouldn't we be able to telecommute as fast as being in the office. Why wouldn't you want to broadcast or video conference part of a child's birthday party in high definition (8.5Mbps download / 8.5 Mbps upload) to grandparents in another country who are unable to travel? I looked up this article for the sole purpose of finding actual places where Internet speeds in excess of 6Mbps/1Mbps are available and enough information or links to find and verify pricing information. The section can be improved but keep the verifiable specifics. It's the kind of thing where there is so much ype and marketing that having a service address is actually useful so you can put it in the availabilty engine to verify that the service is actually available and what the pricing is for that level of service! 75.7.7.133 08:32, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

Make appropriate edits

A few ideas for keeping the "Deployment history" section appropriate for Wikipedia:

1. Avoid external links to company websites. I believe these fall under Wikipedia's external links to avoid. Riick 22:55, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
2. Use wording that will make sense in the future. According to Wikipedia's guide to writing better articles, the ideal method of specifying on-going events is "as of 2007". For example, the sentence "As of March 2007, FiberPush was introducing FTTH..." is good because it will still make sense in the future, even after FiberPush has finished introducing FTTH. Better yet would be something like "FiberPush began introducing FTTH in December 2006..." For comparison, it would be good to avoid wording like "Fiberpush is introducing FTTH" because it might not make sense when read in the future. Riick 22:55, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Aviable in Norway too

Aviable in Norway, via lyse.no & ntebb.no, nte provides Fiber to the premises for parts of nord trøndelag, and plan to provide so for entire nord trøndelag. got one hanging on the wall here :-)

Available in Sweden

Available in Sweden, through bredbandsbolaget, tele2, and several local isp:s since ~1999, with 100/10 now priced at ~30€. 212.247.37.98 11:19, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Asia

I read that Japan and Korea adopted FTTH as the industry standard (as opposed to DSL) a long time ago. --71.124.240.231 02:58, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

Canada

Bell Canada is not doing FTTH with its Optimax service. It's FTTN (Fiber to the Neighborhood) and after that, it's ADSL2+

Australia

Neither Telstra nor Optus are offering FTTH/FTTP in Australia. Their cable networks are HFC/FTTN. It's fibre (note local/english spelling) to a node then both use coax from the node to the premises. Suggest full rewrite of section given the number of mistakes made.

User:192.76.80.74 edits

User:192.76.80.74 keeps adding this:

In the near future, FTTP, also referred to as Extreme Broadband, will deliver performance speeds exceeding 100 Mbps downstream. In contrast, Fiber to the Node/Neighborhood (FTTN) stops short of delivering and physically attaching a fiber optic cable directly to the home or business, therefore, is not classified as Extreme Broadband.

1. "Extreme Broadband" is not a commonly used term. Maybe it is a marketing slogan, or used informally by some.
2. In any case, the first statement is irrelevant and doesn't belong in the introduction.
3. The second sentence is also irrelevent. There is an FTTN article for those interested (which of course is not wikilinked). It's in the See Also list, along with HFC. Mirror Vax 12:05, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

I don't think a short sentence differentiating two similiar and easily confused terms is irrelevant. The "Extreme Broadband" stuff, however, should go. Pimlottc 14:35, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

In a nutshell, this section does not meet several Wikipedia requirements for inclusion in Wikipedia; see

• Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not, in particular these sections:
  • Wikipedia is not a publisher of original thought
  • Wikipedia is not a crystal ball -- the only allowable predictions are quotations of comments made by notable sources. For instance, the sentence "The U.S. economy should grow 4% in 2007" is unacceptable since it comes across as Wikipedia's opinion on the matter. It is OK to include "Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke said in September 2006, 'I predict U.S. economy will grow 4% in 2007'". It's unacceptable to include "My cousin Billy Bob said in September 2006, 'I predict U.S. economy will grow 4% in 2007'"; that's because Billy Bob is not a recognized, notable source on this sort of subject.
  • Wikipedia is not a soapbox in particular the part that reads "Therefore, Wikipedia articles are not: Propaganda or advocacy of any kind."
• Wikipedia:Citing sources -- this section cites no sources. Note that any such sources would have to meet Wikipedia:Reliable sources; a Light Reading article would meet that standard, but comments made in their forums would not, nor would any vendor press releases they republish.
• Wikipedia:Verifiability -- "Facts, viewpoints, theories, and arguments may only be included in articles if they have already been published by reliable and reputable sources. Articles should cite these sources whenever possible. Any unsourced material may be challenged and removed."
• Wikipedia:No original research

This material fundamentally is unsuitable for these articles as presently written. If the author of those comments carefully reads all the material linked above, he/she may find acceptable ways to include some of these ideas by quoting others; these should be individuals or publications that meet the requirements of Wikipedia:Notability. Any rewrite will also have to meet the requirements of Wikipedia:Neutral point of view.

Finally, the editor of any rewrite needs to work out a consensus on the talk page with the other editors since this has developed into a controversy. Personally, I think it's useful to include the following in the article:

• Quotes from notable, reliable sources predicting 100 Mbps speeds in the near-future.
• A sentence noting the difference between FTTP and FTTN; it's a source of confusion among many

I'd ditch the "Extreme broadband" (flunks WP:NPOV) even if Deutsche Telecom likes to use it. The bold font needs to go. I'd also embed any such rewritten material in the article's main body, not in the intro.

All this sounds very complicated but it really shouldn't take much time (at the very most, 1 hour) to research and write if User:192.76.80.74 is interested. --A. B. 16:03, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

Info on specific FTTP projects - a resource

At the risk of appearing to flog my now-defunct blog, I used to maintain a blog that listed, among other things, links to articles on specific FTTP projects around the world. The blog should not get a link here; see Wikipedia:External links#Links normally to be avoided. I have put a link to it on one of my user subpages; I think that's probably acceptable within the limits of Wikipedia:Vanity guidelines. The blog is out of date but may have some useful resources for editors looking for links to articles. --A. B. 16:32, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

Time to break out a separate article for FTTP projects?

It's very worthwhile to list all these projects with some information on each, however as that list grows it will come to dominate this article. I suggest we considering forking this information to an article with a title such as "List of FTTP projects" and linking the two articles together.
--A. B. 15:04, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

Good idea. Mirror Vax 15:19, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

I agree. Unless we have a place to list the different projects they will end up back on this page, as we are starting to see already. Bifferoo 20:59, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

I disagree. I think they are appropriate here, but I do propose renaming the section from Availability by Country to Deployments in order to encourage users to make more encyclopedic entries. (Discuss this under the Availability section of this page). Riick 05:47, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Deployment History is becoming a something of a sprawling list

A large amount of the Deployment History section adds little relevance to the subject. Including specifics like who is providing service in which cites in a county is definitely going too far [With the Exception of which city was it deployed in the world first]. I think it should be much more generic, definitely shorter. Possibly "Deployment History of FTTP" could have it's own article if it is wanted to be discussed further. I think here it should be limited three to five paragraphs. Covering what speeds, standards or equipment are in place in what years globally and unique developments affecting deployment. This would also be more likely to be read in it's entirety. WikipedianYknOK 12:15, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

It's a by country list, in an article that otherwise is not about particular countries. Problem is, as with the former Broadband Internet access worldwide article, there are too many countries in the world. Solution, as with that article, is to send each country's section to its particular Communications in my country article. Jim.henderson 02:13, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

Article update request

I had the following requests by email:

• I would find it interesting for the Wiki piece to consider separately

1. the FTTP bit-moving service and
2. retail services that use the bit-moving service. In fact, if there were a good title for the latter, it would make sense to me to move them to a separate Wiki piece. (Sometimes the same provider delivers both kinds of services, but not always.)

• I'm interested in what FTTP systems are using what technology. (I think active Ethernet is better than PON. I think BPON is already obsolete.)

I am no expert on this topic. Can someone sort this one out? -- Alan Liefting-talk- 05:27, 19 January 2008 (UTC)