Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

[deleted] t1_iwtph66 wrote

Reply to comment by AdventurousTime in FCC orders ISPs to show broadband 'nutrition labels' with all fees and limits by Sorin61

FTTN can be as performant as FTTP if implemented correctly, but the cost of implementing FTTN in that fashion is not much less than just actually doing FTTP

39

ttubehtnitahwtahw1 t1_iwu1ame wrote

FTTNWRFITATJSIFIMG?

16

PM_ME_TO_PLAY_A_GAME t1_iwugcl6 wrote

fftn = fibre to the node

fttp = fibre to the premises

16

fantasmoofrcc t1_iwugvmd wrote

fiber to the home (FTTH) isn't cool anymore?

10

IamreallynotaNPC t1_iwub39x wrote

And fttn can be shitty as cable. Souce: I have casair fiber to the home that fucks up more than when I had spectrum cable. Inconsistent as all fuck. Uptime, latency, speed (especially upload).

I pay for 1000/1000 symmetric and it is anything but...

Bonus is every time I call them they cannot figure out why.

10

E3FxGaming t1_iwukzkc wrote

I had a rough start with Deutsch Glasfaser FTTH and I developed a small program that automatically ran an installed speedtest CLI and recorded the result in a CSV file. I would then compile that data into a bunch of nice graphs on a weekly basis and send it to the ISP, which lead to them eventually fixing the problem.

If they wouldn't have responded I'd have automated the mail part too and just sent them a mail ("live") whenever the speedtest would return unacceptable results.

14

doommaster t1_iwug40n wrote

There is no practical reason not to do P2P FTTH anymore.
Unless you fear competition/regulation which is when GPON might be acceptable, still FTTH though.

The rest ist shit, expensive, crap.

1

FriendlyDespot t1_iwva6fk wrote

> There is no practical reason not to do P2P FTTH anymore.

Plenty of practical reasons not to do it point-to-point, even more financial reasons. If you're going house to house in a suburban neighbourhood then you don't want to be slinging multiple 144/288 strand cables down longer stretches of poles, and the only way to really avoid that with active installations is to instead have a ton of smaller access switches in a ton of curb cabinets, which you really don't want to do.

PON is perfectly fine for suburbs and exurbs. Point-to-point FTTH is only really suited for urban deployments with higher density access nodes, or in places with buried or otherwise protected paths that aren't vulnerable and exposed to the elements.

2

doommaster t1_iwvgfug wrote

I am not sure but a PON-Splitter is almost certainly more expensive than say blowing in 12 fibers over 300m instead of 2.
I have not seen PON deployed here anymore since at least ~2 years.
Fiber itself is so cheap, my 9 flat unit just has a patch box in the basement with 12 fibers, and that's it. they do not even care to match them actual demand, 12, 24, 48 is what they do here...

https://imgur.com/a/PrnX8VA that's how it looked in my buildings basement when they first hooked the panel up.

PON also has higher risk of branch failures induced by bad customer equipment and since customer can use their own equipment here, by law, PON might be problematic for the whole PON-splitted branch.

0

FriendlyDespot t1_iwvh773 wrote

> I am not sure but a PON-Splitter is almost certainly more expensive than say blowing in 12 fibers over 300m instead of 2.

Like I said, in suburbs and exurbs you're not just hanging 12 strands in point-to-point deployments, you're hanging 144s or 288s down long roads. If a driver takes out a pole in bad weather at night, then with a PON deployment your fiber guys have to splice maybe 2-4 pairs, while with a point-to-point deployment they're sitting there all night in shitty weather splicing up to 288 strands and taking a whole lot longer to get customers back online.

A splitter for PON is the same as a splitter for anything else, and they're super cheap commodity items. Pig-tailed cassettes are less than $1 per split in bulk.

1

doommaster t1_iwvmupa wrote

ok, it is all underground here anyways, risks of fibers ever getting damaged like that is down 0.
Even my parents home/village has P2P all the way.

0

FriendlyDespot t1_iwvnmfn wrote

Almost all suburban and exurban FTTx in the United States (where the article here is about) is aerial fiber slung from utility poles.

1

rsta223 t1_iwvzwla wrote

Not in my suburb. Our city-run fiber is all buried.

(FTTH is fantastic too - I'll be super disappointed if I ever have to move away from my symmetric gig)

1

[deleted] t1_iwv3cwn wrote

just for those who don't know

FTTH = FTTP different terms for same thing

Fiber To THe "House"/"Premises"

1

doommaster t1_iwv52bj wrote

FTTH is not FTTP, at least here. FTTP bundles, FTTB and FTTH PON/AON split in basement (which are not considered FTTH here).
But it seem to differ by region/country and even ISP.
Since about ~2 years now all the new deployments in my region are true P2P FTTH connection, with neither active nor passive splitting in buildings/premises...

One could also say FTTH is is a specific FTTP subset.... at least in our case here.

2

[deleted] t1_iwv5voo wrote

> But it seem to differ by region/country and even ISP.

That's because there is no formal definition of when to use FTTH vs FTTP, just rough guidelines.

for most purposes they're equivalent. when getting into the details of a multi tenant residence vs a home we're getting into details that only matter to use networking nerds

For example all the FTTP apartment buildings i've lived in before I got my FTTH house had fiber all the way to the individual unit. There was no termination at the building split out to ethernet like some do, but my state also has a law against internet vendor lock in on apartments IIRC

3