Talk:Fiber-optic communication

message: I will work on this soon.  There seems to be a lot of information on both source sections, and making a new article shouldn't be difficult.  johnpseudo 23:02, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I support this change. The communications section is too long compared to the rest of the optical fiber article, and the optical communication article is written to cover too broad a topic, "any form of telecommunication that uses light as the transmission medium," to ever become a coherent high-quality article. The Photon 04:59, 7 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Merger proposal

message: I think that historically, (e.g., in the '90s) fiber optics for cable television were typically analog rather than digital, carrying essentially the same rf signals that electrical distribuition systems would have carried. This led to different requirements on the transmitters (high linearity), and probably other differences to telephone network optical fiber communication. I assume that analog systems are at least still in use, even if they're no longer being deployed. Can anyone confirm this and edit it into the article? -- The Photon 01:21, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: See Hybrid fibre-coaxial. Downstream is always 'analog'; some systems digitize the upstream and transmit as baseband digital. Also, some FTTP systems use a seperate wavelength for cable TV type signals. Mirror Vax 07:19, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

text: Most cable systems today uses HFC and DOCSIS 75.181.99.157 (talk) 04:44, 21 December 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: Cable TV

message: 500MHz x KM doesnt work 500 x 0.5 doesnt equal 1000. should it be the quotient?Yellow Onion 05:57, 6 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Bandwidth-distance product 

message: Should "Ease Of Splicing" be "Ease of Fusion Splicing"?
The splicing that takes place with fiber optic lines is Fusion splicing. splicing takes you to a page that describes different types of splicing methods, not, not the one referring to what Fiber Optic networks use.
Fiber-optic communication#Comparison with electrical transmission
Zylstra555 (talk) 03:07, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Sure- go ahead and make the change. johnpseudo 14:26, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  Fun stuff... hopefully I wont kill it... Fusion splicing... seems like that stub works. Page updated. Thanks. Zylstra555 (talk) 17:31, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Ease of Splicing

message: The section on intrinsic modulators could use a second look. It's not clear that it really belongs in this article.--Srleffler (talk) 14:20, 25 October 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Intrinsic (in fiber) fiber optic modulator 

message: I have info and cited sources on this topic, but I am not sure if I should place this section in Fiber Optics, Fiber-optic communication or any other Fiber-Optic related article. Infinity Spiral (talk) 13:09, 26 October 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: It's already right here: Fiber-optic communication#Comparison with electrical transmission. johnpseudo 15:10, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

text: However, the disadvantages listed aren't useful .We are supposed to keep a neutral point of view and I think we should include the disadvantages too. If you can agree with that, then I can simply merge my facts into the article.Infinity Spiral (talk) 21:53, 26 October 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Should I include an article "The Advantages and Disadvantages of Fiber Optics over Copper Wire?"  

message: The article should discuss the feasibility of widespread fiber-optic connections, at what pace they are gaining popularity and the problems that may delay/prevent it from happening in the future. Is there a huge demand for it? How much would the service cost per month on average? Would replacing coaxial/copper underground cables throughout the country (and other countries) be too expensive a project? etc.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.65.229.62 (talk) 02:30, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Popularity 

message: I think Optical fiber cable should be merged into Fiber-optic communication. Optical fiber cable is currently a poor-quality article that reads like a compendium of technical information, rather than an encyclopedia article for a general audience.--207.233.88.250 (talk) 16:59, 10 March 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Hmm, I think maybe that article should just be improved. johnpseudo 18:45, 10 March 2010 (UTC)
replies: text:  No they are two different pages about different things - this article is about the communication over optical fibre, while optical fibre cable is about the construction of the cables.  it may not interest you personally, but it's worth keeping.  I vote not to merge --Opticalgirl (talk) 20:12, 30 October 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: merge with [[Optical fiber cable]]

message: The article seems to be saying that the advantages of fiber optic over coax are less attenuation and less interference. But isn't greater bandwidth also a big advantage? The article discusses the bandwidth of fiber optic cables at great length, but never compares with coax. It would also be interesting to know how they compare in terms of linearity and phase.--207.233.88.250 (talk) 17:06, 10 March 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: It may be true in the past, but recent developments in using more RF bands on Coaxial makes then more equal footing, with newer technology outpacing bandwidth over fiber optic in the future.  75.181.99.157 (talk) 04:34, 21 December 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Interesting and surprising. Do you have a citation? -—Kvng 17:21, 24 December 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: fiber optic versus coax

message: A number of issues with this. It does not mention modal bandwidth for example. There are several dated statements in it. Never say "current" or "highest ever recorded" but say when it happened. This is an active field, so something that was current in 2009 is old hat by now, and records today might be broken by the time someone reads it.  W Nowicki (talk) 22:01, 17 June 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: I did a few, but there are more. That section also makes the common confusion between MHz of bandwidth and data rate. That is, it forgets bits per baud. W Nowicki (talk) 23:24, 17 June 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: [[Fiber-optic communication#Bandwidth-distance product]] 

message: :Historically, there was a window used below the O band, called the first window, at 800-900 nm; however, losses are high in this region so this window is used primarily for short-distance communications. The current lower windows (O and E) around 1300 nm have much lower losses. This region has zero dispersion. The middle windows (S and C) around 1500 nm are the most widely used. This region has the lowest attenuation losses and achieves the longest range. It does have some dispersion, so dispersion compensator devices are used to remove this.
The above seems to have been removed anonymously without comment. It did have no citations, so no idea if it is nonsense or not. W Nowicki (talk) 18:11, 12 August 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Nearly all the article is sourced from "Fiber-optic communication systems" by Govind P. Agrawal.  The individual statements aren't sourced by individual citations, but all of the original material is in that book. johnpseudo 19:30, 14 August 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks User:Johnpseudo for cleaning this up. I've learned recently not to be shy about immediately reverting unexplained edits that you don't understand. They can always be reinstated if an explanation is forthcoming but if left, it gets forgotten or tangled with legit edits. --Kvng (talk) 20:43, 14 August 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: That's helpful, Kvng.  Just be sure to check the history for multiple adjacent bad edits so you don't leave one behind like W Nowicki did in this case. johnpseudo 19:56, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

text: That seems somewhat impractical to me given the degree to which the entire article relies on the Agrawal book.  The article as of this version is almost completely from the Agrawal book.  That would be hundreds of references. johnpseudo 14:25, 17 August 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Removed? 

message: 'Communication' is principally a social science, while telecommunications are the sciences and technologies of transmitting/receiving information, data, etc...  The principle article, Optical telecommunication has already had its title revised to reflect this.  If this proposed move is uncontroversial, I will retitle the article as Fiber-optic telecommunication. Best: HarryZilber (talk) 14:35, 6 February 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: I concur with this opinion.  When I gave the article this name in the first place it was borrowed almost word-for-word (it was "fiber-optic communication systems") from my textbook on the subject. johnpseudo 16:39, 11 February 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: I also concur with this opinion. I compared the differences on trends.google.com between 'Fiber-optic communication' and 'Fiber-optic telecommunication'. Historically 'fiber-optic communication' has received more searches since 2004. AstroLucasB (talk) 01:24, 20 December 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Proposed move from 'Fiber-optic communication' to 'Fiber-optic telecommunication' 

message: Sorry guys, but main picture displays really shitty design. Bad bad bad. Where are cable organizers? Are you totally dumb in your democratical germanys? SHAME ON YOU!!!  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.108.116.203 (talk) 12:28, 10 April 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Article main picture 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Fiber-optic communication. 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/20110717065456/http://www.toddulmer.com/work/lee_ulmerCLEO2006.pdf to http://www.toddulmer.com/work/lee_ulmerCLEO2006.pdf
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) 07:36, 31 December 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Editors of this article may be interested in the discussion at Talk:Silicon photonics#Fiber Optics & Silicon photonics. User:Ne0Freedom is trying to remove :Category:Fiber optics from :Category:Optics and instead put it in his newly created category, :Category:Silicon photonics. I strongly oppose this. His view seems to be based on the misconception that anything optical with silicon in it (even silicon dioxide—glass) is automatically "silicon photonics".--Srleffler (talk) 01:52, 22 March 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Categorization of Fiber optics 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 4 external links on Fiber-optic communication. 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:
*Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.alcatel-lucent.com/wps/portal/NewsReleases/Detail?LMSG_CABINET=Docs_and_Resource_Ctr&LMSG_CONTENT_FILE=News_Releases_2009%2FNews_Article_001797.xml&lu_lang_code=en
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070206122449/http://www.beyonddiscovery.org/content/view.article.asp?a=438 to http://www.beyonddiscovery.org/content/view.article.asp?a=438
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20061230102529/http://www.redbooks.ibm.com/pubs/pdfs/redbooks/sg245230.pdf to http://www.redbooks.ibm.com/pubs/pdfs/redbooks/sg245230.pdf
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20081011033903/http://www.fiopt.com/primer.php to http://www.fiopt.com/primer.php
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) 08:52, 30 September 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified