Talk:Passive optical network

message: The text continuously talks about NTD but diagrammatically only draws the NTU presumably because of the CPE boundary. But in the spirit of making textual and diagrammatic versions self consistent and because both are clearly needed in the descriptions of services and boundaries I think the diagrams should be extended to include the NTD with some sense of boundary between "the network" and the customers premises.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Geeohgeegeeoh (talk • contribs) 23:48, 14 September 2018 (UTC)
thread_title: NTU and NTD

message: The last I saw some PON gear which works on TDM, they all had a power cable sticking into it. so what exactly is passive about it?
the above comment was by 59.145.141.130 on 2006-06-27T03:12:29 Riick 06:25, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: what is passsive

message: An attempt was made by an unregistered user to include bitrates for PON and GPON. Besides being entirely incorrect, I don't believe it is the purpose of the "PON" article to go into details about each standard. There are other pages with specifics for both BPON and GPON standards. Simply giving a clear and concise definition of what PON means, with minimal mention of equipment and providers seems sufficient.
For the record, bitrates are offered at different service levels depending on the service provider. There are no standard bitrate offerings, and they tend to change quite often even within the same prover. The BPON standard states the total allocated downstream bandwidth of of the shared PON is 622 Mbps and 2.4 Gbps for GPON. Of course a provider can and will oversubscribe the PON. The equipment is NOT the same between the two standards. Moving from BPON to GPON requires both new OLTs and ONTs alike. I don't believe there is any requirement for GPON equipment to be backwards compatible. The only thing that doesn't change are the PON elements themselves (the fiber medium, splitters, distribution hubs, etc.) Toddyboy711 (talk) 21:43, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Upon further research, BPON and GPON both redirect to PON. This may warrant some mention of speed capability. ITU G.984.1 states GPON is either 1.2 or 2.4 Gbps down. The G.984 page simply links you to the ITU specs. I am indifferent about including this info, as long as it is correct and properly cited. Toddyboy711 (talk) 22:17, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  BPON/GPON Bitrates and Equipment 

message: "As of early 2007, only time-division multiplexing was technologically practical."
This information may be up to date, but a statement like "As of early 2007" implies that the research is old and should be updated, either by including new information, or changing the statement to reflect mid 2009 (or the relevant date).Locopingvin (talk) 13:30, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Fiber to the Premises 

message: What was the reason for choosing exactly these splitting ratios: 1:2, 1:4, ..., 1:64 ? Why not for example 1:6, 1:18, 1:40 ? --PtBg (talk) 19:56, 20 January 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Reason for splitting ratios 

message: I just realized that the "Current status" section is actually from 2008, so hardly "current' any more. Three years at least out of date. Need to update and use citations that give dates at least. W Nowicki (talk) 23:48, 24 August 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Avoid dated statements 

message: Someone should really think about rewriting this article in the English language, it reads like pure gibberish. Is this a real thing or just some joke?  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.127.207.100 (talk) 05:30, 2 October 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Alas, this is the kind of jargon that is used in the telecommunications industry. It is actually better than some since it spells out some of the acronyms and has some wikilinks for more info. But yes, please do rework into more language that actually conveys some information. W Nowicki (talk) 15:58, 2 October 2013 (UTC)
thread_title: Anonymous

message: A bit more info in response to some posts in #what is passive, some 12 years ago.
The jargon garbage in the article noticed in other posts above stems from the fact that it seems to be deliberately written in a biased way with nary a mention of other systems, let alone their advantages or disadvantages. It's also almost entirely unreferenced.
This article utterly fails to mention Active Optical Network (AON), another FTTP techology, which delivers dedicated individual Fibres To The Premises (FTTP) [or To The Home, FTTH], with some companies (in the UK at least), providing full gigabit upload and download speeds. AON uses an active powered switching system, somewhat like a commercial Cisco powered Ethernet switched network (I think, I'm just an ex-PC office network engineer). I think this was the original plan for the Australian National Broadband Network back in around 2009, which I think is the more expensive option.
PON has a number of disadvantages for the customer, in that a passive optical switch (a bit like an Ethernet passive hub, which also needs power) shares a single main fibre's capacity in a street cabinet with a number of individual subscribers. This is called FTTC, Fibre To The Cabinet. "The last mile" to the premises, (and that article is also entirely filled with almost meaningless techo-jargon) as the article doesn't explain in the lede, is often through slow standard copper (or aluminium) telephone wires. At busy times the individual devices overload the shared fibre, and you get buffering, or latency and unsatisfied customers. This, I also believe is what got foisted on Australia by later governments, especially because it's meant to be cheaper, although costs have spiralled.
This information is signally lacking in the article, but I don't have the technical knowledge (or time) to write a section or article on Active Optical Networks.
More info: How Fiber-to-the-home Broadband Works (FTTH / FTTP) MinorProphet (talk) 13:52, 22 September 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  What is passive? revisited