Fiber optic FTTS <---> FTTH

  • Good evening

    Our street was opened not long ago and various pipes were replaced (water, etc.).
    Swisscom has installed Fiber to the street (FTTS).
    I would be interested to know why you don’t just put fiber optics into your houses (Fiber to the home, FTTH) if you’re already tearing up the whole street.

    Thank you very much and kind regards

    Roland

    Show original language (German)
    • Basically, FTTH would be the ideal solution if it wasn’t times more expensive and work was also necessary in the houses. These are usually very complex and cannot always be carried out as desired. With FTTS we are able to bring very high bandwidths to many more connections very quickly. So more customers benefit than if we only built FTTH. In addition, in 2-3 years we will upgrade all FTTS connections to g.fast, which will then enable speeds of up to 800 MBit/s. So there is still a lot of potential in copper. And you can certainly live with that for a few more years 🙂

    It is cheaper to run the last 100-200 m with copper than to put a fiber optic connection in every house. Since the copper cables are already there, which is not the case with a fiber optic connection in every house. Important FTTS is always operated with vectoring on the copper side.

    Show original language (German)

    Basically, FTTH would be the ideal solution if it wasn’t times more expensive and work was also necessary in the houses. These are usually very complex and cannot always be carried out as desired. With FTTS we are able to bring very high bandwidths to many more connections very quickly. So more customers benefit than if we only built FTTH. In addition, in 2-3 years we will upgrade all FTTS connections to g.fast, which will then enable speeds of up to 800 MBit/s. So there is still a lot of potential in copper. And you can certainly live with that for a few more years 🙂

    Show original language (German)
    6 months later

    @Anonymous: FTTB would certainly be intended for the longer term.. so you’ll be tearing up the road again if you go to GPON.. with in-house cabling you can argue about who should pay for it, but with FTTB you can have a P2P connection up to You can’t get the central office with the 2nd step from FTTS to xPON, and the additional hardware on the street clouds your ecological balance: [http://www.golem.de/news/deutsche-telekom-vectoring-jagt-den-stromverbrauch-hoch-1512-117971.html](http://www.golem.de/news/deutsche-telekom- vectoring-chase-power-consumption-high-1512-117971.html)

    Show original language (German)

    @Anonymous There is definitely a difference between cables in the house and cables in the street. Of course - at the moment the signal for the customer comes from the telephone socket in both cases, but with FTTB a lot has to go wrong so that you don’t have the maximum speed - and assuming the microCANs also go to the G.Fast successor, there will even be giga-fast later on. notaben without further expansion. With FTTS, on the other hand, for the next stage the glass from the distribution point has to be pulled into the house - and that is supposed to be done with xPON. That’s a different matter whether you have a dedicated line to the house or just to the distribution point.
    You can also extend the fiber from the basement into the apartment and then have FTTH - that’s not possible with FTTS because the hardware stays in the DP.
    Or do you pull cables directly from the control center again in the next step? The way Andreas Thoeny presented it is the xPON expansion step from the DP into the house.

    Show original language (German)