[Kieron]

Originally Posted by devilcv8

Node cabinets are usually near the pillar that feeds an area, however in some cases they are no where near the pillar and results in excessive copper length.

I did say typically

Close. FTTC fibre does not come from a FTTN cabinet. In fact the only difference in the fibre run between FTTP and FTTC is where the fibre ends at or near the premises

If FFTC doesn't come from the cabinet, where dos it come from?

I think I did state the difference between FTTN and FTTC endpoints correctly.

extending fibre from the node to the premises won’t give you the same speeds as FTTP as the nodes only have 2 fibres connecting them back into the network and are speed limited. There are some good network diagrams that show the various FTTx variants.

I think your referring to the actual optical distribution network here. At some point, a network has to congregate to a shared cabling resource. An NBN cabinet may have two fibers entering but its the devices at either end that determines the speed. Cabinets in turn congregate back to another central point and so on.

Sure, those cabinet cables have a limited shared speed but as new tech comes along, the endpoint devices can been upgraded as required regardless of where they are physically located.

What was the original FTTP network topology -

Devices in phone exchanges and individual fibres to each home?

Devices in exchanges and backbone fibre cables up streets with taps to each home?

Mini exchanges around suburbs with fibre to each home or backbone up streets with taps to homes?

Mini exchanges around suburbs with fibre cables up streets with taps to each home?

FTTN is a waste of everyone’s time and money. The only benefit is allowing more premises to be connected quicker, however even that is questionable due to the delay when the libs took over and directed NBN to stop.
We have 10s of thousands of nodes that have batteries that will require replacing every 5 years, active equipment that requires power and can fail resulting in outages and requires the crappy distribution copper network which leaves far too many withsub ADSL2+ speeds.

Off my soapbox now.

My guess is most of Australia would still be waiting for NBN if it remained 100% FTTP, stunting the growth of internet in Australia, FTTN is fast enough and is still expandable.

I would have thought the exchanges housing the networking equipment for FTTN would require power backup equipment and associated maintenance?