FiberLinkBefore any node gets drawn, one decision sets the cost of the whole build: does every subscriber get their own fiber, or do they share one? Everything downstream — cable counts, cabinet sizes, loss budget, the day you next dig — follows from that.
Point-to-point
One dedicated fiber from the exchange to each endpoint. No splitters, so the loss budget is nearly all distance and joints — which means very long reach and very high per-customer capacity.
It is the right answer for business links, cell backhaul, data centre interconnect and anything with an SLA. It is the wrong answer for a thousand homes, because you need a thousand fibers and a thousand ports.
GPON
One feeder fiber from the OLT is split passively among 32 or 64 subscribers. Shared capacity, far fewer fibers, no powered equipment between the exchange and the home. This is what most residential and small-business fiber is built on, and its economics are hard to beat above roughly 20 homes per kilometre of route.
The tradeoff is the loss budget. Splitting is expensive in decibels, so reach is limited — typically up to 20 km, less once you take deep splits and a planning margin.
Do this on your phone instead.
FiberLink runs the whole subtraction for you as you build the tree — every node shows its own line-by-line math, and the finished plan exports as a PDF. Get it free on Google Play →
FTTH distribution
Strictly, FTTH is what you are delivering rather than how; in practice it usually means a PON built as a feeder, a street cabinet with a first-stage split, and a distribution layer with second-stage splitters near the homes. It is GPON arranged for real streets.
Choose the split points around access, not geometry: cabinets you can reach at 2 a.m., chambers that don't flood, poles with room for a closure.
The choice, as a table
| Situation | Reason | Pick |
|---|---|---|
| Dense housing, mixed usage | Cost per home dominates | GPON / FTTH |
| Business park, SLA traffic | Dedicated capacity | Point-to-point |
| Ribbon village along one road | Unbalanced taps win | FTTH + taps |
| Long rural feeder, few homes | Budget is distance-limited | P2P or shallow split |
| Apartment riser | Short drops, high density | Deep split PON |
Test the decision before you commit
The honest way to choose is to model both. Build the point-to-point version and the split version of the same area, look at what each does to received power at the furthest drop, and count the cable each one needs. That comparison takes twenty minutes on a phone and can move a five-figure line on a build estimate.
Whichever you choose, write the reasoning into the plan. The next engineer to touch the area will want to know why the split sits where it sits.