Phasing out of copper

Jean-Francois Mezei jfmezei_nanog at
Wed Dec 3 02:51:39 UTC 2014

On 14-12-02 21:16, Owen DeLong wrote:
> Depends on your desired outcome and goals. However…

Context: Canadian incumbents deny to the regulator that they have
intentions to turn off copper. (but to shareholders, openly say they
will shut it donw, howveer, they plan only to shutdown active equipment
and leave copper in the poles. Their fibre is hung off the same steel
support line as copper).

One reason is that by pretending that copper is here to stay and is
competitive, they hope to convicne CRTC that mandating wholesale access
to FTTP is not necessary.

> it makes more sense to explain to regulators why maintaining copper once sufficient FTTP adoption
> is complete is foolhearty and a waste of money.

Yeah, that is the way I am spinning it. (hey, I learn about spin from
the best - the canadian incumbents :-)

> If you’re trying to preserve access to dry copper for some reason, 

I am the only one in the whole proceeding who is advocating for the
earliest possible widthdrawal fo copper.  The earlier they can remove
irt, the easier it is for them to justify the investment, and the less
reasons they have for preventing access to FTTP.

The confirmation from someone else in the thread that Comcast stops
selling access to copper once FTTP is up is a good point to make.

I am up on Thursday morning. Am second to last to speak, so hopefully I
can make a good impression. (this is for round two, first round finished

More information about the NANOG mailing list