Phasing out of copper
hugo at slabnet.com
Fri Nov 28 16:35:20 UTC 2014
Have some of the events around this topic going on in the US been brought
up? I'm thinking specifically of things like NY/NJ, post-Sandy plans to
just not replace copper and switch people to wireless or fiber instead,
letting copper deployments in existing markets degrade and pushing people
to FiO...fiber. Those would seem to be examples where there don't need to
be an explicit "plans to retire their copper plant" while still effectively
retiring them through failure to maintain.
On Fri 2014-Nov-28 10:46:03 -0500, Jean-Francois Mezei
<jfmezei_nanog at vaxination.ca> wrote:
>Currently in the midst of a CRTC policy hearing in Canada on future of
>competition in ISPs.
>Incumbents claim they have no plans to retire their copper plant after
>deploying FTTP/FTTH. (strategically to convince regulator that keeping
>ISPs on copper is fine and no need to let them access FTTP).
>For my reply I am trying to get more authoritative info to show that
>incumbents do have plans to retire the copper plant once enough
>customers have migrated to FTTP ( I heard that 80% migration is the
>tip-ver where they convert the rest of customers to FTTP to be able to
>shutddown the copper).
>Anyone have pointers to documents or experiences that would help me
>convince the regulator that incumbents deploy FTTP with eventual goal to
>be able to shutdown their old copper instead of perpetually maintaining
>both systems ?
>Also being discussed is removing regulations for access to ULL
>(unbundled local loops). In areas being upgraded to FTTP, are there
>services that really need copper ULLs and do not have an FTTP equivalent
>? (home alarm systems ?).
>When an incumbent states for the record that "retiring copper is not in
>their current plans", I know that it means that it isn't in their short
>term plans. But I need some evidence of what other telcos do to help
>show the incumbent is "spinning".
>Any help appreciated.
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Size: 836 bytes
Desc: Digital signature
More information about the NANOG