[176434] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: Phasing out of copper
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Hugo Slabbert)
Fri Nov 28 11:35:31 2014
X-Original-To: Nanog@nanog.org
Date: Fri, 28 Nov 2014 08:35:20 -0800
From: Hugo Slabbert <hugo@slabnet.com>
To: Jean-Francois Mezei <jfmezei_nanog@vaxination.ca>
In-Reply-To: <547898BB.80002@vaxination.ca>
Cc: Nanog@nanog.org
Errors-To: nanog-bounces@nanog.org
--aVD9QWMuhilNxW9f
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed
Content-Disposition: inline
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Have some of the events around this topic going on in the US been brought=
=20
up? I'm thinking specifically of things like NY/NJ, post-Sandy plans to=20
just not replace copper and switch people to wireless or fiber instead,=20
letting copper deployments in existing markets degrade and pushing people=
=20
to FiO...fiber. Those would seem to be examples where there don't need to=
=20
be an explicit "plans to retire their copper plant" while still effectively=
=20
retiring them through failure to maintain.
--
Hugo
On Fri 2014-Nov-28 10:46:03 -0500, Jean-Francois Mezei=20
<jfmezei_nanog@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.
--aVD9QWMuhilNxW9f
Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name="signature.asc"
Content-Description: Digital signature
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.11 (GNU/Linux)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=XTKf
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
--aVD9QWMuhilNxW9f--
