[176497] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: Phasing out of copper
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Owen DeLong)
Tue Dec 2 21:18:22 2014
X-Original-To: Nanog@nanog.org
From: Owen DeLong <owen@delong.com>
In-Reply-To: <547898BB.80002@vaxination.ca>
Date: Tue, 2 Dec 2014 18:16:21 -0800
To: Jean-Francois Mezei <jfmezei_nanog@vaxination.ca>
Cc: Nanog@nanog.org
Errors-To: nanog-bounces@nanog.org
Depends on your desired outcome and goals. However=E2=80=A6
I would think that rather than trying to convince regulators that you =
know better than the incumbents what they intend to do, it makes more =
sense to explain to regulators why maintaining copper once sufficient =
FTTP adoption is complete is foolhearty and a waste of money. If you can =
show that doing so creates unnecessary costs for consumers and doesn=E2=80=
=99t preserve a meaningfully competitive environment (after all, how can =
your services that are limited to being delivered over copper possibly =
compete effectively with FTTP?), I would think that should show the =
regulators that regardless of what the incumbents are saying, copper=E2=80=
=99s days as a delivery mechanism are numbered and that meaningful =
competition in the future requires competitive access to FTTP.
Most alarm systems these days simply use a POTS circuit and many are now =
capable of using IP service via an ethernet port, so the days of =
requiring a dry copper pair (ULL) for an alarm circuit are numbered. You =
might be able to make a case (especially in Alberta) for =E2=80=9CFarmer =
Lines=E2=80=9D still requiring dry copper pairs, but even that is kind =
of sketchy these days.
If you=E2=80=99re trying to preserve access to dry copper for some =
reason, perhaps more information about your real goal and the real =
reasons behind it might help. If you=E2=80=99re trying to remain =
competitive, then I think access to unbundled fiber services is really =
where you should focus your efforts.
Owen
> On Nov 28, 2014, at 7:46 AM, Jean-Francois Mezei =
<jfmezei_nanog@vaxination.ca> wrote:
>=20
> Currently in the midst of a CRTC policy hearing in Canada on future of
> competition in ISPs.
>=20
> 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).
>=20
> 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).
>=20
> 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 ?
>=20
> 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 ?).
>=20
>=20
>=20
>=20
> 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".
>=20
> Any help appreciated.
