LEC copper removal from commercial properties
NANOG'ers; At least in Boston, commercial property owners are receiving notices that 'copper lines are being removed per FCC rules' and replaced with fiber. The property owner, not the network operators (or users of unbundled elements if that's even still a thing) are being presented with an agreement that acknowledges the removal, authorizes the fiber installation and provides for a minor oversight of the design. It suggests that no costs are involved in terms of hosting equipment. No power reimbursement. No rent for spaces used. There is an ominous paragraph in the letter that says if the property owner doesn't comply that tenants will lose all services including elevator phones, alarms, voice, internet and any copper/ds0 originated services. They didn't say 911, but that would go without saying. Has anyone heard of this? What FCC rule requires this? Thanks for any insights. Warm regards, Martin
Who becomes the Beneficial Owner of the Copper once Removed? Just Curious. LF On Wed, Feb 16, 2022 at 9:01 PM Martin Hannigan <hannigan@gmail.com> wrote:
NANOG'ers;
At least in Boston, commercial property owners are receiving notices that 'copper lines are being removed per FCC rules' and replaced with fiber. The property owner, not the network operators (or users of unbundled elements if that's even still a thing) are being presented with an agreement that acknowledges the removal, authorizes the fiber installation and provides for a minor oversight of the design. It suggests that no costs are involved in terms of hosting equipment. No power reimbursement. No rent for spaces used.
There is an ominous paragraph in the letter that says if the property owner doesn't comply that tenants will lose all services including elevator phones, alarms, voice, internet and any copper/ds0 originated services. They didn't say 911, but that would go without saying.
Has anyone heard of this? What FCC rule requires this?
Thanks for any insights.
Warm regards,
Martin
-- Liz ******* 416.660.5456
Looks like its abandon in place "AIP" from the agreement. On Wed, Feb 16, 2022 at 9:03 PM L F <liz.fazekas@gmail.com> wrote:
Who becomes the Beneficial Owner of the Copper once Removed?
Just Curious.
LF
On Wed, Feb 16, 2022 at 9:01 PM Martin Hannigan <hannigan@gmail.com> wrote:
NANOG'ers;
At least in Boston, commercial property owners are receiving notices that 'copper lines are being removed per FCC rules' and replaced with fiber. The property owner, not the network operators (or users of unbundled elements if that's even still a thing) are being presented with an agreement that acknowledges the removal, authorizes the fiber installation and provides for a minor oversight of the design. It suggests that no costs are involved in terms of hosting equipment. No power reimbursement. No rent for spaces used.
There is an ominous paragraph in the letter that says if the property owner doesn't comply that tenants will lose all services including elevator phones, alarms, voice, internet and any copper/ds0 originated services. They didn't say 911, but that would go without saying.
Has anyone heard of this? What FCC rule requires this?
Thanks for any insights.
Warm regards,
Martin
-- Liz ******* 416.660.5456
Do MSOs and CLEC/fiber providers require free power and space? On Wed, Feb 16, 2022, 7:59 PM Martin Hannigan <hannigan@gmail.com> wrote:
NANOG'ers;
At least in Boston, commercial property owners are receiving notices that 'copper lines are being removed per FCC rules' and replaced with fiber. The property owner, not the network operators (or users of unbundled elements if that's even still a thing) are being presented with an agreement that acknowledges the removal, authorizes the fiber installation and provides for a minor oversight of the design. It suggests that no costs are involved in terms of hosting equipment. No power reimbursement. No rent for spaces used.
There is an ominous paragraph in the letter that says if the property owner doesn't comply that tenants will lose all services including elevator phones, alarms, voice, internet and any copper/ds0 originated services. They didn't say 911, but that would go without saying.
Has anyone heard of this? What FCC rule requires this?
Thanks for any insights.
Warm regards,
Martin
For what a 100watt 1U box? -LB Ms. Lady Benjamin PD Cannon of Glencoe, ASCE 6x7 Networks & 6x7 Telecom, LLC CEO ben@6by7.net "The only fully end-to-end encrypted global telecommunications company in the world.” ANNOUNCING: 6x7 GLOBAL MARITIME <https://alexmhoulton.wixsite.com/6x7networks> FCC License KJ6FJJ
On Feb 16, 2022, at 6:14 PM, Paul Emmons <paul@emmons.mx> wrote:
Do MSOs and CLEC/fiber providers require free power and space?
On Wed, Feb 16, 2022, 7:59 PM Martin Hannigan <hannigan@gmail.com <mailto:hannigan@gmail.com>> wrote:
NANOG'ers;
At least in Boston, commercial property owners are receiving notices that 'copper lines are being removed per FCC rules' and replaced with fiber. The property owner, not the network operators (or users of unbundled elements if that's even still a thing) are being presented with an agreement that acknowledges the removal, authorizes the fiber installation and provides for a minor oversight of the design. It suggests that no costs are involved in terms of hosting equipment. No power reimbursement. No rent for spaces used.
There is an ominous paragraph in the letter that says if the property owner doesn't comply that tenants will lose all services including elevator phones, alarms, voice, internet and any copper/ds0 originated services. They didn't say 911, but that would go without saying.
Has anyone heard of this? What FCC rule requires this?
Thanks for any insights.
Warm regards,
Martin
Telcos have been trying/begging/warning of discontinuing copper for many years. Maybe the political and regulatory environment is currently allowing them to get on with it in some areas? I don’t think there is an FCC rule requiring the fiber as much as allowing the removal of copper. Brandon Svec
On Feb 16, 2022, at 6:01 PM, Martin Hannigan <hannigan@gmail.com> wrote:
NANOG'ers;
At least in Boston, commercial property owners are receiving notices that 'copper lines are being removed per FCC rules' and replaced with fiber. The property owner, not the network operators (or users of unbundled elements if that's even still a thing) are being presented with an agreement that acknowledges the removal, authorizes the fiber installation and provides for a minor oversight of the design. It suggests that no costs are involved in terms of hosting equipment. No power reimbursement. No rent for spaces used.
There is an ominous paragraph in the letter that says if the property owner doesn't comply that tenants will lose all services including elevator phones, alarms, voice, internet and any copper/ds0 originated services. They didn't say 911, but that would go without saying.
Has anyone heard of this? What FCC rule requires this?
Thanks for any insights.
Warm regards,
Martin
I found an alarmist email from a provider that I have not fact checked that states- The FCC has issued Order 10-72A1 that mandates that all POTS Lines in the USA be replaced with an alternative service by August 2, 2022. Brandon Svec
On Feb 16, 2022, at 6:16 PM, Brandon Svec <bsvec@teamonesolutions.com> wrote:
Telcos have been trying/begging/warning of discontinuing copper for many years. Maybe the political and regulatory environment is currently allowing them to get on with it in some areas?
I don’t think there is an FCC rule requiring the fiber as much as allowing the removal of copper.
Brandon Svec
On Feb 16, 2022, at 6:01 PM, Martin Hannigan <hannigan@gmail.com> wrote:
NANOG'ers;
At least in Boston, commercial property owners are receiving notices that 'copper lines are being removed per FCC rules' and replaced with fiber. The property owner, not the network operators (or users of unbundled elements if that's even still a thing) are being presented with an agreement that acknowledges the removal, authorizes the fiber installation and provides for a minor oversight of the design. It suggests that no costs are involved in terms of hosting equipment. No power reimbursement. No rent for spaces used.
There is an ominous paragraph in the letter that says if the property owner doesn't comply that tenants will lose all services including elevator phones, alarms, voice, internet and any copper/ds0 originated services. They didn't say 911, but that would go without saying.
Has anyone heard of this? What FCC rule requires this?
Thanks for any insights.
Warm regards,
Martin
Does it refer to this?? Hmm.... https://docs.fcc.gov/public/attachments/FCC-10-72A1.pdf ORDER Adopted: April 28, 2010 Released: May 4, 2010 [..snip..] 1. In this Order, we ask the Federal-State Joint Board on Universal Service (Joint Board) to review the Commission~s eligibility, verification, and outreach rules for the Lifeline and Link Up universal service programs, which currently provide discounts on telephone service for low-income customers. Specifically, we ask the Joint Board to recommend any changes to these aspects of the [..snip..snip..] Dont see any mandate, let alone about copper. -- //Shrikumar ---Original Message---
From: Brandon Svec via NANOG <nanog@nanog.org> Date: Wed, 16 Feb 2022 18:20:43 -0800 To: Martin Hannigan <hannigan@gmail.com> Cc: nanog <nanog@nanog.org> Subject: Re: LEC copper removal from commercial properties Reply-To: Brandon Svec <bsvec@teamonesolutions.com>
I found an alarmist email from a provider that I have not fact checked that states-
The FCC has issued Order 10-72A1 that mandates that all POTS Lines in the USA be replaced with an alternative service by August 2, 2022.
Brandon Svec
On Feb 16, 2022, at 6:16 PM, Brandon Svec <bsvec@teamonesolutions.com> wrote:
Telcos have been trying/begging/warning of discontinuing copper for many years. Maybe the political and regulatory environment is currently allowing them to get on with it in some areas?
I don t think there is an FCC rule requiring the fiber as much as allowing the removal of copper.
Brandon Svec
On Feb 16, 2022, at 6:01 PM, Martin Hannigan <hannigan@gmail.com> wrote:
NANOG'ers;
At least in Boston, commercial property owners are receiving notices that 'copper lines are being removed per FCC rules' and replaced with fiber. The property owner, not the network operators (or users of unbundled elements if that's even still a thing) are being presented with an agreement that acknowledges the removal, authorizes the fiber installation and provides for a minor oversight of the design. It suggests that no costs are involved in terms of hosting equipment. No power reimbursement. No rent for spaces used.
There is an ominous paragraph in the letter that says if the property owner doesn't comply that tenants will lose all services including elevator phones, alarms, voice, internet and any copper/ds0 originated services. They didn't say 911, but that would go without saying.
Has anyone heard of this? What FCC rule requires this?
Thanks for any insights.
Warm regards,
Martin
I have a note in to some FCC colleagues; I'll report back on what they say (assuming I hear back). Anne -- Anne P. Mitchell, Attorney at Law CEO Get to the Inbox by SuretyMail Author: Section 6 of the CAN-SPAM Act of 2003 (the Federal email marketing law) Author: The Email Deliverability Handbook Board of Directors, Denver Internet Exchange Dean Emeritus, Cyberlaw & Cybersecurity, Lincoln Law School Prof. Emeritus, Lincoln Law School Chair Emeritus, Asilomar Microcomputer Workshop Legal Counsel: The CyberGreen Institute In-house Counsel: Mail Abuse Prevention System (MAPS) (Closed in 2004)
On Feb 17, 2022, at 9:02 AM, Anne P. Mitchell, Esq. <amitchell@isipp.com> wrote:
I have a note in to some FCC colleagues; I'll report back on what they say (assuming I hear back).
P.S. In the meantime, the claimed order on which the letter rests is FCC-19-72A1 which you can find here, if you're in the mood for some light reading: https://docs.fcc.gov/public/attachments/FCC-19-72A1.docx It says nothing about this. And certainly the FCC would not issue something with such a short date fuse; that letter appears to be a scam using scare and pressure tactics. Perhaps they are looking to steal your copper. Anne -- Anne P. Mitchell, Attorney at Law CEO Get to the Inbox by SuretyMail Author: Section 6 of the CAN-SPAM Act of 2003 (the Federal email marketing law) Author: The Email Deliverability Handbook Board of Directors, Denver Internet Exchange Dean Emeritus, Cyberlaw & Cybersecurity, Lincoln Law School Prof. Emeritus, Lincoln Law School Chair Emeritus, Asilomar Microcomputer Workshop Legal Counsel: The CyberGreen Institute In-house Counsel: Mail Abuse Prevention System (MAPS) (Closed in 2004)
On Thu, Feb 17, 2022 at 11:09 AM Anne P. Mitchell, Esq. <amitchell@isipp.com> wrote:
https://docs.fcc.gov/public/attachments/FCC-19-72A1.docx
It says nothing about this. And certainly the FCC would not issue something with such a short date fuse; that letter appears to be a scam using scare and pressure tactics. Perhaps they are looking to steal your copper.
laughable that anyone thinks: "remove all copper, swap to fiber by 8/2022" is even close to a reasonable date/timeframe.
On Thu, Feb 17, 2022 at 11:12 AM Anne P. Mitchell, Esq. <amitchell@isipp.com> wrote:
On Feb 17, 2022, at 9:02 AM, Anne P. Mitchell, Esq. <amitchell@isipp.com> wrote:
I have a note in to some FCC colleagues; I'll report back on what they say (assuming I hear back).
P.S. In the meantime, the claimed order on which the letter rests is FCC-19-72A1 which you can find here, if you're in the mood for some light reading:
https://docs.fcc.gov/public/attachments/FCC-19-72A1.docx
It says nothing about this. And certainly the FCC would not issue something with such a short date fuse; that letter appears to be a scam using scare and pressure tactics. Perhaps they are looking to steal your copper.
Anne; I had the same thought and dug into it. I traced the email chain backwards as well as the office phone. The email (and named employee) are legit as well as the switch serving the office line. Everything adds up. I don't have a reason to believe it's a scam. They also noted they will abandon existing infra in place. Good observation. Thanks! -M<
I had the same thought and dug into it. I traced the email chain backwards as well as the office phone. The email (and named employee) are legit as well as the switch serving the office line. Everything adds up. I don't have a reason to believe it's a scam. They also noted they will abandon existing infra in place. Good observation. Thanks!
The way they are going about it, and the fact that they are misrepresenting the FCC's rules, and that the tenants are left holding the mess, is the scam. Anne -- Anne P. Mitchell, Attorney at Law CEO Get to the Inbox by SuretyMail Author: Section 6 of the CAN-SPAM Act of 2003 (the Federal email marketing law) Author: The Email Deliverability Handbook Board of Directors, Denver Internet Exchange Dean Emeritus, Cyberlaw & Cybersecurity, Lincoln Law School Prof. Emeritus, Lincoln Law School Chair Emeritus, Asilomar Microcomputer Workshop Legal Counsel: The CyberGreen Institute In-house Counsel: Mail Abuse Prevention System (MAPS) (Closed in 2004)
I think this goes back to 2016. This explains it better than I could. https://publicknowledge.org/the-fccs-plan-to-gut-tech-transitions-rules-is-b... Essentially Mr.Pai didn't change the rules, he pushed through the order ( FCC-16-90 ) that redefined what things meant so that the rules became toothless. On Thu, Feb 17, 2022 at 11:44 AM Anne P. Mitchell, Esq. <amitchell@isipp.com> wrote:
I had the same thought and dug into it. I traced the email chain backwards as well as the office phone. The email (and named employee) are legit as well as the switch serving the office line. Everything adds up. I don't have a reason to believe it's a scam. They also noted they will abandon existing infra in place. Good observation. Thanks!
The way they are going about it, and the fact that they are misrepresenting the FCC's rules, and that the tenants are left holding the mess, is the scam.
Anne
-- Anne P. Mitchell, Attorney at Law CEO Get to the Inbox by SuretyMail Author: Section 6 of the CAN-SPAM Act of 2003 (the Federal email marketing law) Author: The Email Deliverability Handbook Board of Directors, Denver Internet Exchange Dean Emeritus, Cyberlaw & Cybersecurity, Lincoln Law School Prof. Emeritus, Lincoln Law School Chair Emeritus, Asilomar Microcomputer Workshop Legal Counsel: The CyberGreen Institute In-house Counsel: Mail Abuse Prevention System (MAPS) (Closed in 2004)
Upon digging a bit more: Looks like a typo .. and a typo that seems have been copy pasted by so many providers all over the place. It must be 19-72A1, not 10-72A1. Do a Google Search for "Order 10-72A1" and you find tons of hits for that exact phrase quoted in your email, with 10-72A1, and everything else word for word, except on a different dot com. But one hit .. just one of those hits! .. has this instead: | The Sunset of Copper POTS (~Plain Old Telephone Service~) Lines FCC order | 19-72A1 (issued August 2, 2019) has officially granted telecommunications | carriers permission to abandon outdated, degrading copper POTs lines. So, it seems someone typo-ed the 19- as 10-, and everyone else copy-pasta-ed that. Ah fun. -- //Shrikumar ---Original Message---
From: Brandon Svec via NANOG <nanog@nanog.org> Date: Wed, 16 Feb 2022 18:20:43 -0800 To: Martin Hannigan <hannigan@gmail.com> Cc: nanog <nanog@nanog.org> Subject: Re: LEC copper removal from commercial properties Reply-To: Brandon Svec <bsvec@teamonesolutions.com>
I found an alarmist email from a provider that I have not fact checked that states-
The FCC has issued Order 10-72A1 that mandates that all POTS Lines in the USA be replaced with an alternative service by August 2, 2022.
Brandon Svec
On Feb 16, 2022, at 6:16 PM, Brandon Svec <bsvec@teamonesolutions.com> wrote:
Telcos have been trying/begging/warning of discontinuing copper for many years. Maybe the political and regulatory environment is currently allowing them to get on with it in some areas?
I don t think there is an FCC rule requiring the fiber as much as allowing the removal of copper.
Brandon Svec
On Feb 16, 2022, at 6:01 PM, Martin Hannigan <hannigan@gmail.com> wrote:
NANOG'ers;
At least in Boston, commercial property owners are receiving notices that 'copper lines are being removed per FCC rules' and replaced with fiber. The property owner, not the network operators (or users of unbundled elements if that's even still a thing) are being presented with an agreement that acknowledges the removal, authorizes the fiber installation and provides for a minor oversight of the design. It suggests that no costs are involved in terms of hosting equipment. No power reimbursement. No rent for spaces used.
There is an ominous paragraph in the letter that says if the property owner doesn't comply that tenants will lose all services including elevator phones, alarms, voice, internet and any copper/ds0 originated services. They didn't say 911, but that would go without saying.
Has anyone heard of this? What FCC rule requires this?
Thanks for any insights.
Warm regards,
Martin
I believe that should be 19-72A1. https://docs.fcc.gov/public/attachments/FCC-19-72A1.pdf Essentially, all services must be transitioned to fiber or wireless by August 2nd, 2022. Shane
On Feb 16, 2022, at 9:27 PM, Brandon Svec via NANOG <nanog@nanog.org> wrote:
I found an alarmist email from a provider that I have not fact checked that states-
The FCC has issued Order 10-72A1 that mandates that all POTS Lines in the USA be replaced with an alternative service by August 2, 2022.
Brandon Svec
On Feb 16, 2022, at 6:16 PM, Brandon Svec <bsvec@teamonesolutions.com> wrote:
Telcos have been trying/begging/warning of discontinuing copper for many years. Maybe the political and regulatory environment is currently allowing them to get on with it in some areas?
I don’t think there is an FCC rule requiring the fiber as much as allowing the removal of copper.
Brandon Svec
On Feb 16, 2022, at 6:01 PM, Martin Hannigan <hannigan@gmail.com> wrote:
NANOG'ers;
At least in Boston, commercial property owners are receiving notices that 'copper lines are being removed per FCC rules' and replaced with fiber. The property owner, not the network operators (or users of unbundled elements if that's even still a thing) are being presented with an agreement that acknowledges the removal, authorizes the fiber installation and provides for a minor oversight of the design. It suggests that no costs are involved in terms of hosting equipment. No power reimbursement. No rent for spaces used.
There is an ominous paragraph in the letter that says if the property owner doesn't comply that tenants will lose all services including elevator phones, alarms, voice, internet and any copper/ds0 originated services. They didn't say 911, but that would go without saying.
Has anyone heard of this? What FCC rule requires this?
Thanks for any insights.
Warm regards,
Martin
I believe that should be 19-72A1.
https://docs.fcc.gov/public/attachments/FCC-19-72A1.pdf
Essentially, all services must be transitioned to fiber or wireless by August 2nd, 2022.
I'm reading that document and that's not what it appears to say at all. This seems to be about discontinuing the artificial price restrictions of 2 and 4 wire dry pair loops that LECs resell to service providers, e.g. competitive DSL providers. I don't see anything in this order which would mandate that LECs discontinue their own DSL or POTS services. It would be especially ludicrous since in many parts of many markets, there is no alternative at this time. Shane
On Wed, Feb 16, 2022 at 11:20 PM <hak@cooper.edu> wrote:
I believe that should be 19-72A1.
https://docs.fcc.gov/public/attachments/FCC-19-72A1.pdf
Essentially, all services must be transitioned to fiber or wireless by August 2nd, 2022.
I'm reading that document and that's not what it appears to say at all.
As someone who participated in that proceeding, your reading is not totally correct, but much more accurate.
This seems to be about discontinuing the artificial price restrictions of 2 and 4 wire dry pair loops that LECs resell to service providers, e.g. competitive DSL providers.
It goes a bit further than that. Their prices are no longer regulated, under this particular regime but maybe others, and they can not offer the unbundled copper loop service at all. A key point is that copper loop Unbundled Network Elements (UNE) are no longer required to be offered in *urban* areas. Key distinction. In suburban and rural areas, UNE DS0 (copper loops) are still a required element.
I don't see anything in this order which would mandate that LECs discontinue their own DSL or POTS services. It would be especially ludicrous since in many parts of many markets, there is no alternative at this time.
True. And for this reason suburban and rural UNE DS0 are still required. For what it is worth, we fought against this discontinuance.
Shane
-- Fletcher Kittredge GWI 207-602-1134 www.gwi.net
On Wed, Feb 16, 2022 at 11:22 PM <hak@cooper.edu> wrote:
I believe that should be 19-72A1.
https://docs.fcc.gov/public/attachments/FCC-19-72A1.pdf
Essentially, all services must be transitioned to fiber or wireless by August 2nd, 2022.
I'm reading that document and that's not what it appears to say at all.
This seems to be about discontinuing the artificial price restrictions of 2 and 4 wire dry pair loops that LECs resell to service providers, e.g. competitive DSL providers.
I don't see anything in this order which would mandate that LECs discontinue their own DSL or POTS services. It would be especially ludicrous since in many parts of many markets, there is no alternative at this time. Shane
Here's the exact, troubling, language they use in the LEC letter for commercial properties: "If we do not here from you, or if you do not allow LEC access to your property to complete the fiber upgrade, all services provided to your tenants in your property over Verizon copper wires (voice and data service, as well as, alarm, elevator, and office lines) will be discontinued as part of the copper retirement plans that LEC expects to initiate in the near future. *This includes services provided through other providers using LEC's copper lines.* *After services are discontinued tenants with voice service provided over copper will lose dial tone, including the ability to dial 911."* Overall, it was poorly written and initially geared towards multi-tenant/residential, not a commercial office tower. They used the words "plan" and "expected". Warm regards, -M<
On 2/16/22 18:20, Brandon Svec via NANOG wrote:
I found an alarmist email from a provider that I have not fact checked that states-
The FCC has issued Order 10-72A1 that mandates that a*ll POTS Lines in the USA be replaced with an alternative service by August 2, 2022.*
Fake news. That's from 2010. Word search for "copper" returns nothing. https://docs.fcc.gov/public/attachments/FCC-10-72A1.pdf -- Jay Hennigan - jay@west.net Network Engineering - CCIE #7880 503 897-8550 - WB6RDV
As I posted earlier, it’s supposed to be 19-72A1. Shane
On Feb 16, 2022, at 10:30 PM, Jay Hennigan <jay@west.net> wrote:
On 2/16/22 18:20, Brandon Svec via NANOG wrote:
I found an alarmist email from a provider that I have not fact checked that states- The FCC has issued Order 10-72A1 that mandates that a*ll POTS Lines in the USA be replaced with an alternative service by August 2, 2022.*
Fake news. That's from 2010. Word search for "copper" returns nothing.
https://docs.fcc.gov/public/attachments/FCC-10-72A1.pdf
-- Jay Hennigan - jay@west.net Network Engineering - CCIE #7880 503 897-8550 - WB6RDV
👍🏻👍🏻👍🏻👍🏻👍🏻👍🏻👍🏻Noted!!! On Wed, Feb 16, 2022 at 10:39 PM <sronan@ronan-online.com> wrote:
As I posted earlier, it’s supposed to be 19-72A1.
Shane
On Feb 16, 2022, at 10:30 PM, Jay Hennigan <jay@west.net> wrote:
I found an alarmist email from a provider that I have not fact checked
The FCC has issued Order 10-72A1 that mandates that a*ll POTS Lines in
On 2/16/22 18:20, Brandon Svec via NANOG wrote: that states- the USA be replaced with an alternative service by August 2, 2022.*
Fake news. That's from 2010. Word search for "copper" returns nothing.
https://docs.fcc.gov/public/attachments/FCC-10-72A1.pdf
-- Jay Hennigan - jay@west.net Network Engineering - CCIE #7880 503 897-8550 - WB6RDV
-- Liz ******* 416.660.5456
Noted.... But retirees ...??? Against an Element that has its own place on the Periodic Table of Elements.... Kind of funny how new homes now are built with blue n red Plastic tubing for water!! Cu is $$$$$ Ju$$$$ $ayin Perhaps a deterrent to future “anticipated” THEFT and anticipated OutAge$ Because of... On Wed, Feb 16, 2022 at 9:25 PM Paul Emmons <paul@emmons.mx> wrote:
Saw this
https://www.nojitter.com/consultant-perspectives/decommissioning-copper-gets...
-- Liz ******* 416.660.5456
On Wed, Feb 16, 2022 at 08:58:21PM -0500, Martin Hannigan wrote:
At least in Boston, commercial property owners are receiving notices that 'copper lines are being removed per FCC rules' and replaced with fiber. The property owner, not the network operators (or users of unbundled elements if that's even still a thing) are being presented with an agreement that acknowledges the removal, authorizes the fiber installation and provides for a minor oversight of the design. It suggests that no costs are involved in terms of hosting equipment. No power reimbursement. No rent for spaces used.
I have the opposite story of a commercial property where fiber was installed, but they refused to remove the 12 pair copper, refused to remove a massive demarc cabinet, and then threatened the property owner that he couldn't remove it either. Pity I didn't know that when I removed it while cleaning up the huge mess. And yes of course I checked that all the pairs were dead. ... JG -- Joe Greco - sol.net Network Services - Milwaukee, WI - http://www.sol.net "The strain of anti-intellectualism has been a constant thread winding its way through our political and cultural life, nurtured by the false notion that democracy means that 'my ignorance is just as good as your knowledge.'"-Asimov
participants (14)
-
Anne P. Mitchell, Esq. -
Brandon Svec -
Christopher Morrow -
Fletcher Kittredge -
hak＠cooper.edu -
Jay Hennigan -
Joe Greco -
L F -
Lady Benjamin Cannon of Glencoe -
Martin Hannigan -
Paul Emmons -
Shrikumar.H -
sronan＠ronan-online.com -
Tom Beecher