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 <bs...@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 <hanni...@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

Reply via email to