Copper Retirement Goal Raises Questions of What Else the FCC Must Do

The most direct way to accelerate copper retirement would be to require it as part of qualifying for BEAD funding, emailed Matt Walker of telecommunications analyst firm MTN Consulting. While paying telcos "to retire the plant ... is not ideal from a free market perspective, [it] is most straightforward and most likely to work." He said burdensome regulations aren't the chief issue slowing copper retirement, and FCC language indicating otherwise is a political talking point. In reality, the chief issue is that telcos upgrade networks as slowly as possible, Walker said. "They are happy to keep old technology that has already been depreciated on the books, if it works and it is supporting revenue-bearing services."

USTelecom said copper retirement rules need reform in a January letter to the incoming Congress and the new presidential administration (see 2501240058). The company didn't comment now.

The FCC's March orders went beyond what USTelecom had been seeking, emailed Public Knowledge Senior Vice President Harold Feld. "At this point, it is basically 'fill out an application and pinky swear everything is good.'" He said it's also unclear if data exists indicating what issues are delaying copper retirement. The agency could try to preempt states that still have a review process, but Section 152 of the Communications Act -- governing interstate communications -- and U.S. Supreme Court precedent in interpreting it would seem to make that a losing approach, Feld added.

The March orders "really greased the skids" for incumbent local exchange carriers (ILECs), with no obvious big regulatory overhangs still to address, said Sean Sullivan, vice president-product management and regulatory affairs for communications services provider MetTel. As telcos transition from legacy copper networks, the FCC could be useful by providing information to end users, such as consumers and small businesses, about options beyond the ILECs' replacement network, especially since not all copper replacement options are equal, Sullivan told us. They typically can handle voice calls, but not all alarm system circuits or fax machines work with VoIP, he said.

Numerous countries have set out copper retirement plans and timelines, while others are generally expecting incumbents to disclose their copper migration and switch-off plans well in advance, providing customers with sufficient notice, emailed Omdia telecom regulatory analyst Sarah McBride. She said raising awareness among end users "is most critical." Regulators frequently ensure that telcos prioritize protecting consumers during copper network retirements by requiring that they formally notify wholesale and retail customers about time frames, replacement products and pricing terms, she said. There's also an emphasis on regulatory regimes that include fiber access in wholesale obligations, transferring those obligations from copper, she added.

McBride said regulators such as the U.K. Office of Communications are gradually relaxing rules that obligate incumbents to provide wholesale access to their copper networks, replacing them with obligations to offer fiber network access. National regulators are often taking "push" and "pull" regulatory stances for incumbents shutting down legacy copper networks, she said: "Push" countries have designed policies to replace copper networks, while "pull" countries focus on incentivizing stakeholders to encourage customer migration so copper networks can be retired. She said Australia and Saudi Arabia followed a push model by setting up national broadband network companies to execute fiber deployment and copper switch-off to reduce execution risks. Sweden and Egypt followed a pull model to incentivize fiber deployment for incumbents and uptake by consumers.

The FCC has already adopted many best practices, such as eliminating discontinuance requirements of wholesale services and the need for service providers to obtain agency approval before upgrading legacy services, McBride said.