Broadband Task Force report due in December, Schwarzenegger tells USC conference on digital infrastructure

California Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger addressed the University of Southern California's Annenberg Center for the Digital Future conference on California's digital infrastructure today. But despite the stated focus of the conference, Schwarzenegger devoted very little of his keynote speech to the state's digital infrastructure. Like the state's other critical systems such as water and transportation, the state's digital telecommunications infrastructure is years behind where it should be and now requires billions of dollars of investment to bring it up to date to serve California's current and future needs.

I had expected the governor would use the conference as a platform to unveil a report that his Broadband Task Force formed by executive order last year was due to issue this week. It will now come out in December, Schwarzenegger said during a question and answer session following his speech. The report is to make specific recommendations on "how California can take advantage of opportunities for and eliminate any related barriers to broadband access and adoption."

Data recently released by the Federal Communications Commission show nearly 20 percent of California residents were unable to obtain broadband DSL service from their telephone companies as of Dec. 31, 2006.

Schwarzenegger told the USC conference he's directing the California Public Utilities Commission to be "much more aggressive in pushing broadband." But the CPUC's authority to prod telcos and cable companies to build out their infrastructures -- which in many areas of the state are unable to provide broadband Internet access -- is sharply limited by legislation Schwarzenegger signed into law last year, the Digital Infrastructure and Video Competition Act of 2006.

While the legislation pays homage to the notion of wider broadband deployment, it also allows the big telcos and cable companies that dominate the state to avoid building out broadband infrastructure to as much as half of their service areas over the next four years. Backed by telco and cable companies, the statute effectively sanctions California's digital divide and makes any gubenatorial rhetoric to bring broadband to nearly all Californians ring hollow.

As Cisco Systems' Director of Technology and Communications Policy Jeffrey A. Campbell aptly put it in a panel discussion at the event: “The key is broadband infrastructure. We can have everything in terms of content, but if people cannot access them and at the appropriate speeds, it is worthless.”

Author of California legislation benefitting telcos solicited charitable contributions from Verizon

The Sacramento Bee is reporting California Assembly Speaker Fabian Núñez solicited $120,000 in contributions to his designated charities from Verizon three months after Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger signed Núñez's Digital Infrastructure and Video Competition Act of 2006 into law.

In addition, the newspaper reports AT&T made three grants of $5,000 apiece last year at Núñez's behest.

The law permits telcos like Verizon and AT&T to offer advanced broadband-based telecommunications services including Internet Protocol TV (IPTV) with a statewide franchise granted by the California Public Utilities Commission. The legislation authored by Núñez, AB 2987, shafted areas outside of urban centers such as Núñez's Los Angeles district because it does not require providers to build out their infrastructures, sanctioning digital redlining and leaving gaping broadband black holes in these areas intact.

A spokesman for Núñez issued the perfunctory denial of any link between the solicitation of Verizon and the legislation.

Federal measure would map broadband black holes, redefine broadband

Nate Anderson of ars technica reports on draft federal legislation, the Broadband Census of America Act, that would define broadband as 2Mbps and have the National Telecommunications and Information Administration create a searchable, Web-based map census of broadband availability. The cable/telco duopoly has historically resisted such maps since they would show large portions of their service areas don't include broadband access and discredit providers' claims that market dynamics are filling America's broadband black holes.

A broadband census has already been enacted in California as part of that state's Digital Infrastructure and Video Competition Act of 2006, AB 2987. It requires those providers who hold broadband "video franchises" issued by the California Public Utilities Commission to provide the PUC broadband penetration data by census tract each year beginning April 1, 2008.

California's AB 2987: Market competition in a tightly limited market

I agree in concept with Pacific Research Institute think tanker and TechNewsWorld columnist Sonia Arrison that allowing telcos to compete with cable companies for broadband video services as California's recently enacted Digital Infrastructure and Video Competition Act (AB 2987) provides is good public policy in that it spurs some degree of market competition. "California lawmakers -- and others across the nation -- would do well to learn from the success of cable franchise reform and discard recycled proposals to over-regulate the technology sector," Arrison opines.

The problem is that competition is geographically restricted, playing out in a limited market where both the telco and cable provider have a presence. Consumers not in these proscribed markets don't benefit from the increased competition envisioned by AB 2987.

In California and most states, there exists a de facto duopoly in which the big telcos and cable companies like AT&T and Comcast have the market all to themselves. There are few if any other competitors nipping at their heels and forcing them to provide more and improved services.

Exhibit A is the large number of broadband black holes that exist in California where hapless residents can't get broadband Internet access from their telco (who in AT&T's case tells them to "go suck a satellite") or from the cable provider (upon whose maps these would be customers simply don't exist). Here, AB 2987 fails to spur competition and better services and does nothing to expand broadband services to unserved areas of the Golden State since the legislation allows the telco/cable duopoly to offer services to just half of potential customers by 2012. That effectively locks the providers into the market they presently serve, creating two separate but unequal Californias -- one with broadband Internet access and the other without.

Broadband franchise legislation or not, AT&T not expected to deploy broadband to Tennessee small towns

AT&T is threatening Tennessee lawmakers that it will not invest in deployment of broadband in smaller towns if the state legislature doesn't pass a state video franchise bill backed by the telco.

A lobbyist for local governments opposing the measure however says even if it were enacted, AT&T would continue to concentrate on large metro areas of the state and leave smaller towns on the dark side of the digital divide.

Which is likely true because similar statewide franchise bills such as California's Digital Infrastructure and Video Competition Act of 2006 (AB 2987) -- which was also sought by AT&T -- requires big providers to deploy broadband to just half of their service areas by 2012, leaving non-urban areas out in the cold.

Will Comcast seek California state charter?

As demand for broadband Internet access grows, California municipalities and counties will invariably find themselves under pressure to amend franchise agreements with cable companies like Comcast to require them to extend service to neighborhoods lacking cable access. Even areas where AT&T and other telcos provide broadband via Digital Subscriber Line (DSL) could clamor for cable service since it offers a proven bundle of television and Internet access at speeds higher than DSL.

But if they do, will Comcast and other cable providers tell California local governments to take a hike and opt to obtain a statewide franchise under legislation that took effect earlier this year, the Digital Infrastructure and Video Competition Act of 2006?

Enacted last year as AB 2987, the law allows both cable and telephone companies to bypass local governments and instead obtain authority to offer video-capable broadband through franchises issued by the California Public Utilities Commission (CPUC). But AB 2987 also allows cable companies to operate under existing local government franchise agreements if they choose. So far, Comcast is doing just that and has not applied for a statewide franchise from the CPUC. (To date, only one cable provider, Cox Communications, has applied for a statewide franchise.)

If enough California local governments pressure Comcast to build out its cable plant to provide service to more neighborhoods, Comcast could well opt for a state charter under AB 2987. The reason: the law has very limited build out requirements that require providers serve only half of their regional service areas by 2012. Opting for a statewide franchise would provide Comcast and other cable providers an easy exit from local political pressure to expand broadband access.

How Comcast perpetuates broadband black holes

Even though it’s now free to expand its service area and apply for a statewide franchise from the California Public Utilities Commission, so far cable provider Comcast has not. It could be because it prefers to remain under existing franchises issued by local governments that impose no future build out requirements. California’s Digital Infrastructure and Video Competition Act of 2006 (AB 2987), signed into law last year by Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger, allows cable providers to do so if they choose.

In El Dorado County, for example, county supervisors sold out their constituents’ interests by allowing Comcast to operate under an urban gridline model. That component of the franchise agreement between Comcast and the county requires service only be provided only in areas where a large number of homes exist as measured by linear road mile.

The problem is El Dorado County isn’t laid out that way. There are many curved roads that measured linearly are longer than relatively straight roads with too few homes to meet the minimum under the franchise agreement. They connect neighborhoods that might otherwise qualify for service since they have same approximate density of homes as those situated along relatively straight thoroughfares.

Comcast could extend service to these cut off areas, but declines to make the investment necessary to reach them. It insists on sticking with an urban gridline model that’s inappropriate for a place like El Dorado County and only serves to perpetuate the many broadband black holes that exist there.

More wishful thinking from CPUC on AB 2987

The California Public Utilities Commission (CPUC) has issued what it says is the first statewide broadband franchise to a cable company, Cox Communications.

CPUC President Michael R. Peevey said the franchise allows Cox to serve four relatively small areas adjoining its existing service territory in the San Diego area, marking a rare occurrence of a cable company attempting to gain customers in a competing cable company’s territory.

Peevey predicts legislation (AB 2987) signed into law last year by Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger that put the state in charge of cable franchises instead of local governments is likely to spur competition among broadband providers. “This is good news for consumers, who will have additional choices of providers not only for video service, but for the broadband and telephone services that typically are offered over the newly-constructed cable facilities,” Peevey said. “The Legislature’s goal was to foster video competition and broadband deployment, and that is exactly what we see beginning to happen.”

I’m not as sanguine as Peevey. The costs of moving into an existing provider’s service area with new infrastructure are quite high. Consequently, telcos and cable companies are concentrating on their existing service areas. They negotiated low build out requirements in AB 2987 that only require them to deploy broadband to less than half of their service areas by 2012. In addition, cable companies are free to operate under the terms of local government franchise agreements that were in effect when AB 2987 became law earlier this year. That allows them to stand pat and not offer service to areas that currently don’t have service — hardly paving the way for an expansion of broadband as trumpeted by the CPUC’s Peevey.