Obama flat wrong, at odds with FCC in framing telecom infrastructure as competitive market

Municipal Broadband Battles | Al Jazeera America: Amid concerns in some markets that big telecoms and cable companies are providing service that is too slow and too expensive, some cities are starting their own Internet services, spending millions of dollars to bring super-high-speed, or gigabit, Internet service to their communities through a new fiber-optic infrastructure. Proponents call it the single most important piece of infrastructure of the 21st century, attracting businesses, bolstering education and raising property values.

President Barack Obama has declared community broadband, as it’s called, a key to economic prosperity. “Today I’m making my administration’s position clear on community broadband. I’m saying I’m on the side of competition,” he said. (Emphasis added)

The problem with the president's framing telecom infrastructure as a competitive market is he's just flat out wrong. It can never be a truly competitive market with many sellers and choices for consumers due to the high cost of deploying fiber to the premise infrastructure. Those high costs have kept telcos and cablecos from upgrading their legacy infrastructures and building out fiber to all customer premises in their service territories to replace the outdated metallic cables designed for voice telephone and cable TV service of decades past. Instead, they've built limited fiber to the premise in selected high density "footprints" and redlined countless American neighborhoods, leaving many still on dialup that was state of the art technology when Bill Clinton was serving his first term as president.

Moreover, by furthering the notion that telecom infrastructure is a competitive market offering, Obama is at odds with the Federal Communications Commission that -- at Obama's urging -- adopted a common carrier regulatory framework early this year predicated on telecom infrastructure as a monopolistic market. Consequently, the FCC's Open Internet rulemaking requires Internet service to be offered to all customer premises requesting it -- as telephone service before it -- under the universal service and nondiscrimination provisions of Title II the federal Communications Act.

Suggested amendments to proposed Community Connect Broadband Grant program rules

Too many American communities lack adequate Internet telecommunications infrastructure, a situation President Barack Obama deplored in his 2012 State of the Union speech.  Lots of these communities would like to build their own fiber to the premises networks that can connect every home and business and provide fast, future proof service while keeping local dollars in the community.

A major stumbling block facing these communities is financing the cost of retaining engineers and consultants to do the necessary initial design and business planning work before any fiber infrastructure can be deployed.  The U.S. Department of Agriculture's Rural Utilities Service (RUS) is in a position to help with its Community Connect Broadband Grant program by creating provisions for technical assistance grants to defray these costs.

RUS is currently soliciting comment on proposed rules governing the Community Connect Broadband Grant program.  As written, the proposed rules contain no provisions for technical assistance funding.   The proposed rules also fail to take into account the often spotty, hit or miss availability of wireline connectivity that exists in many of these poorly served areas. Communities have the opportunity to file comment in the rulemaking by January 15 and request these deficiencies be remedied.

Below is sample comment language communities can file with the RUS suggesting amendments to the proposed rules to allow for technical assistance grants.  This funding will help enable communities to move forward with these sorely needed projects to ensure their citizens and business owners have the 21st Century telecommunications infrastructure they need now and in the future.  Comments can be filed electronically by the January 15 deadline by clicking on the "Comment Now" button in the upper right hand part of the rulemaking proceeding page linked above.
------------------
Sec.  1739.11  Eligible Community Connect Competitive Grant Project.

    To be eligible for a Community Connect competitive grant, the 

Project must:

        (a) Serve a PFSA in which Broadband Service does not currently 

exist. served by a telephone central switching office or similar facility where at least one premise is not 

offered wireline, facilities-based broadband service;

    (b) Offer service at the Broadband Grant Speed to all residential 

and business customers within the PFSA;

    (c) Offer free service at the Broadband Grant Speed to all Critical 

Community Facilities located within the PFSA for at least 2 years 

starting from the time service becomes available to each Critical 

Community Facility; and

    (d) Provide a Community Center with at least two (2) Computer 

Access Points and wireless access at the Broadband Grant Speed, free of 

all charges to all users for at least 2 years.

Comment: This amendment is necessary because broadband service is highly granular even in rural areas where availability of facilities-based, wireline service is spotty and can vary within communities and from premise to premise. 

Sec.  1739.12  Eligible grant purposes.

    Grant funds may be used to finance the following:

    (a) The construction, acquisition, or leasing of facilities, 

including spectrum, land or buildings, used to deploy service at the 

Broadband Grant Speed to all residential and business customers located 

within the Proposed Funded Service Area and all participating Critical 

Community Facilities, including funding for up to ten Computer Access 

Points to be used in the Community Center. Leasing costs will only be 

covered through the advance of funds period included in the award 

documents;

    (b) The improvement, expansion, construction, or acquisition of a 

Community Center and provision of Computer Access Points. Grant funds 

for the Community Center will be limited to ten percent of the 

requested grant amount;

    (c) The cost of providing the necessary bandwidth for service free 

of charge to the Critical Community Facilities for 2 years.

 (d) As technical assistance for the retention of consultants and experts for economic research and engineering and business planning and community outreach.

(e) Applications for technical assistance pursuant to Subsection (d) shall not be subject to Section 1739.17.

Comment: This amendment is necessary in order to assist communities cover initial diligence costs and to aid in the preparation of applications for Rural Utilities Service broadband loan and grant programs.  Proper diligence in the early stage of a project will help ensure the financial viability of planned projects and repayment of loan proceeds.

Sec.  1739.14  Matching contributions.

    (a) At the time of closing of the award, the awardee must 

contribute or demonstrate available cash reserves in an account(s) of 

the awardee equal to at least 15% of the grant. Matching contributions 

must be used solely for the Project and shall not include any financial 

assistance from federal sources unless there is a federal statutory 

exception specifically authorizing the federal financial assistance to 

be considered as such. An applicant must provide evidence of its 

ability to comply with this requirement in its application.

    (b) At the end of every calendar quarter, the award must submit a 

schedule to RUS that identifies how the match contribution was used to 

support the project until the total contribution is expended.

(c) No match shall be required for technical assistance funding pursuant to Section 1739.12(d)

Comment: This amendment is necessary because raising matching funding for diligence and planning purposes is considerably more difficult than for construction costs of deploying a project that has undergone diligence demonstrating its likely technical and financial feasibility.  It will help increase the likelihood of more community-based projects being undertaken and expanding the availability of broadband services.

Sec.  1739.15  Completed application.

Add new subsection (m) as follows:    

(m) Applications for technical assistance funding pursuant to Section 1739.12(d) shall include only 

those items delineated at subsections (a) and (b)(1) through (3).

Google Unveils Superfast Internet in Kansas City, Mo. - NYTimes.com

Google Unveils Superfast Internet in Kansas City, Mo. - NYTimes.com: Milo Medin, the company’s vice president of access services, said the technology and technical capacity were available to create this product on a global scale, but economics, such as the cost of constructing the fiber network in communities, presented a barrier.

Google's demonstration project does nothing to alter the cost and business model constraints that require communities to build their own fiber networks rather than investor owned providers.  While everything may be up to date in Kansas City, unfortunately for much of the United States it is not when it comes to premises Internet access.

It also starkly illustrates the dismal state of Internet capable premises telecommunications infrastructure in America -- accurately described as "incomplete" by President Barack Obama in his January State of the Union address -- where many must still rely on obsolete dialup modem technology that was state of the art when Obama's predecessor Bill Clinton was starting his first term two decades ago.  One city does not a network make.

“Broadband adoption” is an irrelevant non sequitur

More than a decade after the term “broadband adoption” was relevant, studies such as this one issued today by TechNet continue to use the phrase as if the United States was on the eve of the new millennium and Y2K was a topic of concern. In 2000, discussing “broadband adoption” was pertinent since “broadband” Internet connections were relatively new and distinct from the then commonplace dialup “narrowband” service delivered over legacy copper cable telephone networks.

In 2012, broadband adoption is a non sequitur since both the term “broadband” and the notion that people are migrating in large numbers from “narrowband” are badly outdated. Nowadays, the Internet can deliver voice telephone and TV video in addition to websites and email that was relatively novel for many in 2000.

People adopted voice telephone and TV decades ago. What has changed is the means over which these services are provided. Internet protocol technology and fiber optic connections allow voice, video, websites, email and many yet to be popularized applications to be delivered to peoples’ homes.

TechNet is talking about the wrong subject. The real issue isn’t “broadband adoption.” The real issue is lack of adequate Internet infrastructure. President Obama so in his January State of the Union speech in which he spotlighted America’s "incomplete high-speed broadband network.” While the president’s choice of terminology — “broadband network” — is technologically obsolete from this writer’s perspective, he is clearly on the right track in identifying the problem as one of infrastructure.

It’s time to retire the term “broadband adoption” to the history books and get on with modernizing the nation’s telecommunications infrastructure to provide all American homes fiber optic connections and the many Internet-based services they can provide.

Protecting investor-owned Internet providers from market failure is bad public policy

This USA Today profile of Lafayette, Louisiana's municipally-operated fiber to the premise network raises significant policy questions as to the proper role of the private and public sectors in providing premise Internet connectivity. It notes Lafayette like other community fiber projects faced significant resistance from private sector telco and cable providers bent on preserving their territorial hegemony even when their business models don't permit them to upgrade their networks to provide robust Internet connections to homes and businesses. The push back comes in the form of lawsuits, public information (or disinformation campaigns, depending on one's perspective) and state legislation barring local governments from building publicly owned and operated telecommunications infrastructure.

It's understandable the incumbent telco and cable companies would want to protect their service territories from competition given that telecommunications infrastructure -- like roads and highways -- tends to be a naturally monopolistic (or at best, duopolistic) market. That kind of market creates a winner takes all situation in which the winners in turn pick winners (those who are provided good Internet service) and losers (premises deemed too costly to serve and left off the Internet grid). Their problem, however, is the losers are naturally getting restless and petitioning for relief such as recently proposed Colorado legislation designed to lay the groundwork for the state to directly serve areas lacking connectivity.

The incumbent telco and cable companies may wish to rethink their current strategy of locking down failed markets and barring the door to public providers. The courts could well cast a jaundiced eye toward such uncompetitive market conduct and state laws designed to preserve what in many areas of the nation have become telecommunications backwaters due to what President Obama described in his January State of the Union address as "incomplete" Internet infrastructure.

I'm not sure those state laws could survive judicial scrutiny in the federal courts as they effectively create a state sanctioned monopoly in telecommunications. But unlike other nations, the state doesn't actually provide the service. Instead, their function is to protect private investor owned providers from the consequences of market failure. That's poor public policy because it leaves too many effectively disconnected from the Internet and the economic, educational and other benefits it affords.

Incumbent providers may also want to considering partnering with communities instead of fighting them. As the USA Today article notes, businesses approached Lafayette about expanding the network throughout the city as a way of drawing businesses. City leaders asked BellSouth and Cox representatives to partner on the project. But they spurned a private-public partnership that could have allowed them to share in the revenues, instead opting for a short sighted win/lose strategy.

Obama cites America's "incomplete" telecom infrastructure in State of Union address

Since this blog was created in 2006, it has been dedicated to the exploration of strategies and methods for the build out of America's incomplete digital telecommunications network that leaves millions disconnected from the Internet because modern telecommunications infrastructure does not reach their homes and small businesses.

It was thus very encouraging to hear President Barack Obama call out the nation's "incomplete high-speed broadband network that prevents a small business owner in rural America from selling her products all over the world" in his State of the Union address to Congress this week. Millions of Americans are painfully aware of just how incomplete Internet infrastructure is as they look only a couple of miles away or even just down the road or street to neighbors who have access while they do not.

The president also used his speech to call upon Congress to fund telecom and other critical infrastructure. Congress should respond to Obama's urging by providing technical assistance and construction funding for community-based networks to finish the job where investor-owned providers such as legacy telcos and cable companies cannot make a business case for doing so. This is what was done in the 1930s when market failure led to a similar problem with telephone service and electrical power and cooperatives and local governments filled in the gaps.

FCC draft broadband plan: Incorrect diagnosis, wrong prescription

The U.S. Federal Communications Commission today unveiled the underlying policy principles that will frame the plan it must present to Congress in February to expand advanced telecommunications infrastructure to ensure all Americans have broadband access. The FCC was charged with developing the plan under the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 signed into law by President Barack Obama in February.

A basic principle is encouraging competition to "build on the attributes of the American broadband ecosystem." That's something of a head scratcher as Tim Nulty and other experts have accurately pointed out that telecommunications infrastructure is a natural and not market-created monopoly. It's a lack of adequate infrastructure -- and not vendors who want to offer services over it -- that has brought about the large gaps in broadband availability in the United States.

Given that, it's not apparent how encouraging competition will even begin to fulfill the Obama administration's goal of universal broadband access. The problem isn't lack of competitors. It's lack of any providers because their for profit business models simply don't allow them to profitably deploy infrastructure within broadband black holes. No amount of enhanced competition can alter that business reality.

If the FCC accepts that reality, then its final recommendation to Congress in February must by implication call for alternative ownership and business models for last mile -- and some middle mile -- telecom infrastructure.

Obama proposes additional funds for broadband infrastructure

President Barack Obama said in a speech today at the Brookings Institution that more federal subsidies are forthcoming for broadband infrastructure as part of a renewed effort to create badly needed jobs. Whatever the amount, it will supplement the $7.2 billion already allocated in the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act Obama signed into law in February.

Here's the relevant excerpt from a transcript of the president's remarks posted on the White House Web site:

Second, we're proposing a boost in investment in the nation's infrastructure beyond what was included in the Recovery Act, to continue modernizing our transportation and communications networks. These are needed public works that engage private sector companies, spurring hiring all across the country.

Already, more than 10,000 of these projects have been funded through the Recovery Act. And by design, Recovery Act work on roads, bridges, water systems, Superfund sites, broadband networks, and clean energy projects will all be ramping up in the months ahead.

Whatever the additional amount agreed to by the president and Congress, there's still a long way to go given the consensus view that the $7.2 billion in the economic stimulus package represents a mere down payment on what the U.S. needs to invest to modernize its outmoded and incomplete telecommunications infrastructure as Blair Levin, the Federal Communications Commission's broadband czar, generally described the amount as the Obama administration prepared to take office one year ago.

FCC: More subsidies needed for U.S. telecom infrastructure

Just days before President Barack Obama took office this year, his then-technology advisor and now Federal Communications Commission broadband czar Blair Levin told the State of the Net Conference that the $6 billion allocated for broadband infrastructure in the forthcoming American Recovery and Reinvestment Act represented only a portion of the new administration's planned efforts to boost broadband deployment in the U.S. (Congress increased that amount to $7.2 billion in the final version of the bill.)

The FCC clearly signaled more robust federal subsidies will be needed in an update released Tuesday on its progress and plans toward developing an overall broadband build out strategy to achieve universal access as required by the economic stimulus legislation.

Current subsidies including the the $7.2 billion in grants and loan subsidies contained in the economic stimulus package "are insufficient to achieve national purposes," the FCC said in a Sept. 29 news release. The reason as explained in the news release: $20 billion in subsidies would be needed to fully deploy slow speed "basic" broadband that would be quickly outmoded. To bring the U.S. where it needs to be for the future -- fiber to the premises providing throughput of 100 Mbs or better -- the number rises to $350 billion.

Obama official: Half full broadband glass "will guarantee economic stagnation and decline."

This quote is from Susan Crawford, a member of President Barack Obama's National Economic Council, via internetnews.com:

"I assure you that the administration at the highest levels really is interested in broadband and cares about this national broadband plan," Crawford said.

"It's true that access to broadband doesn't guarantee economic success, but lack of access to broadband will guarantee economic stagnation and decline."

President Obama reiterates need for broadband infrastructure in weekly radio address

President Barack Obama mentioned the expansion of broadband telecommunications infrastructure in his weekly radio address today urging swift enactment of the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009. The measure, which cleared Congressional committees this week on track for passage by mid-February, includes $6 billion in grants and loans to finance broadband build out.

Here's the relevant passage from the president's address:

Finally, we will rebuild and retrofit America to meet the demands of the 21st century. That means repairing and modernizing thousands of miles of America’s roadways and providing new mass transit options for millions of Americans. It means protecting America by securing 90 major ports and creating a better communications network for local law enforcement and public safety officials in the event of an emergency. And it means expanding broadband access to millions of Americans, so business can compete on a level-playing field, wherever they’re located.

Economic stimulus measure includes $6 billion down payment on U.S. broadband infrastructure

The House Appropriations Committee today released an outline of the economic stimulus funding bill being readied for President-elect Barack Obama's signature after he takes office next week.

The American Recovery and Reinvestment Bill of 2009 will include $6 billion in grants earmarked for broadband and wireless services in underserved areas of the nation "to strengthen the economy and provide business and job opportunities in every section of America with benefits to e-commerce, education, and healthcare." The summary of the stimulus measure estimates that the $6 billion investment in broadband will produce a $60 billion multiplier effect for the nation's struggling economy.

This is just for starters. Blair Levin, a technology advisor to the incoming president, told the State of the Net Conference in Washington Jan. 14 that the $6 billion being set aside for broadband in the stimulus legislation represents only a portion of the incoming administration's planned efforts to boost broadband deployment in the U.S.

Update 1/16/08: For details on how the funding is parsed out, here's what I've obtained from the actual draft legislation.

Fiber infrastructure build out -- not throughput speed-- should be focus of planned stimulus funding

The Washington Post reports today a debate is brewing over how broadband should be defined under the incoming Obama administration's goal to fund new broadband telecommunications infrastructure as part of its planned economic stimulus package. Specifically, the debate is over what level of throughput defines broadband.

Throughput speed is not the issue. Building out fiber optic infrastructure over the local access network -- the so-called "last mile" -- is. Fiber provides a proven, future proof technology that can accommodate the rapidly increasing demand for bandwidth needed by video and other bandwidth-intensive applications. Art Brodsky of Public Knowledge correctly observes in the Post article that providing stimulus funding to telcos for increasingly obsolete metal wire-based broadband services would turn into a wasteful boondoggle.

History supports Brodsky's warning. The bell companies that today comprise AT&T, Verizon and Qwest were to have built out their networks with the tax incentives provided more than a decade ago under the Telecommunications Act of 1996 to provide fiber connections to all homes and businesses by 2006. They didn't. Consequently, the U.S. suffers with incomplete telecom networks that leave millions unable to get decent Internet access more than a decade after the law's enactment. Repeating this error would ignite a race to the bottom and leave the U.S. even further behind other developed nations when it comes to broadband Internet access and modern IP-based telecommunications services.

Rather than large telcos and cable companies, economic stimulus funding should be directed to local entities including for profit companies, nonprofit cooperatives and local governments to construct fiber optic infrastructure over the critical but long neglected last mile.

Obama calls for U.S. broadband build out

Here's the relevant passage from a speech U.S. President-elect Barack Obama delivered Thursday on his proposed American Recovery and Reinvestment Plan:

To build an economy that can lead this future, we will begin to rebuild America. Yes, we’ll put people to work repairing crumbling roads, bridges, and schools by eliminating the backlog of well-planned, worthy and needed infrastructure projects. But we’ll also do more to retrofit America for a global economy. That means updating the way we get our electricity by starting to build a new smart grid that will save us money, protect our power sources from blackout or attack, and deliver clean, alternative forms of energy to every corner of our nation. It means expanding broadband lines across America, so that a small business in a rural town can connect and compete with their counterparts anywhere in the world.

The President-elect raised the issue again two days later in his Saturday, Jan. 10 radio address:

We’ll put nearly 400,000 people to work by repairing our infrastructure – our crumbling roads, bridges and schools. And we’ll build the new infrastructure we need to succeed in this new century, investing in science and technology, and laying down miles of new broadband lines so that businesses across our nation can compete with their counterparts around the world.

Guiding principles for U.S. broadband infrastructure economic stimulus

As Congressional leaders and the incoming administration of U.S. President-elect Barack Obama mull economic stimulus legislation including a portion of which is expected to be devoted to telecommunications infrastructure to boost broadband Internet access, I offer these guiding principles:

1. The focus should be on the so-called "last mile" or local access network portion of the system. There's a broad consensus that the lack of adequate broadband access in the United States is due to technological shortcomings on this segment of the telecommunications infrastructure, its weakest link. The overall goal should be full build out of this currently incomplete but vital infrastructure to serve all residents and businesses.

2. The "copper wall" that comprises the last mile telecommunications infrastructure is the primary barrier to wider broadband Internet access. It has been obsolete for about a decade and will become increasingly so as demand for broadband access and more bandwidth intensive content like video grows. The copper wall should be torn down and replaced with fiber optic cable, either aerial or buried depending on local construction cost factors and neighborhood preferences. Calls by large telcos for funding for DSL over copper should be rejected. Funding for such projects would keep the U.S. lagging behind other developed nations on broadband telecommunications technology and constitute an economic bailout to build increasingly obsolete technology rather than a true stimulus.

3. The last mile is the most local element of the nation's telecommunications infrastructure. Accordingly, stimulus should favor local entities to replace copper with fiber such as locally owned private companies, local governments and fiber cooperatives, the latter aided by incentives to encourage homeowner-owned fiber over the last mile.

The 12 year period following the enactment of the 1996 Telecommunications Reform Act has shown providing tax breaks and other incentives to large publicly traded telcos has not resulted in adequate capital expenditure on infrastructure to serve the nation's future telecommunications needs or the selection of broadband technology best suited to do so.

As for private providers, Congress and the Obama administration should note that even generous subsidies to incumbent telcos to build out broadband infrastructure may prove indequate as seen from their less than enthusiastic response to a California Public Utilities Commission program that subsidizes broadband deployments in unserved and underserved areas with a surcharge on intrastate voice long distance calls.

The investment cycle of these companies is apparently too short to earn a return on broadband infrastructure investment even at the 40 percent funding level provided by the program -- and even for arguably obsolete DSL equipment proposed in the handful of projects approved by the CPUC in 2008. Accordingly, broadband infrastructure stimulus funding directed to community-based cooperatives, nonprofits and local governments would likely produce the most rapid deployments.

White paper calls on next president to form National Broadband Strategy Commission

When it comes to the proliferation of robust broadband access, the United States has relied too heavily on the private sector and has gotten less than impressive results, asserts the Benton Foundation in a white paper calling for increased public involvement by the federal government.

The paper urges the incoming administration to create a National Broadband Strategy Commission composed of members from the public, private, academic, nonprofit, and other sectors to produce "an ambitious, yet achievable, comprehensive National Broadband Strategy to deploy robust, affordable broadband to every household in America," by Jan. 1, 2010.

The commission should lay out a "roadmap and timetable" to provide all U.S. households access to "robust and affordable broadband" by the end of 2010 and "affordable access to modernized broadband networks that are as robust as those of any other nation" by the end of 2015, the foundation advises.

The foundation's recommendations are likely to be well received by President-elect Barack Obama, who said in an address last weekend that it's unacceptable that the United States ranks 15th in the world in broadband adoption.