In potential model for nation, California poised to scale up open access fiber

California is poised to adopt a model of open access fiber infrastructure. The state is initially focusing on “middle mile” transmission infrastructure but could later extend the model that structurally separates end user services from the fiber that delivers them to “last mile” distribution infrastructure connecting customer premises.

The model, financed by a current state budget allocation of $3.5 billion for state owned transmission infrastructure and a similar amount for distribution infrastructure in the form of grants and loan securitization, dovetails with the current federal regulatory regime put in place in 2018 that regards the service layer as distinct from infrastructure, regulating IP services as information services under Title I of the Communications Act of 1934.

It also emerges one year after the U.S. Federal Communications Commission conditionally repealed rules put in place by the 1996 amendment to the act requiring incumbent telephone companies to sell wholesale access to its proprietary infrastructure to competitive local exchange carriers -- CLECs. That heightens the need for open access transmission infrastructure such as that being planned in California.

Both federal policies also pave the way for non-incumbents/CLECs including public sector entities and consumer telecom cooperatives to more widely build out and operate open access fiber distribution networks. Incumbent telcos and CLECs are limited by their business models requiring rapid returns on investment and relatively high ARPU. Consequently, these investor-owned companies offer limited distribution fiber in select neighborhoods most likely to meet those requirements, leaving the majority of homes without fiber connections as legacy copper telephone infrastructure has become obsolete as demand for quality, reliable connectivity rises rapidly.

Instead of mitigating risk by cherry picking select neighborhoods, the open access model separates end user services from infrastructure. It thus spreads the risk of areas that are costlier to build fiber to all doorsteps by aggregating demand across a broad customer base, cross subsidizing the high-cost areas from revenues generated by businesses and institutions. That’s how the Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF) explained it in comments filed with the California Public Utilities Commission (CPUC) this month. In addition, the EFF recommends the CPUC develop a new license category for transmission infrastructure. In order to obtain licensure, the infrastructure would have to be offered on an open access basis to distribution infrastructure operators at affordable rates and offering sufficient capacity.

CLECs fear loss of access to copper loops being retired and replaced with fiber

Competitive Local Exchange Carriers (CLECs) established under the federal Telecommunications Act of 1996 that requires Incumbent Local Exchange Carriers (ILECs) to sell them access to their copper cable loops apparently fear the copper is literally about to be pulled out from under them and replaced with fiber, leaving them without access to their customers.

An organization of California CLECs, the California Association of Competitive Telecommunications Companies (CALTEL), petitioned the California Public Utilities Commission to adopt rules requiring ILECs to obtain advance approval from the CPUC before retiring copper loops and replacing them with fiber and demonstrate doing so would be in the public interest.

The CPUC declined, instead requiring ILECs to notify the CPUC and all CLECs interconnected with their copper plants before replacing copper with fiber. In addition, ILECs must engage in "good faith commercial negotiations" CLECs that want to purchase or lease the copper loop, the CPUC said in a Nov. 6 news release.

"I believe that this decision balances state and federal goals of promoting the deployment of broadband networks against the interests of competitors to retain access to the copper loop," Commissioner Rachelle Chong stated in the news release.

ILECs have long chafed under the line sharing requirements of the 1996 federal reform law and have dragged their feet and litigated with CLECs seeking to connect to their lines. Apparently CLECs now fear ILECs are about to use their ultimate weapon to make them go away for good, rendering them irrelevant by replacing their copper with fiber since they don't have to provide CLECs access to their proprietary fiber under a 2006 U.S. Court of Appeals ruling.

But ILECs have largely resisted employing the fiber strategy on CLECs since it requires them to make substantial investments in upgrading their wireline infrastructures that they have been reluctant to make. It's possible ILECs are now concluding doing so is worth it because it both disposes of pesky CLECs while also enabling them to exclusively offer far more advanced IP-based services that can be more reliably delivered over fiber than copper.

It will be interesting to watch how this plays out in California and other states and whether CLECs will bid on telco copper loops made obsolete by fiber. Probably few will since copper does not provide a future growth path for offering advanced services due to its technological limitations as have been painfully illustrated with the limited range and throughput of DSL over copper. In addition, aged copper loops are likely to be a low repair priority for ILECs, making it difficult for CLECs to provide reliable service. This could be the beginning of the end for CLECs.

"Copper cartel" of telcos has anti-competitive stranglehold over U.S. last mile telecom infrastructure, CLEC complains

U.S. telcos such as AT&T and Verizon comprise a "copper cartel" that maintain an anti-competitive stranglehold over the nation's last mile telecommunications infrastructure, the head of one of the largest competitive local exchange carriers created under the federal Telecommunications Act of 1996 told Congress this week.

“The predominant issue of 21st century telecommunications is broadband choice and options for businesses and consumers which allow them to choose their broadband provider based on customer need," XO Communications CEO Carl J. Grivner told the U.S. House Telecommunications Subcommittee on Telecommunications and the Internet, according to a news release issued by the CLEC. "But we continually face incumbents’ efforts to restrict access to essential last mile links that are critical to competitive broadband offerings.”

Griver complained telcos are using provisions of the 1996 law to get around rules requiring them to sell last mile connections at wholesale rates.