Should BEAD green subsidize greenfield FTTH?

Legacy incumbent telephone and cable companies might conceivably seek state subsidies under the federal government’s Broadband Equity, Access and Deployment (BEAD) program is to edge out their footprints to serve new “greenfield” housing developments. These providers prefer new housing developments for multiple reasons. The homebuyer is going to need service and new homebuyers tend to be relatively higher income and generate good ARPU and ROI. Deals can be cut with homebuilders to bring fiber to each homesite. It’s easier to trench fiber in new and unoccupied housing developments as lots and streets are being finished.

From the service provider’s perspective, greenfields are  a better risk to extend fiber to the home (FTTH) than a brownfield development that is already generating revenues, often on non-FTTH delivery infrastructure, thus requiring households to upgrade to fiber or to overbuild an existing provider. In a greenfield development, every household can be connected to FTTH before the new homeowners move in.

Greenfields nominally qualify for BEAD subsidies because there’s not yet an existing provider offering service, thus meeting eligibility threshold of not less than 80 percent of broadband-serviceable addresses being unserved or underserved. BEAD guidance defines a “Broadband-Serviceable Location” as “a business or residential location … at which fixed broadband Internet access service is, or can be installed” (as with a new housing development).

Providers that have historically preferred greenfields as better risks might also be willing to pay higher BEAD match amounts than the minimum 25 percent, possibly 50 percent or more, given BEAD guidance that encourages states to incentivize proposed projects with higher match amounts.

Greenfield projects seeking BEAD subsidization could however raise digital equity concerns by federal and state BEAD administrators. They might conclude the use of subsidies for these lower risk builds does not comport with the legislative intent expressed in the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act (IIJA). The statute notes the “persistent ‘‘digital divide… disproportionately affects communities of color, lower-income areas, and rural areas”— populations that typically face affordability challenges to buy in new home developments and may resent adjacent neighborhoods being offered government subsidized FTTH when they are not served by it.

Advanced telecommunications fraught with heightened political peril with enactment of infrastructure bill

Due to excessive reliance on privatized advanced telecommunications infrastructure and weak regulatory and market incentives, the United States is many years behind where it should be when it comes to replacing ubiquitous copper telephone lines built for an era of voice telephone service with fiber for today’s Internet-protocol enabled services. That became painfully apparent with public health social distancing measures during the COVID-19 pandemic that made households very reliant on advanced telecommunications for work, education, purchasing goods and services, virtual medical care and entertainment. Impatience with lack of reliable, affordable access -- present pre-pandemic -- reached a boiling point.

The enactment of advanced telecommunications infrastructure subsidies in the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act last November has raised expectations of rapid relief after years of dashed political promises by elected officials to address the issue. The billions in subsidies set aside for advanced telecommunications infrastructure has been characterized as a once in a lifetime investment to finally put it to rest.

But the legislative provisions of the subsidies to be granted states as well as recently issued rules governing the grants will likely introduce additional delay even before any infrastructure is built. Expect months if not years of delays as incumbent investor-owned telephone and cable companies battle states, smaller upstarts and publicly owned projects over eligibility rules governing the subsidies and how they can be used.

Unlike transportation infrastructure such as roads, highways and airports that are expected to take many years to plan and build, voters may well have far less patient expectations. They’ll want to see fast, tangible progress when it comes to advanced telecommunications infrastructure. Especially with neighbors just down the road or around the bend who have fiber connections, envious while they try to get by on DSL over aged copper and wireless workarounds. Or fiber on a nearby utility pole but no affordable residential service in the case of Vermonter Claudia Harris. They’ll naturally think since they’ve been waiting for years for fiber, all those billions in federal subsidies should easily bridge the gap to their homes in short order. When it doesn’t quickly materialize, elected officials at all levels of government could face angry blowback from voters. They are well aware of the high level of concern among their constituents, noting complaints about Internet access and affordability are among the top issues raised by them.

As policymakers consider potential major FTTH expansion, U.S. confronts labor and supply chain constraints.

As the United States confronts the need to rapidly ramp up deployment of fiber to the home (FTTH) advanced telecommunications infrastructure, it faces a major labor and supply chain challenges. There are only so many qualified people who know how to design, build, operate and maintain FTTH networks. Over the past two decades or so, field technicians were laid off by investor-owned telephone companies that limited FTTH construction as their legacy copper outside plant was placed in run off mode and deteriorated. Others have retired or are about to, but aren’t being replaced by younger journeymen, notes industry observer Doug Dawson.

Additionally, there is a limited capacity to manufacture fiber optic cable and electronic equipment that controls the photons that carry the bits and bytes of information that power high quality digital voice, video and data.

In a recent podcast interview, Dawson said these constraints disadvantage the small community fiber projects that have sprung up to fill the many potholes in America’s FTTH infrastructure that currently passes only a third of all homes. Due to their limited purchasing power, these smaller builds will go to the back of the line, particularly if they– as is the case with many – lack a “shovel ready” construction plan. Waiting for years for FTTH, they’ll face yet further delay as they are out competed by larger projects and those able to pay higher labor rates – estimated to comprise about 70 percent of construction costs.

These circumstances point to the need for solutions, particularly as federal policymakers contemplate a major fiber infrastructure expansion under the Biden administration’s American Jobs Plan. In this context, it’s properly framed as a jobs plan since the nation will need to raise a large corps of workers to construct the enormous amount of fiber needed to bring it to where it needs to be at present and going forward. It might well be a modified 21st century version of the infrastructure oriented 1939 Works Progress Administration with a digital infrastructure component.

Infrastructure funding might also target projects of a broader regional scope in order to compete for labor and equipment and invest more efficiently due to enhanced market power and economies of scale.

As part of or to supplement the American Jobs Plan, policymakers should also consider industrial policy that would provide incentives to rapidly expand the supply of needed fiber optic cable and electronics and establish temporary capacity to ramp up production.

Who needs a Gig at home? Half of U.S. businesses | Technology Futures

Who needs a Gig at home? Half of U.S. businesses | Technology Futures

Andrew Cohill makes the excellent point that with the emergence of Fiber to the Home (FTTH) telecommunications infrastructure, the past focus on Internet throughput speeds that was relevant to legacy telephone and cable companies is becoming increasingly less so. Since incumbent telephone and cable companies have to compress data to transport it over metal wire cable plant not originally designed to carry Internet protocol-based signals, from their perspective bandwidth is a limited commodity. This also limits their ability to serve all premises in their service areas. Even more so in the case of mobile wireless technology which provides far less capacity and range. Hence, their business and pricing models treat bandwidth like a metered utility such as water or electricity.

With FTTH, that entire paradigm of bandwidth as a finite commodity goes out the window and with it the incumbents' outmoded business models. This also has implications for now outdated government subsidy programs based on rules written nearly a decade ago when DSL deployed by telephone companies was state of the art Internet technology. Those programs now need to be updated to scrap obsolete references to the speed of available Internet technology and treat any area lacking FTTH infrastructure as eligible for subsidies if incumbent or other providers aren't constructing it or opt not to.

Fiber to the Home Council : Blogs : Telcos Saving Serious Money by Upgrading to FTTH, Survey Finds

Fiber to the Home Council : Blogs : Telcos Saving Serious Money by Upgrading to FTTH, Survey Finds: (WASHINGTON) – Small and medium-sized telephone companies that have upgraded their networks to all-fiber are reporting operational cost savings averaging 20 percent annually, according to a study commissioned by the Fiber to the Home Council Americas, a non-profit group of nearly 300 companies and organizations dedicated to expanding the availability of ultra high speed, all-fiber broadband.

The survey of more than 350 telecommunications providers across North America, conducted by the market analyst firm RVA LLC, also pointed to a steady drumbeat of FTTH deployment activity, with the number of homes that can access FTTH networks increasing by 17.6 percent over a year ago to 22.7 million.

While consumers served by these smaller telcos will benefit (as will the telcos with lower OPex costs), there are many more served by large telcos like AT&T and Verizon who won't.  Neither company is upgrading its copper plant to fiber to the premise.

White paper highlights role of muni fiber as U.S. develops national broadband plan

Here's an excellent white paper on the status of U.S. municipal fiber to the premises systems issued this month by the Fiber to the Home Council.

The report lists 57 muni fiber networks that serve both homes and businesses operating as of October 2009 (it adds at least 15 more serve businesses only), noting that "a growing number of municipal governments are taking it upon themselves to build FTTH networks – much in the way that they have previously built roads, sewers and/or electrical systems – as a means of ensuring that local residents have access to necessary services, in this case, Internet connectivity for the 21st Century."

These muni fiber systems typically spring up after private service providers have declined to upgrade their networks or build such systems, the report notes. As such, the white paper concludes, these networks are an important component of the U.S. telecommunications infrastructure and should be encouraged.

That conclusion should be given due consideration by the Federal Communications Communications Commission as it develops a recommendation due to Congress in February 2010 on a national broadband deployment plan.

Qwest bullish on residential broadband, plans $1.8B FTTN deployment

Dow Jones reports today that Denver-based telco Qwest Communications International plans to spend $1.8 billion to build fiber to the node (FTTN) infrastructure serving 1.5 million homes in its top 23 markets.

Qwest joins AT&T in adopting the lower cost FTTN fiber/copper hybrid architecture, which AT&T is deploying as Project Lightspeed in selected areas to support its triple play IPTV video/Internet/voice bundle marketed under the brand name U-Verse.

By contrast, the nation's second largest telco, Verizon, has opted for a costlier Fiber To the Home (FTTN) architecture that offers residential customers higher throughput speeds, greater potential for expanded service offerings, and reduced risk of technological obsolescence.

Qwest estimates the FTTN deployment will run about $175 per home -- far less than FTTH. Qwest says about 60 percent of its upgraded homes will have speeds up to 7 Mbs.

Why Verizon opted for fiber over DSL

Verizon’s Chief Technology Officer, Mark Wegleitner, explains in an interview with CNET News.com:

“I wouldn’t say that AT&T has gotten it wrong. DSL is a good technology,” he noted. “Our concern was more about what happens a few years out. And that’s why we picked fiber … I can’t really predict how other technologies will grow, but we know that fiber gave us the headroom we needed.”