Congressman seeks broadband infrastructure deployment to alleviate "economic disaster" in California's Central Valley

The Bakersfield Californian reports Rep. Jim Costa, D-Fresno sent a letter to President Barack Obama late last week requesting Obama create a federal economic disaster designation and declare the San Joaquin Valley its first designee.

The letter to the president requests rural broadband deployment as well as higher unemployment benefits, other infrastructure improvements to put people work, and expansion and modernization of federally qualified health centers.

Comments by AT&T exec show U.S. cannot rely on big telcos to speed lagging broadband deployment

Recent comments in the New York Times by AT&T technology chief John Donovan underscore why the United States cannot rely on for profit, private sector providers to bring advanced Internet protocol-based telecommunications services to a nation that continues to lag years behind where it should be on broadband deployment. While America’s largest telecommunications company, Donovan’s comments show that AT&T is simply too risk averse to make the necessary investment to bring its rapidly aging last mile infrastructure up to date.

"The ideal way to deploy technology is on the last day as fast as possible, because it gets more capable and cheaper every day," Donovan told the newspaper. This has been AT&T’s failed broadband deployment strategy that has seen its seemingly bold broadband initiatives such as Project Pronto and Project Lightspeed collide with the company’s conservative culture aimed at maximizing depreciation and cash flow and paying large dividends to shareholders.

As your blogger has previously noted, that conservative capex strategy also likely reduces demand for advanced IP services over time since residential and home office based users who have repeatedly asked for such services conclude they will never be made available to them and give up and stop requesting them. The reduced customer demand in turn self justifies AT&T’s decision not to upgrade its plant and also limits competition since competitive local exchange carriers can’t sell their services if there are no circuits over which to deliver them. Moreover, cable companies won’t bother to extend their systems to such deprived areas either, leading to highly persistent broadband black holes.

The U.S. has already begun to move toward an alternative last mile broadband delivery model that’s playing out at the local level with support in some cases from state and federal funding. Under this emerging model, the last mile infrastructure — typically fiber — is privately owned and maintained by local property and business owners similar to privately owned roads. On a larger scale, entire communities opt to form nonprofits or cooperatives to deploy fiber systems. California Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger recently signed legislation into law that would allow community services districts to construct their own infrastructure if for profit providers decline to do so.

Another paper chase diversion on the road to full broadband deployment

Rather than filling in their broadband black holes with updated infrastructure, telcos are instead proposing paper chase exercises that are little more than PR gimmicks designed to create the appearance they are actually doing something to end the digital divide.

Earlier this month, I blogged about mapmaking drills purportedly designed to show where broadband access exists and where it doesn't. (As if telcos don't know where their own infrastucture is deployed.)

The latest paper chase is called "aggregation of demand." It's a key element of the AT&T and Verizon-funded California Emerging Technology Fund's Strategic Action Plan presented today to the California Assembly Committee on Utilities and Commerce. The idea is driven by the bogus notion that telcos don't believe people really want broadband and need to be shown proof of demand before they offer advanced services, particularly in higher cost areas.

Grassroots-based efforts in Northern California petitioning AT&T to deploy broadband services in areas where it's not offered have already demonstrated that the so-called "aggregation of demand" tactic is a wasted effort that does nothing to prompt intransigent telcos to get off the dime and offer something better than early 1990s-era dial up.

One such petition in El Dorado County has garnered more than 200 signatories since it was started two years ago with no change in the dialug status quo.

Ditto a door to door petition in the Lake Tahoe basin by resident Patti Handal who along with 600 of her neighbors petitioned AT&T in late 2006 requesting DSL service. Patti and some of her neighbors did end up getting DSL last year, but only because last June's devastating Angora Fire burned out the existing ancient aerial infrastructure, forcing AT&T to upgrade it. Patti's still getting calls and emails from those who have signed and/or heard about her petition complaining about the lack of wireline-based broadband.

Cash flow, depreciation trump infrastructure investment at AT&T

If you're in AT&T's 22-state service area and wondering why your phone service is poor or you can't get broadband from the big telco, DSL Prime's Dave Burstein has done some digging into AT&T's financials that may offer an explanation.

Burstein finds company suffers from a myopic fixation on cash flow at the expense of investing in the future of its infrastructure. A good indication, Burstein writes, is comparing depreciation to capital expenditures:

Most significant, AT&T's capital spending since 2002 has been cut in half to 20 to 30 percent less than their depreciation. Over five years, their depreciation was $42B and their capex $31B. Unless they have a major discrepancy in their balance sheet, that implies they are not maintaining their network. This has raised their cash flow and stock price significantly, but presumably will bite them eventually.

Burstein's take on the recent decline in AT&T's stock price -- which the company lamely suggested was due to residential wire line customers not paying their bills -- suggests Ma Bell's derriere is exposed and already being bitten.

Think tank urges federal investment in broadband infrastructure

A paper published this week by the Center for American Progress concludes broadband deployment cannot be left in the hands of the private sector. This policy has left much of America unable to access advanced telecommunications services and placing the nation at a competitive disadvantage to other industrialized nations.

Instead, the United States should undertake a massive federal investment in advanced telecommunications infrastructure using a variety of technologies on a scale like the Eisenhower administration's National Highway Program in the mid 1950s that built America's interstates.

Writes Mark Lloyd, author of the paper, Ubiquity Requires Redundancy The Case for Federal Investment in Broadband:

The United States will not meet President Bush’s goal of universal broadband by the end of 2007—not by a long shot. The number of subscribers to Internet services is growing faster than the adoption of “dial-up,” yet for the most part these subscribers are not connected to the broadband technology Congress described in 1996 as a two-way communications service capable of high-speed delivery of data, voice, and video.

This failure to connect over half the country to advanced telecommunications service is not a technological failure. It is a 21st century public policy failure. In the 1990s, policies established by the Clinton administration to encourage public/private telecommunications partnerships, to connect schools and libraries to the World Wide Web, and to allow competitive service providers onto the networks of the local telephone monopolies all sped up the deployment of broadband around most of the nation. These policies were either deliberately abandoned or hampered by the Bush administration.

AT&T's failed broadband deployment strategy

AT&T has a bad habit of starting broadband technology deployments with bold declarations of new "projects," but half heartedly following through on them, leaving its infrastructure in disarray and like an unfinished information highway to nowhere.

Near the start of the current decade, AT&T (then SBC Communications) announced Project Pronto. The goal was to speed up the deployment of high speed Internet services — Digital Subscriber Line (DSL) over copper cable and twisted pair — to 80 percent of the phone company’s service area by 2002 and throughout its entire service area by 2006. Both deadlines were missed, with more than one in five residential customers unable to obtain any broadband services from the telco by the end of that year.

Now AT&T has decided to abandon that incomplete project in favor of another -- Project Lightspeed. It eschews the legacy DSL of the failed Project Pronto in favor of faster DSL -- VDSL -- running over a hybrid of fiber to the node (FTTN) and copper to the premises. The purpose of Project Lightspeed is to provide the necessary infrastructure to deliver AT&T's bundled Internet Protocol-based voice, data and video services known as U-Verse.

Like Project Pronto before it, Project Lightspeed/U-Verse appears to be faltering amid various technological and market challenges with the number of subscribers falling far below AT&T's goals and setting the stage for yet another incomplete initiative.

Complicating the picture is AT&T's decision to halt new deployments of its older legacy DSL technology in favor of the new VDSL Project Lightspeed platform, leaving large segments of customers who have been waiting for years for DSL hookups left in the lurch.

AT&T badly needs a management shakeup. It's time for an end to the fits and starts of ill-fated "projects" in favor of a new, long term comprehensive broadband strategy. It should commit itself to a deployment plan that covers all -- and not just selected portions -- of its 22-state service area and see it through to timely completion.

AT&T's customers deserve better. So do its shareholders, whom I believe would have the patience and perseverance AT&T's management has been lacking and would back a comprehensive broadband strategy if management clearly laid out the long term benefits.

The future of AT&T is at stake. It must decide if it wants to enter the digital, Internet telecommunications age or remain a mere "telephone company," content to rest on its laurels and passively depreciate its aging analog copper cable infrastructure while burdening itself with large dividend payments (recently five percent or $1.60 a share) that divert funds from needed investment in technology research and updated delivery infrastructure. If it chooses the latter course, then it shouldn't be surprised if bears and short sellers start stalking the company in the near future.

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.”

Study warns "last mile" congestion will bog down Internet connectivity

If you're mired in a broadband black hole and relegated to slow dial up or sluggish satellite connections, everyone else could be dealing with slow speeds in as little as three years.

A study by Nemertes Research warns unless another $42 billion to $55 billion is spent on U.S. telecommunications infrastructure above and beyond the $72 billion service providers are already planning to invest in the next three to five years, there will be a developing capacity problem.

“This groundbreaking analysis identifies a critical issue facing the Internet – that we must take the necessary steps to build out network capacity or potentially face Internet gridlock that could wreak havoc on Internet services,” said Larry Irving, co-chairman of the Internet Innovation Alliance. “It’s important to note that even if we make the investment necessary between now and 2010, we still might not be prepared for the next killer application or new internet-dependent business like Google or YouTube. The Nemertes study is evidence the exaflood is coming.”

The choke points will occur on the so-called last mile or so that connects businesses and residences to the fast fiber backbone of the Internet. Current in much of the U.S., the last mile infrastructure cannot support any type of broadband connections let alone the coming "exaflood."

California study finds "clear connection between investing in broadband technology and job growth"

California stands to gain 1.8 million jobs and $132 billion of new payroll over the next 10 years with a 3.8 percent increase in the utilization of DSL and cable broadband Internet services, according to a study released today by the Sacramento Regional Research Institute (SRRI).

“There is a clear connection between investing in broadband technology and job growth,” said Dr. Kristin Van Gaasbeck, Assistant Professor of Economics at California State University, Sacramento and one of the authors of the report.

The study used statistical models as well as economic and broadband usage data from 2001 through 2005 to analyze 24 major regions of California and project future growth. It projected three levels of annual growth of the percentage of the adult population using broadband: a .2 percent annual increase, 3.8 percent increase and a 7.6 percent increase. Under the latter growth scenario, 2.2 million jobs would be created in the state representing $267 billion in new payroll.

Here are some key excerpts from a summary of the SRRI study:

SRRI’s analysis shows that this migration and the growth in broadband use appears to have had a positive and significant effect on employment and payroll in the state. Economic theory would suggest that increased investment in the deployment and, sequentially, the use of broadband has the potential to generate incremental benefits to many of the state’s regions and California overall.

All regions of the state could benefit from an incremental boost in jobs and total payroll with increased broadband use, but the magnitude depends on the local economic conditions
and unique distribution of Internet connections.

Unfortunately, that unique distribution of Internet connections currently leaves sizable areas of the state without access to cable or DSL broadband. AT&T, which funded the SRRI study and provides the bulk of DSL broadband service in California, bears a large degree of responsibility since it has effectively abandoned these areas, offering them only inferior satellite sub-broadband service, which notably wasn't included in the SSRI study.

Four months ago, a study by the Public Policy Institute of California revealed sharp differences among regions of the state when it comes to broadband access, ranging from under 30 percent of households in the Sierra Nevada (21%) and northern part of the state (29%) to just over 50 percent in the San Francisco Bay Area (51%) and the greater Los Angeles area (52%). The PPIC study recommended the California Emerging Technology Fund should focus on broadband deployment in rural areas.

The SRRI report comes as Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger's Broadband Task Force nears completion of a one year study to find ways to remove barriers to broadband access, identify opportunities for increased broadband adoption and enable the creation and deployment of new advanced communication technologies.

Telecom association chief's assertions at odds with reality

United States Telecom Association President and CEO Walter B. McCormick Jr. filed comments with the Federal Communications Commission this week that contained two key myths of telco propaganda when it comes to broadband deployment in the U.S: 1) that competition is speeding broadband deployment and 2) that telcos are investing in broadband deployments in less densely populated areas of the U.S.

“In addition to deploying new and innovative products and services in urban and suburban communities, telecom companies are spending billions of dollars to reach many of the most geographically challenging and expensive rural areas in the nation,” said USTelecom President and CEO Walter B. McCormick Jr. “The FCC’s market-based policies encourage communications companies to stay ahead of the competition and continue to make significant infrastructure investments. These policies are working and we strongly urge the Commission to allow the highly competitive broadband market to continue to thrive.”

First of all, there's no real market competition in areas that lack broadband access since no one's providing service there. Second, telcos are NOT investing in infrastructure in less populated portions of their service areas. Just the opposite. Infrastructure investment is being concentrated in urban areas such as AT&T's Project Lightspeed and U-Verse initiatives and Verizon's FiOS fiber optic deployment. The FCC's own research found that as of last June, more than 20 percent of telco customers couldn't even get DSL over telcos' aging copper cable plants.

Broadband "number one" priority for FCC, Chairman Martin tells forum

"I think broadband is the number one priority for the commission and the additional deployment of it," said Martin. Broadband technology can drive economic growth and impacts areas such as health care delivery and education, he said. The FCC has done work to try to foster additional infrastructure investment and some increased competition in broadband, he said.