How BEAD could fund incremental "edge outs"

Funding allocated in the National Telecommunications and Information Administration’s (NTIA) Broadband Equity, Access and Deployment (BEAD) program could support incremental "edge outs" of  delivery infrastructure to relatively small numbers of homes and small businesses at the edges of incumbent providers' service footprints.

Incumbents know exactly where these addresses are located – no “broadband map” needed. They are bereft of landline connections because while they in most cases are serviceable addresses – i.e., able to be connected -- they’re spaced too far apart to meet providers’ internal return on investment (ROI) standards to build out delivery infrastructure to connect them. Infrastructure thus extends part of the way down a road, street or cul de sac where the ROI standard can be met and ends where it cannot.

Clusters of serviceable addresses may meet the density cutoff when viewed in isolation. But they are cut off from the network because lines to service them would have to be extended along roads and streets where there too few homes, businesses or institutions to meet the density standard.

Consequently, residents and small business operators have felt dissed and bitterly complained for many years they unable to order service while addresses a mile or two – or even hundreds of feet away -- can. And because these are a relatively small number of addresses among a much larger number of those served by an incumbent provider, there aren’t enough of them to justify a contiguous project for an alternative provider. This circumstance is typically found in small towns and exurban locations where dwelling density is below that of suburbs but well above that of rural areas – but not at a level sufficient to attract investor-owned incumbents.

According to BEAD program guidance spelled out in the NTIA's Notice of Funding Opportunity (NOFO), incumbent providers selected by states as subawardees could fund line extension projects to these premises. Under the NOFO, a project eligible for up to a 75 percent capital subsidy can be a small number of serviceable addresses and even a single address. It's possible incumbent providers could propose these line extensions to state offices charged with subawarding BEAD funding as a single project or grouped in large geographical regions, arguing batch processing their funding requests this way would expedite the BEAD goal of ensuring all state residents have access to service. 

For incumbent providers, incremental edging out minimizes the challenge of having to bear the operating expense of maintaining entirely new networks serving many addresses that in order to qualify for BEAD subsidies would have to be built in isolated, insular areas lacking reliable service. Adding a few addresses at the periphery of existing infrastructure allows the associated opex to be more easily absorbed without the need for ongoing subsidization.

Cable companies are most likely to do BEAD backed edge outs, extend their existing coax plant to reach addresses on the edges of their current footprints that fall below their current density standards. Incumbent telephone companies aren’t likely to have existing fiber plant to support edge outs to BEAD eligible unserved addresses (those where at least 80 percent are unable to order service with throughput of 25/3 Mbps or higher and latency not exceeding 100ms) since they tend to concentrate fiber builds in densely settled areas far from unserved areas. Copper cable plant in these areas is also less likely to be able to reliably support VDSL.

Cable companies can also meet the BEAD throughput requirement: at least 100/20 Mbps with less than 100ms of latency 95 percent of the time. Although BEAD funding is prioritized for fiber to the premise delivery infrastructure, states are likely to sign off on incremental cable build outs to increase access.

A possible obstacle for this potential strategy is challenges from fixed and mobile wireless providers claiming these addresses are served by them and are thus ineligible for BEAD funding. States could then be in the position of having to sort through these addresses to determine whether they are eligible as unserved or “underserved” – without service of at least 100/20 Mbps. Due to various factors affecting radio frequency propagation, that could vary considerably among these locations, making sorting out the challenges a tedious task.

Cable Firms Fear Being Left in Dust in Biden Broadband Quest

(Bloomberg) -- The Biden administration’s multitrillion-dollar infrastructure proposal includes $100 billion to bring high-speed broadband to every American, an idea that might be expected to win applause from those who provide the service.

But cable companies such as Comcast Corp. and Charter Communications Inc. that connect about two-thirds of U.S. homes that have broadband service fear the plan’s specific call for “future-proof” technology could leave them facing subsidized competitors.

That’s because the traditional coaxial lines that cable companies still use to serve most of their subscribers don’t handle the upload speeds that consumer advocates say should be required to receive federal infrastructure aid. Many say subsidies should go only to systems that can download and upload traffic at speeds of at least 100 megabits per second.

Cable Firms Fear Being Left in Dust in Biden Broadband Quest

A few observations here:

• Cable isn’t in the residential telecommunications business. It’s in the video entertainment and live spectator sports business, selling various video and sports packages.
• Cable companies only got into the IP-delivered services such as data and VOIP because of an accident of history when telephone companies didn’t upgrade their copper to fiber and instead opted for DSL. Cable offered better throughput than DSL.
• As they were getting into IP services in mid 2000s, cable companies lobbied successfully to create new state laws establishing “video franchises” regulated by state public utility commissions to neuter the power of local governments -- the traditional issuer of cable franchises -- to require service be made available to all addresses. For those households not passed by their cable, they demand thousands and even hundreds of thousands of dollars in connection fees to extend their cable down the road or cul de sac to establish service.
• Cable service is pricey (consistent with its positioning as a discretionary consumer service rather than a utility) and poor customer service is legendary.
• All that being said, there is a future for this industry: as a video content provider in a public option open access fiber ecosystem.

 

Cable companies facing enormous shifts in market, regulatory environments

Cable companies like Comcast, Time Warner and others are facing enormous shifts in the market and regulatory environment that are likely to prove very challenging to navigate going forward. Earlier this year, the U.S. Federal Communications Commission subjected cable companies to Title II of the Communications Act in its Open Internet rulemaking deeming Internet service providers -- cable companies top the list measured by total customer premises served -- common carrier telecommunications utility providers under Title II. 

That's hugely incompatible with cable's business model based on offering subscriptions to bundles of TV channels to selected -- and not all -- customer premises in their service areas. At the same time as this regulatory sea change is occurring, the marketplace is also being disrupted as consumers increasingly shun these offerings.

Cable's subscription-based model is far better suited to the FCC's previously adopted classification of Internet service as a specialized information service -- and the cablecos' market positioning of themselves as entertainment and not telecommunications providers. Now it's gone except in the unlikely event the courts step in and restore it. Meanwhile, consumers are turning elsewhere for video entertainment.

Like health insurance, tipping point of market dysfunction will come for premise Internet service

• Low customer satisfaction levels and high churn
• Rising prices and poor value
• Little choice among providers
• Market segmented into haves and have nots

All of these conditions describe the sickly individual health insurance market as it existed prior to the enactment of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act reforms that took effect at the start of the year. They also accurately define the market for premise Internet telecommunications service in 2014.

For the pre-Affordable Care Act individual health insurance market, a tipping point was reached in early 2010 when a California health plan issuer raised premium rates by nearly 40 percent for some plans. At the same time, millions of Americans not covered by employer or government health plans couldn’t purchase coverage at any price due to pre-existing medical conditions.

Today, millions of Americans face the same predicament when it comes to landline premises Internet service because none is available for sale to them -- two decades after most people accessed the Internet by slow, dialup modems still being used today. Mirroring poor customer satisfaction with health insurers, consumers give low ratings to telephone and cable companies.

Like the individual health insurance market, dissatisfaction with premise Internet telecommunications service will soon reach a tipping point that forces positive change. Tipping points are hard to predict precisely. They occur when the right combination of events and public sentiment converge at exactly the right time and place.

For landline Internet premise market dysfunction, it’s inevitable that point will soon be reached. It’s only a question of how and when we’ll get there.

One thing’s for certain. When a market for a product or service of vital importance to the nation’s economic well-being can’t remedy its own dysfunction, massive government intervention becomes more likely.