IP Transition Must Advance, CES Panel Says | USTelecom

IP Transition Must Advance, CES Panel Says | USTelecom: Meanwhile, AT&T has been eager to begin moving forward with the IP transition and last year proposed that the Federal Communications Commission begin trials to test the effects of a full network transition, said Bob Quinn, AT&T senior vice president-federal regulatory. The role for FCC is to oversee the "turning off" of the old network, Quinn said. "There will be an enormous amount of policy concerns involved in doing this, and we need to figure out what this new world will look like."

"We've reached the point where the IP network is superior to the old switched network," said Internet analyst and author Larry Downes. "The policy issue is what do we do about people who have not yet made the switch?"

There's also the issue of telephone companies that have not yet changed out their old POTS copper cable plants to fiber optic capable of supporting data and video as well as voice services using voice over Internet protocol (VOIP). This isn't only about consumers who haven't made the transition off wireline POTS for premises service. For many, they don't really have a choice for wireline-delivered voice service.

AT&T and other telcos are hoping consumers will be satisfied with using mobile wireless service for both voice and Internet access since they don't plan to invest in fiber to the premise (FTTP) infrastructure to replace their obsolete copper networks that cannot serve many homes and businesses due to technological limitations. Communities can offer their residents a far better option by building municipal or consumer telecommunications cooperative owned and operated FTTP networks instead of leaving their residents relegated to supbar mobile wireless services that can't provide adequate bandwidth and value.

Market failure – not market competition – spurs community Internet infrastructure projects

A major misconception -- largely advanced by legacy incumbent telephone and cable companies – is local governments build Internet infrastructure because they want to compete with the incumbents. Competitive markets are those characterized as having many sellers and many buyers. That’s not possible with Internet infrastructure due to high barriers to entry and high ongoing operating costs.

Local governments build Internet infrastructure not to engage in market competition with incumbent legacy cablecos and telcos. They do so in response to market failure where the incumbents cannot profitably serve local needs. Lacking sufficient potential profits, the incumbents naturally aren’t going to be inclined to upgrade and build out fiber networks. 

In terms of those left off the Internet “grid,” the scale of this market failure in the United States is substantial. The U.S. Federal Communications Commission (FCC) estimates about 19 million Americans live in homes where Internet service isn’t available.

The 2 key inaction risks facing community fiber projects

Creative risk taking is essential to success in any goal where the stakes are high. Thoughtless risks are destructive, of course, but perhaps even more wasteful is thoughtless caution which prompts inaction and promotes failure to seize opportunity.

  -- Gary Ryan Blair 

Communities contemplating fiber Internet infrastructure projects should keep in mind that there are risks -- negative impacts -- associated both with taking action as well as not taking action.  The latter risk -- termed inaction risk -- is perhaps one of the most threatening and pervasive risks.  For some regions and communities, that risk is being left permanently off the modern Internet grid and unable to realize the benefits it offers for government, public safety, health and education, economic development and transportation demand mitigation. 

Milo Medin, Google's vice president of access services, laid out two major underlying rationales explaining why communities needlessly run the risk of inaction in his address to the 2013 Broadband Communities Summit. 

1.  The unswerving belief despite more than a decade of market failure that incumbent legacy telephone and cable companies will upgrade and build out their infrastructures to serve all premises.  Here's what Medin had to say on that point:

Part of the reason the U.S. is falling behind is that most cities haven’t been intentional about their broadband infrastructure. Cities know they have to make sure the water system works and scales to support growth, the roads are maintained and built, garbage is collected properly. But often, they think broadband is something that the phone company or the cable company will take care of for them and they can ignore it, or that the FCC will make sure the appropriate incentives are put into place to drive competition and upgrades. Depending on those processes is how we got into the situation we’re in today.

2. The misguided belief that wireless services have obsoleted fiber networks. Medin explains:

Some argue that fiber networks are not really needed because of wireless network growth. As an engineer, quite honestly, this kind of talk makes my brain hurt. Wireless network growth is driven by fiber. All those base stations that smartphones connect to are increasingly connected by fiber because, as speeds go up, fiber is required to carry that kind of traffic. Copper just won’t do for modern wireless networks.

Cisco and others expect wireless data to grow by a factor of 50 in the next few years, and you’re not going to be able to solve that kind of growth by throwing more spectrum at it. You’re going to have to reduce the size of the cells, shrinking them, reducing the number of users that are being served by a given base station. And that means a lot more cell sites and a lot more fiber to feed those cell sites. In the limit, the future of mobile is going to look a lot like Wi-Fi: tons of small cell sites connected by a wireline network, connected by fiber – and that’s just physics, folks.

The full Broadband Communities article excerpting Medin's speech can be viewed here and here (pdf). 

FCC Expands CAF Definition of Broadband Subsidy-Eligible Areas - 2013-05-22 22:48:29 | Broadcasting & Cable

FCC Expands CAF Definition of Broadband Subsidy-Eligible Areas - 2013-05-22 22:48:29 | Broadcasting & Cable

Summed up, this subsidy program designed to underwrite the cost of building telecommunications infrastructure in high cost areas is ineffective.  Telcos won't apply because they don't want to fully serve these areas and complain the subsidy amounts are too low.  And even if they did want the money, they have to fight cable companies ineligible for the funding (derived from a surcharge on telephone bills) that claim the telcos are upgrading their infrastructures in order to steal their customers.

This circumstance only adds to the argument that communities and particularly those with lower population densities can't expect legacy providers to serve them.  They must build their own publicly and cooperative owned and operated fiber networks.

Georgia cities oppose proposed legislation curbing community networks

Representatives from several Georgia cities testified last week in opposition to state Senate Bill 313, legislation sponsored by investor-owned telecommunications providers that would bar local governments from using public funds to finance municipally owned Internet infrastructure. From the Associated Press story:

Leaders from cities including Elberton, Hogansville, Thomasville, Monroe and Toccoa lined up to tell senators that broadband is necessary infrastructure for the 21st century economic development they hope to attract — and that they are doing what they must to keep their communities competitive.

"We cannot wait for the private sector to ride to our rescue," said Tim Martin, executive director of the Toccoa-Stephens County Development Authority.

Martin is correct. Investor owned providers cannot earn a sufficiently rapid and adequate return on capital expenditures on last mile Internet infrastructure to satisfy their shareholders. That's why public funding is entirely appropriate just as it finances construction of roads and highways. This isn't rocket science -- just simple economics.

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.

AT&T and Verizon’s Deteriorating Legacy Landline Networks

Phillip Dampier has posted an excellent piece summing up the current dreary state of commercial premises telecommunications service in the United States. Dampier depicts telcos as caught between the old world of central office switched plain old telephone service (POTS) and its aging and increasingly obsolete copper cable and today's world where fiber optic infrastructure delivers voice, video and data over the Internet.

Telcos can't afford to make the change over from the old world to the new. So they're trying to limit their losses by keeping their old copper POTS cable plants functioning with bubble gum, bailing wire and trash bags while boosting their bottom lines with smartphone services delivered over more lucrative mobile wireless networks that don't have the carrying capacity to substitute for fiber to the premises infrastructure.

Dampier's post makes a powerful case for community owned fiber networks. There's simply not enough money in the fiber to the premise architecture to support an investor ownership model even for large corporations and their favorable economies of scale. Without community fiber networks, much of the U.S. will remain disconnected from the Internet for the foreseeable.

Community networks should be eligible for CAF subsidies

U.S. Federal Communications Commission (FCC) is about to release details of its Connect America Fund (CAF) that will reform the current Universal Service Fund that subsidizes switched voice service to instead subsidize Internet connectivity in high cost areas.

The FCC faces a significant challenge in how it defines those areas eligible for CAF subsidies given that wireline Internet access is highly granular. Incumbent investor-owned cable and telephone companies parse their service areas very tightly when it comes to determining what is and what isn't a high cost area for providing Internet service. A given home or business may have access while another just down the road or street is deemed too costly to serve and is relegated to dialup or satellite. These premises can't be described as situated in remote, isolated areas since they are almost on top of areas that have wireline Internet access.

Targeting CAF subsidies to the most remote regions of the United States won't help these folks. They comprise many of the 24 million Americans that FCC Chairman Julius Genachowski noted in a February 7, 2011 speech "couldn’t get broadband today even if they wanted it. The infrastructure simply isn’t there." It's there for their neighbors -- but not for them.

Many communities have responded to this widespread problem by building their own fiber to the premises networks to fill in the gaps. These networks must necessarily overlap the footprints of the incumbent's incomplete, Swiss cheese infrastructures since telecommunications infrastructure like other utilities must cover sufficiently large geographical areas in order to be economically viable. The FCC should designate these community networks as eligible for CAF subsidies if they meet certain requirements such as providing voice and 911 emergency service at standards that meet or exceed those placed on existing wireline providers.