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.

Legacy telephone companies’ power isn’t so much lobbying as controlling the narrative

Conventional wisdom holds the United States is unable to timely modernize its legacy copper telephone infrastructure to fiber reaching every doorstep because of the lobbying power of big legacy telephone companies. They want to protect their natural monopolies against interlopers and deploy fiber only where it produces a rapid return on investment to select neighborhoods at highly profitable, unregulated prices.

But their more formidable power isn’t so much their armies of lobbyists and campaign contributions to public policymakers. It’s that they’ve established and controlled the narrative built around a single word: broadband. They were so successful that they even managed to get public interest-oriented officials and advocates to adopt the term, creating a decades-long obsession with chasing “broadband” bandwidth instead of concentrating on advanced telecommunications infrastructure that delivers that bandwidth. It also serves as a great distraction since fiber technology has been around for decades and was being considered by telephone companies as early as the 1980s for two-way video communications.

It began with the enactment of the Telecommunications Act of 1996, at a time when Americans used screeching modems to connect to online services such as CompuServe and America Online. The statute defined progress as advancing from that narrowband dialup service to “always on” broadband. It largely left it to the private market to set the course instead of stating industrial policy establishing fiber as the universal infrastructure standard as twisted pair copper was before it. As well as establishing a timeline so that fiber reached nearly all homes by 2010. Instead, more than a decade later, only about one third of all U.S. homes can get a fiber connection. Baked into the 1996 Act is a cognitive bias known as anchoring. Dialup -- state of the art connectivity at the time it was enacted -- is the anchor. Any technology offering incrementally greater throughput came to be valued more highly than modernizing legacy copper telephone lines to fiber.

Lacking a fiber infrastructure standard, in the quarter century since the 1996 Telecommunications Act was enacted, America has found itself bogged down in incrementalism, debating the definition of broadband and even trying to map its location. Elected officials have been dogged by constituent complaints over spotty, poor and unaffordable Internet access, priced at whatever the market will bear. Those complaints grew more strident as time went on and especially during the COVID-19 pandemic that turned homes into offices, classrooms and medical clinics.

With telephone companies dragging their feet on transitioning to fiber in order to accommodate their short term oriented business models, cable TV companies leveraged their coaxial cable to provide Internet access in the decade since the Act was signed into law. Since they have not been regulated as telecommunications carriers with universal service mandates and price controls, they too can -- and do -- charge whatever the market will bear. And bear it the market must since cable has taken a dominant role, putting it in a controlling position.

Seeing that fiber was being slow walked at the same time people grew more desperate for connectivity, various wireless technologies and even satellite services came about to fill the fiber voids. The sad consequence is the nation once seen as a world leader in telecommunications no longer is.

AT&T's Stankey misrepresents true high cost component of fiber to the home

AT&T CEO John Stankey yesterday called President Biden's plan to fund municipal broadband networks "misguided" and said the US shouldn't pay for any broadband deployment in areas that already have networks. But as AT&T and other ISPs lobby against public networks and government-funded competition, Stankey said he is confident that Congress will steer legislation in the more "pragmatic" direction that AT&T favors.

In an interview with The Economic Club of Washington, DC, (video), Stankey was asked, "Do you support the president's proposal to have municipalities own broadband facilities?" Stankey responded, "I think actually the president's proposal is probably a bit misguided in that regard." "It would be a shame that we take taxpayer money or ask local governments to go into a business that they don't run today," Stankey said. "You know, their job is to deliver water, patch streets, things like that, not be in a capital-intensive technology business that requires constant refresh and constant management." (Emphasis added)

https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2021/06/att-ceo-seems-confident-industry-can-kill-bidens-municipal-broadband-plan/

Actually, the most capital intensive element is constructing fiber to homes -- largely labor costs -- not equipment refreshes and management. This is where AT&T can play a role since public sector and nonprofit entities like consumer telecom cooperatives could benefit from an operator with AT&T's experience managing fiber.

Neither AT&T nor any other legacy telephone company can afford to own, build, maintain and manage fiber on a scale America needs considering every doorstep should have had fiber connections no later than 2010. The lack of those connections with only about a third of homes having them became painfully apparent during the social distancing public health requirements in response to the COVID-19 pandemic that turned homes into offices, classrooms and clinics.

Biden admin telecom infrastructure policy: Rural vs. urban not just a false choice. It's a false dichotomy.

For now, at least, the debate over the Biden broadband plan has mostly broken down along party lines, with familiar divisions emerging between those working to close the broadband availability gap in rural America and those working to close the access and affordability gap in cities. To Jonathan Chambers, a partner with the rural fiber-connectivity company Conexon, the Biden plan risks diverting funding to cities, when it ought to go toward building out networks in rural America, where it's more costly to build and where a sparse population makes it harder to recover costs through subscription fees. "I'm in favor of spending money on infrastructure, but unless you identify the problem first and target the money toward the problem, you're just going to perpetuate the problem," said Chambers, who previously worked for both the Senate and the FCC. Chambers worried that the Biden plan is motivated by "the folks in the Biden administration want[ing] to support their constituency, which are cities." Proponents of the Biden plan view the rural-urban divide as a false choice. "We have a real challenge in connecting both rural and urban populations," said Mitchell. "To the extent that we have to choose between them, I think we're doing something wrong." (Emphasis added)

https://www.protocol.com/policy/biden-broadband-plan

Mitchell's right. Not only is this a false choice, it's a false dichotomy. When it comes to telecommunications infrastructure policy, too many discuss the issue as if it were still 1950 and there were largely two Americas, one urban and one rural. 

Today, it's not as binary. Americans have also settled in suburbs, small towns and expanding exurbs at the edges of metropolitan areas. Advanced telecom infrastructure deployment is very unevenly deployed in these areas, where people have moved to escape congested and costly urban areas. The public health restrictions of the past year or so have accelerated that trend. The Biden administration's American Jobs Plan that would allocate $100 billion to building public option open access fiber to the home advanced telecom infrastructure offers a substantial start to meet this need.

Public option open access fiber holds promise of ending unproductive "broadband mapping"

First and foremost, the FCC, Congress, local government, community groups, and existing service providers need to work together to create accurate broadband maps. Without an understanding of where broadband infrastructure actually exists, we won’t know which communities lack access to the Internet and which are served.

Risks and Rewards of the U.S. Broadband Funding Boom | Internet Society

While on the surface, this appears to be a rational starting point, in reality it's retrogressive and not a step forward. "Broadband mapping" originates from the Telecommunications Act of 1996 that gave the U.S. Federal Commission authority to define advanced telecommunications based on throughput. The FCC determines what constitutes "broadband" level throughput. Providers are required to report annually to the FCC where they are selling it. Efforts to map this data have resulted in decades of unproductive gaming and wasteful controversy among regulators, policymakers, service providers and public interest advocates over the accuracy and utility of the reports.

The Biden administration's proposed American Jobs Plan properly regards advanced telecommunications as critical infrastructure rather than "broadband" as a service. It defines a level of throughput that makes it a de facto fiber to the home infrastructure standard. It would also create a public option by prioritizing networks owned by public sector and nonprofit entities such as consumer cooperatives.

Instead of mapping "broadband speed," what policymakers should do first is identify existing public sector and nonprofit entities that currently operate fiber networks. The American Jobs Plan and other potential sources of federal funding should be directed to them to expand and strengthen their networks. Where these networks are absent, funding should be allocated to enable regional public sector and nonprofit operators to design and build open access fiber as a much needed public option to remedy widespread gaps in access and affordability.

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.

No need for maps of existing advanced telecom infrastructure with "public option" fiber reaching nearly every American home.

According to Sherry Lichtenberg, deputy director at the National Regulatory Research Institute, having a big sum of money with which to attack the digital divide will be important, but the key issue may actually be figuring out where to spend it all. “We still don’t really have a good map that shows where things are available,” she said. “It’s important to know who’s got service, who doesn’t have service, where service could be provided if somebody asked for it, and where people are really getting it even if they are asking for it because of the way the rules are written.”

 It Will Take a Lot More Than Money to Fix the Digital Divide

There is no need for maps of existing advanced telecom infrastructure provided the Biden administration's proposed infrastructure plan offers affordable "public option" fiber connections to nearly every American home. It's already known that only about one third of U.S. homes are passed by fiber, most of it built by investor owned providers that limit construction to cherry picked neighborhoods. 

That's unlikely to change anytime soon since their business models demanding rapid returns on capital investment drive them to target dense MDU and greenfield development. They also charge a price premium for fiber throughput, marketing it as high end "gigabit" service that makes higher income areas a priority for fiber infrastructure deployment.

Enabling legislation of Biden administration’s infrastructure plan should ensure fiber built to nearly every American home

The advanced telecommunications infrastructure component of the Biden administration’s proposed American Jobs Plan (AJP) will be more clearly fleshed out when it is drafted into legislation. For now, it’s fine for the AJP to broadly outline a goal of building “future proof” infrastructure. But this is a subjective term, leaving it open to debate and the introduction of present bias as the language is negotiated. The draft legislation should instead definitively establish a fiber to the home infrastructure standard.

The AJP proposes to build infrastructure to “unserved and underserved areas so that we finally reach 100 percent high-speed broadband coverage.” The enabling legislation should avoid the use of “unserved and underserved areas” as well as “broadband” – terms that have sparked years of protracted debate over how they are defined as infrastructure deficits grew. Instead, it should ensure fiber is built to 100 percent of American homes over the near term to replace outdated copper telephone lines, with the exception of homes located in extremely remote areas of the nation.

AT&T’s residential market shortcomings

 

As AT&T would have it, the telecommunications giant is enthusiastic about serving the residential market and connecting homes to fiber. AT&T Communications CEO Jeff McElfresh told a Bank of America Merrill Lynch TMT Conference in June 2020 the company will increase its investment in fiber connections. "We are laser-like focused on finding the most efficient path to expanding the footprint of our fiber offerings," McElfresh said. "It's a great business. It's got great margins. It's got great returns. There's nothing not to like about it, and we're going to lean into it."

McElfresh’s comments represent a turnabout from a year earlier, when AT&T downplayed its residential fiber ambitions and dismissed hundreds of field technicians after completing a limited build out to meet regulatory obligations attached to its acquisition of DirecTV. "That's behind us now," McElfresh’s predecessor John Donovan told FierceTelecom. "We'll continue to invest in fiber, but we'll do it based on the incremental, economic case. We're not running to any household target."

For single family home neighborhoods, AT&T makes residential fiber available only to discrete pockets, reports industry observer Doug Dawson. AT&T also markets residential fiber to multifamily dwellings that require less capital investment and produce comparatively faster returns. One analyst suggests AT&T is weak at executing fiber build outs, unable or unwilling to focus on the necessary details of neighborhood telecommunications infrastructure deployment. (Jim Patterson, Curing AT&T’s Sickness, 10/12/20) Other analysts point to high debt on AT&T’s balance sheet that constrains its ability to finance a broad move into residential fiber.

In less dense exurban and rural neighborhoods, AT&T is phasing out its legacy ADSL service, halting new connections as of October 1, 2020. In these areas, AT&T offers fixed wireless residential service over its 4G LTE mobile infrastructure but with throughput limited to a small fraction of what a fiber connection could handle. Dawson notes the company has not actively marketed the service (most likely to preserve limited radio spectrum at the same time the company encourages high bandwidth video streaming). Moreover, the company was notably absent among bidders for the FCC’s recently closed Rural Digital Opportunities Fund (RDOF) subsidy reverse auction.

Where AT&T is building fiber to serve enterprise consumers (via dedicated Ethernet) it is not generally investing in premise drops and field distribution equipment to serve adjacent single family home residential neighborhoods. According to an October 2020 report by the Communications Workers of America, the labor union representing AT&T line technicians, and the National Digital Inclusion Alliance, 63 percent of 1,500 line technicians surveyed report that AT&T is not installing splitting equipment to enable home connections even where a fiber backbone exists.

With little focus on residential fiber, AT&T is instead looking to gain revenues in the consumer segment from streaming video and mobile wireless offerings as it experiences a steady decline in linear TV subscribers, legacy and wireline delivered services, according to Zacks Investment Research.

LA Times offers flawed analysis of AT&T interest in DirecTV

Pay-TV field could shrink again with AT&T interest in DirecTV - latimes.com: For AT&T, the value and implications of a DirecTV acquisition are enormous.
First, DirecTV's signal and quality are considered far superior to AT&T's U-Verse television service. This could allow AT&T to rely on DirecTV for broadcast, and free up its fiber lines to increase broadband speeds to U-Verse customers.

This last sentence in this LA Times analysis of AT&T's interest in acquiring DirecTV is rubbish. Fiber lines offer enormous carrying capacity; AT&T does not need to offload video to increase it. The likely reason AT&T is eying satellite for TV distribution is because most of the telco's connections to customer premises are twisted pair copper that can't offer a comparable high definition experience that cable companies can deliver. That gap will only grow wider as ultra high definition TV adoption grows and gobbles up more bandwidth, forcing AT&T to compress it even more to squeeze video content over twisted pair and potentially degrading its quality even further. AT&T is reaching the point of technological obsolescence with its existing copper cable plant and is unable to quickly migrate it to fiber to the premise.

Another major reason is programming costs. AT&T already spends nearly $4 billion a year for programming on U-Verse, and it has just 6 million subscribers. DirecTV pays substantially less per-subscriber for channels than does AT&T.

Unlike the first rationale, this one actually makes sense. AT&T is being squeezed on the consumer side by outmoded delivery infrastructure that requires costly upgrades and on the programming side by TV program cartels that have substantial market power vis Internet service providers.

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.

Why wireless premise Internet won't cut it -- and only fiber will

Why you will need a 300 Mbps broadband connection — Broadband News and Analysis: There are several reasons for this, but it boils down to the presence of more devices in the home and streaming video. Other dynamics such as whether or not folks are gamers or work from home also comes into play, but across the board it’s the rise in Netflix subscriptions, YouTube videos and family members toting smart phones, tablets, perhaps while watching content on a connected TV. If there are four people consuming media with a tablet in one hand and their eye on the TV, your home requires a fat connection.

Back in October 2010, I observed bandwidth demand emulating Moore's Law.
This item explains what's driving the demand, which slows no sign of slowing and also makes clear that only fiber to the premise infrastructure will be able to keep up.

“Broadband adoption” is an irrelevant non sequitur

More than a decade after the term “broadband adoption” was relevant, studies such as this one issued today by TechNet continue to use the phrase as if the United States was on the eve of the new millennium and Y2K was a topic of concern. In 2000, discussing “broadband adoption” was pertinent since “broadband” Internet connections were relatively new and distinct from the then commonplace dialup “narrowband” service delivered over legacy copper cable telephone networks.

In 2012, broadband adoption is a non sequitur since both the term “broadband” and the notion that people are migrating in large numbers from “narrowband” are badly outdated. Nowadays, the Internet can deliver voice telephone and TV video in addition to websites and email that was relatively novel for many in 2000.

People adopted voice telephone and TV decades ago. What has changed is the means over which these services are provided. Internet protocol technology and fiber optic connections allow voice, video, websites, email and many yet to be popularized applications to be delivered to peoples’ homes.

TechNet is talking about the wrong subject. The real issue isn’t “broadband adoption.” The real issue is lack of adequate Internet infrastructure. President Obama so in his January State of the Union speech in which he spotlighted America’s "incomplete high-speed broadband network.” While the president’s choice of terminology — “broadband network” — is technologically obsolete from this writer’s perspective, he is clearly on the right track in identifying the problem as one of infrastructure.

It’s time to retire the term “broadband adoption” to the history books and get on with modernizing the nation’s telecommunications infrastructure to provide all American homes fiber optic connections and the many Internet-based services they can provide.

Telehealth Market To Hit $6.28 Billion By 2020

The global telehealth market is headed for explosive growth over the next decade, according to a new report from InMedica, a division of IMS Research. The main reasons are increasing disease prevalence, an aging population, and governmental pressure to hold down healthcare costs.

"Many public healthcare systems now have targets to reduce both the number of hospital visits and the length of stay in hospital," said Diane Wilkinson, research manager at InMedica, in a press release. "This has led to a growing trend for healthcare to be managed outside the traditional hospital environment, and as a result, there is a growing trend for patients to be monitored in their home environment using telehealth technologies once their treatment is complete.

It's not only the aging population but also its massive numbers as the Baby Boom generation enters maturity. As one of the sources quoted in this article points out, there aren't enough doctors and institutions to care for them nor sufficient funds to pay for that care. Home-based care however will require an extensive revamp of our outdated and incomplete telecommunications infrastructure so that every home is served by big fiber optic pipe with the capacity to carry large amounts of data necessary to support remote diagnosis and monitoring.

Study finds teleconferencing cuts business costs, reduces carbon emissions

This study is right in line with my strong interest in utilizing advanced telecommunications infrastructure to shrink time and space and reduce the human and economic cost of physical travel. In a boom and bust economy that's been busted for the past three years, businesses are clearly interested in reducing travel expenses. If they can do so while reducing their carbon footprints, it's an added bonus.

Note this study only took into account corporate travel costs. But consider also the potential savings in time, money and fuel costs for small businesses (small businesses have travel expenses too) and for currently commuting employees of who could teleconference with managers and co-workers instead of idling on congested highways, stressed out hoping they can make a meeting at a distant office on time (while meanwhile contributing to the global obesity crisis).

This will take a massive revamp of telecommunications infrastructure to bring fiber to their homes. But it too could have an added bonus. With the time they save by avoiding a commute to the office, they could go to the gym or engage in their favorite form of exercise. Smaller carbon footprint, smaller belly, less stress, better quality of life.

Feds should prioritize broadband stimulus funding for local telecom cooperatives

Google's got a spot on solution to remedy the existing flawed and incomplete U.S. telecommunications infrastructure model that cannot deliver advanced communication services over much of the so-called "last mile." Decades ago, local property owners built their own telecom cooperatives when basic phone service -- like high speed Internet today -- wasn't available to them, notes Google policy analyst Derek Slater in this April 30 Gizmodo video. They can now adopt the same concept to bring fiber to their neighborhoods, he says. Slater's presentation follows on a white paper he co-authored Homes with Tails What If You Could Own Your Internet Connection that was issued last November.

The federal agencies responsible for disbursing $7.2 in economic stimulus funding to build advanced telecommunications infrastructure should give telecom cooperatives and other local entities funding priority to help make this a reality. America's telecom future isn't with the failed top down strategies of the past. The way to go is bottom up empowerment of communities that have been left on the wrong side of the digital divide for years. Policymakers should also adopt Google's call for state and federal tax income tax credits to provide incentive for homeowners to invest in their own fiber connections.

Fiber cooperatives pick up the slack where telcos won't go

Here's an item from the nation's least populated state, Wyoming, that counters the myth that fiber optic telecommunications infrastructure is feasible only in densely populated areas. This is where things are headed: while the major telcos shun less densely populated areas and deploy fiber in limited portions of their service territories, cooperatives are stepping into the gap just as they did several decades ago when the other large private utility companies wouldn't serve these areas. Most importantly, those forming fiber cooperatives hold a long term view of their future telecommunications needs in contrast to the big publicly traded telcos that operate with limited quarterly and annual time horizons.

Tri County Telephone, the cooperative that serves the Ten Sleep area, upgraded from decades-old copper phone wiring to fiber in 2006 — a step that has still yet to happen in many urban areas.

Chris Davidson, Tri County's general manager, said the company wanted "to build a network for the future.

Obama administration should offer incentives for homeowner-owned fiber over the last mile

The incoming administration of U.S. President-Elect Barack Obama has tagged rebuilding America's aging infrastructure as a key policy objective. That includes its badly outdated last mile telecommunications infrastructure in order to make broadband accessible to more Americans.

Since the primary inadequacy of the telecommunications infrastructure when it comes to supporting broadband-enabled IP services isn't with the long haul and mid-mile portion of the network but rather the so-called "last mile" local access network, the administration should concentrate its efforts on developing incentives to hasten the change out of copper cable to fiber optic cable over this segment.

The administration should pay particular note of a recently issued working paper by the New America Foundation authored by Derek Slater and Tim Wu. The paper, Homes with Tails What If You Could Own Your Internet Connection, recommends state and federal tax credits to create incentives for homeowners to spend a $2,500 to $4,000 to connect their homes to last mile fiber built by existing carriers, neighborhood cooperatives, developers, local governments and private fiber optic vendors.

The authors seem to acknowledge that while there's near universal agreement that fiber over the last mile is essential to the future of America's telecommunications system and the critical role it plays in the nation's economy, there also is a substantial amount of inertia on both the supply and demand sides of the equation that keeps the U.S. stuck behind a technologically obsolete "copper wall" built decades before the Internet was created. The limitations of telcos' circa 1970s and earlier copper cable plants have become painfully obvious to all too many Americans who have vainly attempted for years to subscribe to their telco's DSL (or VDSL)-based services, only to be told it can't reach their homes or the copper cable is too old and degraded to support it or find it can't reliably deliver the throughput they'd like.

Telcos that have to produce quarterly profits are inherently conservative and won't make a long term capital investment in deploying fiber over their entire networks. They argue there's not enough evidence that homeowners will subscribe to fiber-based services at a sufficient "take rate" to justify such a major expenditure unless homes are densely packed cheek to jowl, thus reducing their investment risk. The problem is a lot of Americans don't live in such neighborhoods nor have any desire to do so. And since telcos operate in a duopolistic and often monopolistic market environment, telcos eschew meaningful market research and don't get hard data that might indicate that if they built fiber, customers will sign up for advanced services.

Hence, Slater and Wu posit -- correctly in this blogger's opinion-- that it falls to consumers themselves to break down the copper wall in favor of fiber over the last mile since risk averse telcos will continue to default to the safe status quo whenever possible.

The authors aptly acknowledge that many homeowners might balk at dropping a few thousand bucks to connect their homes to locally owned fiber and that there needs to be a compelling financial argument in addition to bringing their dwellings into the modern telecommunications age. In this regard, they point to a study by RVA & Associates, a market research firm that focuses on fiber networks, estimating that fiber connection increases the value of a home by about $4000. If the Obama administration combined that with a tax break, the proposition becomes even more appealing, particularly along with incentives for mortgage companies and other lenders to extend low interest fiber loans to homeowners. The tax breaks could be partially offset by stimulating economic activity that would bring in additional tax revenues.

Slater and Wu are to be commended for advancing the discussion beyond the true but tired themes of how much the nation is falling behind other developed countries when it comes to broadband and needs a national broadband policy to outlining a strategy to make it happen. It's no longer useful to call for a vague "national broadband policy." Since the U.S. is already years behind where it should be when it comes to broadband telecommunications infrastructure, what's sorely needed an action plan and rapid implementation. The solutions don't have to be perfect when the dreary U.S. broadband status quo is unacceptable and grows increasingly so as time goes on. As business gurus Tom Peters and Robert H. Waterman Jr. advised in their 1982 book In Search of Excellence: Ready, Fire, Aim.

Survey suggests telcos should channel CAPEX to wireline -- and not wireless -- broadband

While mobile broadband has been much ballyhooed over the past few years, the vast majority of those with mobile devices don't utilize their Internet capabilities to watch videos, play games or even send email. That's according to a Accenture Research survey out this week picked up here by Telephony Online.

This survey strongly implies people want broadband at home much more than they do outside the home. For telcos, that means investing more in wireline -- and particularly fiber optic infrastructure -- and less in wireless broadband. The demand for home-based wireline broadband services is also likely to grow as people spend less time and money outside of the home and cocoon during the economic downturn.