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.

Incumbents' petition to block FCC's Title II rules faces steep legal hurdles, likely dismissal

John Eggerton of Broadcasting & Cable outlines the legal arguments being made by incumbent telephone and cable companies seeking to block enforcement of the Federal Communication Commission's recently promulgated regulations reclassifying Internet services as common carrier telecommunications services under Title II of the Communications Act.

The incumbents' petition is likely to be dismissed. The reason is what's known as judicial deference: courts generally defer to regulatory agencies' interpretation of statutory law requirements. The doctrine holds that regulators have the necessary expertise to discern and apply the finer points of statutes whereas judges, who generally do not, are naturally reluctant to second guess the decisions of regulators or interject themselves into disagreements over statutory law between regulators and regulated entities. Under the doctrine of judicial deference, the appropriate forum to work out disagreements with regulators over application of statutory law is the rulemaking process and not the courts.

In this case, the incumbents face an especially steep challenge because the Communications Act specifically grants the FCC broad discretion to apply Title II of the Act in the first section of Title II. Section 201(b) states that "[t]he Commissioner may prescribe such rules and regulations as may be necessary in the public interest to carry out the provisions of this Act."

Unpacking claims of “unfair competition” when the public sector finances or builds fiber to the premise infrastructure

Incumbent telephone and cable companies often cry “unfair competition” when the public sector invests in or builds fiber to the premise (FTTP) infrastructure. Let’s unpack that assertion. From the point of view of these companies, anyone who builds infrastructure they don’t own is a competitor. They really don’t compete to gain customers in a given geographical area. That’s because telecommunications infrastructure isn’t truly a competitive market characterized by many sellers and buyers. Rather than competing for customers, the incumbents’ true interest is in protecting their monopoly or duopoly status.

True competition occurs in a market where buyers and sellers are on a level playing field and buyers have relatively equal access to market players and information on their services, benefits, prices and value offered. That doesn’t happen in telecommunications infrastructure. Incumbents have the upper hand in deciding which neighborhoods they will serve, what services will be offered and at what price. And they don’t disclose where they plan to build FTTP infrastructure.

The public sector typically gets involved in investing in or building FTTP infrastructure not to compete with the incumbents, but to remedy the market failure they create given their power to pick winners and losers among the neighborhoods they opt to serve and those they choose to redline and not offer service.

Finally, since the public sector typically invests in open access infrastructure and provides wholesale access to Internet service providers (including the incumbents), that’s also not direct market competition with incumbent telephone and cable companies. It’s an entirely different playing field and certainly not the same one used by the incumbents who won’t play ball unless they own the field. Hence, there’s no direct competition, fair or unfair.

Incumbent telcos can't build fiber to the premise infrastructure

Instead, they:

Talk talk
Talk talk 
Talk talk
Talk talk

The case for overbuilding incumbent telcos and cablecos

Twentieth century, metal wire-based legacy incumbent telephone and cable companies naturally don’t like it when progress inevitably emerges in the form of 21^st century fiber optic to the premise (FTTP) telecommunications infrastructure offering the proverbial better (and faster) mousetrap as well as protection against technological obsolescence. Particularly if they have opted not to construct it and someone else is planning to do so. Especially if the new fiber infrastructure benefits from government subsidies. No fair, incumbents protest. That’s government subsidized competition that picks winners and losers and we’ll lose.

That argument cuts both ways, asserts Christopher Mitchell of the Minnesota-based Institute for Local Self Reliance (ILSR), one of my favorite incumbent spin busters. Incumbents have benefitted from favorable governmental policies that have been in place for decades including the availability of high cost subsidies and public policy that permitted them to maintain a monopoly. Not allowing government subsidization of FTTP infrastructure built by non-incumbents in the footprints of the incumbents, Mitchell suggests, is a double standard.

Given that telecommunications infrastructure must be broadly dispersed in order to be economically viable and adhere to Metcalfe’s Law, Mitchell accurately notes FTTP infrastructure builders must be able overbuild outmoded incumbent infrastructure when they opt not to upgrade to FTTP -- and receive government subsidies for doing so if available. That’s eminently fair and good old American progress – the same progress that brought electricity to large swaths of the nation in the 1930s when market forces alone could not do so.

As for the incumbent argument they will come out losers, Mitchell observes incumbents have made losers out of nearly 20 million Americans who according to a 2012 Federal Communications Commission estimate live in neighborhoods incumbents redlined and declined any wireline premises Internet connectivity, leaving them to dialup and satellite.

Click here to hear Mitchell and ILSR colleague Lisa Gonzalez elaborate in a 13-minute podcast.

Nebraska Broadband Study: Broadband Access Creates Jobs, Revenue | CivSource

Nebraska Broadband Study: Broadband Access Creates Jobs, Revenue | CivSource

It's about time for the cooper/coax cartel of the incumbent telco and cablecos to take their bootheels off the throat of the  21st century digital economy.

Kan. bill would outlaw public broadband service - Washington Times

Kan. bill would outlaw public broadband service - Washington Times: Officials in the southeast Kansas city of Chanute, population 9,100, say they’re the primary target of the proposed legislation. As part of its public utility system, the city runs an ultra-high-speed broadband network that now serves schools, city buildings, the town hospital, banks and other key businesses.

On Nov. 23, the City Commission voted to work toward “fiber to home,” which would extend access to all residents and businesses within about a three-mile radius around the city, said Larry Gates, Chanute utilities director.

“This bill is an attack on competition, an attack on municipal government,” Gates said. “It takes away our local control and local decision making. It will hurt our efforts in economic development,” he said. (Emphasis added)

I respectfully disagree with Mr. Gates' characterization of the bill as an "attack on competition." Utility infrastructure by nature isn't a competitive market. It's really an attack on progress that threatens the incumbent telephone and cable providers backing the measure.

Upgrading the nation's telecommunications infrastructure to fiber to the premise to support new Internet protocol-based networks represents progress in the digital age just as interstate highways did in the 1950s. No one would describe paved roads as "competition" to dirt roads. By bullying local governments to get their way, the incumbents are on the wrong side of this issue. Americans like progress and they hate bullies. If they keep it up, local governments should respond by exercising their redevelopment and inverse condemnation powers to take over incumbent assets and upgrade them to fiber to the premise.

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.

Protectionist policies called greatest regulatory threat to fiber to premise Internet infrastructure expansion

Over the past decade, much of the United States has experienced market failure because incumbent telco and cable companies are unable to serve all premises in their service territories with legacy metal wire infrastructure. They have also been unable to modernize and build out their aging infrastructures with modern fiber to the premise (FTTP) infrastructure able to accommodate expected exponential increases in future bandwidth demand.

At the same time, however, they have sought protectionist policies barring public sector providers from doing so with lower cost business models financed by more patient capital that doesn't require a high, short term return on investment. From their perspective, their service territories whether they fully serve them or not are their proprietary franchises. Hence, the need for protectionism to keep others out.

"The incumbents won't upgrade to fiber, Mr. President, because it's an option they cannot choose."

Writing in the November/December 2013 issue of Broadband Communities magazine, Steven S. Ross terms the incumbent agenda for protectionist policies that institutionalize Internet infrastructure market failure "perhaps the biggest regulatory threat to new FTTH (fiber to the home) deployments."

In fact, looking toward 2014, perhaps the biggest regulatory threat to new FTTH deployments is a push by politicians in many states to restrict municipalities and other public entities or public/private partnerships that want to build their own networks where incumbent providers (typically milking old, obsolete systems) refuse to do so.

Click here for the full article (.pdf)

The New America Foundation issued a critical report on U.S. Internet service on January 15, 2014. It urges the U.S. Federal Communications Commission work with Congress and other stakeholders to implement the 2010 U.S. National Broadband Plan’s recommendation that state-level barriers to municipally-built Internet infrastructure be eliminated.

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.

California unlikely to subsidize community fiber Internet infrastructure over near term

The California Public Utilities Commission’s (CPUC) construction subsidy fund for Internet infrastructure won’t likely help offset the cost of building community owned fiber to the premise networks.

The CPUC’s California Advanced Services Fund (CASF) limits grant and loan subsidies to infrastructure projects that would serve either an “unserved area,” defined in CPUC Decision 12-02-015 as not served by any form of wireline or wireless facilities-based broadband such that Internet connectivity is available only through dial-up service or an “underserved” area defined as an “where broadband is available, but no facilities-based provider offers service meeting the benchmark speeds of at least three megabits per second (mbps) download and at least one mbps upload.” The CPUC retroactively revised the definition in 2012 resolutions T-17362 and T-17369 as areas “where broadband is available, but no wireline or wireless facilities-based provider offers service at advertised speeds of at least 6 mbps download and 1.5 mbps upload.”

Under either definition, both fixed and mobile wireless providers could block CASF funding of a community fiber project. And under the definition adopted in the 2012 resolutions, they wouldn’t even have to actually provide service to an area. They could merely claim they advertised service there at the specified 6/1.5 Mbs speeds.

Senate Bill 740, legislation re-authorizing the CASF that’s making its way to the desk of Gov. Jerry Brown incorporates by reference the definitions of unserved and undeserved areas in Decision 12-02-015.

The bill would also give incumbent wireline providers that have not built out their networks to serve all premises effective veto power over any community-based project to reach underserved households -- typically those in areas out of reach of DSL or cable Internet service or having access to slow DSL in areas where aging, poor quality copper cable plant (illustrated in the photo below) cannot support higher speeds. The bill bars funding of these projects “until after any existing facilities-based provider has an opportunity to demonstrate to the commission that it will, within a reasonable timeframe, upgrade existing service.” 

"Reasonable timeframe" isn’t defined in the bill and thus would likely be defined by incumbent telcos that told regulators and consumers since the early 2000s that they were building out their DSL service to reach them. (They’re still waiting more than a decade later, providing an operative definition of what's reasonable). The bill would also give incumbent telcos and cablecos the ability to stymie community fiber projects built by local governments simply by applying for CASF funding.

Light Reading - Google Fiber's Future Looks Limited

Light Reading - Google Fiber's Future Looks Limited: Google is destined to remain a small player in the broadband service market, unable to dislodge cable companies such as AT&T Inc. and Comcast Corp., according to analyst Dexter Thillien of IHS iSuppli.

Outside of a few select metro areas, the costs and risks get too high for Google Fiber's 1Gbit/s broadband service, Thillien writes in a report issued Tuesday.

IHS is not the first to warn against expecting Google to light up fiber across the nation. Last month, analysts at Alliance Bernstein said in a report that they remained "skeptical that Google will find a scalable and economically feasible model to extend its build out to a large portion of the U.S., as costs would be substantial, regulatory and competitive barriers material, and in the end the effort would have limited impact on the global trajectory of the business."

These analyses affirm recent posts on this blog casting doubt on the irrational exuberance of some who believe Google is going to overbuild metal wire-based incumbent telephone and cable company footprints with fiber.  It might make sense on the surface as somnolent incumbents have placed their wireline plant into "harvest" mode (in the case of the cablecos) and runoff mode (telcos).

But as deep as its pockets are, Google simply can't afford anything other than one off, opportunistic builds. And the incumbents can't undertake massive fiber infrastructure CAPex using grandma's shareholder dividend.  As I've been saying for several years, that leaves it up to communities to build their own municipal or cooperatively owned fiber networks.