Incumbent telcos warn feds: Let us have our way, or the consumer gets it

New Study Projects Investment Declines under Title II | USTelecom

Incumbent telephone companies have warned the U.S. Federal Communications Commission (and indirectly, the Obama administration) that they will tie up in the courts for years any move to regulate Internet services as a Title II common carrier telecommunications service available to all customer premises without discrimination.

Now they are citing a study to back up their threat that they will also significantly pare back construction of new infrastructure. In other words, if you don't let us pick and choose which neighborhoods we want to serve, we'll leave the 19 million premises the FCC estimates are not served by landline Internet service twisting in the wind. Ditto those on increasingly obsolete, legacy DSL service provided over aging copper cables.

That's monopolist speak for if you don't leave us alone, the consumer gets it.

Colorado legislation would redirect high cost telephone subsidies to Internet infrastructure

Two Colorado legislators are developing legislation to repurpose surcharges on voice landline and cell phone service to subsidize landline telephone service in high cost, less densely populated areas of the state to instead defray the cost of building out Internet infrastructure. "By funding land lines and copper-line phones, we're funding buggy whips,” Senator Gail Schwartz, D-Snowmass Village, told the Denver Post.

Rocky Mountain State lawmakers will however face resistance from incumbent telcos who want to preserve the status quo and continue to provide Internet service over their existing copper cable plants to a subset of wireline customers while deeming the rest unprofitable to serve. Throughout much of the United States, the latter cohort are in innumerable small pockets beyond the short range of DSL signals and/or where the existing copper cable is too old and deteriorated to deliver Internet service. First formed around 2000 and still around more than a decade later, they are like thousands of little holes in a big Swiss cheese, comprised of discrete premises, roads, streets and neighborhoods. Rather than “unserved areas,” they are more accurately described as redlined addresses and neighborhoods, typically avoided by both telcos and cable companies. The unfortunate residents are forced to rely on obsolete dialup offered by telcos or satellite Internet more properly suited to remote areas of the planet while the more fortunate may have access to fixed terrestrial wireless service from a local provider.

Incumbent telcos insist rules for government subsidy programs direct funds only to “unserved areas.” But building new wireline premises infrastructure is a costly, large scale endeavor that can make filling in these numerous voids one at a time impractical even with subsidies. In California, for example, incumbent telcos have largely shunned subsidies for premises Internet infrastructure offered through a six-year-old subsidy fund, the California Advanced Services Fund (CASF), similar to that being contemplated for Colorado. They have also challenged proposed CASF wireline projects by arguing the projects would serve premises adequately served by mobile broadband services.

Only a large scale overbuild of the outmoded copper cable plant with fiber to the premise infrastructure makes sense over the long term from both a technological and economic standpoint. State and federal Internet infrastructure subsidy funds should be structured accordingly.

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.

Israel's 1Gbps fiber will show the world what superfast broadband can really do: Cisco CEO | ZDNet

The planned deployment of gigabit fiber to the premise (FTTP) infrastructure in Israel as described in this ZDNet article Israel's 1Gbps fiber will show the world what superfast broadband can really do: Cisco CEO | ZDNet illustrates a trend in much of the industrialized world.  As the Internet grows into an all purpose communications platform, it will overtake and obsolete telephone and cable companies that built their business models on a pre-Internet world.  Some excerpts:

 The network should be completely operational in five to seven years, giving Israelis the opportunity to surf the net with downlinks of 1Gbps, ten times faster than anything the local competition — chiefly the Bezeq phone company and HOT cable service provider — can provide with their FTTN (fiber to the node) network, which delivers a top speed of 100Mbps.

Chambers predicts the network will bring in major changes: healthcare where doctors are connected instantly to providers' and hospitals' databases, with all records kept electronically and updated constantly; an education-anywhere system, where students can learn at home, in class, or elsewhere, communicating with teachers and fellow students over the internet; safer roads and streets (a major issue in road accident-prone Israel), with traffic authorities able to keep better tabs on speeders and unsafe drivers; and a proliferation of "internet of things" technology, with sensors keeping air conditioners, refrigerators, washing machines, front doors, and more connected to systems than can enable better and more efficient allocation of electricity and other resources. In a few years, all of this should be in place, according to Chambers.

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.

Verizon, AT&T Decline Broadband Connect America Funding

Verizon, AT&T Decline Broadband Connect America Funding: Two of those carriers – AT&T and Verizon – yesterday declined all of the funding they had been offered. In a letter to the FCC shared with Telecompetitor, AT&T — which was offered $47.8 million — said it is “optimistic” about its ability to get more broadband into rural areas, “particularly as the technology continues to advance.” But the company said it could not commit to participate in the program until it finalizes that strategy.

One year ago, the big incumbent telcos urged the FCC to reform the Universal Service Fund with standards that would effectively subsidize deployment of first generation DSL service introduced more than a decade ago.  Now that the USF has been reformed into the Connect America Fund along the lines of what they wanted, they're saying thanks but no thanks to the subsidies.  Most likely because the legacy DSL standards the telcos proposed last year were already outdated by a decade or more -- and now look even more obsolete and unable to keep up with burgeoning bandwidth needs.