NTIA Reauthorization Legislation Morphs Into Legacy Incumbent Protectionist Measure

NTIA Reauthorization Legislation Morphs Into Broadband Bill - Multichannel: On the broadband front, the bill establishes an Office of Internet Connectivity and Growth within NTIA to do outreach to communities in need of high-speed broadband as well as hold workshops and develop training tools to help expand adoption and access.

And in a move that warms the hearts of ISPs often complaining about overbuilding and potential waste, fraud and abuse in government subsidies, the new office would create a database identifying how federal broadband money was being used, including tracking construction and access to any infrastructure build-out.

Both of these are cynical provisions that will do nothing to support America's urgent need to modernize its legacy metallic telecom infrastructure to fiber to the premise serving all homes, schools and businesses. They are essentially designed to keep the sub optimal status quo in place and protect legacy incumbent telephone and cable companies wishing to preserve control over their nominal, limited footprint service territories without disruption.

FCC's repeal of Open Internet regulation sets stage for mega versions of 1990s era AOL, CompuServe walled gardens

The U.S. Federal Communications Commission has restored the regulatory framework that treats Internet protocol-based communications as an information service. The move reverses the commission’s 2015 Open Internet rulemaking classifying IP as a common carrier telecommunications utility under Title II of the Communications Act. So instead of an open Internet, the United States is turning back the clock to the closed, proprietary walled gardens that existed prior to the advent of the World Wide Web in the mid-1990s.

It’s even a greater back to the future policy move than appears at first glance. It sets the stage for media producers to consolidate with the companies that own the “pipes” – cable and telephone companies that serve more than three quarters of American homes, businesses and schools. After all, if those pipes are to be regulated as information services rather than telecommunications, companies that create information take on an integral role in this vertically integrated business model.

Consequently, the future could bring more combinations like Comcast’s acquisition of NBC or Verizon’s takeover of AOL and its pending deal for Yahoo! Under the new regulatory policy, it’s not inconceivable a big cable company or a telco could similarly make a play for Netflix.

Even Amazon, clearly in the information service business with its original offer of books and now its own production video content, could be a potential merger partner for one of the big pipe players. An Amazon-Verizon walled garden, for example, would provide this information content along with socks, towels and any other imaginable consumer commodity with both companies taking a nick of the revenues. Prime members might be eligible for a discounted monthly rate for Verizon connectivity.

The result would be a supersized version of the original big online information services: CompuServe and AOL. Both provided electronic mail along with content prior to the debut of the Netscape World Wide Web browser in the mid-1990s that swung open the garden gates to a vast digital universe. CompuServe even charged its subscribers by the minute to read “premium” content -- not unlike telephone long distance service. Such a billing scheme might well make a return under the FCC’s latest regulatory framework.

Last year Google abandoned its vision of building proprietary fiber to the home infrastructure to make its content more widely available. It could follow the adage, “If you can’t beat ‘em, join ‘em," and concede its effort to outshine legacy incumbent telcos and cablecos and their outdated metallic telephone and cable TV networks by merging with one of them to create a colossal proprietary information service.

In 2017 America, there is no collective “we” or “our” when it comes to telecom infrastructure

In 2017 America, being served by landline digital telecommunications infrastructure isn’t about where we live, with nearly all homes served by water, electrical power and other utilities. There is no collective we. It’s all about where you live. Especially when landline infrastructure ends just down the road, over the hill or around the bend. You and more specifically your home are in the wrong spot and that’s too bad for you.

Case in point is a direct mail satellite Internet service provider advertisement offering “AFFORDABLE, HIGH-SPEED INTERNET + DISH that’s “AVAILABLE WHERE YOU LIVE.” That’s because the target market is premises redlined for landline by legacy incumbent telephone and cable companies.

Despite widespread agreement telecommunications is a utility that should be available to all and a network we all share and use, it is far from that in a nation where landline telecom infrastructure availability is spotty, comparable to a Swiss cheese full of holes.

Why market competition cannot remedy America’s lousy telecom service

Almost daily, the justifiable criticism of the lousy state of America’s telecommunications service includes the demand for more competition as the solution. Providing more competition – and specifically as fiber to the premise (FTTP) -- for indolent incumbent legacy telephone and cable companies in no hurry to modernize their aging and increasingly obsolete metallic infrastructures will provide superior service and value for consumers. Sound good in theory, but completely misguided.

Telecommunications is not and will never be a truly competitive market where consumers can select among many sellers. The economics simply don’t allow it because it costs too much to enter the market and the return on investment under the dominant, vertically integrated, subscription-based business model is too skimpy or too far in the future to attract would be competitors. If telecommunications were a truly competitive market, consumers no matter where they live would have multiple sellers and services from which to choose just as they do other consumer offerings. Cherry picking in a few select metro markets as we’ve seen with Google Fiber and AT&T’s “Gigaweasel” as fellow blogger Steve Blum dubs it is hardly robust market competition.

That’s a key distinction. Telecommunications is not a consumer market. It’s a natural monopoly market and the incumbents have established their place in it. And they vigorously defend that place. That’s not evil as Susan Crawford recently pointed out. The incumbents are merely doing what they must do to faithfully and diligently serve the interests of their shareholders no matter how smarmy, greedy or disingenuous it may appear at times. Shareholders come first, market demand second. And the interests of the demand side of the market can easily remain in second place in a natural monopoly market because there is and won’t be any pressure to offer more to maintain market share because market share is assured. The market will accept whatever it’s offered because it has no choice – and cannot have meaningful choice. That’s why consumers complain service sucks equally between legacy telcos and cable providers.

Why U.S. FTTP infrastructure deployment won't follow the 20th century timeline for electrification

Here's how a colleague thinks Susan Crawford's forecast of a long winter of telecom discontent might play out in the coming years as the nation wanders in the darkness unlit by fiber to the premise. He believes "very, very few cities and no counties" have the money or the political will to pursue FTTP telecommunications infrastructure. The construction of FTTP infrastructure reaching all American homes, schools and businesses, he predicts, will play out over decades as electrification did in the early part of the 20th century. There will be 20 or 30 years of isolated private or municipal builds, followed by another 20 or 30 years of federally funded infill to cover the remaining unfibered areas. 

I disagree with the comparison to the deployment of electrical distribution infrastructure in the previous century. Information and communications technology is moving at a far faster pace in the 21st century. We're seeing robust, pent up demand for Internet service that is far outstripping the ability of Internet service providers to deliver it at reasonable, affordable rates due to widespread market failure. Americans simply will not tolerate such a prolonged wait for universal FTTP service.

Politics also argues for a much more compressed timeline than my esteemed (and anonymous for now) colleague envisions. The United States is close to or already at a political tipping point in terms of protecting the de facto monopolies of the legacy incumbent telephone and cable companies -- among the most hated and least respected institutions in the nation. That inevitable tipping point is when their lobbying currency is greatly devalued relative to consumer and business demand for Internet services that grows stronger by the day. 

Finally, the pace of technological progress is far faster than in the early 20th century. A disruptive technological development could come along that would drastically reduce the time and cost of deploying FTTP. For example, super strong and lightweight carbon fiber or nanotube sheaths that could be deployed on poles by remotely operated drones once the poles are made ready. That would greatly reduce labor costs, which is the major FTTP cost challenge. As well as maintenance costs since the sheaths would be wind resistant and squirrel proof.

Why legacy telcos, cablecos are incorrect in arguing government-built fiber telecom infrastructure is "unfair competition"

The primary public policy argument advanced by the legacy incumbent telephone and cable companies in support of state laws proscribing or prohibiting the public sector from building or subsidizing community owned fiber to the premise (FTTP) Internet telecommunications infrastructure is that doing so represents unfair competition against them.

It’s a fallacious argument because the incumbents and communities aren’t in the same business – a basic prerequisite for market competition.

The incumbents are in the business of packaging and selling discrete bits of Internet bandwidth. They sell it by throughput speed with speed tiered pricing for wired premise service and by volume – the gigabit -- for mobile (and inappropriately for premise) wireless services. The faster the connection and the more bandwidth consumed, the higher the price. Naturally, the incumbents segment their service territories and product offerings to generate the highest possible profit for that bandwidth. After all, they owe it to their shareholders.

State and local governments on the other hand aren’t in the bandwidth business or selling it to generate maximum profit. They are in the infrastructure business – planning, constructing and financing it to support public objectives such as economic development and enhancing the delivery of public services. In the 20th century, they did that by building roads and highways. In the 21st, they do it by building FTTP infrastructure.

UTOPIA holdout cities should adopt broader view of economic benefit of UTOPIA-Macquarie PPP

Orem, Utah and four other cities that have opted out of a public-private partnership between the Utah Telecommunication Open Infrastructure Agency (UTOPIA) and Macquarie Capital Group are now grappling with a fundamental question as to how to finance the future operation of fiber to the premise (FTTP) telecommunications infrastructure to serve their residents. The question: support the partnership’s public works approach to the increasingly essential infrastructure or default to legacy incumbent telephone and cable companies and the poor value and customer service and disparate access they typically offer as monopoly providers.

Six of the 11 cities comprising UTOPIA agreed in concept in 2014 to assess a parcel utility fee to help offset the cost and mitigate the business risk associated the pure subscription-based model used by incumbent providers. They mitigate their business risk by cherry picking neighborhoods believed to have the greatest profit potential for their proprietary network investments while redlining those that don’t.

The utility parcel fee is a key sticking point in negotiations between UTOPIA and the five hold out cities including Orem. A Daily Herald dispatch cites from a memorandum to the Orem mayor and council from Orem City Manager Jamie Davidson:

"There is a concern that Orem is unpredictable and not easy to work with," Davidson said. "It's concerning to me to see new options entering the market [UTOPIA] with a stranded investment for the future."

“However, bottom line, the proposal remains a utility fee-based model,” Davidson said. “If, as a council, you cannot wrap your arms around the assessment of a monthly utility fee to all customers (with potentially a few exceptions, for example, the indigent), nothing else matters.”

Davidson’s right. The parcel fee is essential to making the UTOPIA partnership with Macquarie pencil out by mitigating the business risk of relying solely on customer subscription revenues. UTOPIA operates an open access fiber network, enabling competition among ISPs that want to offer customer premises services delivered over the network. In that regard, the UTOPIA network is like a road or other public works project that benefits and enhances the value of the properties it passes. The UTOPIA cities benefit because these properties can support higher levels of economic activity as well as boosting their market value and, by extension, their ad valorem property tax revenue potential to fund other municipal services.

Big incumbent telcos, cablecos should stop the zero sum game, partner with the public sector on open access infrastructure

Steven S. Ross of Broadband Communities magazine opines in the January/February 2015 issue that legacy incumbent telephone and cable companies should abandon their win/lose, zero sum, all or nothing attitudes toward telecommunications infrastructure and partner with the public sector on open access infrastructure:

"A well-built municipal system (or access to public assets in a public/private partnership) should be open to all carriers and to all content and service providers. They would get a chance to sell products and services with vastly higher revenue potential and much greater reliability than they would by nursing ancient infrastructure to drain a few extra years of cash out of hapless, captive customers."

Indeed.

Click here to read the full article.

Google Fiber's business model emulates -- and shares same downsides -- as incumbents'

Google Fiber: Make It Easier For Us Or Enjoy Time Warner Cable | DSLReports, ISP Information: Numerous cities have been so eager to get Google Fiber, they've signed rather sweetheart deals that, for example, allow Google to simply walk away from builds should TV subscriber uptake numbers not be met. Perks also include the right to redline and cherry pick deployment neighborhoods...

This illustrates how closely Google Fiber's triple play business model emulates that of legacy incumbent telephone and cable companies. And also how vulnerable it is to TV programming costs that are squeezing all but the biggest players such as Comcast and Time Warner.

What's ironic is localities across the United States have literally begged Google Fiber for relief from the legacy incumbents. Google has adopted much of the incumbents' triple play business model but utilizes fiber to the premise plant instead of wire or cable. And since it's such a high cost model, it naturally leads to market segmentation (cherry picking and redlining neighborhoods based on expected revenue) that reinforces an entrenched infrastructure gap that leaves one in five American homes unable to order landline Internet service.

The FCC is moving to preempt state broadband limits - The Washington Post

The FCC is moving to preempt state broadband limits - The Washington Post: Under Section 706 of the Communications Act, the FCC is authorized to promote the deployment of broadband in the United States. By ruling that the anti-municipal state laws constitute barriers to that mission, the FCC's draft order invokes Section 706 in preempting the laws.

But that theory has already been questioned by Republicans who believe private investment is a more effective tool for rolling out high-speed broadband. 

Private investment in theory might be effective -- if there was a lot more of it. The legacy, shareholder owned incumbent providers are constrained in their capital investment capacity by the demand for short term profits and high dividend obligations and debt loads. Witness Verizon, for example. The company stopped new build outs of its FiOS fiber to the premise infrastructure in response to shareholder concerns.

Private pension money might be brought into play as is the case with Australia-based Macquarie Capital, the financial partner of the Utah Telecommunication Open Infrastructure Agency (UTOPIA). But so far no other similar financiers with the billions that are needed have emerged.

In summary, there really isn't any point in debating what's the best source of U.S. fiber to the premise telecommunications infrastructure funding. What's truly important is that there be an adequate and viable funding source -- something the nation is currently lacking.

U.S. Internet needs radical reorientation toward value-based, future edge demand

Legacy incumbent telephone and cable companies are fighting a fiber future for telecommunications infrastructure. People don’t need fast fiber connections, they maintain. Two legacy telcos, AT&T and Verizon, have urged the U.S. Federal Communications Commission to maintain its outdated definition of “broadband” at its current asymmetric 4/1 Mbps. (Not that it matters much anyway since the telcos have largely spurned federal subsidies to help them cover the cost of building out their limited footprints to serve premises lacking even that pokey standard of service.) Their stance reflects the incumbents’ decidedly retrospective philosophy, driven by their highly CAPex risk averse business models that are unlikely to change even though demand for Internet connectivity has grown substantially over the past decade. This retrograde view of Internet demand and infrastructure planning is largely responsible for the current dismal state of American Internet service where many homes and neighborhoods are unserved and those that are pay too much for sub-par service.

Industry expert Michael Elling argues rather than managing the economics of Internet infrastructure with an ex post, cost-based pricing model, instead it should be based on an ex ante, value-based pricing that takes into account the potentially enormous future demand for high bandwidth. The growth of bandwidth demand emulates Moore’s Law for microprocessors, roughly doubling every 2-3 years. It will continue to explode with applications such as 4k video streaming and two-way, HD videoconferencing.

Moreover, Elling astutely observes, contrary to the current market segmentation strategies where providers cherry pick discrete neighborhoods in densely populated metro areas, Elling sees the greatest demand growth for premise Internet service coming from less densely populated areas where residents obtain relatively higher value via its enabling remote work and e-commerce, distance learning and telehealth.

Elling also sees an ex ante perspective that anticipates future demand rather than focusing on past and present demand as mooting the current regulatory policy debate over net neutrality. The net neutrality issue has come about because providers at the core, transport and edge network layers don’t share a unified view of how prices for their services should be set. While those at the core and the transport layers might be inclined to work out a pricing scheme with the edge providers based on ex ante demand at the edge, it’s impossible to do so as long as the edge providers hang onto their ultra risk averse, cost-based ex post demand perspectives. If all the layers agreed to adopt an ex ante perspective, Elling believes, it would bring about a unified pricing scheme based on balanced settlements and price signals that would provide incentives for rapid investment and ubiquitous upgrades at all network layers.

Elling’s concept deserves serious consideration by Internet providers at all network layers as well as public policymakers and regulators. If the United States – the nation that invented the Internet – is to realize the Internet’s full potential and benefit for all Americans, it must first make an attitude adjustment. To an attitude that forsakes a retrospective orientation of bandwidth poverty and embraces a forward thinking outlook based on bandwidth abundance and prosperity.

No fiber to the prem in Silicon Valley, but a raft of slow, overpriced options

Wolverton: I’ve got the South Bay broadband shopping blues | SiliconBeat: Willow Glen

Tech Files columnist TroyWolverton goes shopping for Internet service on the California Public Utilities Commission's website but finds the service choices wanting, leaving the legacy incumbent telephone and cable company duopoly as the only viable options.

I did a little shopping of my own on the site a few months ago and like Wolverton, found it identified Megapath Networks as a provider at the same options and prices Wolverton found. But it turned out the company couldn't service my location even after the sales rep insisted it could.

Someday -- hopefully soon -- Wolverton's account will be looked back upon as a description of the primitive and often frustrating state of pre-fiber to the premise Internet service.

Common carrier universal service obligation -- not net neutrality – primary reason for incumbent telephone and cableco opposition to FCC Title II enforcement

Threats by the legacy incumbent telephone and cable companies to sue the U.S. Federal Communications Commission if it acts to enforce Title II of the Communications Act aren’t solely motivated by net neutrality. President Obama and other net neutrality supporters look to enforcement of Section 202 of the statute that bars “discrimination in charges, practices, classifications, regulations, facilities, or services...” Net neutrality supporters maintain enforcement of this provision will prohibit telephone and cable companies (and other ISPs) from creating “fast lanes” to speed traffic from users like Netflix to its subscribers. They also argue enforcement would similarly bar ISPs from charging consumers more to access selected websites, for example.

The primary reason the big incumbents are gearing up for possible litigation against the federal government isn’t net neutrality. Rather, it’s two words in Title II: common carrier. The incumbents don’t want to be classified as common carriers. Why not? Because Section 254(b) of the Communications Act requires common carriers to provide access to advanced telecommunications and information services (i.e. Internet service) in all regions of the nation. Section 202 of the law also contains an anti-redlining provision barring providers from discriminating against localities in providing service. That means they’d have to serve all premises in their service territories and not just selected neighborhoods, roads and streets. That would obligate the incumbents to invest billions to connect the approximately one in five premises they have opted to leave unconnected to the Internet.

That doesn’t jibe with their business models because those customers tend to be located in less densely populated areas that are less likely to generate a quick return on the investment in infrastructure needed to serve them. In addition, Section 214(e)(3) empowers the FCC to "determine which common carrier or carriers are best able to provide such service to the requesting unserved community or portion thereof and shall order such carrier or carriers to provide such service for that unserved community or portion thereof."

It could be the policy environment on Internet regulation has reached a tipping point. Oftentimes it takes just a single, well publicized incident to create the final push toward change. The previous post on the sad plight of an upstate New York family being asked to pay more than $20,000 to get their home connected to the Internet might be one of those proverbial straws that brought us to that point

CNY man says Time Warner Cable wants to charge $20,000 for broadband Internet | syracuse.com

CNY man says Time Warner Cable wants to charge $20,000 for broadband Internet | syracuse.com: Think your cable and Internet bill is too high? Jesse Walser might disagree with you.

Walser, who lives about 20 miles outside of Syracuse in the rural town of Pompey, told Ars Technica that Time Warner Cable wants to charge him more than $20,000 to hook him up with broadband Internet. What baffles him is that he can see TWC lines from his house, just 0.32 miles from the road.

"I didn't think it would be that difficult, because the cable was on my road," he told the tech news site. "I have phone. I have electricity. It's not completely 'Green Acres.'"

As this blog has previously pointed out, many Americans lack wireline Internet access because of this kind of arbitrary redlining by legacy incumbent telephone and cable companies. It's difficult to make a credible argument that living less than a half mile from existing infrastructure puts a customer premise out in the middle of nowhere, making it cost prohibitive to serve. As Mr. Walser points out, his circumstance bolsters the argument that last mile Internet service providers be classified as common carriers.

This situation has existed unchanged throughout much of the United States over the past decade (and isn't likely to change anytime soon), leaving some 19 million homes offline according to the U.S. Federal Communications Commission. The FCC is currently considering common carrier regulation of Internet service providers.

Despite more favorable market conditions, incumbent telephone and cable companies unlikely to expand limited Internet infrastructure footprints

Over the past 15 years, the market dynamics for incumbent legacy telephone and cable Internet service providers have improved from a risk standpoint. Early on, there was substantial uncertainty as to how many customers would subscribe to premise Internet connections. Telcos marketed advanced “broadband” services as an add on to their voice telephone service as did cable companies as an adjunct to their pay TV offerings.

They calculated only a fraction of customers would choose to receive these services -- and pay extra for them. Hence, they deployed the infrastructure to deliver them to a select set of homes and small businesses -- favoring higher density and income levels -- to reduce the risk that there would not be sufficient revenues to cover the cost of deployment and ongoing maintenance.
 
Some developed formulaic approaches to utilize large numbers to spread their risk. For example, Comcast adopted a hard rule that it would build infrastructure only in areas where there were 16 occupied premises per linear road or street mile. That mitigated risk because it could be reasonably predicted that with that many premises, enough would take Internet services to help defray the cost of building out and upgrading the network in order to serve them.

Now with premise Internet service increasingly regarded as essential as landline telephone service was before it was succeeded by the Internet, the risk picture has changed. The likelihood of residential and small business customers subscribing to the incumbents’ Internet service is significantly higher, even than it was just five years ago.

One might think given the improved commercial risk picture, the legacy incumbent telephone and cable companies would be undertaking an aggressive effort to construct infrastructure to serve nearly all and not limited “footprints” within their service territories. Not likely. The reason is the large, shareholder- owned incumbents that dominate in much of the United States lack business models that allow them to make the significant capital expenditures that would be required. That would divert dollars that could boost earnings, pay generous shareholder dividends and fund stock repurchases.

Consequently, the nation continues to need alternative approaches to ensure all premises have Internet service to meet their current and future telecommunications needs such as community operated networks or public-private partnerships that tap into sources of patient investment capital such as Utah’s UTOPIA.

High TV content costs threaten the “triple play” commercial Internet infrastructure business model

Television programming costs associated with the “triple play” (TV, Internet, voice) offering of legacy telcos and cable companies are the primary business risk facing the subscription-based, closed access, “own the customer” infrastructure business model employed by the legacy telephone and cable companies as well as Google Fiber.

Those costs are steep and threaten the viability of commercial fiber to the premise deployments that depend on future cash flows from service offerings – which include TV – to cover CAPex and provide ROI to investors.

So dear are TV programming costs that Google Fiber’s Milo Medin described them “the single biggest piece of our cost structure” and “the single biggest impediment" to further expansion. The Wall Street Journal reports costly TV content has prompted some small cablecos to scrap the triple play offering and reposition themselves purely as Internet and VOIP (Voice Over Internet Protocol) providers. Over the top (OTT) TV offerings by Sony and Dish Network are also similarly struggling with the high costs of TV programming.

Susan P. Crawford’s book Captive Audience: The Telecom Industry and Monopoly Power in the New Gilded Age describes the self-reinforcing TV programming market dynamics that cement the dominance of the big subscription-based incumbent telcos and cablecos – and Comcast in particular for live sporting events. These large players can afford the high TV programming costs. But large scale notwithstanding, it’s not TV for all since the big legacy telcos and cablecos cherry pick their service areas, leaving lots of consumers redlined and without Internet TV since they opt not to build the infrastructure to deliver it.

One possible way around this negative circumstance would be for the OTT Internet TV content players to organize consumers into large regional purchasing pools and cater to smaller providers as well as open access community fiber networks operated by local governments and utility cooperatives. That would shift market power to the purchasing side while at the same time bolstering these home grown Internet infrastructure players.