Private and public financing schemes emerge to finance fiber telecom infrastructure

In the absence of an aggressive federal initiative to timely replace obsolete, decades-old copper telephone lines that reach every doorstep with fiber, local U.S. governments are looking to connect homes, schools and small businesses lacking fiber connections or unable to afford them and to promote economic development.

A major stumbling block is they lack the financial resources to build their own networks. Despite low interest rates, they are reluctant to issue bonds to cover construction costs and more specifically, to secure the debt. With taxpayers reluctant to support new tax levies, politicians are leery of asking voters to approve them. In addition, local government officials -- still scarred by the penury of the 2008 financial crisis -- aren’t inclined to pledge their general funds as security.

Private and public financing schemes have emerged to try to help localities secure fiber construction bonds. One private scheme is being utilized by a telephone company, Consolidated Communications. The local government issues a bond and retains full or majority ownership of the network infrastructure. The telco secures the bond until it’s retired in 20 to 30 years and then assumes control of the network assets. By which time equipment replacement and updates will likely be needed. But the telco gets network revenues both during the bond term and afterwards and doesn’t have to commit as much capex up front, offset by the muni bond proceeds. That meets telcos’ need to avoid capex that suppresses earnings as well as incurring more debt load given already overburdened balance sheets among investor-owned telcos.

Another private financing method utilizes European pension fund investment capital. Under that scheme, the local government does not own the network, which remains under the control of a private sector operator. The model provides more patient capital than shareholder owned telephone and cable companies. But like the investment capital of those companies, it is risk averse and aimed at densely populated urban areas.

A public bond securitization method is under development in California. Legislation enacted in 2021 authorizes the California Public Utilities Commission (CPUC) to annually loan funds from its advanced telecommunications infrastructure subsidy program to a loan loss reserve fund. The current state budget appropriated $750 million to seed the fund. It will cover costs of debt issuance, obtaining credit enhancement and funding of reserves for the payment of principal and interest on debt incurred by local government and nonprofit organization projects.

The CPUC is in the process of developing eligibility requirements, financing terms and conditions and allocation criteria for advanced telecommunications infrastructure projects as mandated by the legislation. According to the Golden State Connect Authority, a multi-county joint powers authority formed in 2021 to construct advanced telecommunications infrastructure and provide technical assistance, the legislation authorizes a joint powers authority to issue revenue bonds supported by the loan loss reserve fund.

Big ISPs once again at odds with local governments over universal service demands

FCC says small cells will close the digital divide. Most say they won't | Center for Public Integrity: The FCC’s claim doesn’t convince officials in Lincoln, Nebraska, which experienced the same reluctance as Montgomery County did by wireless companies willing to deploy small cells to rural areas, said David Young, manager of fiber infrastructure and rights of way for the city. In 2015, when Lincoln officials were negotiating with Verizon Communications Inc. over how much the city would charge the company to attach small cells to municipal property, the city said it would charge the carrier an annual $95 fee — if the carriers would commit to deploying broadband in rural areas in Nebraska. Over the next two years, Lincoln offered the same deal to other carriers and builders. Young said the companies said they couldn’t commit to anything. So, Lincoln went ahead with an agreement that have the companies paying $1,995 a year to attach small cells to city poles, more than 20 times as much. If Pai is serious about 5G closing the digital divide, Young said, “then I’ll make that deal: You cannot deploy any small cells in an urban environment until all the rural markets are covered. Until we can make that deal, I'm calling foul” on the assertion 5G will help close the digital divide.

The deal here is the essentially the same one local governments proffered to cable companies that wanted a franchise. Serve all premises within our jurisdiction or no deal. No cherry picking and neighborhood redlining. Cable companies didn't want to have to meet universal service demands in franchise negotiations and went over their heads to state governments in the mid 2000s and lobbied them to preempt the localities and take sole authority over so-called "video franchises." That preempted local government leverage.

Now local governments are pressing big telcos for universal service such as Lincoln is here. The telcos don't like the demands for universal service and are once again seeking preemptive relief from federal and state governments. Large telephone and cable companies also successfully lobbied the U.S. Federal Communications Commission to scuttle its 2015 Open Internet rulemaking classifying Internet service providers as common carrier telecommunications utilities, subjecting them to universal service and anti-redlining requirements.

Playing the preemption card again to avoid universal service obligations and continuing to leave many homes, schools and small businesses without connecting infrastructure to advanced telecommunications services will likely backfire on big telcos (and cablecos looking to get into mobile wireless services). Angry voters who have gone more than a decade with limited or no service options are increasingly likely hold elected policymakers who side with them in this fight accountable at the polls.

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.

Why U.S. state, local governments are exploring alternative business models for fiber to the premise telecom infrastructure

Larry Irving, who served as assistant secretary of Commerce for Communications and Information and administrator of the National Telecommunications and Information Administration (NTIA), writes in The Hill that he is having a difficult time understanding why state and local governments are interested in building their own telecommunications networks.

The answer is self evident. Mr. Irving need only look at the situation in Montrose, Colorado, described in this Daily Yonder article -- which is emblematic of much of the United States. Investor-owned providers can't provide all premises reliable wireline Internet service and do so at a cost that affords good value for the consumer:

Montrose, a city of 19,000 about 65 miles from the Utah border, is a typically conservative rural area, overwhelmingly Republican but with a populist bent. Like all of the Western Slope of the state, it is not participating in the robust economic recovery seen in the Front Slope cities of Denver, Ft. Collins and Colorado Springs.

Internet service here is currently a hodgepodge. Some of us depend on broadcast towers, some on DSL from CenturyLink and some on cable service from Charter. Service is generally at less than 10MB. It’s expensive, and customer service is erratic.

It became clear to the city leadership that none of the large corporate providers were ever going to invest in high-speed broadband for the area. And while some enterprising local startups have moved to provide high-speed fiber and tower broadcast, they are capital-limited and have to charge high fees to get even a modest return on investment.

That's why the citizens of Montrose gave their municipal leaders the green light to explore alternative business models that can bring fiber to the premises of Montrose residents. City leaders recognize that technologically, fiber is the future. But that future and its many benefits will be deferred -- perhaps permanently -- unless new business models are found to make it a reality.

Hats off to Montrose, Colorado. It is taking on one of the nation's toughest and most important problems. Former U.S. Federal Communications Commission Chairman Julius Genachowski called it the "critical infrastructure challenge of our generation."