To Save the Internet We Must Own the Networks | By David Morris | Common Dreams

To Save the Internet We Must Own the Networks | By David Morris | Common Dreams:

The tools to build locally owned networks may well be there as the author of this article concludes. But adequate funding is another question. Constructing telecommunications infrastructure is very costly and labor intensive. It’s far easier to do in places where local municipal and cooperatively owned electric distribution and telecommunications networks already exist and have supporting infrastructure and funding mechanisms in place. Many of these entities got their start in the early in the 20th century with robust federal funding.

Nearly a century later, there is no meaningful federal funding to support the formation of new local entities to construct and operate advanced fiber telecommunications networks. State and local budgets are strained with obligations to repair and replace other aging infrastructure and honor pension obligations to their workers. They can’t be expected to provide billions to finance locally owned telecom networks.

Without government funding in the form of technical assistance grants and loans, expecting property owners and consumers to come up with the money is highly uncertain outside of highly affluent communities. As price takers rather than the price makers they would be the owners of local infrastructure, they are accustomed to purchasing “broadband” as a commodity monthly service and grudgingly tolerating exorbitant monthly costs and annual rate increases from incumbent telephone and cable companies. They’re unlikely to be motivated to put up the money to build an alternative -- albeit better -- network infrastructure than currently available to them unless they live in a neighborhood redlined by the incumbents.

Local ownership of telecom infrastructure is in concept a meritorious idea. But without a coordinated and well-funded federal program for it that recognizes that local infrastructure is essential to a vital interstate telecommunications network and not a local amenity like a park or playground, it remains only that.

Emotion rather than logic drives incumbent opposition to local telecom infrastructure improvements

In a recent email exchange with Craig Settles, I've attempted to plumb the paradox of why incumbent legacy telco and cable companies will as Settles put it "rush in like storm troopers" before local providers can activate their own Internet Protocol (IP) telecom infrastructures. Infrastructure built by local governments and consumer cooperatives because it doesn't pencil out for the shareholder-owned incumbents to construct. The result: a plethora of "broadband black holes" and underserved/overpriced areas due to incomplete infrastructure that extends only as far as the incumbents' business models allow.

The question that vexed me is why the incumbents would come in on the heels of community-based provider deployments when they've already concluded there isn't enough business to make it worth their while to expand and upgrade their plants in the first place. Particularly for take rates south of 30 percent and a shift to Internet-based video content that makes consumers less inclined to purchase pricey 300 channel TV packages that are among incumbents' most profitable service offerings.

Settles explanation: there is no logical, business M.O at work in this circumstance. Telcos and cable companies that normally operate in a logical, numbers driven mode (for example, cable providers don't deploy infrastructure unless it strictly falls within a pre-approved, set ratio of occupied premises per linear mile) suddenly turn illogical when a community-based provider emerges with an alternative and typically nonprofit business model that avoids obstacles that limit the incumbents' ability to expand their footprints.

Since incumbents tend to regard their service areas as proprietary, exclusive franchises regardless of how much -- or how little -- they actually provide IP-based services, they view community-based providers as interlopers invading their turf. That provokes an illogical, emotion driven response.

"It's nothing about logic," Settles explains "It's often paranoia -- if one community builds a better network than what we offer, other communities will follow suit and sometimes a case of whose belt is longer. Incumbents seem to prefer to destroy a community network rather than figure out how to adapt services to leverage that network." In other words, a classic pissing contest in which a large, distant corporation attempts to impose its corporate will upon local residents -- who know their needs best -- for the sake of preserving its own pride.

In this respect, the incumbents aren't actually fighting the local upstarts who would dare challenge their territorial hegemony. They're really fighting the future. The incumbents' perceived enemy isn't so much the community-based providers. It's the alternative business paradigm they represent and which fostered their creation.