Open access fiber: Public ownership offers lower cost operating model. Private ownership less constrained capital access.

Gigapower CEO Bill Hogg – the brand name for AT&T’s joint venture with BlackRock’s Global Infrastructure Fund to build open access fiber delivery advanced telecommunications infrastructure -- boasted other open access networks would be unable to scale up like Gigapower. Gigapower will be “much larger than any other provider in the space,” Hogg declared at a webcast panel presentation last September hosted by Broadband Breakfast. “The scale at which we are going to operate will be a differentiator in the U.S. marketplace.”

Publicly owned open access networks like UTOPIA Fiber, owned and financially backed by a 20 Utah municipalities, operate with a built in cost advantage over investor owned infrastructure like Gigapower. They operate free of the need to generate profits and earnings dividends for investors and income tax liability. Those advantages should provide them the ability to match the scale of Gigapower as regional open access networks.

But that advantage could be offset by freer, ready access to expansion capital from BlackRock’s Global Infrastructure Fund. The fund includes state and local pension funds, sovereign wealth funds, and family endowments, according to Adam Walz, managing director of the fund. According to Walz, the fund is focused on investments in digital infrastructure opportunities across fiber networks, data centers, and wireless infrastructure.

AT&T and BlackRock can independently make decisions on which Gigapower projects to build and finance. By contrast, publicly owned open access networks rely on capital bonds sold on public bond markets to finance construction. Bond underwriters set the terms and conditions of bond offerings and may require additional sources of repayment security beyond network revenues from end users and lease fees paid by internet service providers to access the network. That limits the scale and pace at which they can expand.

Going forward over the long term, this boils down to a competition between private and public capital and which is most responsive to slake the nation’s deep thirst for fiber to replace outdated metallic delivery infrastructure. The competition will likely play out at least initially in densely developed areas since both forms of ownership presently prefer them over less dense areas: privately owned for more rapid ROI and publicly owned to better assure sufficient bond debt servicing.

Open access FTTP offers potential route to having edge providers defray FTTP infrastructure costs

AT&T’s joint venture with BlackRock to build and operate fiber to the premise delivery infrastructure as an open access network has implications for an issue related to how infrastructure deployment and operating costs are financed. Particularly, how revenues from internet service providers can defray the cost of planning, constructing, and operating it.

Some telecom industry trade groups have argued “big tech” edge providers such as Google, Microsoft, Amazon, and Meta should contribute to these expenses since their businesses benefit from the FTTP infrastructure providing them access to subscribers of their services and delivery platforms. The argument has been raised in a statutorily mandated U.S. Federal Communications Commission inquiry on universal service and the future of the Universal Service Fund as well as before EU regulators.

In an open access network, service providers pay to lease access from the network operator. Service provider leases could potentially offer investor owned telephone companies an indirect route to get edge providers to help defray them via contracts with ISPs offering services on open access networks. Edge providers would pay the ISPs to bundle their offerings and offer them to end users. Such an arrangement would naturally favor the scale of larger networks such as AT&T’s joint venture Gigapower hopes to attain.

Bringing ISP lease revenue to the table alters the traditional business case analysis for deploying FTTP since it provides owners/operators a revenue source independent of monthly end user or subscriber fees. Traditionally, business case analyses focus on household take rate and ARPU revenue estimates only. That has left many households effectively redlined for FTTP because a viable business case often cannot be made based solely on subscriber revenues.

Service provider lease revenue can flip the analysis, instead constituting most of the network revenues instead of end user subscriptions. For example, the publicly owned open access network UTOPIA Fiber gets 70 percent of revenues from these leases, according to a preliminary bond offering issued April 14, 2022 for $30 million in tax exempt telecommunications revenue bonds. The balance is from end user service contract fees.

West Des Moines, Iowa offers model for states, regions to scale up open access fiber telecom infrastructure

To ensure the timely modernization of legacy metallic telecommunications delivery infrastructure to fiber to the premise (FTTP) infrastructure at significant scale, new models for its construction and operation are needed. Investor-owned providers using vertically integrated, closed access networks tend to restrict capital investment to densely populated areas compatible with their business models that demand a rapid return on investment.

Subsidies of up to 75 percent of construction costs may be available in the near term through the federal Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act (IIJA) of 2021. But eligibility restrictions on the funding will likely result in it being allocated only in the most remote and insular parts of the country since those restrictions are designed to protect the markets of incumbent providers that have a presence outside of those areas. That will leave it to the states to come up with new approaches.

One promising appearing model is emerging in West Des Moines, Iowa. The municipality finances and builds the basic supporting infrastructure – in this case buried conduit. But it could also be aerial fiber on metal half height poles placed in existing rights of way, for example. A private sector network operator – here Google Fiber – installs the telecommunications infrastructure: the fiber, network electronics and premise connections. It shares part of its end user revenues with the local government to finance bond debt incurred by the government to construct the supporting infrastructure. Since it is operated as an open access network, other providers can pay a fee to access it and the end users it serves.

This model for the construction and operation is particularly well suited to exurban and small town America that like West Des Moines are only partially served by legacy providers using metallic infrastructure.

To make it rapidly scale to meet burgeoning demand for connectivity, this model provides a framework for a statewide or regional scope – for example local governments forming a regional telecommunications authority like California’s Golden State Connect Authority. Like roads and highways and airports -- the Golden State Connect Authority regards advanced telecommunications infrastructure similar to regional airports – very substantial financing capacity is needed beyond that which individual local governments can provide. In addition, the limited, one off grant subsidies that have been the predominant financing model don’t provide funding sufficient for the task at hand.

Argument that public option open access fiber is unnecessary "overbuilding" misses the point

Cable companies' argument against municipal broadband is not new. Cable, they say, already blankets the country. Why build more capacity where it already exists when there are still parts of the country with no capacity at all? Besides, they argue, it's not the government's place to interfere with private competition. "The belief that municipalities deserve some type of preference in the distribution of funds and that that somehow is going to lead to some greater consumer benefit? We don't think that's true or that there's any real evidence," said James Assey, executive vice president of NCTA. That argument has gotten cable companies their way in state after state, including in Tennessee, where AT&T fought efforts by Chattanooga's successful municipal network to expand in 2016. And it's gaining ground among lawmakers in Congress too. "The proposal today would prioritize, unfortunately, inefficient government-run networks, at the expense of private networks, and create arbitrary speed thresholds that favor fiber-only projects with no restrictions to prevent overbuilding in areas where broadband already exists," Republican congresswoman Cathy McMorris Rodgers said during a hearing of the House Energy and Commerce Committee last week.

https://www.protocol.com/policy/biden-broadband-plan

The "overbuilding" argument misses the point. Building open access fiber to the home infrastructure provides a badly needed public option (and NOT market competition given telecom infra is a natural monopoly) to ensure access to and affordability of advanced telecommunications. Investor owned companies answer first to their shareholders and have no public obligation to ensure those exist. By contrast, the Biden administration's telecom infrastructure plan proposed as part of the American Jobs Plan serves the American people whose interests undoubtedly outweigh those of shareholders.

The timing of the proposed public option is propitious. Legacy telephone and cable companies lack the financial capacity to take on the job and can only invest where they can be assured of a rapid return on investment. Private capital investment is too risk averse, like the legacy providers favoring dense residential "communities" such as planned unit and multi-family development.

Multiple fiber connections in some regions while others stuck in 1990s highlights U.S. telecom infrastructure disparities

Google Fiber franchise coming up for vote

This story linked above illustrates the extreme degree of disparate access to modern fiber optic telecommunications infrastructure that is developing in the United States. As the story reports, Louisville Kentucky and environs could end up with as many as four companies building fiber to the premise telecommunications infrastructure (Google Fiber, AT&T, and two other smaller providers). This at the same time millions of American homes and small businesses are offered only dialup or first generation DSL while others make do with satellite, mobile and fixed wireless services not capable of meeting the U.S. Federal Communications Commission's Internet service standard for supporting high-quality voice, data, graphics and video.

The driver of this perverse situation is the winner take all ethic that's part and parcel of the predominant vertically integrated business model in which service providers own both the fiber connection to premises and the services delivered over it. Publicly-owned open access fiber infrastructure serving every premise offers a far more efficient model and isn't prone to customer churn and market failure. Only one fiber connection is necessary to deliver telecommunications services given the substantial carrying capacity of fiber.

Sell fiber enabled services, not “gigabit.”

There’s a well-established maxim in the sales of information and communications technology (ICT) products and services: Don’t sell bits and bytes, feeds and speeds. Instead, sell features and benefits. There’s a good reason for this selling principle. Most consumers aren’t interested in technology. They’re interested in what it can do to benefit them and its value for the money invested.

The same rule applies in telecommunications. But it has been violated in the marketing of fiber to the premise (FTTP) services, where Internet Service Providers have defined FTTP by its speed – its ability to deliver bandwidths of 1 gigabit or more. Problem is, only a small percentage of consumers really know what the term “gigabit” means, according to a survey by Pivot Group spotlighted in the January/February issue of Broadband Communities magazine. (Sell Services, Not Speed)

“Service providers spend an awful lot of time and marketing spend emphasizing speed, but this research reveals consumers are confused regarding speed references and perceive that their current speed package is sufficient,” Dave Nieuwstraten, president of Pivot Group and co-author of the study, observes.

The takeaway: What really matters isn’t gigabit bandwidth per se but rather the services FTTP can enable in the home where people have high definition televisions, desktop and laptop computers and personal devices such as tablets and smartphones all being supported by the home’s Internet connection. FTTP will play an increasingly important role in the delivery of video content as more is delivered via the Internet, enhancing its value to consumers sensitive to high price points for Internet service used to support only web browsing and email. That will increasingly be so as live sports migrates to Internet streaming.

In the era of FTTP, it’s really no longer useful to market bandwidth or brand it with a speed-based term such as "gigabit” or “broadband” -- a now obsolete term used in the 1990s to distinguish narrowband dialup Internet access from first generation ADSL services. Similarly, marketing Internet services with speed/bandwidth price tiers is no longer truly relevant for premise services. Without benefits described, consumers will naturally tend toward lower cost options.

Emphasizing the utility and benefits of a FTTP connection also fits well with the open access, wholesale model where the owner of the FTTP infrastructure sells access to ISPs who in turn sell retail services delivered over it. Including new ones mentioned in the Broadband Communities article such as installing and supporting the next generation of more robust home Wi-Fi needed to enable all of those wireless devices being used in today’s homes and home-based businesses.

Incumbent telcos, cablecos should reconsider shunning wholesale open access fiber networks

Incumbent telephone and cable companies that enjoy a natural monopoly over last mile Internet infrastructure connecting customer premises have been loath to offer services over open access, wholesale fiber to the premise (FTTP) networks like the Utah Telecommunications Open Infrastructure Agency (UTOPIA) system. In some states, they’ve even successfully supported legislation outlawing or making the creation of publicly operated open access networks difficult. As monopolies, they want control over both the “pipe” serving customer premises and the services provided over it. Having control over the premise connection is essential to this business model since it puts the incumbents in the dominant position with regard to selling their proprietary services.

But with a growing chorus of calls for competition for Internet service from the White House, members of Congress, the U.S. Federal Communications Commission and consumer advocates, the threat of federal antitrust litigation to break up the incumbents’ last mile monopolies has increased. 

Given that possibility, incumbents might want to reconsider their flat refusal to do business with wholesale open access fiber networks. If they chose to purchase access to wholesale networks to sell retail services to customer premises, they’d likely appear to be far less insular and monopolistic in the eyes of the government. Doing business with wholesale, open access fiber networks would also spare the incumbents –largely reliant on metal wire and cable last mile infrastructure – from the expense of having to upgrade their last mile plants to fiber in areas where these networks exist and allow them to reach customer premises outside their limited footprints.

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.

Study finds Missoula city, county should spend $10M on broadband

Study finds Missoula city, county should spend $10M on broadband: As proposed, the city and county together would invest $10 million toward a $17 million system, with the local government funds leveraging other money, Copple said. The local money would be paid through user fees, not taxes, and it would build roughly 60 miles of an “open access” fiber-optic network.

“Everybody has the same chance to use it,” Copple said.