Combining two flawed subsidy programs won’t build FTTP infrastructure

Fellow blogger Steve Blum of Tellus Venture Associates suggests coordinating the U.S Federal Communications Commission’s Connect America Fund (CAF) Internet telecom infrastructure construction subsidies with a state subsidy program administered by the California Public Utilities Commission to multiply the amount of money available for such projects. (See Blum's blog post here)

Combining two fundamentally flawed subsidy programs, however, won’t produce a beneficial result considering the underlying weakness of both. Each is primarily structured to subsidize bandwidth, not infrastructure. They do so by defining subsidy eligible areas based on existing low bandwidth levels supported and delivered by legacy infrastructure rather than subsidizing the construction of modern fiber to the premise (FTTP) infrastructure in high cost areas. If an incumbent provider is providing that minimum bandwidth level, the area is deemed ineligible. That furthers the goal of the legacy telephone and cable companies to preserve the status quo by making it more difficult for others to finance FTTP builds in their service territories.

This is a key shortcoming because the primary problem in California and the nation is outdated and inadequate telecom infrastructure that needs to be replaced with FTTP infrastructure. Also, incumbent local exchange carriers (ILECs) are not motivated to construct FTTP infrastructure in high cost areas regardless of the availability of subsidies. Their business strategy is to focus on more profitable mobile wireless services and on cherry picking high end private communities and parts of low cost, urbanized areas for very limited FTTP builds.

How high cost telecom subsidies might work if Title II common carrier regulation was “Obamacare for the Internet”

President Obama’s call this week to the U.S. Federal Communications Commission to regulate Internet service providers as common carrier telecommunications providers provoked Sen. Ted Cruz of Texas to disapprovingly dub it “Obamacare for the Internet.”

A political shot to be sure. But what if the high cost of building fiber to the premise infrastructure to all American homes and businesses were subsidized using tax credits such as those used to make individual health insurance more affordable to low and moderate income households under the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act?

Instead of directly subsidizing Internet providers to build infrastructure in high cost areas using the FCC’s Connect America Fund – which many providers have spurned or only selectively accessed – customers in high cost areas would receive the subsidies and not providers.

Providers would be able to charge higher rates (not based on bandwidth use or connection speeds) for fiber connections to homes and businesses in high cost areas. Owners of these properties could then use the telecom tax credits to offset the higher cost of getting them connected.

That would create incentive for these premises to get online while also reducing the business risk of the current subscription-based models that are heavily dependent on how many customer premises sign up for service and which act to inhibit infrastructure construction in higher cost areas of the nation.

What do you think? Share your comments.