“Muni broadband” debate based on false premise of “competition”

Connected planet has posted an account of a debate between advocates and opponents of telecom infrastructure built by local governments.

I submit this is a debate based on a false premise. Telecommunications infrastructure tends to be a natural monopoly due to its high CAPex barriers to entry as well as substantial operating and maintenance costs.

By definition, there is no true competition in a monopoly. Nor is competition robust in a duopoly of just two owner/operators of telecom infrastructure that exists throughout much of the United States: a telco and a cable company. A healthy, competitive market by contrast has many buyers and sellers. That does not and cannot describe telecom infrastructure, so any debate over “competition” is a nonstarter.

If the position of the incumbent legacy telcos and cable companies is they should have exclusive ownership and control of telecom infrastructure, I strongly disagree. The incumbents are NOT entitled to a monopoly or duopoly by virtue of their incumbency. Particularly when so many homes and small businesses remain disconnected from the Internet in much of their service territories as the U.S. Federal Communications Commission recently reported, noting that an estimated 26 million Americans remain offline.

Local government and community-based providers such as telecom cooperatives must step into the gap and address this market failure with alternative, nonprofit business models that can function to provide Internet access where investor-owned ones cannot.

FCC: "Significant and persistent" Internet infrastructure deployment gap leaves 26 million Americans offline

The Federal Communications Commission reports this week that a "significant and persistent deployment gap" in Internet telecommunications infrastructure deprives as many as 26 million Americans from Internet access. "This significant and persistent deployment gap is particularly concerning in light of the substantial and growing costs of digital exclusion: Being unable to subscribe to broadband in 2011 is a much bigger obstacle to healthcare, educational, and employment opportunities that are essential for consumer welfare and America’s economic growth and global competitiveness than it was even a few years ago," the FCC notes in its seventh annual report to Congress on the availability of advanced telecommunications capability as mandated by the Telecommunications Act of 1996.

"We thus must conclude that broadband is not being deployed to all Americans in a reasonable and timely fashion, and we underscore how much work remains before we can conclude that all Americans are served by broadband."

In addition, the FCC rejected arguments by mobile wireless providers that their service constitutes Internet infrastructure that's sufficiently robust at at time when the Internet is becoming an all purpose telecommunications system transporting an exponentially growing amount of voice, data and video traffic.

"While use of mobile broadband is growing, that growth to date is mainly in lower speed ranges that may not be able to support the applications and services identified by Congress, such as high-quality video," the FCC's report states. "MetroPCS and others ask the Commission to reverse its conclusion, given the prevalence of wireless technology," the report continues. "While MetroPCS and others have noted the general expansion of mobile wireless across the country, they failed to demonstrate that wireless broadband is provided at 4 Mbps/1 Mbps actual speed (or reasonable proxy) in the unserved areas."

Most importantly, the FCC identifies the key reason why so many Americans remain disconnected: investor owned providers can't profitably earn a return on their investment -- mostly upfront and ongoing labor costs -- in order to justify building out their networks to serve more premises. "In the absence of programs that provide additional support, the private sector will not bring broadband to Americans living in areas where there is no business case for operating a broadband network," the report states.

Short of labor costs declining dramatically, that will continue to be the case. And unless communities explore alternative nonprofit business models such as municipal and cooperatively-owned open access fiber to the premises infrastructure, the FCC will continue to report on a "significant and persistent" infrastructure gap next year and subsequent years.

Battling over accuracy of broadband maps plays into hands of legacy providers

Readers of this blog know that I've long regarded so-called "broadband mapping" as well as as focusing on "broadband adoption" as strategies cooked up by the PR shops of the big legacy telco and cable companies to divert attention away from the lack of advanced telecom infrastructure. As long as people are battling over the accuracy of "broadband maps," they aren't taking matters into their own hands and money isn't being invested to construct fiber to the premises telecom infrastructure to fill in the availability gaps the mappers are attempting to document.

The Associated Press reports Vermont Gov. Peter Shumlin is steamed that existing "broadband maps" -- probably including the useless National Broadband Map paid for by our federal tax dollars -- show his home near Putney, Vermont has DSL service. Not true, the guv says. So he's countered with his own state-run mapping program, BroadbandVT.org

Instead of trying to see who can most accurately map broadband black holes -- an exercise about as useful as mapping the celestial variety -- Vermonters should call upon their independent New England spirit and create cooperatives to build fiber to their homes and businesses. That spirit is apparently alive and well in western Massachusetts, where the Wired West announced this week that several towns voted in favor of moving forward to formalize creation of a municipal telecommunications cooperative to build sorely needed fiber to the premises telecom infrastructure.

Despite growth of Internet telecommunications, majority of employers don't allow telework

We may be living in the era of Internet telecommunications where most any generation, analysis and manipulation of words and numbers can be done from most anywhere having adequate telecom infrastructure.

But for most American businesses, that fact hasn't yet fully registered. Most still believe this type of work can only be done in office buildings and cubicles, which in turn reinforces that time sucking activity known as commuting. At a time when people are strapped for time and want to reduce their carbon footprints. And exercise more and perhaps lower their employers' soaring health care costs in the process.

The results of a random telephone survey of nearly 10,000 businesses in a dozen states last year found only 23 percent allow telework. The results are reported in a white paper issued today by Connected Nation, Leveraging Technology to Stimulate Economic Growth.

AT&T exec suggests wireless will save its residential market segment

AT&T may be the nation's largest telecommunications company. But its size hasn't helped it meet the challenge of upgrading its cable plant to transport Internet protocol-based services. AT&T provided wireline Internet connectivity first through dial up and ISDN connections in the early 1990s, and then DSL as the 1990s turned into the 2000s. Starting in 2006, AT&T brought fiber closer to customer premises -- but not to them -- with its FTTN (Fiber to the Node) U-Verse service utilizing VDSL. Some new, dense greenfield developments received U-Verse service via direct fiber to the premises connections.

New home construction cratered shortly after U-Verse rolled out, leaving only more challenging FTTN brownfield opportunities. They are more challenging because the old cooper cable plant designed for POTS (Plain Old Telephone Service) is used to carry high compressed VDSL signals that quickly degrade with distance, limiting the size of the potential U-Verse customer base.

Faced with these challenges to reach customer premises and seeing strong growth on the wireless side of its business, AT&T not surprisingly sees its future in the wireless space. "The future is wireless broadband and we must keep that in front of us at all times," Tim Ray, executive director for AT&T External Affairs in Northern California, said at a recent roundtable discussion hosted by Sacramento-based Valley Vision.

In 2010, Valley Vision formed the Connected Capital Area Broadband Consortium (CCABC), a coalition "which seeks to identify and coordinate strategic broadband investments in the six-county Sacramento region aimed at improving broadband infrastructure, access and adoption." Ray, who sits on Valley Vision's board of directors, appeared to suggest wireless Internet connectivity will be able to substitute for wireline connectivity, noting "27 percent of homes no longer have wire line and this trend will continue to grow."

Ray's wrong and engaged in wishful thinking. There's currently nothing indicating wireless Internet service -- which is aimed at mobile devices with a low bandwidth allocation per customer  -- can provide sufficient capacity to handle burgeoning bandwidth consumption and be able to reliably deliver to customer premises high definition video content and applications like video conferencing and telemedicine. Indeed, AT&T's wireless infrastructure is already choked with far lower bandwidth traffic from devices such as the iPhone.

AT&T is in conflict with its own business model. It's in the telecommunications business which by its nature requires lots of CAPEX and OPEX. But it expects to get a full ROI within 5 years on its CAPEX. That's not going happen in most places except perhaps in new dense greenfield developments, which as previously mentioned also aren't happening.

More patient capital the key advantage of community telecom infrastrucuture

Craig Settles explains the advantages of community fiber telecom infrastructure in this Government Technology piece.  The key advantage over investor-owed infrastructure can be summed up in three words: more patient capital.  Telecom infrastructure built by local governments and cooperatives doesn't need a return on investment in just 3-5 years -- an inherent flaw of the investor-owed business model given the high capital cost of constructing and operating it. 

Settles correctly notes there is money to be made for private players -- if they are willing to partner with communities in open access fiber projects and abandon the outdated business model of 100 percent ownership and monopolistic control.

Communities must build fiber telecom infrastructure where incumbents cannot

As bandwidth demand grows exponentially for Internet protocol-based telecommunications, Geoff Daily aptly notes the debate over what infrastructure can best deliver it to customers is over. Only fiber can do the job, he writes on his blog App-Rising. The task, therefore, is to bring it to their doorsteps. "With this context we can now define fiber-to-the-home as bringing the full power of the Internet to your front door," Daily writes.

Indeed. Daily adds to get there, public policymakers and consumers must be educated on the significance of fiber telecom infrastructure. And we must end the useless demonizing of for-profit providers whose business models don't allow them to both bring fiber to consumers' premises and make money for their investors. Don't expect them to do something they can't.

Instead, I would add, consumers must find alternative business models to build vital fiber-based telecommunications infrastructure in their communities not served by investor-owned providers. I'm not just talking the talk here. I'm walking the walk in my own community. I encourage other communities to do so as well.

Obama administration should focus on community-run open access fiber, not 4G wireless

The Obama administration's recent announcement of its National Wireless Initiative to subsidize the build out of 4th generation (4G) wireless Internet to make it available to least 98 percent of Americans appears based on the assumption that cutting edge wireless telecommunications technology can play a central role in the nation's telecom infrastructure.

I'm not convinced. 4G wireless is only just emerging and remains unproven in terms of whether it can deliver sufficient bandwidth at the same time bandwidth demand is increasing exponentially. It's primarily designed for mobile use and portable devices such as smart phones and IPads that are gobbling bandwidth at such a prodigious rate that providers have a difficult time meeting the demand. That's why they ration bandwidth and penalize wireless customers who use more than 5 GB per month. The rationing is due to a more basic telecom infrastructure problem: the lack of adequate wire line infrastructure to "backhaul" or feed the distribution system that supports that huge and growing universe of wireless devices.

The administration's wireless initiative seems to suggest that people can "cut the cord" for Internet access just as they have done for wire line voice service, which requires far less bandwidth. 4G wireless, the administration apparently believes, can provide access to medical tests, online courses and applications that have not yet been invented.

That remains to be seen. What is certain now is wire line fiber optic connections to American households and businesses can deliver more than enough bandwidth for today's needs without the need for rationing plus plenty of additional capacity for those yet to be invented applications. The administration's telecom infrastructure efforts should focus on bringing it to the 24 million Americans that Federal Communications Chairman Julius Genachowski said remain disconnected from the Internet. "The infrastructure simply isn’t there," Genachowski explained.

The reason: It's simply not sufficiently profitable for investor owned providers to build it. Alternative, lower cost methods are urgently needed. The best and most rapid way to bring about these alternatives is to focus at the local level and provide local governments and consumer telecom cooperatives technical assistance grants and low cost loans to build open access fiber networks to serve their communities.

The administration's health care reform legislation allocates $5 billion in technical assistance grants to for new health insurance cooperatives to pool risk and purchase health coverage for their members. The administration should provide a similar amount of technical assistance funding for local governments and telecom cooperatives to help them plan and design open access fiber optic telecom networks.

Virtual workforce requires robust telecom infrastructure

While a recent survey found that less than 4 percent of U.S. private sector workers actually work from home, that figure could reach as high as 30 percent by 2019, according to TechCast, a George Washington University–based virtual think tank.

What's behind this coming workplace revolution? Quite simply, "work" no longer needs to be defined as a place you go. We're witnessing the emergence of a next generation workforce that is always-on and hyper-connected via broadband, with a proliferation of connected devices and access to on-the-go Internet-based applications and cloud-based services that make working from anywhere possible.

The above excerpt from a Reuters article goes on to point out various pluses of telework including reduced carbon emissions from less commuting and mutual benefits for employers (better productivity, lower office costs) and employees (greater work/life balance and job satisfaction). While not mentioned specifically, improved work/life balance could also yield big benefits in lower health care costs by freeing up time for exercise that would otherwise be spent commuting to and from the office.

In order for the virtual workforce to become a reality, workers will need advanced telecommunications infrastructure at their doorsteps that can support videoconferencing and other interactive applications. That means fiber optic connections offering symmetric upload and download speeds and scalability for future growth that is generally not offered by incumbent telco and cable companies.

Satellite Internet provider targets U.S. exurbs as growth market

The notion that being disconnected from the Internet is a problem largely confined to rural areas isn't true. The latest evidence comes courtesy of Arunas Slekys, vice president of corporate marketing for satellite Internet provider Hughes Network Systems.

Slekys told The Washington Post that Hughes' best growth prospects aren't necessarily deep rural America but the outer rings of metro areas where telcos and cable companies haven't built out their wireline infrastructures to provide premises Internet connections. "These aren't people sitting on a mountainside in Idaho," Slekys told The Post. "They're actually exurban. You can go 20 or 30 miles outside of D.C. and there are a lot of areas where you can't get terrestrial broadband."

Indeed. Ditto for other metro regions of the United States. Living in the exurbs often means no Internet, which won't help property values recover in despite their typically upmarket homes.

Slekys makes a excellent point about the extent of the problem in the U.S. But his company's solution is, frankly, not a solution. Even on an interim basis until terrestrial infrastructure is constructed to serve these offline areas. Satellite Internet connections are notoriously sluggish due to the high signal latency caused by the 46,000 mile round trip to the satellite and back to the Earth's surface and are prone to frequent drop outs. Then there are the dreaded FAPs, aka Fair Access Policies. This fine print in satellite providers' contracts allows them to slow your connection to dial up speed -- often for days on end -- if the connection is used too much or for applications that use a lot of bandwidth such as video.

So those of you in the offline exurbs, forget about streaming Netflix films on a satellite connection unless you want to spend some time in FAP jail with your Internet connection slowed to a crawl. And if you're an executive who lives in an upscale exurban property or a small business owner/consultant, forget about using your satellite connection to videoconference with your offices or to exchange large files. The connection isn't sufficiently robust and stable to support it.

The Economist: Why LTE can't substitute for fiber

Some believe the Internet will become untethered over the last mile and point to cutting edge wireless transmission technology known as LTE or 4G. The two biggest telcos in the U.S., Verizon and AT&T, are rolling it out (or are about to in the case of AT&T.)

But it won't be able to replace the nation's aging copper cable infrastructure that has grown increasingly difficult and costly to operate reliably. Nor is it likely to provide sufficient capacity for future growth in bandwidth demand -- something that Verizon and AT&T are acutely aware having faced growth pains and capacity constraints with their current generation of 3G wireless.

The Economist explains why:

Already LTE has shown itself good for at least 5Mbps—impressive for a mobile technology still in its infancy (see “Generational change”, December 3rd, 2010). But with peak speeds of 1Gbps theoretically possible, LTE’s next iteration should make downloads of 100Mbps over the airwaves a matter of routine. Developments beyond that could lead to near-gigabit speeds.

Of the two, though, a fixed link like fibre remains the better bet. Sooner or later, even a 4G wireless protocol such as LTE or its country-cousin WiMAX will become overwhelmed by the exponential growth of mobile traffic. By contrast, an optical link to the home could use a multitude of different wavelengths to boost throughput almost indefinitely.

Network World also weighs in:

So the next question about wireless broadband as a substitute. Recall that according to the U.S. Government Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), 1 in 4 homes has cut the legacy wireline phone cord in favor of wireless-only voice. Could we see wireless substitution rates that high for broadband access? We think not because radio spectrum is a limited resource, and unlike wireless voice networks that have plenty of spectrum to manage voice calls, if 25% of broadband users shifted from wireline access, the demand for wireless broadband would likely exceed available spectrum given today's technology.

The post-broadband era begins

As 2010 draws to a close, we are also seeing the closure of a chapter of the early Internet era and the beginning of a new one. The first chapter opened in the early 1990s when the few people who connected to the Internet did so with narrowband "dial up" connections using the Public Switched Telephone Network (PSTN). By the end of that decade, dialup evolved from 1200 and 2400 baud connections to 56Kbs connections as well as ISDN offering Internet connections of up to 128Kbs. At the same time, "broadband" began emerging with DSL and Internet services offered by cable companies.

We are now beginning a new chapter where throughput speeds that defined an Internet connection will be less relevant than the services and applications people use when they access the Internet. If the connection can't support them, it no longer will be considered bona fide Internet-based service. From a practical standpoint, that means dialup and satellite connections are now obsolete since they cannot provide end users a full Internet experience due to the inherent physical limitations of their technologies.

Also being rendered obsolete as bandwidth demand grows exponentially, particularly with the explosion of video content and mobile Internet:

-- The U.S. Federal Communications Commission's definition of a "broadband" Internet connection as 4Mbs down and 1Mbs up.

-- The term "broadband black hole" and dubious efforts to "map" these locations. These areas will simply be regarded as disconnected from the Internet, similar to the "off the grid" term applied to those locations lacking electric power service.

FCC ruling heralds regulatory end of "broadband" era

The U.S. Federal Communications Commission's decision this week barring providers of fixed premises wireline Internet connectivity from selectively rationing (or blocking) bandwidth based on the source and/or content marks the regulatory beginning of the end of the "broadband" era. Whereas broadband once defined a premium telecommunications service offered at a premium price, the FCC is effectively declaring that an Internet connection is an Internet connection regardless of what information or content consumers receive from it. ISPs cannot devote greater bandwidth to some information or content (for example, their own proprietary content) while affording less bandwidth to other information or content.

This is the right decision that recognizes the Internet as a de facto common carrier telecommunications network similar in that regard to traditional voice telephone service. The large national legacy telcos and cable companies warned before the FCC adopted the ruling that it would discourage capital investment in their infrastructures, which the FCC noted early this year continue to leave an estimated 7 million U.S homes offline.

There's no evidence the business case for more network investment by the large national legacy telcos and cablecos would have been improved had the commission come down on the other side of the issue. Their business models are constrained by the need to pay their shareholders generous dividends as they have done for decades and by high labor costs to modernize and build out their plants outside of densely populated urban and suburban areas.

NTIA report reinforces outdated notion of "broadband adoption"

The National Telecommunications and Information Administration (NTIA) is issuing a report today that continues to promote the outdated notion that Internet connectivity is separate and distinct from other types of Internet delivered telecommunications such as voice and video. It does so by parsing out "broadband" usage among various demographic groups.

Unfortunately, it's about as useful as reporting distinctions among these groups in their landline long distance calling patterns. Whether they make long distance calls or not, all use telecommunications infrastructure serving their premises. It's the same with the Internet as it replaces the publicly switched telephone network (PSTN) for voice calls and even cable TV for video. "Broadband usage" is no longer a meaningful metric.

If the calendar read 1999, the NTIA's report would be timely rather than more than decade out of date. Back then, "broadband" and "high speed Internet" was an emerging service option offered by legacy telephone and cable companies. Customers paid about $50 a month for the service over and above their usual monthly service charge.

Accordingly, discussing adoption of this service in terms of demographics and income would have made sense then since some groups of people would find this premium service more appealing and affordable than others -- especially since Internet applications such as websites and email were at the time only just starting to reach most consumers.

However, at a time when the Internet provides multiple services that formerly required separate, proprietary cable and telephone systems to deliver and can do so over a single tiny fiber optic strand connected to every home and business, reports like the one being issued today by the NTIA are increasingly irrelevant. It would be more far more useful and relevant if the NTIA and others instead studied how to hasten the build out of fiber optic infrastructure so that no homes and businesses are left offline.

Blair Levin perpetuates false distinction among IP-based services

Blair Levin, in another recent interview looking back on the U.S. National Broadband Plan he lead authored for the Federal Communications Commission before becoming an Aspen Institute fellow this summer, perpetuates a false distinction among Internet Protocol (IP)-based telecommunications services. IP-based services include Internet applications such as web browsing, email and e-commerce as well as Voice Over Internet Protocol (VOIP) and video, also known as Internet Protocol TV (IPTV).

In an interview with Marguerite Reardon of cnet news, Levin does so by differentiating VOIP and IPTV from Internet applications. Levin -- as do many incumbent legacy phone and cable companies -- continues to describe the latter as "broadband." That term was appropriate in the mid-1990s when "broadband" denoted a premium service offered by telephone companies over their single purpose, proprietary copper cable plants. But as fiber optic cable technology increasingly obsoletes metal wire for delivering multiple IP-based services, the term is no longer relevant.

Levin reinforces this artificial split by talking about "broadband adoption." That too was relevant in the 1990s when broadband was being offered as a premium service, requiring customers to sign up for or "adopt" it. Today, it no longer is when Internet applications, voice and video can be delivered to consumers over a single fiber "pipe."

Further reinforcing the bogus notion of "broadband adoption," Levin elaborates that "broadband" requires consumers to be literate whereas voice and video do not. Therefore, Levin implies, we first need to improve the literacy of Americans to drive "broadband adoption" before the nation revamps its outmoded telecom infrastructure with fiber. Here's what he told Reardon:

Even though there are a lot of low-income people who may not be able to afford multi-channel video (cable TV), there is still a high proportion of people subscribing to the service. And people are not leaving in huge numbers. The big difference between TV and broadband is that to watch TV, you don't have to be literate. The same is true of phone service. You don't need to be literate to use a cell phone, so penetration of those services is higher. But to use broadband for things, such as getting access to public services, health care, job training, etc., a basic level of literacy is necessary. It requires a skill set. And teaching people those skills is a serious effort. So price is a piece of it, but literacy and relevance are also aspects too.

This is so much sophistry. Moreover, even if one accepts Levin's false dichotomy between Internet applications on one hand and voice and video on the other, it would argue for a bigger push to deploy fiber optic telecom infrastructure since video requires the "fat pipe" bandwidth fiber can provide.