Policy debate -- not market competition -- predominates in U.S. premises Internet infrastructure

In the United States, the major competition in last mile wired premise Internet infrastructure is playing out in the public policy arena more than in the marketplace. In order to have market competition, there has to be a market. In many areas, there isn’t one. Those looking to purchase wired premise Internet service cannot do so because no providers want to sell it to them. The basic definition of a functional market is willing buyers and willing sellers. Others want better value service and more options. Here again, the market fails. No providers are willing to make the necessary investment in order to sell better value services to them – the impetus behind many municipal Internet infrastructure projects.

Second, telecommunications infrastructure due to its high construction and operating costs excludes many potential providers. It’s what known as a natural monopoly or at best, a duopoly. Roads and highways are tremendously expensive and thus tend to be operated by one provider that can bear the large cost burden: the government. In a limited number of cases, a duopoly exists where motorists have the option of taking the public highway or a private toll road. By definition, there cannot be a competitive market, which is one made up of many sellers and many buyers.

Which brings us to the major ideological battleground over last mile wired premise Internet service: Whether it should be operated like a closed, private toll road or an open access public thoroughfare. Big money has joined the fight to bolster the latter position. Macquarie Capital Group, an Australian firm that invests in multi-billion dollar infrastructure projects around the world, is considering investing in UTOPIA, an open access fiber to the premise (FTTP) network serving 11 Utah municipalities. (See item here).

On the other side of the debate are the legacy incumbent telephone and cable companies that want to preserve their closed network models. As Community Broadband Networks reports, they are sponsoring bills in both chambers of the Utah legislature opponents say are intended to scotch a potential Macquarie investment in UTOPIA. In Kansas, the cable company lobby is seeking legislation that would add Kansas to the roster of 20 states that bar local governments from building Internet infrastructure projects to serve their citizenry.

Verizon CEO wrongly compares Internet usage to basic utility consumption

Internet Service Cost: Verizon CEO says heavy broadband users pay more | BGR: Are you constantly streaming high-definition video, downloading tons of Xbox One games and sending massive files to friends and family? You should pay more for Internet access than your neighbor, who only uses a 10-year-old PC in his living room to read email and occasionally browse the Internet for cat GIFs. This is the position of Verizon CEO Lowell McAdam, who said this week that heavy broadband users should have to pay more for home Internet access than those who don’t take full advantage of the service for which they already pay top dollar.

McAdam's logic would make sense if an Internet service was like that of other utilities such as electric power, water or natural gas. These are limited commodities that require some incentive to conserve their use so that they may be available to all who need them. That's why these utility providers use tiered billing schemes that tap into price elasticity -- the tendency to use less of a commodity as its price increases -- and create incentive to conserve via penalties for excessive consumption. There is no similar need to conserve Internet bandwidth. Someone who uses more of it does not impose higher marginal costs on Verizon or any other Internet provider to deliver that higher level of usage.

That said, McAdam is correct to expect that customers of its FiOS fiber to the premise service to help offset the capital and operating costs of the service. But treating bandwidth as a limited commodity when in fact it is not isn't the way to go about it. Instead of creating a false paradigm of bandwidth scarcity, McAdam and other industry leaders should endeavor to foster a mindset of bandwidth plentitude. Big bandwidth promotes more uses and applications of it, making it more valuable to households and businesses. And as those users realize that value, demand for fiber connections will grow, in turn increasing the value of the network under Metcalfe's Law and Verizon's investment in it. When it comes to the Internet, more is better -- not less.  What Verizon and other telecommunications companies should remember is they are not in the business of bundling and selling bandwidth. They are in the communications business.

Rural areas shortchanged in broadband Internet service - Paradise Post

Rural areas shortchanged in broadband Internet service - Paradise Post: Jim Moorehead is working with the Broadband Alliance of Mendocino County to get the service to that county's rural areas. He said there are about 16 other counties in the same boat.

"We're not critical of the big companies for not doing it," he said. "They've got a responsibility to their shareholders." Still, he said he would like to see more money going toward installing those services for rural areas.

When a ratepayer gets a bill, he is paying a lot of nickel and dime charges. One of those charges is the California Advanced Services Fund (CASF), which is money that goes into closing the "digital divide," Moorehead said.

"That fund can help close it," he said. "The problem is, the carriers are fighting it."

A lot of this going on in California. It costs too much for the legacy incumbent telephone and cable companies to provide Internet connectivity to all premises in their service areas, so the kids there end up marooned in broadband backwaters. The incumbents don't want the subsidies Moorehead mentions to offset the high costs -- or anyone else receiving them either.

In addition, the CASF utilizes outdated, speed-based standards to determine areas eligible for subsidies rather than setting a higher, goal-based standard such as universal fiber optic premises Internet connectivity. It's a perfect prescription for a race to the bottom in a state that has historically viewed itself as a leader.

How Google Fiber is revolutionary -- and how it's not

Google Fiber is revolutionary with the medium of its infrastructure: fiber all the way to the customer premise and the enormous headroom it offers to accommodate future bandwidth growth and new, high bandwidth services. This will allow Google Fiber to leap past the big incumbent national telephone and cable companies bogged down by their existing investment in wire cable infrastructure designed for a pre-Internet era. As Marshall McLuhan put it, the medium is the message. And the medium is fiber to the premise.

Google Fiber also has a revolutionary business model that lessens the pressure to get customer premises to subscribe in order to make the network economics pencil out. It allows customers to sign up for a low cost, multi-year, flat rate connection designed to cover the cost of connecting the premise. The big telcos and cablecos, by comparison, typically charge many thousands of dollars to connect a premise lacking access to a connection, with cablecos charging about $65,000 per mile.

Where Google Fiber's business model is not revolutionary is that like the big legacy incumbents, it is a closed "walled garden" that seeks to own the customer rather than an open access network that sells access to customer premises on a wholesale basis to those wanting to market services over it. This imposes major marketing costs to acquire subscribers one at at time, limiting Google Fiber to those areas where it can get a good return for its marketing and infrastructure investment.

Critics of this business model such as Michael Elling (featured in this video) contend it degrades the value of the network by limiting its ability to scale, invoking Metcalfe's Law -- that implies a network is only as valuable as the number of subscribers on it. Since fewer subscribers can connect to a limited, closed network, it becomes less lucrative in the larger scheme for those at the core providing Internet delivered services such as Netflix, Amazon and ironically, Google itself.

The rainbow rabbit leaps over incumbents: Google Fiber in diligence for expansion in 9 metro areas of U.S.

Google Fiber's announcement today that it is in diligence with local governments in nine metro areas of the United States for possible expansion of its proprietary fiber to the premise (FTTP) telecommunications infrastructure illustrates how a company that has been in the Internet business from the beginning can nimbly hop over legacy incumbent telephone and cable companies. The incumbents are weighed down by large investments in metal wire-based infrastructure and outmoded pricing structures that rely on creating artificial bandwidth scarcity and unit-based consumption. They must also satisfy shareholders who favor big dividends over capital investment in FTTP networks -- which explains why Verizon halted its FiOS FTTP product expansion in 2012. Finally, incumbents have sowed sour relationships with local governments that have asked for better service for their residents for years, making them likely to heartily welcome the Googlers.

What's also evident from today's announcement is Google Fiber's colorful hare won't likely be running to areas of the U.S. where it's needed most -- locales where homes and businesses lack wireline premises Internet service due to redlining by the incumbent providers.

Those areas will likely have to rely on municipal and cooperative fiber builds, although some investor-owned players could potentially offer them FTTP as in this rather counterintuitive circumstance in Mississippi. They can, however, benefit from Google Fiber's experience, adopting principles and techniques that lower costs and improve the economics of FTTP. These include prioritizing construction based on interest from potential subscribers and differential pricing models that include an option for basic, flat rate service at low cost for a limited period of time.

Netflix performance on Verizon and Comcast has been dropping for months | Ars Technica

It wouldn't be at all surprising if Netflix and Amazon stood in the way of government approval of today's announced deal for Comcast to acquire Time Warner Cable without a pledge from Comcast to treat all network traffic equally along with meaningful regulatory enforcement. This story graphically shows why:
Netflix performance on Verizon and Comcast has been dropping for months | Ars Technica

The major causes of U.S. premise Internet service policy quagmire

U.S. telecommunications policy for premises Internet connectivity is in need of reassessment and revamping. It severely limits the nation’s ability to ensure all homes and businesses have fiber to the premise Internet connectivity capable of serving both current and future needs as bandwidth demand continues to grow exponentially.
 

Call it the Levin quagmire, named after former U.S. Federal Communications Commission official Blair Levin. In 2012, Levin predicted little change in the status quo, noting for most Americans over the near term, the best wireline network available to them will be the same one they have now. According to the FCC, for about 19 million Americans that’s dialup, state of the art technology in the early 1990s when Bill Clinton was starting his first term as president.

Summed up, these are the circumstances and policies that have produced the current quagmire:

• There is an insufficient business case for legacy incumbent telephone and cable companies to invest in building out their networks to serve all premises in their service areas or to upgrade existing infrastructure to fiber to the premise service. Nevertheless, these providers generally don’t avail themselves of federal and state subsidy programs aimed at capitalizing the cost of Internet infrastructure.
  

• Federal subsidy programs such as the Connect America Fund are only available to telephone companies and not cable companies that are becoming the dominant premises Internet service providers over telephone companies that are instead concentrating their capital investments on mobile wireless markets.

• Legacy incumbent telephone and cable providers view their service territories as proprietary franchises. Consequently, they oppose the award of subsidies to alternative providers and lobby for subsidy program eligibility rules inappropriately based on mobile wireless service and outmoded and changing standards of Internet service. They also lobby for state laws that bar local governments from building and operating fiber to the premise networks or make it impractical to do so.

California should invest in modern telecommunications infrastructure, not high speed rail

Stanford University public policy professor Joe Nation makes an excellent point in this article on transportation infrastructure. Nation, a former California state legislator, notes high-speed trains work in densely populated areas (like the Boston-New York-Washington corridor, for example) and not states like California with large rural, quasi-rural and exurban areas.

In the evolving digital, information-based socio-economy (much of it innovated in Silicon Valley), the Golden State would likely be better off  investing in fiber to the premise telecommunications infrastructure. Particularly since market forces don't tend to produce meaningful private investment in premise telecommunications infrastructure in less densely populated areas that are in danger of becoming neglected backwaters left off the Internet. Putting this infrastructure in place would also enable these areas to more fully participate in the digital economy, reduce the need for commutes to metro areas and benefit from services such as telehealth and distance learning.

High speed rail might have been a suitable project had it been proposed three or four decades ago. What's needed today is ubiquitous, high speed Internet.

IP Transition Must Advance, CES Panel Says | USTelecom

IP Transition Must Advance, CES Panel Says | USTelecom: Meanwhile, AT&T has been eager to begin moving forward with the IP transition and last year proposed that the Federal Communications Commission begin trials to test the effects of a full network transition, said Bob Quinn, AT&T senior vice president-federal regulatory. The role for FCC is to oversee the "turning off" of the old network, Quinn said. "There will be an enormous amount of policy concerns involved in doing this, and we need to figure out what this new world will look like."

"We've reached the point where the IP network is superior to the old switched network," said Internet analyst and author Larry Downes. "The policy issue is what do we do about people who have not yet made the switch?"

There's also the issue of telephone companies that have not yet changed out their old POTS copper cable plants to fiber optic capable of supporting data and video as well as voice services using voice over Internet protocol (VOIP). This isn't only about consumers who haven't made the transition off wireline POTS for premises service. For many, they don't really have a choice for wireline-delivered voice service.

AT&T and other telcos are hoping consumers will be satisfied with using mobile wireless service for both voice and Internet access since they don't plan to invest in fiber to the premise (FTTP) infrastructure to replace their obsolete copper networks that cannot serve many homes and businesses due to technological limitations. Communities can offer their residents a far better option by building municipal or consumer telecommunications cooperative owned and operated FTTP networks instead of leaving their residents relegated to supbar mobile wireless services that can't provide adequate bandwidth and value.

Kan. bill would outlaw public broadband service - Washington Times

Kan. bill would outlaw public broadband service - Washington Times: Officials in the southeast Kansas city of Chanute, population 9,100, say they’re the primary target of the proposed legislation. As part of its public utility system, the city runs an ultra-high-speed broadband network that now serves schools, city buildings, the town hospital, banks and other key businesses.

On Nov. 23, the City Commission voted to work toward “fiber to home,” which would extend access to all residents and businesses within about a three-mile radius around the city, said Larry Gates, Chanute utilities director.

“This bill is an attack on competition, an attack on municipal government,” Gates said. “It takes away our local control and local decision making. It will hurt our efforts in economic development,” he said. (Emphasis added)

I respectfully disagree with Mr. Gates' characterization of the bill as an "attack on competition." Utility infrastructure by nature isn't a competitive market. It's really an attack on progress that threatens the incumbent telephone and cable providers backing the measure.

Upgrading the nation's telecommunications infrastructure to fiber to the premise to support new Internet protocol-based networks represents progress in the digital age just as interstate highways did in the 1950s. No one would describe paved roads as "competition" to dirt roads. By bullying local governments to get their way, the incumbents are on the wrong side of this issue. Americans like progress and they hate bullies. If they keep it up, local governments should respond by exercising their redevelopment and inverse condemnation powers to take over incumbent assets and upgrade them to fiber to the premise.

Market failure – not market competition – spurs community Internet infrastructure projects

A major misconception -- largely advanced by legacy incumbent telephone and cable companies – is local governments build Internet infrastructure because they want to compete with the incumbents. Competitive markets are those characterized as having many sellers and many buyers. That’s not possible with Internet infrastructure due to high barriers to entry and high ongoing operating costs.

Local governments build Internet infrastructure not to engage in market competition with incumbent legacy cablecos and telcos. They do so in response to market failure where the incumbents cannot profitably serve local needs. Lacking sufficient potential profits, the incumbents naturally aren’t going to be inclined to upgrade and build out fiber networks. 

In terms of those left off the Internet “grid,” the scale of this market failure in the United States is substantial. The U.S. Federal Communications Commission (FCC) estimates about 19 million Americans live in homes where Internet service isn’t available.

Net neutrality debate underlies strategic tensions between legacy telcos, cablecos and content providers

Underlying the public policy issue of whether the U.S. Federal Communications Commission (FCC) has legal authority to bar Internet service providers from treating the Internet as a private toll road and charging higher fees for digital express lanes – a policy known as “net neutrality” – are deep tensions between legacy telephone and cable companies and content providers. The courts are now addressing the legality of this policy, with the question to potentially come before the U.S. Supreme Court. But how the tensions between big telephone and cable companies and Internet content and social media services are resolved in the marketplace could ultimately have a much bigger impact than the courts.

The telephone and cable companies maintain they need revenue from content providers to offset CAPex and OPex costs of the infrastructure to deliver the services and as such are entitled to payment for access to their networks. In short, their position is they can charge for access on both ends of the Internet: where services like Netflix enter their “pipes” as then-AT&T Chairman Ed Whitacre famously described them in 2007 and also at consumer premises where they are delivered. From the perspective of the content and service providers, given end users pay for access, they too shouldn’t have to pay to get content on network. And to boot, a network they view as technologically deficient and unable to provide sufficient current and future bandwidth as evidenced by Google’s limited venture into fiber the premise (FTTP) infrastructure via its Google Fiber unit. The incumbent inferiority gap has been recognized by former FCC official Blair Levin, who observes that big telco and cable companies have no plans to meaningfully upgrade and build out their networks.

While the courts will ultimately provide a tactical win to one side or the other on the issue of net neutrality, the strategic market tension between the sides over who owns and operates Internet infrastructure and who pays for it will nevertheless remain. How might it be resolved?

A possible scenario is the formation of an alliance among the big content providers and the Internet backbone transport players with the mission of dislodging the telco/cable cartel and its moribund, slow-moving pre-Internet business model. Call it the nuclear FTTP overbuild option. Given the hundreds of billions of dollars required to build out FTTP in the United States, a strategic initiative on such a massive scale would likely have to be a public-private partnership with private members such as like Level 3, Cogent Communications, Google, Amazon, Netflix, Ebay,Yahoo!, LinkedIn, Twitter as well as entities involved in the telehealth, distance education and the emerging markets of smart homes and the device-driven “Internet of things.” The federal government would be the public partner, providing capital through long term bonds to finance a strategic national Internet initiative to replace lethargic, highly contentious subsidy efforts such as the Connect America Fund that could take decades –if ever – to construct adequate Internet infrastructure serving all Americans.

Fiber to the premise obsoleting net neutrality debate

A ruling this week by a federal appellate court blocking U.S. Federal Communications Commission rules barring Internet service providers from effectively erecting toll gates and speed bumps as revenue enhancement mechanisms is likely to fuel the policy debate on the proper role of the Internet: whether it should be regulated like a public thoroughfare -- the infrastructure of an increasingly digital economy -- or as a private, profit producing asset.

Investor owned, rent seeking providers such as telcos and cable companies will naturally gravitate toward business models that treat digital Internet traffic as a limited commodity that must be broken down, packaged and sold in discrete bundles and flow rates. The more data and the faster the flow rate, the higher the price.

The big problem for this business model is it's being obsoleted by technology. Fiber to the premise (FTTP) infrastructure is the emerging standard for delivering Internet to homes and business customers. It does not have the inherent limitations of metal wire and cable infrastructure, where a rational, technology-based argument can be made for treating bandwidth as a limited commodity. Once FTTP infrastructure is in place, adding more capacity can be accomplished at relatively negligible cost.

Strong parallels between individual health insurance and Internet service markets

Telecommunications providers, consumers and policymakers should be aware of the strong parallels between wireline residential Internet service and the individual health insurance marketplace as it existed prior to the market reforms of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act.

Both residential Internet providers – and formerly individual health insurers -- shared a business model whose success is ironically predicated on not selling to all potential customers in their market areas. The underlying principle is risk aversion: vendors believe they cannot adequately manage the risk of loss associated with an expanded market. A smaller, more certainly profitable customer base is better than a larger one notwithstanding the potential for greater revenues.

Before the Affordable Care Act outlawed the practice starting this month, individual health insurers employed underwriters charged with selecting relatively healthy individuals less likely to incur high medical costs, refusing to offer coverage those who didn’t meet specified underwriting standards. Similarly, wireline residential Internet service providers offer service to one address while declining to serve another nearby – even as close as quarter of a mile away or less. As individual health insurers did, these providers reject the latter residences (as well as some small business sites) as more costly to serve and thus less potentially profitable. Their infrastructures are engineered and built to accommodate preferred addresses and redline the rest.

The problem with this business model for individual health insurers is that medical underwriting limited the size of the pool of individuals and families who could pay premiums to cover claims costs. Consequently, the pool and the number of healthy people staying in it shrank to the point it was on the verge of collapse when the Affordable Care Act was enacted in 2010. The federal law intervened to head off market failure by requiring health plan issuers to sell to anyone applying for coverage regardless of medical history or health condition.

The restrictive marketing practices of Internet service providers bring about a similar problem. Just as insurance pools are more viable with more people in them, telecommunications networks are more valuable when more people are on them or able to get on – both for providers and subscribers. This principle is known as Metcalfe’s Law. Those who argue for broader deployment of fiber to the premise (FTTP) Internet infrastructure carry over the Metcalfe principle to economic activity and education. Greater numbers of premises with modern Internet access can lead to more online commerce and business formation. Increased access to information and educational curricula, similarly, lead to a more informed and better educated society.

As time goes on and these broader benefits – and conversely costs of not having affordable premises Internet access – become more evident, it could lead to large scale market reforms such as are now reshaping the individual health insurance market.

FCC Internet metric outdated

   
The U.S. Federal Communications has issued its annual report on how Americans access the Internet and the speed of their connections. What's striking is the report still defines and measures Internet connectivity using outdated metrics better suited to a decade or more ago starting as greater than 200 kbps as a baseline and in tranches of 768 kbps, 3 mbps, 6 mbps, and 10 mbps.  Nowadays, many would regard only the latter number as defining basic Internet connectivity given increasing household bandwidth demand from multiple devices and streaming video content.

The FCC is measuring straws when it should be measuring water pipes.


Links:
Internet Access Services: Status as of December 31, 2012 (FCC, Dec. 2013)
 
FCC releases new data on internet access services (FCC news release, Dec. 24, 2013)

Protectionist policies called greatest regulatory threat to fiber to premise Internet infrastructure expansion

Over the past decade, much of the United States has experienced market failure because incumbent telco and cable companies are unable to serve all premises in their service territories with legacy metal wire infrastructure. They have also been unable to modernize and build out their aging infrastructures with modern fiber to the premise (FTTP) infrastructure able to accommodate expected exponential increases in future bandwidth demand.

At the same time, however, they have sought protectionist policies barring public sector providers from doing so with lower cost business models financed by more patient capital that doesn't require a high, short term return on investment. From their perspective, their service territories whether they fully serve them or not are their proprietary franchises. Hence, the need for protectionism to keep others out.

"The incumbents won't upgrade to fiber, Mr. President, because it's an option they cannot choose."

Writing in the November/December 2013 issue of Broadband Communities magazine, Steven S. Ross terms the incumbent agenda for protectionist policies that institutionalize Internet infrastructure market failure "perhaps the biggest regulatory threat to new FTTH (fiber to the home) deployments."

In fact, looking toward 2014, perhaps the biggest regulatory threat to new FTTH deployments is a push by politicians in many states to restrict municipalities and other public entities or public/private partnerships that want to build their own networks where incumbent providers (typically milking old, obsolete systems) refuse to do so.

Click here for the full article (.pdf)

The New America Foundation issued a critical report on U.S. Internet service on January 15, 2014. It urges the U.S. Federal Communications Commission work with Congress and other stakeholders to implement the 2010 U.S. National Broadband Plan’s recommendation that state-level barriers to municipally-built Internet infrastructure be eliminated.

Colorado legislation would redirect high cost telephone subsidies to Internet infrastructure

Two Colorado legislators are developing legislation to repurpose surcharges on voice landline and cell phone service to subsidize landline telephone service in high cost, less densely populated areas of the state to instead defray the cost of building out Internet infrastructure. "By funding land lines and copper-line phones, we're funding buggy whips,” Senator Gail Schwartz, D-Snowmass Village, told the Denver Post.

Rocky Mountain State lawmakers will however face resistance from incumbent telcos who want to preserve the status quo and continue to provide Internet service over their existing copper cable plants to a subset of wireline customers while deeming the rest unprofitable to serve. Throughout much of the United States, the latter cohort are in innumerable small pockets beyond the short range of DSL signals and/or where the existing copper cable is too old and deteriorated to deliver Internet service. First formed around 2000 and still around more than a decade later, they are like thousands of little holes in a big Swiss cheese, comprised of discrete premises, roads, streets and neighborhoods. Rather than “unserved areas,” they are more accurately described as redlined addresses and neighborhoods, typically avoided by both telcos and cable companies. The unfortunate residents are forced to rely on obsolete dialup offered by telcos or satellite Internet more properly suited to remote areas of the planet while the more fortunate may have access to fixed terrestrial wireless service from a local provider.

Incumbent telcos insist rules for government subsidy programs direct funds only to “unserved areas.” But building new wireline premises infrastructure is a costly, large scale endeavor that can make filling in these numerous voids one at a time impractical even with subsidies. In California, for example, incumbent telcos have largely shunned subsidies for premises Internet infrastructure offered through a six-year-old subsidy fund, the California Advanced Services Fund (CASF), similar to that being contemplated for Colorado. They have also challenged proposed CASF wireline projects by arguing the projects would serve premises adequately served by mobile broadband services.

Only a large scale overbuild of the outmoded copper cable plant with fiber to the premise infrastructure makes sense over the long term from both a technological and economic standpoint. State and federal Internet infrastructure subsidy funds should be structured accordingly.