Public policy likely to shift to regard IP-based advanced telecommunications as a utility, aligning with public expectations

Internet Service Providers have historically regarded their “broadband” offerings as luxury upgrades to basic narrowband dialup service introduced in the early 1990s. Consequently, they upgraded their “last mile” delivery infrastructures to support a range of Internet protocol supported services such as high quality data, video, voice only in select areas where they believed a sufficient number of households would opt for their high end offerings. The working assumption was significantly fewer than half would do so. Hence to hedge their risk, ISPs favored areas with the highest density single family housing and multiple dwelling units (MDUs) to increase the likelihood their investment in upgraded infrastructure would produce a decent return over a relatively short duration in order to satisfy their investors.

Nearly three decades later, ISPs continue to follow this deployment strategy at the same time IP-based advanced telecommunications is increasingly seen as a basic utility service. In the United States, current regulatory policy is aligned with the ISPs “broadband” service-as-luxury business models. ISPs are free of universal service obligations like those that governed voice telephone service of the pre-Internet era, predicated on the policy principle that in a natural monopoly, market forces cannot assure all households requesting service will have their requests honored. That’s consistent with the current public policy that regards advanced telecommunications as luxury and not basic utility service. Why require ISPs to provide service to all requesting it when after all, it’s a luxury? Similarly as a luxury, regulating what ISPs can charge isn’t appropriate. Let them charge what the market will bear. (It will bear quite a lot for a service that consumers see less as a luxury than a basic service.)

The tension between the basic versus luxury service paradigm has been building in recent years and will soon reach a breaking point. As constituent complaints of infrastructure deficits grow more strident, policymakers of every stripe are increasingly describing advanced telecommunications as an essential utility like electric power and water service. Sooner rather than later, public policy will come into alignment with this view. Concurrently, expect a shift away from subsidizing investor-owned ISPs to build the necessary infrastructure to a publicly-led effort. It will be necessary in order to build rapidly enough to cover the persistent infrastructure gaps and to gain a greater degree of control and accountability than has existed in limited subsidy programs for advanced telecommunications infrastructure.

Schumer: Broadband is a Utility That May Require Price Caps | DSLReports, ISP Information

Schumer: Broadband is a Utility That May Require Price Caps | DSLReports, ISP Information: Senate Democratic leader Chuck Schumer uttered some words this week that likely terrified lobbyists and executives for AT&T, Verizon and Comcast. During his floor argument for a Congressional Review Act resolution that would restore net neutrality, Schumer stated that he believes that broadband should be viewed as an essential utility, and that we may need to eventually explore price caps to prevent monopolies from over-charging for services thanks to limited competition.

Schumer's right. And when it's an essential service, the potential for abusive price gouging is enormous.

Democrats and Republicans alike have traditionally avoided price caps on broadband service, in large part because deep-pocketed campaign contributors in the telecom sector have viciously opposed the idea for obvious reasons.  Even when former FCC boss Tom Wheeler reclassified ISPs as common carriers under Title II of the Telecom act he was careful to "forbear" from applying rate regulation onto ISPs.

But Schumer appeared to re-open the conversation of price caps on an uncompetitive broadband market during discussions about net neutrality, even though the likelihood of him actually following through with that isn't particularly likely given historical precedent. "You know, people say, well, let a private company do whatever it wants, let them charge whatever they want," Schumer argued. "But in certain goods which are essential we don't do that. Utilities, highways. The same thing now applies to the internet. It's a necessity and we have to have protections for average folks, for small businesses, for working families." 

Spot on. It's time to end the delusion that a utility market can be a competitive market. After all, how many electric, water and natural gas companies are competing for customers?

Jonathan Chambers on overcoming U.S. telecom infrastructure deficiencies

Overbuilding, aka Competition, is the American Way – Conexon

The following is a non-comprehensive list of rural broadband overbuilders that have announced over the past two years plans to build rural networks:

1. AT&T. Announced Project AirGig to send data over powerlines.
2. Google. Announced Project Loon to use balloons traveling at the edge of space to bring internet access to rural areas.
3. Facebook. Announced conducted tests to use drones to deliver rural broadband.
4. Microsoft. Announced trials to use TV whitespaces for rural broadband.
5. SpaceX/OneWeb. Announced plans to deploy thousands of low-earth orbiting satellites to deliver internet access to rural areas.
6. New T-Mobile. Announced its intention of 5G for all, extending 5G to rural areas.
7. Rural Electric Cooperatives. Dozens of fiber-to-the-home networks under construction.
   
   Which of these initiatives should the government favor?

Only No. 7. It's the only proven technology with headroom to accommodate bandwidth demand that's doubling every few years. And because federal funding of utility cooperatives has a successful record of constructing needed infrastructure in areas not sufficiently profitable for investor-owned providers.

If your answer is the government should not favor any one company or technology, then perhaps you also agree that the government shouldn’t favor telephone companies with their copper networks.

I would agree with the second part of the question. The existing Connect America Fund is regressive and wasteful in that it allows funding of legacy copper telecommunications networks. It's main purpose is to preserve the service area hegemony of legacy telephone companies, not improve infrastructure.

As a small first step, I propose that anywhere one of the overbuilders has already overbuilt a telephone company’s network without any public funding, the government should cease its funding in that area.

Yes, if overbuilt with fiber to the premise, option No. 7 above.

To make the government policy easy to execute, I propose that where 100% of the households in a census block have access to Gigabit service by a company that is not receiving a subsidy in that area, then the government shouldn’t fund any company in that area. That simple policy change would save the public hundreds of millions of dollars,
money that could be used where it is needed.

Let's dispense with the term "Gigabit service." Keep it simple. Fiber to the premise.

 As a second small step, I propose that all future funding follow individual consumer decisions. The telephone companies can continue to get their legacy support, except where a household chooses another carrier with a minimum of 100 Mbps service. In that case, the overbuilder should receive support that is equal to the funding being provided on a per household basis to the telephone company. Such a program should be limited in time, no more than a decade, in order to encourage overbuilders to move quickly and incumbents to improve their networks.

Again, keep it simple. Fiber to the premise infrastructure. That's the real network improvement. Don't fall into the incumbent created trap of focusing on "broadband speed."