"Broadband vouchers" a misguided notion for expanding home Internet access

Remote work and learning during the pandemic compelled some lawmakers to get creative in expanding broadband availability. In Delaware and Alabama, state officials earmarked parts of their CARES Act funding to create broadband vouchers—monthly service rebates—for households with school-age children.

It’s an established way of expanding telecommunications access. For years, the FCC has disbursed monthly discounts to millions of low-income households through the “Lifeline” program. Voucher programs also have the potential to expand broadband availability and competition in underserved rural areas.

Broadband Breakfast: Brent Skorup and Michael Kotrous: Modernize High-Cost Support with Rural Broadband Vouchers

There are multiple problems with this concept. The most fundamental is it assumes U.S. telecom infrastructure deficiencies are due to buy side market failure. In fact, sell side market failure is responsible. The demand is there. For many years, households lacking landline Internet service have begged telephone and cable companies for connections, often to no avail and eventually giving up. (Lately, they've been barraging their elected representatives as the need for connectivity has grown more urgent). The main reason is these companies require rapid returns on investment in extending service to these homes. When analyzing the needed investment, net present value doesn't pencil. Tossing vouchers into the mix isn't likely to meaningfully improve the business case. 

In addition, unlike analog telephone service regulated under Title I of the Communications Act, Internet in the United States is regulated as an optional information service under Title II of the Act and not as a telecommunications utility with subsidies to connect homes in high cost areas. Consequently, there is no regulatory incentive to connect every home requesting service. 

Finally, to make service more affordable to low income households, regulated lifeline rates such as used for voice telephone service are an already existing mechanism to help achieve that. Vouchers wouldn't be needed with the proper regulatory policy in place.

California bill would use existing phone surcharge to secure bonds for local government and cooperative-owned fiber to the premise infrastructure

Proposed legislation introduced this month in the California state Senate offers a potentially viable means of financing fiber to the premise (FTTP) advanced telecommunications infrastructure builds owned by local governments and nonprofits such as consumer telecom cooperatives. It does so by creating a financing mechanism to secure bonds to fund FTTP construction with proceeds from an existing California Public Utilities Commission (CPUC) surcharge on voice lines to subsidize advanced telecom projects in high cost areas of the state not served by incumbent landline and wireless internet service providers.

Debt service for the bonds could also be provided by project sponsors since the proposed legislation authorizes the CPUC to require they demonstrate the ability to reasonably finance and implement the projects utilizing the proposed bond financing.

The measure is proposed as an urgency measure that would take effect immediately upon enactment.

AT&T’s residential market shortcomings

 

As AT&T would have it, the telecommunications giant is enthusiastic about serving the residential market and connecting homes to fiber. AT&T Communications CEO Jeff McElfresh told a Bank of America Merrill Lynch TMT Conference in June 2020 the company will increase its investment in fiber connections. "We are laser-like focused on finding the most efficient path to expanding the footprint of our fiber offerings," McElfresh said. "It's a great business. It's got great margins. It's got great returns. There's nothing not to like about it, and we're going to lean into it."

McElfresh’s comments represent a turnabout from a year earlier, when AT&T downplayed its residential fiber ambitions and dismissed hundreds of field technicians after completing a limited build out to meet regulatory obligations attached to its acquisition of DirecTV. "That's behind us now," McElfresh’s predecessor John Donovan told FierceTelecom. "We'll continue to invest in fiber, but we'll do it based on the incremental, economic case. We're not running to any household target."

For single family home neighborhoods, AT&T makes residential fiber available only to discrete pockets, reports industry observer Doug Dawson. AT&T also markets residential fiber to multifamily dwellings that require less capital investment and produce comparatively faster returns. One analyst suggests AT&T is weak at executing fiber build outs, unable or unwilling to focus on the necessary details of neighborhood telecommunications infrastructure deployment. (Jim Patterson, Curing AT&T’s Sickness, 10/12/20) Other analysts point to high debt on AT&T’s balance sheet that constrains its ability to finance a broad move into residential fiber.

In less dense exurban and rural neighborhoods, AT&T is phasing out its legacy ADSL service, halting new connections as of October 1, 2020. In these areas, AT&T offers fixed wireless residential service over its 4G LTE mobile infrastructure but with throughput limited to a small fraction of what a fiber connection could handle. Dawson notes the company has not actively marketed the service (most likely to preserve limited radio spectrum at the same time the company encourages high bandwidth video streaming). Moreover, the company was notably absent among bidders for the FCC’s recently closed Rural Digital Opportunities Fund (RDOF) subsidy reverse auction.

Where AT&T is building fiber to serve enterprise consumers (via dedicated Ethernet) it is not generally investing in premise drops and field distribution equipment to serve adjacent single family home residential neighborhoods. According to an October 2020 report by the Communications Workers of America, the labor union representing AT&T line technicians, and the National Digital Inclusion Alliance, 63 percent of 1,500 line technicians surveyed report that AT&T is not installing splitting equipment to enable home connections even where a fiber backbone exists.

With little focus on residential fiber, AT&T is instead looking to gain revenues in the consumer segment from streaming video and mobile wireless offerings as it experiences a steady decline in linear TV subscribers, legacy and wireline delivered services, according to Zacks Investment Research.

Will a Biden administration back publicly owned advanced telecommunications infrastructure as a means of attaining universal access and affordability?

Should former Vice President Joe Biden be deemed the winner of the presidency and a Biden administration installed early next year, the campaign’s policy positions on advanced telecommunications infrastructure reveal the outlines of how the new administration might proceed.

The overarching policy choice is between continuing the laisse faire policy of the past three decades of regarding Internet protocol-based telecommunications as a commercial market of “broadband” bandwidth. Or recognizing advanced telecommunications infrastructure as essential infrastructure like electric power and roads and highways.

Integral to the latter policy is recognizing the broad socio-economic benefits of advanced telecommunications infrastructure, known in economics as positive externalities. They are described as external because they lie outside the narrow interest of commercial investors to extract profits and rents from selling broadband bandwidth in a natural monopoly landline market. Those external benefits – and the lack thereof considering the nation’s substantial access and affordability challenges -- have become very apparent with the public health restrictions and social distancing accompanying the SARS-CoV-2 contagion that converted homes into offices, classrooms and clinics.

Key to attaining the broader external benefits of advanced telecommunications infrastructure is that it be universally accessible and affordable. As well as public ownership of advanced telecommunications infrastructure that eliminates the inherent conflict between the broader public interest and the narrow interest of investors to build it only where there’s a strong business case. What do the Biden campaign’s positions signal on these issues?

Biden’s campaign calls for “universal broadband access” as part of an initiative to modernize transportation and water infrastructure. Biden also recognizes the socio-economic benefit of universally accessible and affordable advanced telecommunications infrastructure:

“As the COVID-19 crisis has revealed, Americans everywhere need universal, reliable, affordable, and high-speed internet to do their jobs, participate equally in remote school learning and stay connected. This digital divide needs to be closed everywhere, from lower-income urban schools to rural America, to many older Americans as well as those living on tribal lands. Just like rural electrification several generations ago, universal broadband is long overdue and critical to broadly shared economic success.”

However, Biden does not explicitly call for publicly owned advanced telecommunications infrastructure as he has to improve access and affordability for non-group medical plans with a government operated “public option” plan. The Democratic Party campaign platform recommendations that Biden and Sen. Bernie Sanders jointly authored after Biden emerged as the Democratic Party presidential nominee calls for preempting state laws that prohibit municipalities and rural co-ops from building publicly-owned broadband networks and for increased federal support for municipally owned networks.

Should a Biden administration take office in January, it bears watching to what extent it supports publicly owned advanced telecommunications infrastructure as a means of attaining universal access and affordability.

Distinguishing between edge content provider market power and natural monopoly of telecom distribution infrastructure

The Tech Antitrust Problem No One Is Talking About | WIRED: 

After years of building political pressure for antitrust scrutiny of major tech companies, this month Congress and the US government delivered. The House Antitrust Subcommittee released a report accusing Apple, Amazon, Google, and Facebook of monopolistic behavior. The Department of Justice filed a complaint against Google alleging the company prevents consumers from sampling other search engines. The new fervor for tech antitrust has so far overlooked an equally obvious target: US broadband providers. “If you want to talk about a history of using gatekeeper power to harm competitors, there are few better examples,” says Gigi Sohn, a fellow at the Georgetown Law Institute for Technology Law & Policy.

When it comes to antitrust, it's important to distinguish between FAANG edge content providers and commercially owned and operated advanced telecommunications infrastructure. The major difference is the former isn't a natural monopoly. However, landline telecom infrastructure that connects to customer premises functions as a natural monopoly due to high capital cost barriers and long duration return on investment that tends to keep would be competitors out. Moreover, competition among multiple sellers isn't economically rational as Investopedia describes:

Multiple utility companies wouldn't be feasible since there would need to be multiple distribution networks such as sewer lines, electricity poles, and water pipes for each competitor. Since it's economically sensible to have utilities operate as natural monopolies, governments allow them to exist. However, the industry is heavily regulated to ensure that consumers get fair pricing and proper services.

In other words, competitive market forces cannot function to ensure access and value in a natural monopoly market. Both are frequently missing in advanced telecom distribution infrastructure, with uneven access due to sell side market failure.  

Antitrust assumes competition is possible and thus is intended to check a seller from attaining too much market power and promote competition. But it's an impossible undertaking in natural monopoly market like advanced telecom distribution infrastructure where competitive market forces don't come into play.

"Better Than Nothing," Starlink satellite service illustrates bankrupt U.S. telecom infrastructure modernization policy

Texas Schools Partner With SpaceX on High-Speed Internet: After schools shut down in March due to COVID-19, a survey of families in ECISD found that 39 percent did not have internet access in their homes, or had limited internet access. "Right behind me, you are looking at the community of Pleasant Farms that has very limited broadband service. We have children; we have families; we have educators living in this community and having the internet in their home is extremely difficult, if not impossible. But because of Space X and their Starlink technology, they are right now circling a series of satellites above this area and they will beam a high-quality broadband signal to our families, providing high-quality, high speed broadband access so our children can continue the learning process ...," Muri said. Muri said ECISD has worked diligently with the local community and state officials to explore opportunities for students, but also looking long-term. "Short-term solutions are not the answer," Muri said. "We need solutions that provide permanent solutions, permanent opportunities for kids not only in ECISD but across our state and across our nation ..."

Scott Muri, superintendent of a Texas school district, is right. Short term gee whiz approaches like this don't provide the long term telecommunications infrastructure needed on the ground -- namely fiber to the premise (FTTP). It's a logical progression from legacy copper telephone infrastructure that has gone off the tracks, leaving Americans grasping at “Better Than Nothing” solutions as the Starlink satellite service is dubbed.

New eBook: U.S. Telecom Infrastructure Crisis: America’s botched modernization of copper to fiber -- and the path forward

 

In 2020 as public health restrictions due to the coronavirus pandemic suddenly converted millions of American homes into offices, classrooms and medical clinics, the nation’s accumulated deficits in advanced telecommunications infrastructure and related challenges of access and affordability that had been in place for years reached a crisis point.

The root of the problem is a failure of planning and policy over the past quarter century to ensure decades old copper telephone lines that reach every American doorstep were modernized with fiber optic lines to support Internet delivered digital telecommunications. The nation lacks a comprehensive, coordinated transition plan and relies on various underfunded, piecemeal efforts.

The cause of the failure: public policymakers focused on the wrong thing: incremental gains in “broadband” speed instead of replacing the copper with fiber beginning a generation ago. With the enactment of the 1996 Telecommunications Act, policymakers erred in assuming fiber would be just one of several technologies that would compete with copper rather than pursuing a deliberate policy to ensure the timely replacement of copper with fiber.Consequently, fiber reaches less than a third of American homes in 2020. That’s far short of the goal of the Federal Communications Commission’s National Broadband Plan prepared for Congress in 2010 that called for 100 million homes to have affordable fiber-level connections a decade later.

U.S. telecommunications policy primarily serves the needs of for profit companies that lack incentive to rapidly speed construction of fiber to solve America’s advanced telecommunications infrastructure deficits. There’s an inherent conflict between their investors’ focus on short term earnings and the broader public interest of having universally accessible and affordable fiber connections.

This book describes how the crisis is affecting Americans, the factors that brought it about and prolong it, the outlook for its resolution and a framework for the path forward: publicly owned, open access fiber infrastructure passing reaching every home as telephone service did in the mid-20th century.

The audience for this book is public policymakers, telecommunications regulators and the general public. Members of these groups acknowledge the essential nature of advanced telecommunications infrastructure as a utility. That recognition has grown more urgent over time and especially so with the 2020 coronavirus pandemic and sharply increased reliance on home connectivity and working from home.

The book is currently available here on Amazon Kindle and will soon be available though all eBook retailers.

America's haphazard, fragmented approach to telecom infrastructure modernization: Filling in "broadband" potholes

SC begins small broadband internet expansion in 23 counties | The State: More than $50 million worth of broadband expansion projects will start this month in 23 counties around the state to help close the internet service gap exposed by the COVID-19 pandemic. The shovel-ready projects are being made possible, in part, with funding from the CARES Act, federal coronavirus aid that must be spent by the end of the year. The dollars will help internet providers expand service to areas where it may take longer to turn a profit. The broadband projects are a good start, but also a drop in the bucket toward closing the state’s broadband access gap. There are 650,000 South Carolinians and 180,000 households in the state without high-speed internet access.

States have been struggling to adequately fund advanced telecommunications infrastructure needs years before the start of the current SARS-CoV-2 pandemic earlier this year. Public health measures put in place to slow the spread of the contagion have made widespread infrastructure deficits painfully apparent as Americans work and school at home.

States are now rushing to try to address the problem with very little time and money allocated by the federal government via COVID-19 relief funds (CARES Act) that must be expended by the end of 2020. It's emblematic of the nation's short term policy approach of treating the deficits like potholes needing to be filled in.

There's never enough policy and resource commitment to properly pave the roads. Motorists complain incessantly about bad roads and a bumpy ride on Al Gore's circa 1990s "information highway." Federal and state governments respond with a little money for a short term fix for some of the potholes. Drivers continue to complain and the cycle repeats year after year. It will continue until there's a policy commitment to replace the legacy copper telephone connections that reach every home, small business and school with fiber.

Hopes for patient capital investment in open access advanced telecom infrastructure may prove unfeasible

Private Investment in Community Digital Infrastructure: Gaps will continue until localities and investors find viable solutions that better align community needs with investors’ returns on their investments. The critical first step is to pivot to a digital infrastructure approach in which the long-term economic benefits to community growth and business success accrue to the network deployers, leading to a virtuous cycle that increases network revenue opportunities and returns
on investment.

The author, Michael Curri of Strategic Networks Group, correctly identifies a major reason behind advanced telecom infrastructure deficiencies that have plagued the United States for many years. Investor owned companies build infrastructure where it generates the biggest and fastest returns on investment. They lack business or regulatory incentive to do so outside of their discrete "footprints" of cherry picked neighborhoods. 

That private interest to reward shareholders does not align with the broader public interest in having the infrastructure reach all premises. Localities hoping for infrastructure gains by partnering with private providers run the risk of replicating the problem of unconnected neighborhoods since they too require rapid returns on investment and thus are inclined to prioritize only limited areas to attain the fastest return on their dollars.

The solution, Curri argues, is substituting more patient capital held by pension funds and private infrastructure capital firms that doesn't require a return in five years or less. The risk/reward tradeoff is infrastructure is there for the long run and will generate solid returns for many years. Additionally, investment in open access infrastructure will provide broader benefits for their economies and residents  -- what economists refer to as externalities -- that are of little or no interest to investor owned providers.

Curri correctly points out the presence of incumbent investor owned incumbent providers poses a challenge to the ubiquitous infrastructure needed to attain those externalities. Those incumbents have already grabbed those neighborhoods that spin off the most revenues, complicating obtaining sufficient revenues to attract patient investment capital.

The essential problem for Curri is his concept requires premises to subscribe to services, emulating the subscription-based business model of the incumbents other than it calls for open versus closed access infrastructure. Subscription revenue would be supplemented by charges to service providers to offer services over the open access infrastructure as well as mobile wireless backhaul and "specific value-added services and smart-community services."

Potential patient capital investors may well see the presence of incumbent providers who will seek to protect their private monopolies as a key risk factor that would outweigh the many positive aspects of Currie's concept. Unless in the unlikely event those incumbent providers signal a withdrawal, it may prove unfeasible.

A "free market ethos" does not apply to advanced telecom infrastructure

Online school forces America to confront the digital divide: What went wrong over the years? How did the birthplace of the internet become a nation where broadband is unavailable to large chunks of the population, keeping students from taking part fully in modern education and their parents from taking advantage of the modern economy? Big investments have been made in the internet in the U.S., but not uniformly or with an eye to expanding connectivity as far as possible. It’s not a task that private industry cares to take on, nor is it one that the public sector can solve on its own—not in a country with such a strident free-market ethos. (Emphasis added)

This is a false dichotomy. Advanced telecommunications infrastructure tends toward natural monopoly and not a robust competitive market. As much as some would like it to be, high cost barriers to entry and first mover advantage don't permit that to be the case.

Desperate for fiber connectivity amid pandemic, states grasp for constrained federal funding

The long road to expand NH broadband - NH Business Review: Federal requirements for the CARES Act — such as the requirement broadband networks are prepared to make residential connections by Dec. 15 or else not be reimbursed — were meant to expedite projects to meet immediate needs. Bordering on unrealistic, the guidelines were criticized by the Monadnock Broadband Group and others interviewed by NH Business Review for excluding efforts that were already underway or could have made planning inroads with financial assistance.  “We put an initial $50 million into the fund because it was completely unknown what the application process would yield,” said Sununu. “I think we could have done a lot more with this money, but we just didn’t have the time. That was one of the biggest drawbacks is the time constraints the federal government put on these dollars.”

States desperately need federal funding to build fiber to the premise advanced telecom infrastructure now that homes due to pandemic public health measures now serve as workplaces, classroom, medical clinics and require robust symmetric connectivity. Feeling the pain most sharply are homes lacking access to commercial fiber providers due to neighborhood redlining and monthly rates out of reach for economically stressed households.

As this article highlights, navigating the tight constraints placed available federal funding is producing frustration. CARES Act funding is designed as short term emergency funding to help state and local governments cover costs related to responding to the pandemic and not specifically purposed for longer term infrastructure projects.

Redlined in Duanesburg, NY

Rural areas in NYS are in need of broadband amid the COVID-19 pandemic | WHEC.com: Felton has lived on Creek Road there for nearly 25 years. She never thought all these years later, and all these years of technological advances later, she still wouldn’t have broadband. Amid the pandemic, she and her husband have been working from home. Her daughter has been doing her schoolwork right alongside them. Fortunately, they can afford a hot spot, but it doesn’t always work.

She said for the past six years she has been trying to get broadband to all the town. Duanesburg has a franchise agreement with Charter Communications. “Our town franchise requires them to serve areas with 20 homes per mile, this road that I live on we have about 10 homes per mile,” said Felton. “We're not in the middle of nowhere. I'm two miles from Hannaford and I still don't have a wired connection because there's not sufficient return on investment for Charter to provide it.”

For two decades, the lack of sufficient return on investment has been identified as the cause of America's advanced telecom infrastructure deficiencies. It raises a fundamental question: If universal and affordable access are goals as many public policymakers assert, why do they continue to expect investor owned companies to fill the gaps when the cash flow isn't there? It's the Einsteinian definition of insanity. In this case, pursuing the same public policy and expecting a different result.

Exurban growth has major implications for advanced telecom infrastructure policy, planning

Editorial: California fires’ cruel cycle of natural and human disaster - SFChronicle.com: While the population of California and most of the Bay Area grew little in 2019, and Los Angeles County lost residents for the second year running, according to the state Department of Finance, most of the fastest-growing cities and counties were on the metropolitan edges. San Joaquin and San Benito counties, both in the outer orbit of the Bay Area, were alone in the region in experiencing more than a percentage point of growth, much of it due to housing production. Excluding rebuilding to compensate for earlier wildfire losses, the cities that saw the greatest housing-related population growth were also on the outskirts of the Bay Area — including Lathrop in San Joaquin County and Rio Vista in Solano County — or within an extreme commute of Los Angeles. This continues a long-term trend. Six of the nation’s 25 fastest-growing cities over the past two decades were in California, according to one analysis of census data, and all were on the sprawling boundaries of cities and metropolises.

Big implications here for current advanced telecom infrastructure policy and planning. The reason is these areas on the edges of metro areas while nominally exurban have been regarded by telephone and cable companies as rural and thus suffer from spotty advanced telecom infrastructure.

The return on investment doesn't come fast enough under their business models to justify investment and current federal and state subsidy programs don't offer sufficient incentive to build. Cable companies remain in their confined franchise 1970s "footprints." Telephone companies allow decades old copper lines to rot on the poles instead of modernizing them to fiber to the premise, with only some customers served by limited range and throughput first generation ADSL over copper.

While frustrating to many exurbanites before the public health restrictions of the COVID-19 pandemic that has turned homes into workplaces, schools and medical clinics, deficient advanced telecom infrastructure has taken on a new degree of urgency in the exurbs.

Why advanced telecommunications infrastructure subsidies don’t make Internet service available to all Americans – explained in five points

1. For many decades, federal and state governments surcharged phone bills to subsidize infrastructure for voice telephone service in high cost areas. These subsidies paid to telephone companies made sense because the companies had an obligation to honor reasonable requests for service – the universal service mandate for telecommunications services under Title II of the Communications Act of 1934. But that requirement does not apply to advanced telecommunications delivered by Internet protocol because the U.S. Federal Communications Commission does not consider advanced telecommunications to be a telecommunications service but rather an optionally provided information service under Title I of the Communications Act akin to America Online and CompuServe in the early years of mass Internet access.
2. Current federal and state subsidy programs don’t directly subsidize the construction of infrastructure in high cost areas. Instead, there exists a mishmash of programs designed to deliver various arbitrary throughput levels, known as “broadband speed.” Instead of determining where to subsidize infrastructure, federal and state governments attempt to map a moving target of advertised broadband speeds in order to determine where to direct subsidies.
3. Without a universal service mandate, investor owned advanced telecommunications providers have little incentive to seek subsidies since they can instead direct capital investments to lower cost and more immediately profitable infrastructure deployments.
4. Since high cost subsidies are available to various actors including non-incumbent investor owned providers, cooperatives and state and local governments, incumbent providers often oppose the award of subsidies within their nominal service territories and “footprints.” They regard these geographical areas as proprietary and other would be providers as interlopers. 
5. The amount of available subsidy funding is too little relative to need and there is inadequate monitoring of how it's spent.
   

The "digital divide" wouldn't exist had copper phone lines been replaced with fiber

Lack of Broadband Handcuffs At-Home Schooling in Ohio: As Columbus, Ohio, students look toward a school year with largely online learning, a new report shows that more than 30% of households in some city neighborhoods don't have broadband access. The gap is not due to lack of infrastructure — internet service providers are available in even the most-impoverished areas — but the result of economic factors, technical literacy and personal choice, researchers said. Internet service is now "the fourth utility," on par with electricity, natural gas and water, said Pat Losinski, president and CEO of the Columbus Metropolitan Library. "I don't know if we've called it out that way as a community and a nation, but it really is," he said.  The Columbus library system handles about 1.6 million reservations for computer use each year, Losinski said. "We have been trying to do the best that we can to serve that need," he said. "But what's happened in the last 120 days is this issue has been laid bare in ways it hadn't been in the past."

Actually, it is due to infrastructure. And what's happened in the last 120 days in Columbus, Ohio isn't necessarily local to that metro or confined to that short time frame. Had the United States as a nation undertaken a comprehensive plan to transition its legacy copper telephone to fiber three decades ago, this problem would be non existent. Households would obtain voice, video and data using Internet protocol technology over fiber connections. 

Consequently, there wouldn't be gaps for data connections commonly referred to as the "digital divide" and blended learning  -- a combination of school and home-based education -- would be in place and able to better weather a pandemic. Moreover, had the U.S. planned this telecommunications infrastructure transition rather than allowing "broadband" to be sold as a luxury option, lower income households would have had time to become more familiar with Internet-delivered services. Particularly considering personal computers have been around for decades and have become more affordable over time.

If U.S. transportation infrastructure emulated telecom policy, nation would be hodgepodge of toll roads with $1, $5, $10 and $20 fare lanes

Broadband Breakfast: Innovation and Contrarianism Define Bob Frankston, Champion of Broadband: In a recent Broadband Breakfast Live Online event, Frankston spoke about the role of municipal versus private broadband networks, arguing that private networks were unnecessary.

“All they do is help packets mosey along,” he said. “…They don’t guarantee that you’re going to get to your destination, they just provide an opportunity.”

Frankston's right. If transportation infrastructure emulated U.S. telecom policy, the nation would be a patchwork quilt of multiple privately owned toll roads with $1, $5, $10 and $20 fare lanes. Everyplace else would be served by unpaved roads and lanes with greedy trolls waiting under creaky wooden bridges for passing megabits. But let's waste time and resources and map this hodgepodge and 20 years later complain about all the shitty roads.

Legislative proposal claims goal of modernizing U.S. telecom infrastructure. But it doesn't have a plan to get there.

GOP Leaders Offer Broadband Framework - Multichannel: Senate Commerce Committee chairman Roger Wicker (R-Miss.) and House Energy & Commerce Committee ranking member Greg Walden (R-Ore.) describe it as a foundation for legislative action related to the COVID-19 economic recovery. In the process, they said, the proposals would "modernize the nation’s communications infrastructure, allow all Americans to participate in the digital economy, and enhance U.S. network security, reliability, and resiliency."

According to its backers framework would include 1) authorizing funding for the FCC to complete accurate broadband mapping efforts, something FCC chair Ajit Pai has been calling for; 2) making sure students have access to broadband, 3) making sure those having trouble paying for broadband can still get it, 4) promoting digital equity; and 5) helping carriers "working tirelessly to to keep Americans connected" during the pandemic.

Problem is none of these five items will meet the goal of modernizing the nation's legacy copper telephone connections that reach most every American doorstep with fiber to the prem #FTTP. This has been a fundamental problem in U.S. telecommunications policy for a generation. It is focused on treating the symptoms of its failure to modernize copper to fiber and talking all around that rather than adopting policy and plans to tackle it head on.

Broadband Breakfast: Open Access Network Builders Discuss Ownership Models for Next Generation Broadband Infrastructure

Broadband Breakfast: Open Access Network Builders Discuss Ownership Models for Next Generation Broadband Infrastructure: Panelists agreed in order to fund fiber to the last mile, it is necessary to build into cities first, where network adaption will be high. This will generate the necessary revenue to build into sparser neighborhoods.

This is basically the same model employed by investor owned incumbent telephone and cable companies that brought the United States to the place it is today with big gaps in advanced telecom infrastructure and two thirds of homes not having access to a fiber to the prem #FTTP connection.

It cannot scale up quickly enough to catch up the nation to where it should be in 2020 but for its excessive reliance on investor owned providers that led to these shortcomings. The nation needs a crash build public project to bring #FTTP to nearly every American doorstep. The current viral pandemic control measures that shifted knowledge work out of centralized commute-in offices made its advanced telecom infrastructure deficits painfully apparent.

Rapid rise in work from home #WFH drives demand for enterprise grade connectivity

As states and localities put in place contagion control measures that shut down centralized commute in offices in mid-March of this year, many knowledge workers migrated to working at home. But with only about a third of all U.S. homes having access to fiber to the premise (FTTP) connections, many found their home connections wanting.

They are less secure than enterprise connections. Bandwidth is tight and competes with other users in the household such as students engaged in online learning and video entertainment streaming. Service from legacy telephone and cable companies is optimized for streaming video entertainment with asymmetric circuits allocating much more bandwidth to downloading than uploading. That’s not optimal for virtual knowledge work that often involves the use of two-way videoconferencing and virtual private networking.

The virtual office in the cloud needs fiber connectivity. A co-working space company offering its aptly branded CloudVO (virtual office) recognizes this need. It sells passes for access to these spaces offering what it describes as enterprise-grade connectivity – presumably FTTP.

Meanwhile, AT&T recently rolled out a new business offering aimed at bringing enterprise grade connectivity to home-based knowledge workers. AT&T’s Home Office Connectivity however isn’t FTTP per se. It would also use business class fixed wireless service supported by its mobile 4G LTE infrastructure where there’s no FTTP infrastructure and as a backup network. But that’s where the service becomes decidedly more residential than business class. It’s sold in bandwidth consumption tiers of 8, 12 and 50 Mbps at $80, $130 and $200 monthly, respectively.

The target market for Home Office Connectivity is businesses, not the homes of home-based knowledge workers according to AT&T:

The service enables businesses of any size to extend enterprise broadband connectivity throughout their workforce, whether it is for a single additional line or thousands. It also simplifies onboarding and management with consolidated invoicing directed to the business, single-number enterprise customer care, and professional on-site installation by a certified AT&T technician.

The line between residential and business service in the legacy telephone company business structure is becoming blurred.

Exurbs often neglected for landline advanced telecom infra

A Rise in Remote Work Could Lead to a New Suburban Boom - May 13, 2020: Larger homes with more rooms and offices could draw those no longer worried about their commute out of urban cores and into the suburbs and exurbs. (Emphasis added)

Advanced landline telecom infrastructure is typically lacking in exurban areas that have population densities lower than suburban but considerably higher than rural. That's because legacy incumbent telephone and cable companies generally count occupied dwellings along rights of way when planning last mile infrastructure. When there are stretches where there are few houses, clusters of homes not far down the road are redlined.

The exurbs end up being neglected, falling through the cracks as the mainstream and info tech media adopt an incomplete, binary view of advanced landline telecom infrastructure as either urban or rural with nothing in between. Hopefully migration to the outer reaches of metro areas identified by Zillow will shine a light on this issue and result in more fiber connections being built to exurban homes and small businesses.

Google Fiber's impact overrated

Incompas 2020 Policy Summit: Unraveling Broadband Challenges And Opportunities for Competitors, Communities: Blair Levin, policy analyst at New Street Research and nonresident fellow at the Metropolitan Policy Program at the Brookings Institution, said during the summit that these elements largely were influenced by the National Broadband Plan team’s conversations with the private sector. “While everyone thinks of Google Fiber as a business, there’s no question that it accelerated the next-generation networks from AT&T and CenturyLink as well as the cable industry,” Levin said.

Um, no. Google Fiber folded up its tent and began decamping in 2016 after a brief six-year-long presence in the fiber to the prem (FTTP) business. It provided no sustained and meaningful pressure on the big telcos and cablecos and their infrastructure plans due to its abandonment of the race, drawing mockery from AT&T. Had Google Fiber provided an impetus to AT&T, it would have replaced the legacy copper in its service territory with fiber over the past decade rather than respond with ridicule.

What Google Fiber proved was the poor progress the U.S. has made modernizing its legacy copper telecom infrastructure to FTTP as evidenced by the more than 1,100 communities that asked it to deploy in 2010.

AT&T should add residential FTTP service where it has installed fiber

It’s Hard to Like AT&T | POTs and PANs: Over the last year, I’ve said some nice things about AT&T. It was nice to see AT&T wholeheartedly embrace their commitment to build fiber past 12 million homes as they had promised as part of the conditions of buying DirecTV. In the past, they might have shrugged that obligation off and faked it, but they’ve brought fiber to pockets of residential neighborhoods all over the country. It seemed that they were unenthusiastic about this requirement at first, but eventually embraced when somebody at the company realized that new fiber could be profitable.

Doug Dawson’s right. It is indeed good to see badly outdated legacy copper plant being modernized to fiber to the prem (FTTP) infrastructure by one of the nation’s biggest telcos. It’s at least a decade overdue. But the downside it’s just a few discrete residential “pockets” as Dawson points out amid recent indications from AT&T that it will be dialing back its landline capital expenditures.

Moreover, in parts of AT&T’s service territory, services on these new fiber installs are being limited to enterprise customers willing and able to afford rates at hundreds of dollars per month and higher. Nearby residences that could be served by drops from the new fiber are relegated to DSL over aging copper twisted pair. Or in some cases, asymmetric 10/1Mbps fixed wireless service in exurban areas that competes for limited mobile bandwidth since it runs on top of mobile wireless infrastructure.

These exurbs typically have population densities of more than 200 people per square mile, where fixed wireless and limited fiber to the home are best suited, according to a Microsoft-sponsored study by the Boston Consulting Group. That study was done in 2017. The appetite for residential bandwidth has increased since then. And it’s likely spiked higher in recent weeks as more people work, study and get medical attention at home during the SARS-CoV-2 contagion, using videoconferencing that requires the symmetrical connectivity fiber enables. Those bandwidth intensive activities are likely to persist to a greater degree after the pandemic ends than they did before.

The vast majority of residential customers and home office and teleworkers are not going to be willing or able to afford paying several hundred dollars a month for business class service offerings. AT&T should consider adding residential service at accessible residential rates in areas where it has already has installed fiber or it’s in the works.