Wednesday, June 14, 2023

Negative manifestations of market-based vs. publicly owned advanced telecommunications infrastructure policy

  • Lack of coordinated federal advanced telecommunications infrastructure policy
  • Highly fragmented deployment of fiber only where most profitable, highest ARPU.
  • Advanced telecommunications marketed as “broadband” and sold in individually priced speed tiers.
  • Widespread complaints and media coverage of poor access, “slow speeds” high monthly cost, very expensive connection fees quoted by cablecos.
  • Localities adversely impacted by advanced telecommunications infrastructure deficits, attempt to address on their own with federal and state grants amid constituent tax/fee resistance due to adverse demographics/socioeconomics. Spawns cottage industry of consultants conducting feasibility studies and high level estimates. Vast majority result in no infrastructure construction or commitment to serve all addresses.
  • One time, highly restricted federal and state grant programs instead of permanent high-cost subsidy mechanism.
  • No federal or state policy of universal service. Universal service legislation does not advance. Years of dashed political promises of universal service. Sloganeering in lieu of actionable policy.
  • Issue muddling, deflection/distraction from infrastructure to secondary issues:
    • "Broadband adoption"
    • Digital equity/digital skills
    • Net neutrality
  • Incumbent protectionism via broadband mapping, inflated service area and throughput claims, “ground truthing” speed tests.
  • Reliance upon interim technology (DSL over copper) wireless technologies (fixed and mobile wireless, satellite) vs. FTTP.
  • Capitulation to investor-owned incumbent provider control of telecom policy. Influence dominates over merits of policy that allow minority shareholder interests to prevail over broader public interest.
  • Misapprehension: Complaints of market “monopolies” that fail to recognize telecom infrastructure like other utilities functions as natural monopoly. Feeds into privately owned provider paradigm that advanced telecommunications infrastructure a competitive market and government should therefore not own advanced telecommunications infrastructure.

1 comment:

Anonymous said...

This is spot on- it's such a complex subject but you have distilled it down to the most basic elements. The same exists in Canada, until these issues are recognized we will continue to spin our wheels. I've been hearing and seeing the same strategies to close the digital divide for over 20 years- nothing has moved the needle.