Why market competition cannot remedy America’s lousy telecom service

Almost daily, the justifiable criticism of the lousy state of America’s telecommunications service includes the demand for more competition as the solution. Providing more competition – and specifically as fiber to the premise (FTTP) -- for indolent incumbent legacy telephone and cable companies in no hurry to modernize their aging and increasingly obsolete metallic infrastructures will provide superior service and value for consumers. Sound good in theory, but completely misguided.

Telecommunications is not and will never be a truly competitive market where consumers can select among many sellers. The economics simply don’t allow it because it costs too much to enter the market and the return on investment under the dominant, vertically integrated, subscription-based business model is too skimpy or too far in the future to attract would be competitors. If telecommunications were a truly competitive market, consumers no matter where they live would have multiple sellers and services from which to choose just as they do other consumer offerings. Cherry picking in a few select metro markets as we’ve seen with Google Fiber and AT&T’s “Gigaweasel” as fellow blogger Steve Blum dubs it is hardly robust market competition.

That’s a key distinction. Telecommunications is not a consumer market. It’s a natural monopoly market and the incumbents have established their place in it. And they vigorously defend that place. That’s not evil as Susan Crawford recently pointed out. The incumbents are merely doing what they must do to faithfully and diligently serve the interests of their shareholders no matter how smarmy, greedy or disingenuous it may appear at times. Shareholders come first, market demand second. And the interests of the demand side of the market can easily remain in second place in a natural monopoly market because there is and won’t be any pressure to offer more to maintain market share because market share is assured. The market will accept whatever it’s offered because it has no choice – and cannot have meaningful choice. That’s why consumers complain service sucks equally between legacy telcos and cable providers.

Hillary Clinton gets it: U.S. does not just have a "rural broadband" problem

It's a well established management and planning axiom that effectively addressing a problem or issue relies upon a clear definition of the problem. When it comes to modernizing its telecommunication infrastructure and addressing infrastructure disparities, it's too frequently imprecisely defined as a "rural broadband" issue.

That papers over the fact the United States suffers from very uneven deployment of advanced telecommunications infrastructure in all areas: rural, exurban, suburban and urban. In short, the U.S. doesn't only have a "rural broadband" problem. It has significant, widespread gaps and incomplete infrastructure everywhere in the nation. It's folly to define the issue purely based on geography.

Finally that realization is beginning to register with public policymakers and office seekers as illustrated in a speech this week by Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Clinton:

You know, I happen to think we should be ambitious. While we're at it, let's connect every household to broadband by the year 2020. It's astonishing to me how many places in America not way way far away from cities but in cities and near cities that don't have access to broadband. And that disadvantages kids who are asked to do homework using the Internet; 5 million of them live in homes without access to the Internet. So you talk about an achievement gap, it starts right there. (Emphasis added)

Excerpt courtesy of Newsweek. Full transcript here.

Definition of competition in premise telecom infrastructure depends on audience perspective

Crazy Talk from Another Telco-Funded Think Tank - Community Broadband Bits Podcast 200 | community broadband networks

What's all the crazy talk about? In a word, competition. Specifically, competition in premise telecommunications infrastructure. It's very important to distinguish the audience when discussing competition in this context.

From the point of view of the legacy telephone and cable companies that enjoy a natural monopoly or duopoly with their vertically integrated business models where they own both the infrastructure and services offered over it, any public sector infrastructure project is indeed competition because it offers a less privatized or fully deprivatized model to provide telecommunications services -- often using an open access business model versus vertically integrated.

But that's NOT competition from a consumer perspective. Given the natural monopoly/duopoly nature of telecom infrastructure, consumers will never be able to choose from among many competing sellers -- the definition of a competitive market. Due to high cost barriers to enter and operate telecom infrastructure, there will only be one or two providers.

What we are talking about here isn't competing market offerings but instead competing public policy approaches to ensuring universal, high value telecommunications service. Given widespread consumer complaints of neighborhood redlining, poor value and customer service using the current privatized model, the public option looks more and more appealing as time goes on.

Selling vertically integrated "gigabit" service inefficient, reinforces disparate access

What it's like to take on Google Fiber in Nashville: One firm's take - Nashville Business Journal: For more than two years, Nashvillians have salivated over the eventual arrival of Google Fiber, super high-speed internet courtesy of one of the world's most idolized tech companies. But while Google has yet to share specifics on when that network will officially launch in Music City, other players have made their own moves. Most notably, legacy telecoms AT&T and Comcast have launched their own networks, but smaller players like Shelbyville-based Athena Broadband are also getting in on the gigabit game.

This is a disturbing pattern that reinforces America's crazy quilt, disparate access to advanced telecommunications service. Given the high cost of constructing telecommunications infrastructure, it would be far more efficient to have a single entity build it and allow various Internet service providers to offer services over it. Instead, the U.S. continues to emulate the failed monopolistic vertically integrated business model of the legacy telephone and cable companies with its neighborhood cherry picking and redlining that have led to the nation's widespread access disparities.

Key U.S. telecom issue is market failure, not market competition

Verizon FiOS finally coming to Boston as mayor announces $300M fiber network - The Boston Globe: “Today, 90 percent of Boston residents have only one option for broadband,” said Jascha Franklin-Hodge, Boston chief information officer. “The free market only works for consumers when companies compete for their business. And when this project is complete, the majority of Boston residents will have real choice for the very first time.”

*  *  *
In a report on high-speed Internet access last year, the Federal Communications Commission said 45 percent of American households have only one provider for such access.“We have seen first-hand that competition does in fact encourage other providers to build-out or upgrade broadband services,” the commission wrote. A good example of that dynamic is Google Fiber, the Internet giant’s push to install high-speed Internet in select US cities, said Deb Socia, executive director of Next Century Cities, an Internet advocacy group.

This is a parochial misconceptualization of America's telecommunications infrastructure crisis. It's not about competition or the lack thereof in a "free market." Telecommunications infrastructure has never been and will never be a competitive market offering in a market with many sellers and buyers. There cannot be many sellers because the microeconomics simply don't support it. In telecom infrastructure, the "free market" isn't so free -- it's highly constrained by large CAPEX and OPEX costs. The desire for competition is driven by the tendency of many to view "broadband" as other consumer services where consumers are accustomed to having the ability to choose among many vendors. That thinking is flawed insofar as it neglects the underlying infrastructure necessary to deliver it.

The real issue for the United States isn't market competition. It's market failure and the disparate infrastructure access that leaves 34 million Americans unable to obtain telecommunications service capable of delivering high-quality voice, data, graphics and video, according to figures released by the U.S. Federal Communications Commission earlier this year.

Another year, another U.S. "broadband" conference & same conclusion: Great need for fiber infrastructure -- but no funding

Mayor Murray: Municipal broadband too costly; public-private deal is way to go | The Seattle Times: The best way to expand Internet access in Seattle is through public-private partnerships, (Seattle) Mayor Ed Murray said at a regional broadband conference Monday. The mayor reiterated the position he formed after a city-commissioned study released last summer showed it would cost between $480 million and $665 million to build out a municipal-broadband network across the city. That price tag is less than previously estimated, but the mayor said it was still too much to be feasible.
“When I came into office, I was very excited about the possibility of municipal broadband until the study came back and indicated it would be literally the largest tax increase in Seattle,” Murray said Monday at the conference, co-hosted by the nonprofit Next Century Cities and the National Telecommunications and Information Administration, an agency of the U.S. Department of Commerce.

And so it goes across the United States as it has at these "broadband" confabs for the past decade like a never ending season of Seinfeld reruns. Municipalities can't ante up their own dollars to build telecommunications infrastructure, particularly with so many other needs such as transportation infrastructure, public buildings and skyrocketing employee pension obligations all competing for big bucks. Don't look to the states either. They're dealing with similar financial challenges on a larger scale in the slow economic recovery in the years since the 2008 recession. Billions of dollars are needed to fund America's long overdue replacement of its legacy metallic telecom infrastructure with fiber -- now a generation late. Only the federal government can step up with that level of funding. But don't expect much from the current federal government as the Seattle Times story reports:

The federal government did finance about 230 broadband projects nationwide through the 2009 American Recovery and Reinvestment Act. Those funds are now spent, but municipalities can apply for smaller grants through other federal agencies, said Lawrence E. Strickling,assistant secretary of commerce for communications and information.
Strickling said Monday the federal government helps municipalities by providing guides to funding and other technical expertise.

Vermont lawmaker: "No adequate ongoing resource" to fund telecom infrastructure

Deerfield Valley News - VTel House at odds over Internet access info: Guite also said that some Vermonters may have been misled into believing covering every person in the state was possible. “That could require a billion dollars,” he said. He also said that he has been making this comment publicly for at least five years. “I made that statement at a meeting that Bernie Sanders organized in 2010.” H. 870 also calls for an increase of 0.5% in the universal service charge. Sibilia said that this was to help create a vitally needed program. “There is no adequate ongoing resource for expanding Internet or cell,” she said. Her hope, she said was this increase would help create that resource. She also said it would be an inadequate amount.

Bernie Sanders should paraphrase the late Illinois Senator Everett Dirksen: "A billion here, a billion there, and pretty soon you're talking about real access."

Why the “more competition” argument for better Internet service is misguided

Hardly a day goes by without calls for “more competition” as the elixir to make modern Internet-based telecommunications services more widely available and offering better value than those offered by the legacy incumbent telephone and cable companies. U.S. Federal Communications Commission Chairman Tom Wheeler has curiously joined the chorus calling for more competition -- even though his agency and its 2015 Open Internet rules are predicated on regulating Internet service as a natural monopoly common carrier utility.

The problem is telecom infrastructure by nature isn’t a competitive market defined as having many sellers and buyers. There are many buyers but there cannot be many sellers because it’s too costly and economically inefficient to have multiple providers building and owning infrastructure connecting homes and businesses. More competition isn’t a solution here. 

In the states, the legacy incumbents reinforce the notion of competition by blocking projects that would threaten their service territory monopolies. From their perspective, these projects represent competition because they would potentially steal away customers. Therefore, proponents reason, competition must be a good thing if the incumbents oppose it. This however illustrates the faulty reasoning of the “more competition” argument. 

The problem is the pro-competition proponents are buying into the incumbents’ concept of competition -- and not a consumer perspective. For the incumbents, any project that would build infrastructure in their service territories is competition. However, for consumers, having a choice among many sellers is competition. That’s not possible with telecommunications infrastructure. But it is possible if the infrastructure is publicly owned like roads and highways. That would open up Internet service to competition since multiple Internet service providers could offer their services over that infrastructure.

Time to punch the reset button on U.S. telecom infrastructure

AT&T, Comcast Kill Local Gigabit Expansion Plans in Tennessee | DSLReports, ISP Information: For some time now municipal broadband operator EPB Broadband (see our user reviews) has been saying that a state law written by AT&T and Comcast lobbyists have prevented the organization from expanding its gigabit broadband offerings (and ten gigabit broadband offerings) throughout Tennessee. These state laws currently exist in more than twenty states, and prohibit towns from deploying their own broadband -- or often even striking public/private partnerships -- even in cases of obvious market failure. A proposal that would have recently lifted this statewide restriction in Tennessee was recently shot down thanks to AT&T and Comcast lobbying. Even a new compromise proposal (which would have simply let EPB expand slightly in the same county where it is headquartered as well as one adjoining county) was shot down, after 27 broadband industry lobbyists -- most of whom belonging to AT&T and Comcast -- fought in unison to kill the proposal.

It's understandable the legacy telephone and cable companies want to keep out interlopers who might threaten their de facto monopolies for Internet service. The incumbent protectionism on display in Tennessee plays out in multiple states in the form of laws barring public sector involvement in telecom infrastructure projects or as this month in California and Kentucky, efforts to block fiber to the premise (FTTP) projects from gaining access to utility poles. This obstructionism isn't going to go away and requires a major reset in order for it to come to an end.

As I wrote in my recently issued eBook Service Unavailable: America's Telecommunications Infrastructure Crisis, the nation is already two decades behind where it should be relative to replacing its legacy metal wire telecom infrastructure with FTTP. The book proposes the federal government construct universal FTTP as public works. As roads and highway were to the 20th century, it's vital infrastructure for the 20th that's too important to be left in control of the legacy incumbents. It's time to punch the reset button so the United States can move forward to the future.

Obama administration, FCC use incumbent "broadband adoption" talking point designed to shift attention from nation's telecom infrastructure deficiencies

Obama Seeks Broadband for 20 Million More Low-Income Subscribers - The New York Times: The White House also released a report outlining the economic effects of broadband adoption, focused on how families without broadband at home are at a disadvantage in finding jobs.

Once again, the Obama administration and the U.S. Federal Communications Commission conflate access to advanced telecommunications service with its use. They are two different things. The unfortunate use of the term "broadband adoption" parrots a favorite talking point of the legacy telephone and cable companies to take the focus off the nation's telecommunications infrastructure deficiencies that leave some 34 million Americans without access to landline premise service according to the FCC's most recent estimate released in January. After all, the incumbent argument goes, why should we build Internet telecom infrastructure when people aren't using computers at home and therefore not adopting "broadband?"

The term "broadband" dates back to the late 1990s when people were beginning to migrate from narrowband, dial up Internet service to faster "broadband" connections. The context there was personal computer connections to the Internet. Which is also outdated given that today, Internet connections also provide voice and video services that don't require a personal computer.

As long as policymakers insist upon living in 1999, it will be difficult for America to advance into the 21st century.

Susan Crawford's Rx for ailing U.S. telecom infrastructure

Susan Crawford has added another component to her prescription to cure America's ailing telecom infrastructure, modernizing it with fiber optic technology to replace the increasingly obsolete metallic cables the legacy telephone and cable monopolies use to connect homes and businesses.

In January, she proposed the financial element: harnessing private investment capital via a regionally administered federal telecom infrastructure development and finance agency, funded by federally subsidized bond proceeds. (See related blog post)

Google Fiber's recent move to use existing fiber infrastructure owned by local governments in those select areas it will offer services spurred Crawford to elaborate on the infrastructure component of her solution. Her proposed federal telecom infrastructure development and finance agency would help local governments build open access fiber networks and sell access to retail providers on a wholesale basis.

Crawford sees Google Fiber's willingness to sell retail services over municipal infrastructure it does not own as a game changing move because the business model of local government-owned open access networks like Utah's Utah Telecommunication Open Infrastructure Agency (UTOPIA) have historically not meshed with the vertically integrated, monopolistic business models of the legacy telephone and cable companies that shun open access infrastructure. That model is based on owning the customer and selling monthly subscriptions to one premise at a time. That makes it highly risk averse since these legacy providers target their infrastructure only where they can get the most subscriptions and redline other neighborhoods that aren't as promising, creating widespread market failure and access disparities.

Google Fiber had initially followed the same model in its proprietary infrastructure projects such as in Kansas City and Austin, Texas. Now it is saying if a local government like Huntsville, Alabama has the resources to build fiber to the premise to serve its residents, it will be happy to sell services on that network. Crawford's federal bond finance model could scale up open access networks nationwide by aiding localities that lack Huntsville's pre-existing municipal electric company infrastructure to build their own.

A manifesto for telecom infrastructure in the 21st century

More than a decade into the twenty-first century, it is clear a new set of principles is needed to support the modernization and expansion of telecommunications infrastructure. Much of the United States remains without adequate advanced telecommunications infrastructure necessary to deliver modern voice, data and video telecommunications services to homes, schools and businesses. A major impediment is how the problem and solutions are conceptualized, based on the subscription-based, vertically integrated proprietary infrastructure model established in the pre-Internet era. A new set of principles is necessary in order to move forward in the 21^st century.

1. Holistic view of telecommunications infrastructure. Rather than discrete, local “broadband networks,” a holistic view of telecommunications infrastructure is needed in accordance with Metcalfe’s Law, which holds the value of a network increases with the number of connections to it. A complete network enables users to obtain information and communicate across town, across state borders and globally. 
   
2.  With fiber to the premise (FTTP) infrastructure, throughput speed should not be key metric. There exists a general consensus that FTTP infrastructure has the capacity to support both current and future telecommunications needs and is not prone to obsolescence. Given fiber’s large carrying capacity, throughput speed should no longer be used as a primary method of defining telecommunications infrastructure.
   
3. Public works infrastructure. Due to high costs of construction and maintenance, telecommunications infrastructure should be built and maintained as public infrastructure like streets and highways. Its high cost structure does not allow it to function as a competitive market offering and produces widespread market failure and disparate access.

If a meter of FTTP was installed every time a politician uttered the phrase "Access to broadband is essential," the entire nation would be fibered by now

Congressional Rural Broadband Caucus Launches | Multichannel: “Access to broadband is essential," said (Bob) Latta, vice chairman of the House Communications Subcommittee in a statement.

If a meter of fiber to the premise telecommunications infrastructure was deployed for each time a politician repeated that phrase over the past 10 years, every American address would have a fiber connection in 2016.

Slogans stating an obvious need do nothing to address it. What's needed is a national policy and fully funded initiative to construct fiber to the premise infrastructure every American premise needs in the 21st century. And stop allowing 20th century legacy telephone and cable company dinosaurs to postpone the future to serve their own interests.

Why the "last mile problem" is a national problem

In the United States, telecommunications infrastructure deficiencies tend to be defined as a local or "last mile" problem. Residents of homes, businesses and government buildings have orders for services refused by providers because no infrastructure exists to deliver them. Or the cost of service is exorbitant, offering very poor value.

Since the problem typically manifests in a specific neighborhood or at a particular address, it's naturally seen as local problem. Particularly when premises just down the road, around the block or elsewhere in the neighborhood are offered service, a broader selection of services or service at considerably higher value.

But while the problem manifests locally, it is not fundamentally a local problem nor is it confined to a single area with a local root cause or causes. It's a microeconomic issue that occurs throughout the nation due to a common cause: market failure on the sell side due to incumbent telephone and cable companies deeming a neighborhood, road, street or even address not sufficiently profitable to serve -- even if consumers request service. It's known as redlining.

Local problems with local causes naturally lend themselves to local solutions. However, telecommunications infrastructure market failure and redlining and price gouging are not local in origin. They are the national business policy of the dominant incumbent providers that while not legal under current U.S. Federal Communications Commission rules, nevertheless are a widespread pattern and practice affecting similarly situated consumers. The resulting market failure is a national problem because telecommunications infrastructure is essentially interstate. National problems require national solutions.

Debate over government role in telecom needs to distinguish between infrastructure and services

Internet access tops Legislature’s list, despite questions of risk - OANow.com: Lee County: Alabama’s Republican legislators are championing a bill that, if passed, would make the state the first in the country to have broadband Internet in all of its public schools. Locally, Sen. Tom Whatley, R-Auburn, sponsored a bill to remove restrictions on the service area of a municipal public provider, like Opelika Power Services.

But David Williams, president of the National Taxpayers Protection Alliance based in Washington, D.C., argued that providing Internet is not the role of government. “I’ve been doing this for 23 years now,” Williams said, adding that he has been looking at municipal broadband projects for the last five years. “Providing broadband and cable TV services isn’t a core function of the government.

Williams' assertion needs to be broken down in order to engender a more informed debate. Let's stipulate he is correct insofar as providing digital media services isn't a core function of government, particularly given the critical role of a free and independent press in a democracy.

However, Williams ignores the fact that the providers of these services generally lack the telecommunications infrastructure in order to make them available to every home, school and business since their business models cannot support the capital investment necessary to build it. The resulting market failure has left some 14.7 million American homes without landline connections needed to deliver high quality data, graphics and video -- not to mention VOIP -- according to this analysis by Doug Dawson of CCG Consulting.

Government has a key role to remedy this market failure in telecom infrastructure by constructing fiber to the premise networks as public works just as they do roads and highways -- while leaving the services delivered over them to private providers.

5 key indications of America's telecommunications infrastructure crisis

The crisis confronting the United States relative to modernizing its telecommunications infrastructure to support fiber connections for all occupied premises manifests in five key areas:

1. Ongoing access disparities with 34 million Americans unable to obtain telecommunications service capable of delivering high-quality voice, data, graphics and video.
2. Excessive reliance on the constrained, subscription-based business models of legacy incumbent telephone and cable companies to undertake needed infrastructure modernization and expansion.
3. Underfunded state and local government efforts to build and subsidize telecommunications infrastructure modernization projects.
4. Underfunded, restrictive federal government programs to subsidize telecom infrastructure serving rural regions based on obsolete technical standards.
5. Tightly restrained private sector construction of fiber to the premise infrastructure, limited to selected major metropolitan area neighborhoods.

Modernizing telecom infrastructure too big of a job to be left to cities

101 US Cities Have Pledged to Secure High Speed Internet | Motherboard: The US has a big and rather complicated internet speed problem. Its broadband infrastructure is woefully behind in speed and price compared to a broad swath of other countries, and much of this has to do with its tenacious commitment to maintaining the status quo: that is, giving big telecommunications companies a lot of our money without being able to demand a fair amount in return. But here’s a change: 101 cities are have agreed to band together to bring their residents gigabit-speed internet connections, even if they have to build it themselves.

Municipal governments are justifiably concerned that not having modern fiber to the premise telecommunications infrastructure adversely affects their economies, making them less than desirable destinations for residents and businesses considering locating there. The problem is constructing and maintaining it isn't in the budgets of local governments still reeling in the aftermath of the 2008 economic crisis. Other infrastructure such as streets, public buildings and water and sewer systems are at the end of their useful lives, competing for any dollars that could be directed toward building telecommunications infrastructure. Local governments nationwide are also strapped with enormous public pension obligations.

Aside from these financial challenges, legacy incumbent telephone and cable companies regard their service areas as sovereign territories, deploying armies of lawyers and lobbyists to defend them from local governments hoping to build fiber to the premise infrastructure to remedy service deficits and access disparities. Thus far, no munis appear inclined to assert their jurisdictional authority by exercising inverse condemnation powers and/or creating Internet telecommunications franchises. Even if they did, it would likely result in costly litigation that would delay construction for years if not decades at a time when telecom infrastructure modernization is already a generation late.

These circumstances do not bode well for municipal telecom infrastructure efforts. Given the billions needed to upgrade the nation's legacy telecom infrastructure in order to bring fiber connections to every American home, school and business, a national telecommunications infrastructure modernization initiative is clearly needed. Telecom infrastructure doesn't serve only cities. It connects cities to their states, states to other states and the nation to the world. It supports interstate commerce and is fundamentally interstate in nature, not just urban or rural as it is often mischaracterized. Building interstate infrastructure is a national undertaking that can't be left to local governments to accomplish.

Time to switch to fiscal economic stimulus -- starting with a U.S. telecom infrastructure initiative

If the United States had instituted a fiscal economic stimulus program to build fiber optic telecommunications infrastructure to reach every American home, school and business when the economic downturn began in 2008, it might well have completed the job by now. And for a mere fraction of the $3.5 trillion the U.S. Federal Reserve Bank spent to buy bonds under its quantitative easing program. The program has ended amid indications this monetary stimulus didn't have its intended effect with continued slow economic growth and slack in the labor market.

Now that monetary stimulus has proven less than effective, it's time to take a closer look at fiscal economic stimulus. For starters, a massive federal telecommunications infrastructure initiative to achieve the previously mentioned goal to fiber up the nation. Many of those dollars invested in this critical 21st century infrastructure would return to the federal treasury, thanks to the multiplier effect of creating new businesses and jobs.

Why U.S. FTTP infrastructure deployment won't follow the 20th century timeline for electrification

Here's how a colleague thinks Susan Crawford's forecast of a long winter of telecom discontent might play out in the coming years as the nation wanders in the darkness unlit by fiber to the premise. He believes "very, very few cities and no counties" have the money or the political will to pursue FTTP telecommunications infrastructure. The construction of FTTP infrastructure reaching all American homes, schools and businesses, he predicts, will play out over decades as electrification did in the early part of the 20th century. There will be 20 or 30 years of isolated private or municipal builds, followed by another 20 or 30 years of federally funded infill to cover the remaining unfibered areas. 

I disagree with the comparison to the deployment of electrical distribution infrastructure in the previous century. Information and communications technology is moving at a far faster pace in the 21st century. We're seeing robust, pent up demand for Internet service that is far outstripping the ability of Internet service providers to deliver it at reasonable, affordable rates due to widespread market failure. Americans simply will not tolerate such a prolonged wait for universal FTTP service.

Politics also argues for a much more compressed timeline than my esteemed (and anonymous for now) colleague envisions. The United States is close to or already at a political tipping point in terms of protecting the de facto monopolies of the legacy incumbent telephone and cable companies -- among the most hated and least respected institutions in the nation. That inevitable tipping point is when their lobbying currency is greatly devalued relative to consumer and business demand for Internet services that grows stronger by the day. 

Finally, the pace of technological progress is far faster than in the early 20th century. A disruptive technological development could come along that would drastically reduce the time and cost of deploying FTTP. For example, super strong and lightweight carbon fiber or nanotube sheaths that could be deployed on poles by remotely operated drones once the poles are made ready. That would greatly reduce labor costs, which is the major FTTP cost challenge. As well as maintenance costs since the sheaths would be wind resistant and squirrel proof.

Pew study paints grim picture of U.S. consumer telecommunications market

Home Broadband 2015 | Pew Research Center: Still, the fact that more Americans have only a smartphone for online access at home has consequences for how people get information. Those who are “smartphone-dependent” for access do encounter distinct challenges. Previous Pew Research Center findings show that they are more likely than other users to run up against data-cap limits that often accompany smartphone service plans. They also more frequently have to cancel or suspend service due to financial constraints.

This study paints a grim picture of the state of telecommunications in the United States. On the sell side, market failure leaves many premises without landline Internet service. Service providers redline and refuse to serve neighborhoods where the business case can't be justified. On the buy side, in neighborhoods they do offer landline service, it's perceived as unaffordable. That forces many to rely on mobile wireless service via smartphones that has its own affordability issues and suffers from serious user limitations.