Hillary Clinton's telecom infrastructure initiative vague, parrots incumbent talking points

Hillary Clinton's Infrastructure Plan: Building Tomorrow's Economy Today: Connect all Americans to the digital economy with 21st century Internet access. Clinton believes that high-speed Internet access is not a luxury; it is a necessity for equal opportunity and social mobility in a 21st century economy. That’s why she will finish the job of connecting America’s households to the Internet, committing that by 2020, 100 percent of households in America will have access to affordable broadband that delivers world-class speeds sufficient to meet families’ needs.

Clinton's initiative doesn't detail how her plan will fill in the gaps in America's incomplete and patchwork telecommunications infrastructure and "finishing the job" of serving all U.S. households.

Clinton will also build upon the Obama Administration’s efforts to increase not just broadband access but also broadband adoption, both by fostering greater competition in local broadband markets to bring down prices and by investing in low-income communities and in digital literacy programs. In addition, Clinton is committed to expanding the Obama Administration’s efforts to connect “anchor” institutions — like public school and public libraries — to high-speed broadband. 

Here, Clinton's statement reiterates the three classic talking points -- the latter two long offered up by legacy incumbent telephone and cable companies -- that have distracted from the primary goal of building telecom infrastructure over the past 15 years or so:

Increasing competition in local "broadband markets"

The fundamental flaw here is local or "last mile" telecom infrastructure is not a market any more than other infrastructure such as electrical power distribution lines, water lines and roads and highways. It's a natural monopoly. Calling for competition here ignores basic economics.

Digital literacy programs

This is a favorite stalling tactic of the legacy incumbent telephone and cable companies to divert attention away from infrastructure deficits and keep the calendar fixed at 1996 when many people were just starting to connect their home computers to the Internet via dial up service. The argument is people only need the Internet if they're "digitally literate" so we don't have to be in a hurry to invest in infrastructure and can look good by calling for increased digital literacy.

Connecting anchor institutions

Like digital literacy, this makes for nice talking points and sound bites. After all, who could be against better Internet service for the kids at school and city hall. Unfortunately, telecom infrastructure projects to serve these settings don't typically extend to the adjacent neighborhoods and homes where students and constituents live and need better connectivity to interact with these community institutions.

Blair Levin's "broadband competition" fantasy

Achieving Bandwidth Abundance: The Three Policy Levers for Intensifying Broadband Competition | ISOC-DC: The trial and many errors of my own work have led me to believe in the following bottom line: that the highest priority for government broadband competition policy ought to be to lower input costs for adjacent market competition and network upgrades. Today I will make the case for that bottom line and illustrate where I think the greatest opportunity is; to create a virtuous cycle of upgraded mobile stimulating low-end broadband to upgrade, which in turn causes an upgrade of high-end broadband which, by using its assets to enter mobile, accelerates the need for mobile to accelerate its upgrade further.

Blair Levin, a Brookings Institution fellow who drafted the U.S. Federal Communications Commission's National Broadband Plan issued in 2010, somehow believes boosting mobile wireless "competition" to offer greater bandwidth will generate synergistic "competition" among landline premise Internet service providers and result in "bandwidth abundance." 

It's utter hogwash for the simple fact that telecommunications infrastructure -- regardless of whether it supports mobile or premise service -- is not a competitive market. Never has been and never will be due to high cost barriers to entry and uncertain return on investment as a mathematical expression in Levin's presentation illustrates. 

Levin's fantasy scenario would have us believe that if Verizon deploys next generation 5G mobile service, that would somehow spur Comcast or AT&T, for example, to upgrade and build out fiber to the premise (FTTP) infrastructure in areas where Verizon has rolled out 5G mobile. It's wishful economic sophistry. Levin offers no explanation as to how or why that would occur.

Google Project May Spur Broadband Competition - NYTimes.com

Google Project May Spur Broadband Competition - NYTimes.com

The take away from this story is it's highly unlikely incumbent telephone and cable companies will upgrade and build out their infrastructures to provide better Internet connectivity and serve more premises.  It makes more business sense for them to preserve the status quo and harvest whatever profits can be had from their existing cable plants. Particularly given the fact that the legacy incumbents pay fat dividends to their shareholders. Google pays none.

The NY Times piece postulates it will take an third party like Google to break the inertia.  But Google thus far is pursuing fiber builds in only a few metro areas of the United States including Kansas City and Austin and lacks a strategy to serve the nearly 20 million Americans forced to live off the Internet grid because the incumbent telcos and cablecos won't serve their homes.  These areas will have to rely on good old fashioned American self help and build fiber to the premises infrastructure operated by local governments and consumer cooperatives as was done in much of the nation in the 1930s and 1940s for electricity and telephone service.

There's also the sheer enormity of the financial challenge that would test the resources of even the deepest pocketed players like Google.  In 2009, the U.S. Federal Communications Commission projected it would cost $350 billion to universally deliver 100 Mbps or faster Internet connections to all American homes and businesses.  That's more than the sum of Google's 2012 revenues.

Burlington Telecom head: Broadband infrastructure a natural monopoly that should be publicly owned

Here's a guy who really understands the economic big picture when it comes to broadband infrastructure: Tim Nulty, director of Burlington Telecom, which built a publicly owned broadband system serving the city of Burlington, Vermont.

Nulty sets out crystal clear guidance for public policymakers on broadband infrastructure: it's a natural monopoly that by its very nature can't foster robust market competition to ensure the needs of the public are met. Hence, Nulty says, it should be in the public rather than private sector like roads and highways. Nulty's observation has enormous implications for the current misguided notion being embraced by some states at the behest of AT&T that state regulation preempting local governments will lead to a competitive market for advanced services. AT&T's approach creates a duopoly of telcos and cable companies and a duopoly does not a competitive market make.

Here's an excerpt from a recent profile of Nulty appearing in Vermont's Business People magazine:

He likens his fiber-optic superhighway to a more commonly understood network. "Nobody thinks twice about the roads being in the hands of the public," Nulty says. "The thought that a private company could own the roads and charge whatever they pleased to anybody who goes on them is ludicrous anywhere in the world. That's what this is: the public roads."

Why competition suffers in the broadband market

One of the biggest debates is over how much broadband telecommunications should be regulated. That debate is in turn fueled by another over the fundamental nature of the market. Is it a competitive market and will competitive pressures force the market to provide broadband to those who want it at reasonable prices? Or is it an uncompetitive market as Robert Atkinson, president of the Information Technology and Innovation Foundation, described it at a conference today in San Francisco.

Atkinson like your blogger and many other observers tend to see it as a monopoly or duopoly with broadband provided by just a telco, a cable company or in all too many cases, neither, leading to the formation of broadband black holes stretching across the landscape. The reason, Atkinson explains, is the high cost of becoming broadband provider and deploying the necessary infrastructure.

Atkinson's right. By way of illustration, if another high cost infrastructure such as roads and highways was left to private market providers who would charge tolls for access, there would only be a small number of road builders and plenty of places where roads -- like broadband -- don't go. That's why roads in the vast majority of places are provided by the public sector.

Despite the substantial financial heft of the big telcos and cable companies and their ability to raise money on Wall Street, they simply can't put up the money themselves to build out their infrastructures to provide broadband to nearly every one who wants it. They'd have to take on billions more of bond debt and sacrifice near term earnings --something their investors wouldn't tolerate.

Increasingly, it appears only a partnership of both the private and public sectors can eliminate America's numerous broadband black holes and close the digital divide.

FCC Commissioner Copps: 700MHz spectrum auction rules stymie broadband competition

America’s broadband performance leaves a lot to be desired. To me, the culprit is clear: a stultifying lack of competition in the broadband market, which in the words of the
Congressional Research Service is a plain old “cable and telephone . . . duopoly.” A 22 MHz block of 700 MHz spectrum is uniquely suited to provide a broadband alternative, with speeds and prices that beat current DSL and cable modem offerings. Maybe this can happen yet in this spectrum, but by declining to impose a wholesale requirement on the 22 MHz C-block, the Commission misses an important opportunity to bring a robust and badly-needed third broadband pipe into American homes.