Will Gigapower truly operate as open access network?

A cynical view of the investor owned open access fiber to the premises (FTTP) Gigapower build – AT&T’s joint venture with BlackRock – might hold that AT&T will end up as the sole service layer provider. AT&T will initially serve as the “anchor tenant” ISP riding on Gigapower glass.

That view is justified by the history of the unbundling of AT&T’s copper distribution network assets as well as those of other telephone companies mandated by the 1996 Telecommunications Act. The Act required the telcos to providing access to ISPs to compete with its own services. Since these competitive local exchange carriers (CLECs) were all selling the same thing – dialup access and later DSL over platforms like AOL, CompuServe and Netscape – it was difficult to for the CLECs to differentiate their service offerings from those of other ISPs and the incumbent telcos. That prompted a race to the bottom price war that AT&T and other telcos with their deep coffers would ultimately win, being able to hold out for the duration. In addition, a 2006 U.S. Court of Appeals decision held incumbent telcos were not obliged to provide CLECs access to fiber to the premises (FTTP) that was just beginning to replace the legacy copper in limited builds.

However, if AT&T were to monopolize Gigapower as the sole and not just the anchor tenant, the business model wouldn’t benefit from lease revenue paid by other ISPs leasing access to network assets Gigapower expects to defray capital and operating costs. But a cynical take there might be Gigapower will operate as a truly open access network for only the first seven to 10 years to help it finance capex and opex costs for fiber delivery infrastructure outside of its current service area that it couldn’t otherwise justify spending on its own. After which it would become exclusively AT&T’s with the Gigapower terminating and non renewing completing ISP service provider contracts.

The luxury connotation of advanced telecom -- why it’s still called “broadband.”

Three decades ago, the United States failed to put in place a transitional process to modernize twisted pair copper telephone infrastructure designed in the 20th century for analog voice telephone service to fiber for digital Internet protocol (IP) services that emerged in the late 1980s and early 1990s. It should have been seen as a natural evolution of telecommunications technology.

Instead, the legacy copper infrastructure was kept in place and advanced telecommunications was framed as an enhanced service under the name “broadband.” Basic service was dialup -- relatively inexpensive and affordable to most households and small businesses. By contrast, broadband was always on and allowed end users to access digital voice, web pages, images and video that dialup could not. That distinguished it a premium luxury service providing a far richer amount of information and content.

Broadband was a natural for Cable TV – an enhanced, premium service over television signals broadcast on the public airwaves. Cable companies got into the broadband business in a big way and are now the dominant providers of advanced telecommunications connectivity.

Hence, “broadband” connoted a luxury upgrade over narrowband dialup. As with any luxury, it comes at a price premium and is marketed to select households likely to upgrade. The more broadband, the higher the price.

The term “broadband” is so widely used today it’s become shorthand for advanced telecommunications capability. The luxury connotation has stuck. It’s fundamental to the challenges the nation faces with access and affordability now that advanced telecommunications like the voice telephone service before it has become a basic utility and not a luxury.

Francella Ochillo, Executive Director, Next Century Cities, reinforced the point at the annual Silicon Flatirons conference earlier this month:

“We could hide behind the internet's new and it's really a luxury. And it was really very strategic to even use that language to call it a luxury, because then it made it OK if everybody didn't have it. And I'm not saying that that's intentional. I'm saying that that's just real. And whether or not it's intentional, that was the impact. And so when we're in a moment where we have to start questioning structures, and thinking about why have we been doing it that way for that long.”

It was intentional however to the extent the framers of the 1996 Telecom Act also saw IP powered advanced telecommunications as new. Because it was novel, the thinking went, let’s keep policy technology neutral and see how market competition will evolve to deliver it to homes, schools and businesses. And not establish fiber to as the advanced telecommunications delivery infrastructure standard even though it predates the emergence of IP telecommunications by two decades.

Then as now, fiber was a proven technology for delivering advanced telecommunications services that wasn’t going to be obsoleted by another technology anytime soon. That’s seen in 2023 as public policymakers at all levels of government look to speed fiber connections to nearly every American doorstep, making them as ubiquitous as copper telephone line connections.

Outdated 1998 "going online" perceptions persist, hold back progress

Technology Is Improving, So Why Is Rural Broadband Access Still a Problem? | National News | US News: It is still worth noting, however, that even if rural broadband infrastructure were exactly the same as in urban areas, there would still be a "digital divide" in adoption rates, because rural populations are older, less educated and have lower income.

Had this been asserted in 1998-2000, it would have been mostly true since Americans were "going online" via dialup modem (and DSL for some fortunate households) to access email and websites. But it's badly outdated and uninformed in 2017. Fiber optic to the premise telecommunications infrastructure can deliver not only email and web content, but also voice communications via Voice Over Internet Protocol (VOIP), videoconferencing (older folks love to see their grandkids), online education, telemedicine and of course streaming video content.

Obama flat wrong, at odds with FCC in framing telecom infrastructure as competitive market

Municipal Broadband Battles | Al Jazeera America: Amid concerns in some markets that big telecoms and cable companies are providing service that is too slow and too expensive, some cities are starting their own Internet services, spending millions of dollars to bring super-high-speed, or gigabit, Internet service to their communities through a new fiber-optic infrastructure. Proponents call it the single most important piece of infrastructure of the 21st century, attracting businesses, bolstering education and raising property values.

President Barack Obama has declared community broadband, as it’s called, a key to economic prosperity. “Today I’m making my administration’s position clear on community broadband. I’m saying I’m on the side of competition,” he said. (Emphasis added)

The problem with the president's framing telecom infrastructure as a competitive market is he's just flat out wrong. It can never be a truly competitive market with many sellers and choices for consumers due to the high cost of deploying fiber to the premise infrastructure. Those high costs have kept telcos and cablecos from upgrading their legacy infrastructures and building out fiber to all customer premises in their service territories to replace the outdated metallic cables designed for voice telephone and cable TV service of decades past. Instead, they've built limited fiber to the premise in selected high density "footprints" and redlined countless American neighborhoods, leaving many still on dialup that was state of the art technology when Bill Clinton was serving his first term as president.

Moreover, by furthering the notion that telecom infrastructure is a competitive market offering, Obama is at odds with the Federal Communications Commission that -- at Obama's urging -- adopted a common carrier regulatory framework early this year predicated on telecom infrastructure as a monopolistic market. Consequently, the FCC's Open Internet rulemaking requires Internet service to be offered to all customer premises requesting it -- as telephone service before it -- under the universal service and nondiscrimination provisions of Title II the federal Communications Act.

No fast or slow lanes for Internet? New rules proposed | The Sacramento Bee

No fast or slow lanes for Internet? New rules proposed | The Sacramento Bee: "Net neutrality" means that whether you're trying to buy a necklace on Etsy, stream the season premiere of Netflix's "House of Cards" or watch a music video on Google's YouTube, your Internet service provider would have to load all of those websites equally quickly.

This is a much less important problem in the United States than inadequate Internet infrastructure that leaves millions of American homes and small businesses to substandard slow dialup, satellite or costly bandwidth rationed mobile wireless connections. The Federal Communications Commission recently reported that Internet infrastructure is not being deployed in a timely manner.

US Telecom Association wants 'archaic' regulations gone | TheHill

US Telecom Association wants 'archaic' regulations gone | TheHill: Steve Davis, chairman of the board of U.S. Telecom, said some of the regulations cited "don't apply to cable companies or any of our competitors, and to the extent that they ever served a purpose, that purpose has long since evaporated."

The group pointed to a number of regulations they want to avoid, including requirements that companies "separate local and long-distance business, and requiring traditional phone companies to continue the provisioning of obsolete technology."

The group cited a speech Wheeler gave in February in which he noted that a large percentage of investment recently by telephone companies went to "maintaining the declining telephone network, despite the fact that only one-third of U.S. households use it at all."

"The future regulatory environment should be one that is based upon the world as it exists today," the group’s president and CEO, Walter McCormick, told reporters. "That is sort of like the overall theme we think public policy should move towards. This petition is a little tiny baby step in that direction."

The world of POTS (Plain Old Telephone Service) is still very much alive in much of the United States, where some 19 million homes and small businesses still rely on the publicly switched telephone network (PSTN) and dialup wireline Internet service. As long as it exists, regulators will be hard pressed to scrap rules designed for POTS without a firm transition plan in place.

The Incumbent Local Exchange Carriers (ILECs) could potentially get more than they wish for in making this request. The Federal Communications Commission could respond by effectively saying, "OK, if you don't want to comply with outdated POTS rules, you are hereby subject to Title II of the Communications Act and thereby must deploy advanced telecommunications infrastructure throughout your service territories."

“Broadband” infrastructure subsidy programs falling behind in the gigabit world

As telecommunications becomes an Internet-based, fiber delivered service, programs aimed at subsidizing the cost of infrastructure construction are rapidly going out of date. For example, the U.S. federal government’s Connect America Fund helps underwrite the cost of building infrastructure in areas with service providing Internet connections of less than 3 Mbs down and 1 Mbs up. The California Advanced Services Fund targets areas with less than 6 Mbs down and 1.5 Mbs up. Both definitions are now technologically obsolete in that they are purposed for “broadband" service and define "broadband" based on a moving and quickly obsoleted throughput target that only measures speed but not latency or jitter --  key components of throughput quality.

It's no longer a broadband environment where the term broadband was used to distinguish advanced services from 1990s "narrowband" dialup. It's now a "gigabit" world of fiber to the premise (FTTP) that can provide exponentially superior throughput with no near term threat of obsolescence.

In addition to using an outdated and incomplete measure of throughput, these programs are deeply flawed insofar as they aim to preserve the hegemony of the legacy metal wire-based legacy telephone and cable companies with eligibility standards based on the companies’ need to constrain bandwidth on their bandwidth-limited metal wire plants. Program subsidies are only available in areas deemed “underserved” and “unserved” relative to services provided – and not provided -- by the incumbents. 

This isn't a practical definition since the footprint of wireline-based services of the incumbents is highly granular at the network edge due to market segmentation and arbitrary redlining of discrete neighborhoods deemed undesirable and therefore unserviceable.

For the most part, the large first tier incumbent telcos and cablecos have spurned the subsidies, probably because they are far too limited to allow them to significantly upgrade their plants to FTTP. They also likely realize accepting subsidy funding would potentially increase pressure on them to provide service to all premises in their service territories as some advocate, urging the U.S. Federal Communications Commission to regulate the Internet under a common carrier scheme like that in place for decades for voice telephone service.

Suddenly it's the 1990s again as dialup modems screech up AOL profits

AOL Still Relies on Dial-Up Profit as Its Media Shift Continues: AOL has worked hard to reinvent itself as a modern digital media and advertising company, but the bulk of its profits still come from its dial-up ISP business.

While the calendar may read 2014, this week it feels like time has jumped back nearly 20 years when most Americans accessed the Internet with slow dialup modems and Monica Lewinsky was in the news (as she is again this week). It's a sad testament to the retrograde state of U.S. telecommunications infrastructure that enough Americans are still on dialup -- many because it's the only landline option available -- that it continues to be a profitable business for AOL. That can hardly be called progress.

Colorado legislation would redirect high cost telephone subsidies to Internet infrastructure

Two Colorado legislators are developing legislation to repurpose surcharges on voice landline and cell phone service to subsidize landline telephone service in high cost, less densely populated areas of the state to instead defray the cost of building out Internet infrastructure. "By funding land lines and copper-line phones, we're funding buggy whips,” Senator Gail Schwartz, D-Snowmass Village, told the Denver Post.

Rocky Mountain State lawmakers will however face resistance from incumbent telcos who want to preserve the status quo and continue to provide Internet service over their existing copper cable plants to a subset of wireline customers while deeming the rest unprofitable to serve. Throughout much of the United States, the latter cohort are in innumerable small pockets beyond the short range of DSL signals and/or where the existing copper cable is too old and deteriorated to deliver Internet service. First formed around 2000 and still around more than a decade later, they are like thousands of little holes in a big Swiss cheese, comprised of discrete premises, roads, streets and neighborhoods. Rather than “unserved areas,” they are more accurately described as redlined addresses and neighborhoods, typically avoided by both telcos and cable companies. The unfortunate residents are forced to rely on obsolete dialup offered by telcos or satellite Internet more properly suited to remote areas of the planet while the more fortunate may have access to fixed terrestrial wireless service from a local provider.

Incumbent telcos insist rules for government subsidy programs direct funds only to “unserved areas.” But building new wireline premises infrastructure is a costly, large scale endeavor that can make filling in these numerous voids one at a time impractical even with subsidies. In California, for example, incumbent telcos have largely shunned subsidies for premises Internet infrastructure offered through a six-year-old subsidy fund, the California Advanced Services Fund (CASF), similar to that being contemplated for Colorado. They have also challenged proposed CASF wireline projects by arguing the projects would serve premises adequately served by mobile broadband services.

Only a large scale overbuild of the outmoded copper cable plant with fiber to the premise infrastructure makes sense over the long term from both a technological and economic standpoint. State and federal Internet infrastructure subsidy funds should be structured accordingly.

Pew Internet survey flawed by badly outdated, retro perspective

With the relentless pace of Internet bandwidth demand growth to support multiple services including video, voice and Web-based services as well as a portable devices used in the home, there is near consensus that only fiber to the premises infrastructure will be able to accommodate the demand going forward.

That’s why I’m taken aback to continue to see surveys such as this one issued today by the Pew Research Center’s Internet & American Life Project that take a decidedly retrospective view of telecommunications services with their late 1990s distinction between narrowband (dialup) Internet connectivity and “high speed” broadband connections. 

Dialup service is obsolete and can no longer be considered a useful form of premises Internet connectivity. Had this survey been done in 2000 when the distinction between narrowband and broadband was still relevant, the distinction might have meant something. In 2013, it is a distinction without a difference. 

The other major contextual problem with a survey like this is it concentrates only on computer-based services such as Web browsing and email. That’s also a major flaw in the survey. The Internet now delivers video and voice services including applications such as online learning, videoconferencing and telemedicine – none of which are truly usable via a dialup service.

Australians Without Broadband Call For Changes To NBN | Internet

Australians Without Broadband Call For Changes To NBN | Internet: Experts have blamed Telstra for failing to upgrade creaking infrastructure because the NBN will limit the return it can get on its investment. Meanwhile many of those without broadband face over three years on dialup or expensive and patchy wireless plans as they are not part of the early NBN rollout.

At least the Aussies can claim they have active construction underway to build fiber to the premise infrastructure -- albeit not fast enough for areas that must still rely on early 1990s era dial up over twisted copper pair and data capped mobile wireless service.  The United States does not: only the travesty of a "national broadband plan" that exists on paper only.  There, the wait to get off dial up may take even longer than for the folks down under unless American communities take the initiative to build their own community fiber networks.

The post-broadband era begins

As 2010 draws to a close, we are also seeing the closure of a chapter of the early Internet era and the beginning of a new one. The first chapter opened in the early 1990s when the few people who connected to the Internet did so with narrowband "dial up" connections using the Public Switched Telephone Network (PSTN). By the end of that decade, dialup evolved from 1200 and 2400 baud connections to 56Kbs connections as well as ISDN offering Internet connections of up to 128Kbs. At the same time, "broadband" began emerging with DSL and Internet services offered by cable companies.

We are now beginning a new chapter where throughput speeds that defined an Internet connection will be less relevant than the services and applications people use when they access the Internet. If the connection can't support them, it no longer will be considered bona fide Internet-based service. From a practical standpoint, that means dialup and satellite connections are now obsolete since they cannot provide end users a full Internet experience due to the inherent physical limitations of their technologies.

Also being rendered obsolete as bandwidth demand grows exponentially, particularly with the explosion of video content and mobile Internet:

-- The U.S. Federal Communications Commission's definition of a "broadband" Internet connection as 4Mbs down and 1Mbs up.

-- The term "broadband black hole" and dubious efforts to "map" these locations. These areas will simply be regarded as disconnected from the Internet, similar to the "off the grid" term applied to those locations lacking electric power service.

Paradigm shift in telecommunications underway

As the legacy publicly switched telephone network (PSTN) becomes increasingly obsolete (it's in a "death spiral" according a pre-Christmas 2009 Federal Communications Commission filing by AT&T), regulators like the FCC are grappling with a paradigm shift in telecommunications.

The FCC's current regulatory framework is more oriented toward PSTN than the Internet that is rapidly replacing it. It too is growing outmoded, leaving regulators struggling to devise a successor.

And as FCC Chairman Julius Genachowski has noted, the FCC also faces a major challenge in figuring out how to best address market failure that has left at least seven million U.S. households offline according to the FCC's own estimates. At a time when the PSTN is replaced by the Internet, if you don't have an "always on" terrestrial Internet connection, you don't have modern telecommunications service. As PSTN becomes obsolete, so does the PSTN means of Internet connectivity: dialup access that was state of the art nearly two decades ago.

This is truly a time of major transition in telecommunications. As with any major shift, there will be a tension between those who want to hang on to the old paradigm -- in this case the legacy single purpose "telephone" and "cable" companies whose business models are based on billing for incremental services delivered over closed, proprietary networks -- and those who want speed the shift toward alternative business models based on open access IP-based networks.

"Broadband in a box" is prime example of going backward on telecom infrastructure

Stories like this one in Telephony Online depict the U.S. headed backward in a race to the bottom rather than forward when it comes to deploying advanced telecommunications infrastructure. This so-called "Broadband in a Box" might make sense for some isolated part of the Third World. But what's sad is it's being deployed in the United States of America. West Virginia, to be exact.

"Broadband in a Box" combines two of the absolute worst forms of Internet Protocol-based connectivity: sucking a satellite on the downlink and dialugging for the uplink.

It's so pathetic that it rightfully doesn't even meet the U.S. government's definition of broadband -- already arguably obsolete at 768 Kbs down and 200 Kbs up -- for the purposes of broadband infrastructure subsidies in the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009.

From dialup to 100mbs by 2015

There are some numbers in the broadband initiative announced last week by New York Gov. Eliot Spitzer that starkly illustrate the gulf between the current state of broadband throughput speeds and the where Spitzer wants the Empire State to be in 2015.

At present, much of upstate New York and surprisingly even parts of New York City are relegated to dial up, a sluggish connection that was state of the art Internet connectivity technology when Bill Clinton was beginning his first term as president nearly 15 years ago. That's around 24kbs -- higher or lower depending on the distance to the central office switch and the condition of the lines.

By 2015, Spitzer wants all parts of the state to have access to at least 20mbs in each direction, and 100mbs in major metropolitan areas.

Report: AT&T hikes dial up prices

The story here isn't so much about Ma Bell raising dial up prices. Rather, it's that AT&T is leaving lots of money on the table by pricing DSL too low relative to dial up prices.

AT&T's costs to deploy DSL are obviously going to be higher in areas where cable loops are long and remote terminals must be installed in order to distribute the service. Its one-size-fits-all pricing scheme for DSL would be fine if there were enough total revenues to subsidize these higher costs. Clearly there are not. Consequently, AT&T and other telcos leave more than 20 percent of their U.S. service areas with no DSL service whatsoever.

The obvious solution would be to charge higher rates for DSL -- including for reseller ISPs -- in higher cost areas where 20 bucks a month for service doesn't allow for a reasonable profit. That would gain a lot more wire line broadband and potential bundled service customers who'd gladly pay two to three times that amount rather than be stuck with dial up or the high up front costs and sluggish connections afforded by satellite "broadband."

Tales from the dark side of the digital divide, 95709

Nearly seven years ago, a postcard arrived in the mail from Internet Service provider EarthLink announcing that DSL was available in my El Dorado County, California neighborhood. That turned out to be premature — very premature. Seven years later and two years after a promising community meeting with a regional manager for the incumbent local exchange carrier (ILEC), then-SBC Communications and now AT&T, DSL is still not available despite fiber optic cable less than two miles away on a frontage road for a major U.S. highway. Nor is Comcast cable, which recently declined to extend its existing cable plant located a mile and a half away, citing a franchise agreement that allows it to skip neighborhoods that aren’t set up like densely developed common interest developments with zero lot lines.

Today, another postcard — actually the size of a flyer — arrived in the mail. This one from HughesNet satellite Internet and addressed to:

DIAL UP INTERNET USER AT
ADDRESS
CITY, STATE, ZIP

"Been overlooked by DSL and cable?” it asks. “Your high-speed Internet solution has arrived."

Judging from a neighbor’s experience with HughesNet, I hardly think so. It’s maddenly sluggish and not surprisingly so considering each keystroke to load a Web page must make a 46,000 mile round trip up to the HughesNet satellite and back down to the surface. For months, about 20 percent of his inbound email wouldn’t download to his Outlook Express program. So we installed Thunderbird mail as an alternative. The emails came in OK, but nothing would go out.

We spent two hours on the phone with some incompetent HughesNet support guy in Bangalore who couldn't solve the problem. So my neighbor is now relegated to using HughesNet’s crappy Web-based mail program. That’s not all. About a month ago, his granddaughter downloaded a TV program and HughesNet responded by throttling down the throughput to dialup speed as punishment for using too much bandwidth since it has too many ex-dialup desperados trying to cram onto too little HughesNet bandwidth. Many of these ex-dialuggers including my neighbor — large numbers of them seniors simply seeking a viable Internet connection to share pics with the grandkids — have been sucked into signing two-year contracts for what more aptly should be dubbed “MolassesNet” on steroids.

I imagine in another two years, another postcard will arrive in the mail addressed to:

DIAL UP INTERNET USER AT
ADDRESS
CITY, STATE, ZIP