Showing posts with label fiber to the premise. Show all posts
Showing posts with label fiber to the premise. Show all posts

Monday, April 27, 2020

California: Use bonds for public utilty, consumer coop-owned fiber to the premise telecom infrastructure as stimulus

Don’t expect an economic stimulus package using state tax money.States can’t print dollars like the feds can. President Trump and Congress will do all the stimulating. But (California Senate President pro tempore Toni) Atkins and (Assembly Speaker Anthony) Rendon want to tap into infrastructure bonds that have already been authorized by voters and quickly push the borrowed money out into job-creating projects. There’s $42 billion in unsold bond authorization.
Source: Newsom wields California executive power amid coronavirus - Los Angeles Times

That bonding capacity should be tapped to fund public utility and consumer coop-owned fiber to the premise telecom infrastructure as an economic stimulus initiative. Not only would doing so directly create jobs; it would also provide a boost to California's knowledge and information economy. Particularly as its constituents rely on advanced telecommunications services to work at home and especially those in Northern California counties lacking good infrastructure. They need robust and reliable connectivity only fiber can offer.

Tuesday, April 21, 2020

FCC head Ajit Pai grossly mischaracterizes telecom infrastructure as competitive market

Pai Explains Commission's Coronavirus Philosophy - Radio World: But I also think that the market creates powerful incentives for companies to do the right thing. If your company doesn’t step up for you, or even worse, engages in bad behavior, consumers will be much more likely to turn to the competition in the weeks, months, and years ahead.

Pai's right. But only when it comes to competitive markets. Telecommunications infrastructure isn't one due to high cost barriers that keep out potential competitors and first mover (incumbent) advantage that make it a natural monopoly or duopoly. It's simply not economic to have multiple lines running to a home to deliver Internet protocol-based telecommunications services.



I’d also argue that the general regulatory approach that we have in the United States have applied to the broadband marketplace gave us much stronger infrastructure in the first place, as it gave companies the incentives to invest in resilient, robust networks that could withstand unprecedented consumer demands. (Emphasis added)

This requires some explaining on Pai's part. With competitive market forces absent and no regulatory requirement to meet market demand by requiring they provide fiber connections to homes asking for them, legacy telephone companies lack incentive to invest in replacing their decades old copper lines with fiber. Only fiber to the premise #FTTP can assuredly support "resilient, robust networks that could withstand unprecedented consumer demands."

Thursday, April 16, 2020

U.S. policymakers should expedite public option #FTTP infrastructure planning, construction

Rebuilding and modernizing America’s infrastructure has taken on greater urgency in the current sharp economic downturn. Those efforts should expedite the planning and construction of advanced telecommunications infrastructure whose role has taken on greater importance as people work, study and receive medical care at home to prevent contagion of the SARS-CoV-2 virus.

As people are thrown out of work by public health efforts to contain the pandemic, construction of this infrastructure should create an accessible and affordable “public option” for originating and receiving high-quality voice, data, graphics, and video. Doing so will create jobs while supporting post pandemic economic recovery.

Legislation should be enacted quickly that would create a make available to state, regional and local governments and consumer electric and telecom cooperatives:
  • Technical assistance grants for fiber optic to the premise (FTTP) infrastructure design and business planning;
  • Guaranteed low interest loans backed by federal government for FTTP projects with engineering designs and business plans meeting specified quality and level of service standards.

Wednesday, April 15, 2020

Don't limit federal loans to publicly and coop owned fiber to rural areas

Opinion | Post-Pandemic, Here’s How America Rises Again - The New York Times: “Building fiber infrastructure all across heartland America ensures that high-paying jobs can take place anywhere,” explained Matt Dunne, executive director of the Center on Rural Innovation, and it makes the whole country “more resilient to future pandemics and climate change-related weather events that require children and workers to stay home.” High-speed internet basically enables anyone anywhere to get training for a better job, often at low to no cost, from online universities or YouTube instructional videos. And if you connect them, they will invent.

 *  *  *
What Dunne proposes is that the federal government create a new loan program, reminiscent of the Rural Electrification Act, which would offer 50-year, no-interest loans to communities and co-ops creating rural fiber broadband networks and an easing of regulations to enable public-private coalitions to build rural broadband and attach high-speed fiber to existing telephone poles.

Why limit this program to rural areas when only about a third of the nation has fiber advanced telecom infrastructure connections? The lines between urban and rural America in the early 21st century aren't as sharply drawn as they were in the early 20th century. Then, the division between those served by electric power infrastructure -- urban areas -- and unserved rural counties was distinct. The comparison to the Rural Electrification Act doesn't cleanly apply in 2020. Exurbs at the edges of large metro areas typically lack residential fiber service. Often, they lack any landline advanced telecom infrastructure whatsoever -- redlined by legacy telephone and cable companies or at best served by DSL over aging copper phone lines.

Tuesday, March 10, 2020

California proposes 3-day backup power for cell towers, communication networks - SFChronicle.com

California proposes 3-day backup power for cell towers, communication networks - SFChronicle.com: “It’s important to remember that one size does not fit all when it comes to network management during an emergency,” AT&T spokesman Jim Kimberly said in an email. “Adding 72 hours of backup power could mean adding large fuel tanks or multiple refrigerator-sized cabinets in the middle of communities, which in many areas is simply not feasible. A combination of fixed and mobile solutions is what is needed.”
Kimberly is right re fixed solutions. Residential fiber connected to premises backed up with premise generators and batteries would provide one such solution. That would require AT&T to rapidly change out its aged legacy copper outside plant to fiber -- something it should have done decades ago -- and consider placing in underground conduit in high wildfire risk areas to increase suvivabilty. Also, to offer both business and residential fiber service. In some of its Northern California service territory, AT&T has deployed fiber to business customers but does not offer fiber service to nearby residences.

Friday, February 07, 2020

U.S. telecom infrastructure deficiencies inaccurately described as "rural broadband" problem

Neighborhood broadband data makes it clear: We need an agenda to fight digital poverty: The digital gap between urban and rural parts of the country tends to garner the most attention. However, our analysis of the Census Bureau’s American Community Survey (ACS) data tells another story: The majority of digitally disconnected households live in metropolitan areas, and the gaps are especially large when comparing neighborhoods within the same place. Effectively, some residents live in digital poverty even as their neighbors thrive.
Poor connectivity within metro areas has not gotten the attention it deserves, particularly as their residents seek more affordable housing in more distant suburbs and exurbs that typically lack modern fiber to the premise #FTTP telecom infrastructure. Much of the media narrative instead is based on a circa 1950 version of the United States. At that time, residential settlement was much more binary, divided among urban and rural areas. This has also led to outdated and inaccurate comparisons of poor "rural broadband" to lack of electric power and telephone infrastructure in rural areas in the early part of the 20th century.

Friday, January 31, 2020

Elizabeth Warren’s telecom policy: First FTTP infrastructure, then level of service standard

A major flaw in current U.S. telecom policy is that takes a completely backwards approach. Instead of first establishing an infrastructure standard – fiber to the premise (FTTP) – it begins with a level of service standard: bandwidth. That set the stage for years of unproductive debate over what constitutes an acceptable level of throughput for Internet service, mostly measured in bandwidth but also latency. At the same time, bandwidth demand doubles about every three years. What was deemed sufficient bandwidth not long ago soon becomes less than adequate. Policymakers end up chasing their tails, caught on the downside of the bandwidth growth curve and skating to where the puck was instead of where it’s going.

Unhappy with slow and congested bandwidth, Americans continually pressure their elected representatives for more bandwidth to support faster throughput, making it one of the top issues for their constituents. Nationwide, the politicians are listening. Hearing their constituent complaints, they proclaim the problem is poor “broadband speeds.” “Better broadband” is the obvious solution. But among them, only Sen. Elizabeth Warren seems to correctly understand the issue. She has put the chips in the correct order in her presidential campaign’s telecom policy. First, it sets forth an infrastructure standard, proposing generous federal grants to electricity and telephone cooperatives, non-profit organizations, tribes, cities, counties, and other state subdivisions to build FTTP reaching every American home. Second, it establishes a level of service standard: symmetrical bandwidth of at least 100 Mbps both directions.

Friday, December 27, 2019

Patient pension capital funding for FTTP could be game changer

The modernization of America’s legacy twisted pair copper plant to fiber to the premise (FTTP) has been inhibited – described by observers as “stalled” and “stalemated”– by the conservative, risk averse business models of large investor owned players that require relatively rapid and assured returns on capital investment while also paying generous shareholder dividends. Several years ago, Verizon scaled back its FTTP deployment. In 2016, Google Fiber paused new deployments. AT&T hit the brakes on its FTTP deployments this year at the same time voters and policymakers want to press the gas pedal.

The sluggish progress has prompted localities to seek alternative business models that can more rapidly build FTTP infrastructure serving all and not just some premises along with rising demand for greater reliability and better value. The task isn’t easy. State and local governments and their taxpayers still feel the trauma of the economic crisis a decade ago. They’re thus risk averse when it comes to taking on debt or assessing new taxes. If localities are to build FTTP infrastructure and operations and maintenance, they will have to investigate new financing models that require less public funding.

One that is emerging and bears watching is localities partnering with operators of open access FTTP networks that tap pension funds as a source of patient capital. The 30-50 year lifespan of FTTP telecom infrastructure is far better aligned with the long term investment horizon of pension funds than the shorter timelines of investor owned ISPs. And now that advanced telecommunications is considered an essential utility (but not by legacy telcos and cablecos who prefer it be regarded as an information and entertainment service) and FTTP as a future proof means of delivering it to homes, businesses and institutions, there’s less uncertainty its ability to generate demand and revenue over the long term.

So far, European pension management firms appear to be in the game. However, it’s possible American pension funds like the mammoth California Public Employees' Retirement System (CalPERS) could jump in. There are plenty of localities just within California that could be potential partners on FTTP projects, particularly given the state’s two thirds voter approval requirement for most new taxes amid indications of tax exhaustion.

Tuesday, August 20, 2019

Push back on public option fiber based on fallacious argument utility infrastructure a competitive market

North Carolina considers loosening municipal broadband regulations: In May, Gov. Roy Cooper announced $9.8 million for broadband expansion to rural areas as part of a $35 million initiative to improve internet access across the entire state. Municipal broadband, however, has a troubled history in North Carolina and beyond.The bill cleared the North Carolina House State and Local Government Committee on Wednesday and will move to the chamber’s Finance Committee for a second vote, but industry officials are opposed. Spectrum’s senior director of government relations, Brian Gregory, said the increased competition from public entities would backfire.

“It’s especially troubling for us because our employees and our companies are going to be taxed to have competition against us, and that competition on top of that is also our regulator,” Gregory told WRAL, the NBC affiliate in Raleigh.

The thing is, advanced telecom infrastructure is NOT a competitive market. In fact, it's arguably a failed market because so many people who want better landline connections to their homes and small businesses and are willing to pay for them aren't able to buy them. Investor owned telephone and cable companies must also deal with inherent limitations on what they can invest in modernizing their infrastructures to fiber to the premise. Investors naturally push back when it comes to sacrificing profits and dividends to capital expenditures.

Saturday, August 10, 2019

U.S. needs universal FTTP telecom infrastructure as public utility standard

The Benton Foundation has pulled together policy positions of several Democratic presidential candidates in a blog post, 2020 Candidates Offer Plans to Extend the Reach of Broadband. Of these candidates, only Elizabeth Warren offers a plan for universal fiber to the premise (FTTP) advanced telecommunications infrastructure as a public utility. It’s a position recognizing:

  1. It’s what’s needed to rapidly modernize the nation’s legacy metal cable built for the pre-digital era of telephone and cable TV service to provide the capacity to handle rapidly growing bandwidth demand;
  2. There isn’t and will likely never be a viable business case for private sector investment alone to achieve this in the foreseeable future due to the high labor costs of building utility infrastructure, and;
  3. There’s an inherent conflict of interest between private investment and public interests when it comes to modernizing the nation’s telecommunications infrastructure. The public interest is clearly for modernizing to FTTP to enable economic activity, education, medical care and civic engagement. The private investor interest priority isn’t necessarily modernization of telecommunications infrastructure and its positive effects but instead to offer premium, higher margin service offerings based on throughput speed tiers. Warren’s proposal includes throughput speed (symmetric 100Mbs) but only as basic service quality standard.

The goal of universal FTTP as a public utility properly establishes an infrastructure-based standard for the nation considering only a small portion of the country has FTTP connections. That’s far behind where the United States should be in 2019 given that it should have achieved near universal FTTP at least a decade ago.  It’s the right goal for where the nation is now. Not a geographic or bandwidth-based goal of extending “rural broadband” or “improving broadband maps.” Broadband and specifically the lack thereof isn't a solution but rather the primary symptom of the lack of FTTP infrastructure and the consequent weaknesses of existing metallic infrastructure. If it reached nearly every American doorstep, "broadband" speeds and maps wouldn't even be part of the lexicon.