The Perennial Need for Speed | Light Reading

The Perennial Need for Speed | Light Reading: Vodafone, for one, sounds eager to get away from this obsession with the megabit flow. Matt Beal, the operator's head of technical architecture, envisages a time in the not-too-distant future when speed will be irrelevant and customers will not be able to distinguish between network technologies on that basis. "Customers will solely be focused on the service that we render -- its ability to be agile to their needs, and its ability to be relevant and personalized," he told UBB Forum attendees during his presentation.

Beal is correct in this assessment. Speed is important now because existing infrastructure is still largely metal wire-based and limited in the throughput it can offer. The pricing models of the legacy cable and telephone companies also reflect this, charging consumers more for higher speeds and imposing bandwidth consumption caps.

But as fiber to the premise providing excellent throughput replaces legacy infrastructure, speed will no longer be a distinguishing feature of Internet service for the vast majority of consumers.

Don't call it broadband

It's time to relegate the term "broadband" to the history books. Along with "high speed Internet." The reason is these terms are no longer appropriate in the 21st century when fiber optic cables can deliver 1 gigabit and greater bandwidth to customers.

Exhibit A in the case against "broadband" is none other than the legacy incumbent telephone companies that coined the term in the 1990s to differentiate what was then called "advanced services" from dialup narrowband service. They want to dictate to consumers what constitutes "broadband" and "high speed" and what they consider good enough using technologically obsolete and rapidly outdated standards. Their other motivation is to preserve pricing schemes based on contrived scarcity that treat Internet service like a consumption-based utility where consumers pay more for higher speeds and bandwidth tiers similar to those used in water and electricity service.
 
Using the terms "broadband" and "high speed Internet" allows the legacy telephone and cable companies to control the conversation by defining what constitutes "broadband" and "high speed Internet."

It also misdirects resources. If the United States had uselessly wasted time and effort in the 1920s and 1930s debating the definition of electric power service (the number of volts, amps, etc.), electrification of much of the nation would have been significantly delayed.

It's time for consumers to take control and define for themselves what constitutes high quality Internet telecommunications services that meet their needs and provide good value and service for their money.

Advocates of municipal broadband face resistance over high-speed access | GazetteNet.com

Advocates of municipal broadband face resistance over high-speed access | GazetteNet.com: Foes, including private Internet service providers such as Comcast, AT&T and Time Warner Cable, have a different view. They say they are spending hundreds of millions of dollars upgrading infrastructure to give high-speed access to every American, and that government shouldn’t compete against private companies, which must pay taxes and make a profit.

The assertion regarding "upgrading infrastructure to give high-speed access to every American" is a false statement. These providers segment their markets and redline neighborhoods deemed less profitable and have no plans to serve them, all the while making promises they cannot stand behind. The reason they cannot is they are constrained by inpatient shareholder investment capital and short term business models inappropriate for high cost capital infrastructure that can require decades to produce a return on investment.

The claim that government is unfairly competing with private sector telecommunications providers is also false in a strict economic sense. Competitive markets are characterized by many buyers and sellers. In telecommunications infrastructure, there are many buyers and users but few sellers, making the market a natural monopoly or duopoly. When the public sector steps in to build and/or finance telecommunications infrastructure, it does so because this market environment combined with the previously mentioned business model limitations of investor-owned telephone and cable companies produces market failure on the sell side. That failure has left millions of Americans unable to order modern Internet landline-delivered services at their homes and small businesses.

Roanoke Valley Broadband Authority, Internet providers disagree on state of broadband - Roanoke Times: Roanoke News

Roanoke Valley Broadband Authority, Internet providers disagree on state of broadband - Roanoke Times: Roanoke News

This story illustrates that local government officials are growing less inclined to rely on what incumbent legacy telephone and cable companies claim they have in place or will build when it comes to last mile Internet infrastructure.

Good for them. Other local governments should follow this example and create and fund special districts and authorities to build the infrastructure they need. Collectively, their doing so will help the United States bridge a persistent Internet infrastructure gap that leaves millions of Americans without adequate connectivity -- many of them still forced to use dialup connections that were state of the art 20 years ago.

Gigabit over fiber altering telecom landscape

One word is exerting substantial influence over U.S. telecommunications infrastructure: gigabit. It is literally exponentially redefining what constitutes modern premises Internet connectivity from megabits per second (Mbs) range to gigabits per second (Gbs).

Gigabit is also aiding in a shift of market power to the demand side and away from legacy telephone and cable companies that supply megabit class service – often in the single digit Mbs range in the case of telcos -- over “last mile” metal wire or cable to customer premises. The limitations of this infrastructure versus fiber optic lines easily capable of delivering gigabit class service have led telephone and cable companies to ration bandwidth, selling it in various “bandwidth by the bucket” consumption tiers like electricity or natural gas. Gigabit over fiber to the premise will obsolete that business model at the same time premise bandwidth demand continues to rapidly accelerate. Drivers include more and higher definition video streams, multiple devices in the home and emerging Internet-enabled home services. Also, more knowledge workers working at home at least part of the work week.

Gigabit over premises fiber service will also obsolete the legacy telcos and cablecos themselves, burdened with decades-old twisted pair and coax cable infrastructure as well as high debt and shareholder dividend obligations. That will give advantage to agile and financially creative overbuilders connecting premises with fiber service.

Since telecommunications infrastructure is a natural monopoly, once fiber first movers have established a substantial market presence, the economics of challenging them with parallel infrastructure become very difficult. This same dynamic has historically deterred those who would overbuild the incumbent telcos and cablecos. But the shift toward gigabit class service delivered over fiber could reverse the advantage of incumbency the legacy telephone and cable companies have enjoyed for more than a decade.

The first mover advantage would be particularly high in parts of incumbent telephone and cable company service territories where the incumbents don’t offer landline Internet connections or very slow ones such as first generation DSL.

“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.

Two sharply divergent alternative business models for Internet infrastructure play out in Utah

For the past decade, much of the United States has been plagued by telecommunications infrastructure market failure. Many residences and small businesses need fast, reliable landline premise Internet connections but are unable to obtain them because legacy telephone and cable companies have opted not to upgrade and build out their networks to reach them. Alternative business models are thus urgently needed to ensure they don’t remain isolated from the Internet grid and effectively cut off from the many services it provides.

In Utah, two alternatives to construct and operate fiber to the premise (FTTP) infrastructure -- which is also being referred to as “gigabit broadband” in reference to fiber’s substantial carrying capacity that eliminates sluggishness and latency -- are playing out in close proximity.

One model is quasi-public, the other private. The first is the Utah Telecommunication Open Infrastructure Agency (UTOPIA), of which 6 of 11 member municipalities are moving forward with diligence on a partnership to bring in private investment capital. (Story here) UTOPIA’s model treats its fiber infrastructure as a public asset similar to roads and highways. 

By contrast in nearby Provo, Google’s Google Fiber unit is utilizing the subscription-based business model used by legacy telephone and cable companies to sign up residential (but not business) customers living in selected “fiberhoods.” Google Fiber is open only to Google whereas the UTOPIA model allows Internet Service Providers access to the network on a wholesale basis.

Since Google Fiber sells subscriptions like a magazine, it has to sell enough subscriptions to be economically viable. Being part of online advertising giant Google means Google Fiber is also motivated to get as many subscribers as possible in order to maximize eyeballs on Google-delivered content and ads. With the bill and keep subscription model, teaser and special rates are utilized to goose subscriptions such as Google Fiber’s announcement it is cutting its $300 flat rate, low cost subscription rate to only $30 for a limited time in Provo fiberhoods – similar to limited time magazine offers for new subscribers. (See this item from Google Fiber blog)

Of these two models, the UTOPIA model despite initial resistance to a modest public utility fee is best able to scale quickly enough to address America’s significant telecommunications infrastructure gaps short of a massive federal infrastructure program on the scale of the Federal Highway Act of 1956. The public-private partnership model being utilized by UTOPIA relieves network operators of the risk burden and uncertainly associated with having to sell subscriptions and avoid customer churn. It can also more easily attract the many billions of dollars necessary to build out fiber to nearly all Americans regardless of where they make their homes and businesses.

U.S. at inflection point on premises Internet infrastructure

The United States is at an inflection point relative to premise Internet infrastructure serving homes and small businesses. The “walled garden” business model of legacy incumbent cable and telephone companies has reached the limits of its reach. Connecting the remaining 20 to 30 percent of premises outside the wall isn’t economically practical as testimony at a U.S. House Small Business Subcommittee hearing this week in upstate New York illustrates.

Mark Meyerhofer, a government relations administrator for Time Warner Cable, said while there has been a change in the national mindset that favors a greater focus on unserved areas, nevertheless “It remains extremely challenging to extend broadband to most rural areas of New York State, where geographic isolation and topographic issues make it economically infeasible for companies to reach these areas,” Meyerhofer explained. “Investments simply cannot be recouped before it is time to reinvest.” Although Meyerhofer was specifically referring to only one part of the country, his testimony applies elsewhere across the nation including many suburban and exurban areas where service gaps exist. That economic reality of the walled garden Internet also applies to Google Fiber, which plans to expand into several metropolitan areas.

The other challenge faced by the legacy incumbent providers (but not Google Fiber) is the ever growing demand for more Internet bandwidth. It’s similar to the problem facing manufacturers of silicon-based microchips that eventually will reach a physical barrier where no additional circuitry can be crammed onto the chip. That will require the incumbent providers to change out their metal wire-based premise service infrastructure with fiber optic connections to accommodate the additional bandwidth demand and stave off technological obsolescence. But barring a revolutionary breakthrough that significantly reduces the cost of constructing fiber to the premise infrastructure, their shareholders aren’t likely to approve of such large capital expenditures that could cut into dividends as shown by Verizon’s 2012 pullback of its FiOS fiber to the premise product offering.

Given the growing consensus that the so-called “last mile” premise Internet infrastructure challenge can’t be met within a commercial framework, it strongly suggests other business models including a nonprofit cooperative or public works approach similar to that used for roads and highways will be necessary in many areas of the U.S.

The major causes of U.S. premise Internet service policy quagmire

U.S. telecommunications policy for premises Internet connectivity is in need of reassessment and revamping. It severely limits the nation’s ability to ensure all homes and businesses have fiber to the premise Internet connectivity capable of serving both current and future needs as bandwidth demand continues to grow exponentially.
 

Call it the Levin quagmire, named after former U.S. Federal Communications Commission official Blair Levin. In 2012, Levin predicted little change in the status quo, noting for most Americans over the near term, the best wireline network available to them will be the same one they have now. According to the FCC, for about 19 million Americans that’s dialup, state of the art technology in the early 1990s when Bill Clinton was starting his first term as president.

Summed up, these are the circumstances and policies that have produced the current quagmire:

• There is an insufficient business case for legacy incumbent telephone and cable companies to invest in building out their networks to serve all premises in their service areas or to upgrade existing infrastructure to fiber to the premise service. Nevertheless, these providers generally don’t avail themselves of federal and state subsidy programs aimed at capitalizing the cost of Internet infrastructure.
  

• Federal subsidy programs such as the Connect America Fund are only available to telephone companies and not cable companies that are becoming the dominant premises Internet service providers over telephone companies that are instead concentrating their capital investments on mobile wireless markets.

• Legacy incumbent telephone and cable providers view their service territories as proprietary franchises. Consequently, they oppose the award of subsidies to alternative providers and lobby for subsidy program eligibility rules inappropriately based on mobile wireless service and outmoded and changing standards of Internet service. They also lobby for state laws that bar local governments from building and operating fiber to the premise networks or make it impractical to do so.