Assertions to the contrary can't alter underlying microeconomics: Advanced telecom infrastructure is a natural monopoly

Editor's Note: Welcome to the Roaring ’20s: Meanwhile, according to RVA LLC, 2019 proved to be a banner year for fiber to the home, and 2020 promises to be nearly as good. Broadband providers have now passed 46.5 million unique U.S. homes with fiber, up more than 6 million since the year before – not bad for a technology that got started just 20 years ago. In addition, nearly 3 million households can choose between two or more fiber connections. Not bad for what was once considered a “natural monopoly.”

Advanced telecom infrastructure remains a natural monopoly market due to high costs of entry that make it difficult for would be private sector competitors to challenge an established provider. If it weren't, most all American households would have had fiber connections at least a decade earlier in the 2000s -- when fiber was hardly a new technology -- and millions would not lacking them today.

Nor would there be a need for publicly and consumer cooperatively owned fiber to the premise infrastructure since competitive market forces would work to ensure nearly all homes were connected by investor owned players. That some providers opt to compete by cherry picking homes in what they consider "high potential" neighborhoods by inefficiently building multiple premise fiber connections doesn't alter the basic underlying economics.

ACA Summit: Pai: Open Internet Order Was 'Galling Regulatory Onslaught’ | Multichannel

ACA Summit: Pai: Open Internet Order Was 'Galling Regulatory Onslaught’ | Multichannel: U.S. Federal Communications Commission Chairman Ajit Pai praised smaller cable operators for broadband deployment and as a competitive force, and renewed his attacks on edge providers in the network neutrality rule debate. Pai took aim at edge providers he said had pushed Title II on ISPs large and small. Those edge providers are an increasingly familiar target in Washington in conversations about power over internet content.

"Silicon Valley tech giants with market caps in the hundreds of billions of dollars demanded that the FCC regulate small companies like yours more heavily than they were!," he said. "That’s right... [T]hey claimed that small broadband providers like Spencer Municipal Utilities and Laurens Municipal Utilities were anticompetitive monopolists who posed a greater threat to a free and open Internet than companies like Google, Facebook, and Twitter."

The thing is Mr. Chairman, telecommunications infrastructure is a natural monopoly. It doesn't matter whether it's owned by big players like Charter and AT&T or small cable companies. It thus requires a regulatory scheme predicated on that monopolistic reality. The FCC's 2015 Open Internet rulemaking does so in treating it as a common carrier utility as basic telephone service was in the pre-Internet era under Title II of the Communications Act.

California like rest of nation suffers from poor advanced telecom service

The Social Cost of Weak Broadband Competition in California: Over the last 8 years, California has spent more than $200M funding projects and subsidizing service to close the broadband digital divide. While the intent is good, the results are limited given that home broadband subscriptions are unchanged today from 2010. It is clear that California cannot subsidize its way out of the digital divide. Despite the claims of Sosa and the Big 5, California’s uncompetitive fixed broadband service hurts everyone. The answer is to either promote retail competition or regulate the Big 5’s monopolies like we do in the energy sector.

California like the rest of the nation has the worst of all worlds: a naturally monopolistic advanced telecommunications market but no monopoly regulation as is done for electric power and natural gas utilities. The U.S. Federal Communications Commission nominally recognized advanced telecommunications as a natural monopoly utility in 2015, placing it under Title II of the Communications Act that regulated basic telephone service before it with rate regulation and a universal service requirement. "Nominally" because this regulatory scheme was put in place on paper only and not enforced.

The author is correct in noting we cannot extricate ourselves from this unfortunate circumstance with subsidies because they don't fundamentally alter it.

Insanity defined: The continuing call for more competition in telecom infrastructure

FCC doesn't know enough about competition, or lack thereof, says GAO: The Federal Communications Commission needs better information about broadband competition, according to a report by the federal government accountability office. Existing data shows that 51% of U.S. residents only have access to one provider that offers at least a minimum level of broadband service, which the GAO defines using the FCC’s own advanced services standard of 25 Mbps download and 3 Mbps upload speeds.

That the majority of Americans have only a single advanced telecom services landline provider shouldn’t surprise anyone. If the Government Accountability Office conducted a similar study of other utilities – which is how the Federal Communications Commission classifies this service – it would find most Americans have only one water, electric power or natural gas utility serving them.

What makes advanced telecom service any different? Is it reasonable to expect multiple advanced telecom providers to make connections to customer premises when the economics of the dominant investor-owned business model leave many consumers with no options whatsoever let alone multiple choices? For inexplicable reasons, analysts ignore the microeconomics of telecom infrastructure where high cost barriers to entry make market competition – defined as many sellers competing for many buyers-- impossible. 

Americans hold the large investor owned telephone and cable companies that dominate a market that tends toward monopoly or duopoly in low regard. The misguided belief is more competition will up their game and force them to provide better value and customer service. Problem is that solution is only viable in a competitive market. Telecom infrastructure isn’t one and calling for more competition won’t make it so.

FCC Chair Pai wrongly describes natural monopoly of telecom infrastructure as competitive market

FCC Chairman Ajit Pai on Why He's Rejecting Net Neutrality Rules - Reason.com: If left in place, however, the Title II rules could harm the commercial internet, which Pai described as "one of the most incredible free market innovations in history. Companies like Google and Facebook and Netflix became household names precisely because we didn't have the government micromanaging how the internet would operate," said Pai, who noted that the Clinton-era decision not to regulate the Internet like a phone utility or a broadcast network was one of the most important factors in the rise of our new economy.

Companies like Google (excepting Google Fiber's now defunct venture into fiber to the premise service), Facebook and Netflix aren't network providers. Consequently, they don't face the high costs associated with building and operating telecommunications infrastructure serving homes, businesses and institutions that deters market competition and promotes market failure.

Ajit Pai: The funny thing about that is because it's precisely because the phone company was a slow moving monopolist. That's exactly the point we're trying to make. These rules, Title II rules were designed to regulate Ma Bell, and the promise with Ma Bell, the deal with the government was, we'll give you a monopoly as long as you give universal service to the country. As a result, for decades, we didn't see innovation in the network we didn't see innovation in phones and it's when you have a competitive marketplace and you let go of that impulse to regulate everything preemptively, that you finally get to see more of a competitive environment.

Pai is engaging in the distortion of describing the natural monopoly market that telecommunications infrastructure is as a competitive market. Wishing it were competitive won't make it so. The cost barriers to entry are simply too high. Just ask Google Fiber. Or the 34 million Americans who have experienced sell side market failure, their homes and small business not offered landline connections capable of delivering high-quality voice, data, graphics and video, according to figures released by the U.S. Federal Communications Commission in 2016. Market failure is hardly an indicator of a robustly competitive market.

Pai's predecessor Tom Wheeler indulged in the misguided notion that telecom infrastructure could be competitive market, even though the FCC under his leadership adopted the 2015 Open Internet rulemaking predicated on regulating Internet service as a natural monopoly, classifying it as a common carrier telecommunications utility.

Competition isn't the answer for better premise telecom service

California lawmakers give cable utility perks, without utility obligations: Historically, there was a difference between telephone companies, which have been state regulated utilities for more than a century, and cable companies, which were originally franchised by local governments but managed to escape that oversight ten years ago. At least in California. Today, the differences are diminishingly small, particularly in urban and suburban markets where cable and telephone companies sell the same services and enjoy a comfortable, unregulated duopoly.

The distinguishing characteristics of a natural monopoly are high initial capital costs, usually related to infrastructure construction, and powerful economies of scale, both of which give the first mover in the market insurmountable advantages over would be competitors. In the old analog world, telephone and television service were completely different businesses, linked only by a common dependence on wireline networks. Now, both offer voice and video, and face competition in those segments from wireless providers. But they are also almost always the only wireline broadband option and wireless service is not a credible substitute, in either practical or microeconomic terms.

This is an excellent and much needed microeconomic description of the dominant privately owned telecommunications infrastructure that dominates in the United States that is all too often absent from the current policy discussion. Many ask why there isn’t competition in the telecommunications industry like exists in most consumer products and services. If it works there, then it must work in telecommunications also. More competition is the answer for better choice and consumer value, they conclude.

But as Steve Blum explains in his blog post, that reasoning is fatally flawed. More competition isn’t possible in a natural monopoly market where high cost barriers and the power of incumbency deter would be competitors. (Just ask Google how its flagging Google Fiber venture worked out) Telecommunications infrastructure will never be a robustly competitive market, defined as one with many sellers and buyers offering consumers many choices, enabling market forces that allow consumers to choose the best value and force out uncompetitive players.

When it comes to landline premise telecommunications service, most Americans can select from no more than two providers. And sadly for millions, none at all since the business model of vertically integrated investor owned providers must naturally redline and cherry pick among neighborhoods, creating winners and losers among consumers. As long as the nation relies on this broken model, it
will continue to lag when it comes to building the world class telecom infrastructure it needs to accommodate the explosion in digital communications.

Yet another think tank makes false "market competition" argument in defense of legacy incumbent telephone and cable companies

Don’t put bureaucrats in charge of broadband | Columns | richmondregister.com: State lawmakers instead should search for ways to eliminate barriers to additional investment by private ISPs instead of raiding their customer base, which threatens to drive them, the jobs they support and tax revenues they send to Frankfort out of the commonwealth altogether.

By ending KentuckyWired once and for all, the Bevin administration would accomplish what federal bureaucrats who want to dictate the Bluegrass State’s broadband policy can’t be trusted to do: protect the best interests of Kentucky taxpayers and consumers who pay the bills.

Jim Waters is president of the Bluegrass Institute, Kentucky’s free-market think tank. Reach him at jwaters@freedomkentucky.com. Read previously published columns at www.bipps.org.

Yet another think tank attempts to argue public sector investment -- even disregarding the fact that it's woefully insufficient -- is inappropriate for telecommunications infrastructure because telecommunications infrastructure is a competitive market. This is the falsity at the heart of the argument. It's not a competitive market because competitive markets by definition have many sellers and many buyers. Telecommunications infrastructure, however, is a natural monopoly or duopoly market because the high cost of building and maintaining it keep out potential new providers. That makes it like other high cost infrastructure such as roads and highways that are financed by the public and not private sector.

Mr. Waters is preying on economic ignorance to make a disingenuous argument and in so doing is rendering a great disservice at a time when the nation's telecommunications infrastructure is far behind where it should be in 2016 and for the future. He also employs a favored tactic of the dinosaur incumbents by focusing the discussion on "broadband speeds" in order to distract from the need to replace America's outdated metallic landline telecommunications infrastructure with modern fiber to the premise networks -- a thought trap that has ensnared most public policymakers and the mainstream and info tech media. It's time he and others stopped trying to postpone the future to protect last century's telephone and cable companies and allow technological progress to take its course into the 21st century.

Tom Wheeler tells cable industry to stop complaining, start competing | Ars Technica

Tom Wheeler tells cable industry to stop complaining, start competing | Ars Technica: Part of looking forward, in Wheeler's opinion, is boosting competition. With some exceptions, cable companies have generally not competed against each other, letting a single company dominate each region instead of "overbuilding" in each other's territory.

"You don't have a lot of competition, especially at the higher speeds that are increasingly important to the consumer of online video," Wheeler said. This means there isn't the kind of "intense and constant pressure to continue to improve" as there was in the days when DSL posed a serious threat to cable, he said.

The thing is, Mr. Chairman, telecommunications infrastructure doesn't easily lend itself to competition due to the high costs to build and maintain it. It functions as a natural monopoly like roads and highways and electrical distribution infrastructure. We don't build competing thoroughfares to offer motorists the choice of taking Highway "A" and "B" and "C," for example from the same starting point to the same destination. Or multiple power lines serving the same property. Having multiple landline Internet connections passing by premises is similarly overkill and economically wasteful. Just ask any of the legacy phone companies who feel compelled to issue news releases announcing "gigabit fiber" to compete with Google Fiber. It's a helluva lot cheaper to issue a news release than to actually overbuild competing infrastructure and doesn't risk the ire of shareholders averse to big capital expenditures.

The competition Wheeler's FCC and the federal government should be supporting is helping fund the planning and construction of open access fiber to the premise telecommunications infrastructure over which Internet Service Providers would compete to sell services to customer premises. This would also potentially provide greater opportunity for new services than could be offered over a vertically integrated cable provider that owns both the pipe and the services offered over it.

UTOPIA’S “fiber highway” offers roadmap to greater competition for premise telecommunications services

A major complaint about Internet service in the United States is legacy incumbent telephone and cable companies lack incentive to provide better value and customer service and to build out their networks to fully serve communities and neighborhoods and not just selected segments. Many believe the solution is introducing more competition.

But given that telecommunications infrastructure costs a lot to build and maintain, that circumstance creates high economic barriers to potential competitors. That leaves the incumbent telephone and cable companies firmly entrenched in a market that naturally tends to be monopolistic. It puts them in the dominant position and consumers in the weaker role, forced to be what economists call “price takers,” meaning they must pay whatever their ISP charges or go without service. 

Summed up, a market that’s naturally monopolistic can’t easily be transformed into a competitive one without a radical reordering. One such example is the Utah Telecommunication Open Infrastructure Agency (UTOPIA), which operates its regional fiber telecom infrastructure as public works -- like a road or highway. That introduces competition by giving consumers the choice of what Internet services they want to purchase and from which ISPs. “The value to users is generated through greater choice of providers that generates a shift in the balance of power from the ISPs to the user and the superior service that the new network will provide,” notes this recent update by Macquarie Capital on its public-private partnership venture with UTOPIA.

As the report notes, there has been some resistance to a key financing element: a proposed monthly utility fee. But as it also points out, the estimated $22.60 monthly utility fee is offset by better value consumers would receive than as price takers of the incumbent telephone and cable companies.

As the maxim holds, there’s no free lunch. But some lunch deals are better than others, particularly when they help fund fiber to all and not just some premises as with Google Fiber’s “fiberhoods.” UTOPIA’s open access model provides the additional advantage of ensuring everyone is connected regardless of where they live or operate their business. Applied on a regional basis as UTOPIA plans, the utility fee model is a particularly important financing mechanism in places like Bettendorf, Iowa and Danbury, New Hampshire -- small localities that would be challenged to fund Internet infrastructure construction without new revenue streams.

The Obama administration and the Federal Communications Commission – looking for ways to increase competition for premise telecommunications service amid a growing tide of consumer dissatisfaction – would be wise to look to UTOPIA’s open “fiber highway” model. And consider tax incentives such as making utility fees tax deductible for all taxpayers to make them more palatable.

Administration’s “broadband” push window dressing

Always something happening and nothing going on
There's always something cooking and nothing in the pot
-- John Lennon, Nobody Told Me

The Obama administration’s PR initiative this week on U.S. telecommunications infrastructure deficiencies is largely window dressing and will likely mean the wired network that Americans have today for their home and small business Internet connection is likely the same one they’ll have for the foreseeable. This prediction was made in 2012 by former U.S Federal Communications Commission official Blair Levin and continues to hold true in 2015:

"For the first time since American ingenuity birthed the commercial Internet, we do not have a single national wireline provider with plans (real plans, not “fiber to the press release”) to deploy a better network. For most Americans, five years from now, the best network available to them will be the same network they have today."

The reason is the same as in 2012: insufficient available capital. Building Internet infrastructure to serve homes and businesses is a high cost endeavor. Those high costs have produced market failure on the supply side as the administration acknowledges, noting in this fact sheet that three of four Americans lack networks providing a level of service increasingly required for many online services. “Rarely is the problem a lack of demand — too often, it is the capital costs of building out broadband infrastructure…”

The administration is correct that local governments will have to play a major role in meeting the Internet infrastructure needs of their residents, infrastructure many argue is as critical in the 21^st century as roads and highways were in the 20^th. But it has no meaningful plan to help these localities finance infrastructure construction beyond highly limited and restricted funding available through existing grant and loan programs directed to rural areas of the nation that are only a drop in the bucket relative to the many billions of dollars needed.

In fairness to the administration, even it if did have a plan, it would face difficult odds getting Congress to appropriate the necessary funding. That has left the administration with little to offer in the way of tangible economic assistance. The administration is relaunching its BroadbandUSA website, where among other things it will offer “funding leads” for financing infrastructure construction. Given the lack of needed dollars, the administration has also been reduced to talking points that unfortunately won’t do anything to build last mile fiber to the premise infrastructure including:

• Increasing “competition.” (Sounds great, but ignores the fact that telecommunications infrastructure is a natural monopoly, not a competitive consumer market like groceries, vehicles and air travel. It also undermines Obama's position that Internet should be regulated under Title II telecommunications common carrier rules that are predicated on a monopoly market.)
• Enforcing “net neutrality” rules on Internet service providers. (A wonky term that doesn’t mean anything to consumers with subpar or no wired Internet service options).

Incumbent misapprehensions and myths: Time to get real

Fiber fight: Broadening broadband Gig City touted as model in broadband debate | Mobile TFP: In its filing with the FCC, AT&T notes that many municipal broadband networks never got off the drawing board, putting taxpayers are risk, while others have pre-empted private investment.

"Although many government owned networks (GONs) have failed, or at least failed to live up to expectations, GONs can nonetheless discourage private sector investment because of understandable concerns by private sector entities of a non-level playing field," AT&T attorney Christopher Meimann said.

A natural monopoly like telecommunications infrastructure cannot and will not ever be a "level playing field." Whoever is on the field holds a monopoly advantage. Incumbents have used that advantage to pick winners and losers by building Internet telecommunications infrastructure to serve some neighborhoods but not others.

"Any policy that risks diminishing private sector investment would be short-sighted and unwise."

AT&T wants incumbent, private telecom providers to have a "right of first refusal" to deploy high-speed broadband before a government utility starts such a competitive service.

It's entirely appropriate for government to construct telecommunications infrastructure given market forces alone cannot ensure all homes and businesses have access to modern fiber optic telecommunications service. Private sector investment has already been substantially diminished insofar as millions of U.S. premises remain unserved by landline-delivered Internet connections even under current U.S. "light touch" regulatory policy. 

Where service is not available, phone companies and cable providers suggest broadband can be subsidized through the FCC's Connect America Fund, which is targeted at the 18 million Americans living in rural areas with no access to robust broadband infrastructure.

In theory yes. But legacy incumbent telephone and cable companies have largely shunned the Connect America Fund subsidies because they are incompatible with their market segmentation strategies that concentrate their capital investment in high density, metro areas.

The FCC wants to let cities build their own broadband. House Republicans disagree. - Vox

The FCC wants to let cities build their own broadband. House Republicans disagree. - Vox

House Republicans would be well advised to consult with or hire new, better economic advisors. They demonstrate a fundamental misapprehension of telecommunications infrastructure in viewing it as a competitive market when in fact it's a natural monopoly as Susan Crawford notes (see the embedded video interview).

Competitive markets (like retail grocery and furniture, for example) have many sellers and many buyers. Due to high cost barriers to entry, telecommunications infrastructure is not characterized by a multitude of sellers and will likely never be a competitive market. It's a utility like telephone service as Crawford correctly observes, and should be regulated accordingly.