Why legacy incumbent telephone and cable companies want FCC re-reclassification as information service providers. Hint: It’s not “net neutrality.”

If the U.S. Federal Communications Commission revokes its 2015 Open Internet rulemaking classifying Internet as a telecommunications common carrier utility under Title II of the Communications Act and restores the previous rule classifying it as information service under Title I of the law as expected before year end, it will set the stage for another round of litigation just as that which followed after the 2015 rule was adopted. This time however it will be public and consumer interests that will be challenging the FCC rather than legacy incumbent telephone and cable companies. And the governing statute, the Communications Act, might well be on their side. Section 3(a)(1)(41) of the Act as amended in 1996 defines an information service as follows:

INFORMATION SERVICE- The term `information service' means the offering of a capability for generating, acquiring, storing, transforming, processing, retrieving, utilizing, or making available information via telecommunications, and includes electronic publishing, but does not include any use of any such capability for the management, control, or operation of a telecommunications system or the management of a telecommunications service.

The legacy incumbent telephone and cable companies want the FCC to define their Internet protocol delivered services using that definition, essentially equating them with services like LexisNexis or Intelius. Their problem however is these companies market Internet protocol-based telecommunications services such as data, voice and video delivered over their connections to customer premises. If they were merely information services like LexisNexis or Intelius, they wouldn’t market physical premise connections sold in throughput speed tiers for a monthly recurring fee. In so doing, they are arguably offering telecommunications service, which the statute defines as “the offering of telecommunications for a fee directly to the public, or to such classes of users as to be effectively available directly to the public, regardless of the facilities used.”

So what is the incumbents’ main motive in not wanting to be classified as telecommunications providers under Title II of the Act? Hint: It’s not “net neutrality” – the requirement they treat the bits and bytes of Internet protocol moving over their networks equally regardless of origin. The primary reason to avoid being classified as telecommunications providers is to escape the requirement in the Communications Act as amended in 1996 that they provide advanced telecommunications capability to all areas of the nation consistent with the public interest, convenience and necessity. It must enable users to originate and receive high-quality voice, data, graphics, and video telecommunications using any technology per Section 706(c)(1) of the statute. Elected policymakers at all levels of government generally agree advanced telecommunications capability is even more in the public interest and vital to the constituents they represent than it was when the 1996 Act was enacted two decades ago.

Incumbents also chafe at the prospect of price regulation as advanced telecommunications providers as authorized at Section 706(a) of the Act. Bottom line, if they are regulated solely as providing an information service and not as telecommunications common carriers, then they would be able to continue to redline neighborhoods they don’t wish to serve and charge customers in those they do whatever they wish – just as they have since the statute was enacted without meaningful regulatory enforcement. That might serve the interests of their shareholders, but clearly doesn’t comport with the public interest specified in the statute.

Legacy metallic telcos, cablecos fight rear guard actions against local FTTP initiatives

Municipal broadband advocates cry foul amid Seattle mayoral race: An ongoing debate over making broadband internet a public utility in Seattle is surfacing in the city's mayoral election, and advocates for the cause are crying foul over contributions large telecommunications companies have made in the race. Comcast and CenturyLink, two internet service providers in Seattle, collectively donated about $50,000 to a political action committee supporting Jenny Durkan, a candidate who opposes municipal broadband. Municipal broadband advocates say that the telecom companies’ donations represent efforts to maintain the duopoly they have in the region. The PAC is the Civic Alliance for a Sound Economy (CASE), which is sponsored by the Seattle Metropolitan Chamber of Commerce. “If I was running one of the most powerful monopolies of the modern era, I’d be donating as much as I could to take over local politics also,” said Christopher Mitchell, director of the Community Broadband Networks Initiative at the Institute for Local Self-Reliance.

Mitchell is correct. Due to high cost barriers to competitor entry, telecommunications infrastructure functions as a natural monopoly, a fact recognized in the previous regulatory regime governing analog voice telephone service. Title II of the U.S. Communications Act requires telephone companies to provide service to anyone requesting it and authorized state public utility commissions to regulate their rates since market forces cannot in a monopoly market. 

In its 2015 Open Internet rulemaking, the U.S. Federal Communications Commission made it clear Title II also applies to digital telecommunications delivered using Internet protocol technology. But the United States hasn’t found the regulatory fortitude to enforce that requirement, allowing landline advanced telecommunications providers to redline neighborhoods they don’t want to serve and charge whatever they want. Most pundits expect the FCC to repeal that rulemaking later this month and turn the clock back to the start of the new century when Internet was still a relatively novel “information” service where people “went online” with “broadband” (versus narrowband dialup) connections.

Meanwhile, telephone and cable companies find themselves fighting rear guard actions by localities all over the nation that like Seattle prefer fiber optic infrastructure over metallic cable that isn’t bundled with proprietary services -- known as an open access network. They're tired of waiting and understandably have lost confidence after years of incumbent promises of fiber upgrades that never materialized because their business models can't absorb the needed capital expenditures.

Had the nation engaged in sound public policymaking and prudent planning a generation ago when it became apparent telecommunications was transitioning from analog to digital Internet protocol, the legacy incumbents wouldn’t find themselves fighting these battles. But since they themselves heavily influenced public policy on telecommunications over the past few decades, they hoisted themselves on their own petard and became among the most hated companies in America.

Both legacy incumbents and consumers are wrong about competition in landline delivered advanced telecom service

Legacy incumbent telephone and cable companies and consumer and public interest advocates describe advanced telecommunications landline infrastructure as a competitive market. The former argue that it’s robustly competitive, affording consumers plenty of choices particularly in dense, urban areas. The latter complain there’s little or no competition in most areas where it’s a market duopoly at best. The choice is between either a legacy telephone company or a cable company. Oftentimes there is no choice at all, with only one of the two -- or neither -- offering service.

They’re both off base. Telecommunications infrastructure like that of other utilities delivering electric power, natural gas, water and sewer service to homes and businesses is a natural monopoly. Its inherent microeconomics don’t allow for a competitive market, one that by definition has many sellers and buyers with relatively equal access to information on price and quality.

Telecommunications service is like other utilities because it provides essential, necessary services for modern life. Thus it will always have many buyers but not a lot of sellers. That’s because the costs of installing and maintaining its delivery infrastructure are so high they deter other providers from entering the space. Would be providers are also deterred because it's inherently difficult to lure away customers from a well established incumbent since consumers don’t frequently go shopping for a new utility provider like they might for furniture, clothing or personal electronics. Hence, for most utilities there is only one provider or as noted earlier, perhaps two for advanced landline telecommunications service.

Both sides nevertheless continue to delude themselves and attempt to convince others they are right. The legacy incumbent phone and cable companies do so because they want to keep policymakers and regulators off their backs. They contend landline delivered advanced telecommunications is a competitive industry and thus requires only “light touch” regulation to protect consumers since market forces will adequately do the job.

Consumers believe the legacy providers have them over a barrel. They redline their neighborhoods and refuse to offer service on a par with that sold to nearby neighbors. Or they offer service, but with poor quality and reliability and exorbitantly priced. As they do with other services, the first inclination of consumers is to call for more competition. If telecommunications were a competitive retail market, they believe, then they could choose among a variety of providers clamoring for their business. The reality of course is far from that and complaints of shoddy customer service are rampant.

Both sides also mischaracterize public sector initiatives to build fiber optic infrastructure as market competition. Public sector entities aren’t out to compete for market share with incumbent legacy telephone and cable companies with the hope of driving them out of business as is the case with true market competition. They build advanced telecom infrastructure to facilitate economic development and achieve community goals.
 
Consumers want a competitive market for advanced telecommunications infrastructure, viewing it as a tonic for better quality service and value. It cannot and never will be a competitive market. The incumbent providers argue it's already a competitive market. It isn’t. It’s time to end the nonsense from both camps and their delusions of market competition in advanced landline telecommunications infrastructure and put ownership of it firmly in the public sector since it cannot function as a truly competitive market.

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.

Why Title II regulation is anathema to legacy telephone and cable companies

POTs and PANs | Pretty Advanced New Stuff from CCG Consulting: Until recently I always wondered why the ISPs are fighting so hard against Title II regulation. All of the big companies like Comcast, AT&T and Verizon have told stockholders that their initial concerns about Title II regulation did not materialize. And it’s obvious that Title II hasn’t changed the way they invest in their own companies.

That's because the Federal Communications Commission's Open Internet rulemaking is not being enforced since it took effect in June 2015. No enforcement = no material impact.

But recently I saw an article and wrote a blog about an analyst who thinks that the ISPs are going to drastically increases broadband prices once Title II regulation is gone. Title II is the only tool that the government can use to investigate and possibly act against the ISP for rate increases and for other practices like data caps. If true, and his arguments for this are good ones, then there is a huge motivation for the big ISPs to shed the only existing regulation of broadband.

That's exactly the issue -- and NOT "net neutrality" as the Open Internet rulemaking has been unfortunately dubbed as if the rulemaking only prohibits telecom providers from blocking and throttling content. The main reason the legacy telephone and cable companies dislike Title II regulation is that it is predicated on a natural monopoly market. That requires prices to be regulated because market forces won't act to control them as well as universal service obligations. Both are anathema to these entities because they naturally prefer an unregulated monopoly market that affords them full freedom to cherry pick and redline and charge whatever they choose, placing end users at a distinct advantage to their shareholders.

U.S. at crisis point on telecom infrastructure modernization – and the path forward

The United States is facing a crisis when it comes to modernizing its legacy metallic telecommunications infrastructure originally constructed in the previous century for analog telephone and cable TV services. In order to deliver digital advanced telecommunications service based on Internet protocol in the present and with capacity for future services as bandwidth demand grows exponentially, that legacy infrastructure needs replacement with fiber optic connections to customer premises.

However, that’s unlikely to happen for the foreseeable future under current federal policy. Customer premise fiber connections are likely to continue to at a glacial place, putting the nation ever further behind where it should be. Had the correct policy and planning choices been made in the late 1980s and early 1990s when it became apparent video, data and voice telecommunications would go from analog to digital and be transported using Internet technology, fiber connections should have been available to every American home, business and institution by 2010 at the latest. Consequently, the United States is facing telecommunications infrastructure crisis in the 21st century at a time when it’s urgently needed to support a transition from the Industrial Age economy to the information and knowledge economy of the 20th.

Given that telecommunications infrastructure functions as a natural monopoly, market forces cannot provide sufficient incentive to speed deployment of fiber. Legacy telephone and cable companies will only construct fiber where they can earn a relatively rapid return on that high dollar capital investment. New investor owned providers will be reluctant to enter a market already dominated by the incumbent providers given they too face the same high capital investment costs and uncertain investment returns.

The leaves the vast majority of the country with substandard and often obsolete infrastructure with little prospect of meaningful progress. Federal and state subsidy programs are grossly underfunded relative to the estimated $200 billion minimum needed to bring fiber connections to every American doorstep. Leaving telecommunications infrastructure in the hands of the private sector will prolong the dismal situation.

Only the federal government has the economic resources to do the job and the freedom to do so without the need to produce a quick return for investors. That’s not to say spending federal tax dollars on this vital infrastructure isn’t an investment. It most certainly is an investment in the nation’s future that will pay multiplier effect dividends by boosting jobs and economic activity, in turn generating tax revenues to repay the initial investment.

A federal telecommunications infrastructure modernization initiative must not just be sufficiently funded. It must also include a clearly defined role for current and newcomer private sector players to construct and operate – but not own due to its monopolistic nature that disadvantages end users -- the new fiber networks. Like the roads and highways the connect metro areas to states and states to other states, the new federally owned fiber infrastructure should be operated on an open access basis, enabling various telecommunications services to be delivered over them by private sector firms. This avoids the tyranny of the monthly subscription take rate that deters infrastructure investment under legacy business models in which the owners of network assets also provide proprietary services over them.

Owners of existing fiber to the premise networks should be offered the opportunity to continue to operate them as privately held assets or to sell them to the federal government with favorable tax incentives.

Misconceptualizing advanced landline telecommunications: not a competitive local market

America’s advanced telecommunications infrastructure gaps are not an inherently local problem. They occur all over the United States – in urban, suburban, exurban and rural areas. It is a nationwide issue requiring a national solution. A major impediment to addressing this issue from a national or regional perspective is telecommunications is typically conceived of as a local service offering rather than infrastructure that links localities to other localities, regions and states and nations – the way long distance telephone service did for decades. The root of this conceptualization has both old and new origins.

The older one is cable TV service. It got its start in the 1950s as definitively local service, serving localities that for reasons of distance and terrain could not reliably receive over the air television signals. Cable providers erected large community antennae to pick up and amplify the signals, delivering them over cables to customer premises. Hence its designation as CATV service -- Community Antenna Television. Local governments saw CATV – later fed with satellite delivered TV programming – as a local service and issued franchises to cable operators. Cable thus became to be thought of as a local service that varied from locality to locality.

The newer conceptualization of telecommunications as a local service comes courtesy of legacy telephone companies that delivered voice phone service over twisted pair copper for many decades starting early in the last century. Around 2000, telephone companies began providing Internet connections via Digital Subscriber Line (DSL) service. This technology is hyper local because of its limited range, able to serve customer premises only within about two and a half miles of phone company central office facilities. Consequently, localities ended up with some neighborhoods able to get DSL service while others too far from the central offices could not. That further reinforced the conception of advanced telecommunications as a highly localized service.

Then around 2005, cable providers began offering Internet protocol-based voice and data services. They realized local governments could require them to upgrade and build out their infrastructures to offer these advanced telecommunications services to all customer premises in a given local jurisdiction. Wanting to avoid the capital expenditures entailed with that, the cable companies championed legislation that took franchising authority away from the locals and transferred it to state public utility commissions. Consequently as with phone company DSL service, some neighborhoods are served while others not in cable companies’ desired service area “footprint” remain unserved.

Viewing advanced telecommunications as a local service offering – priced, advertised and sold in service bundles – naturally leads to an unrealistic expectation that it should be a competitive market like other widely advertised services. If Company X won’t serve my neighborhood, then I should be able to go to Company Y or Company Z. If Provider A doesn’t offer the service bundle at the price I can afford, then I should be able to shop Providers B, C and D for an alternative offer.

Problem is these service offers aren’t available because the other providers aren’t necessarily in the market, their advertising notwithstanding. The fine print in the ads from the legacy telephone and cable providers notes that service “may not be available in all areas.” That’s because in much of their nominal service areas, it costs too much and is too economically risky to support those other options under the dominant business model where the provider owns the infrastructure connecting customer premises that pay using recurring monthly subscriptions. The risk is not enough premises will subscribe or too many that do will close their accounts to justify the investment in high cost infrastructure. Any new providers who might compete with the incumbent providers face that risk and more since they would have to woo away customers from the incumbents as well as get their own.

That business case risk is unlikely to change if advanced landline telecommunications remains largely unregulated on a de facto basis and left to large, investor-owned legacy telephone and cable companies. They’re not promoting their ability to connect more and more customer premises and there is no enforced national regulatory policy that compels them to do so. Lately, their ads promote sports and entertainment content -- for the premises they choose to serve with landline infrastructure -- and mobile devices.

Where's the case Title II regulation of ISPs deters telecom infrastructure investment?

Improved broadband access is one of the most important benefits of reversing Title II overreach. The internet brought us what seems like endless opportunities. The corollary to this, however, is that Americans without access to the internet are left behind. Internet access and computer skills are key to being connected, well-informed and competitive — not only in today’s job market, but ultimately in today’s digital era. By returning to commonsense regulation that incentivizes broadband investment and expansion, we can build out more robust networks that keep the American dream alive for those striving to succeed in today’s technology-driven world. At least ten percent of Americans (35 million people) lack adequate broadband access, according to the FCC’s 2016 Broadband Progress Report. This includes 23 million Americans in rural communities. Faced with these troubling statistics, priority should be heightened to champion the urgency of broadband deployment.

Source: Rolling back 'net neutrality' is essential to the free internet's future.

Problem with this argument is it fails to state a clear case as to why subjecting Internet service providers offering Internet protocol-based telecommunications service under Title II of the Communications Act will deter deployment of telecommunications infrastructure. In fact, the Title II regulatory scheme mandates universal service to all Americans who reasonably request service. Many if not most of those millions of Americans the author points to as lacking adequate Internet access have repeatedly requested service and been denied service in violation of this requirement and its bar on neighborhood redlining. That's because providers have not adequately invested in their infrastructure to make service available to them. Those provisions of Title II were put in force in 2015 by the U.S. Federal Communications Commission's Open Internet rulemaking. (Click here for more background.)

U.S. should avoid "broadband speed" standard, set infrastructure-based telecom modernization goal

On a conference call with reporters, U.S. Senate Minority Leader Charles E. Schumer today called on the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) to immediately reverse course and reject any proposal to downgrade the minimum benchmark definition of internet service, which would create the mirage of more widespread broadband service without actually improving quality or accessibility for high-speed home internet. Schumer emphasized that pushing this standard would undermine access to genuine high-speed broadband for Upstate New Yorkers, which should be the FCC’s focus, according to Schumer.  Schumer called on the FCC to end all attempts to “define access down. ”

*  *  *

Schumer said that each year the FCC evaluates national broadband deployment standards to ensure internet service providers (ISPs) are equally distributing quality broadband. In 2015, the FCC established a new definition of broadband, increasing the access requirement from 4Mbps minimum download speed, 1Mbps upload speed, to 25Mbps/3Mbps in order to serve the 55 million Americans without high-speed internet at those speeds. This decision was an attempt to raise the bar for the quality of internet being deployed and set goals aimed at increasing reliable broadband access for millions of Americans.

Press release from Schumer's office here.


This is well intended on Schumer’s part given that Upstate New York like much of America suffers from deficient advanced telecom infrastructure. But the fundamental problem isn’t the U.S. Federal Communications Commission potentially setting the bar too low. Rather, the wrong metric is being utilized.

Instead of throughput speed, the United States should establish an infrastructure-based goal of bringing modern fiber optic telecommunications connections to every home, business and institution. And do so as a crash program given the critical role of telecommunications in today’s digital information economy and the widespread infrastructure deficiencies. In setting this goal, the nation must also create a plan to achieve it since it’s meaningless without one.

Wildfires pose potential crisis -- and opportunity -- for PG&E

Wildfires create worst crisis for PG&E since San Bruno gas disaster | The Sacramento Bee: California’s wildfires have left Pacific Gas and Electric Co. confronting its most serious financial crisis since the 2010 San Bruno gas explosion, a disaster that threatened the company with bankruptcy and ultimately cost the utility $1.6 billion in fines and other costs. Two state agencies, Cal Fire and the California Public Utilities Commission, have launched investigations into whether Northern California’s largest utility could be at least partly responsible for the fires that ignited Oct. 8, killing at least 41 people and destroying roughly 5,700 homes and businesses. So far, neither Cal Fire nor the CPUC has cited evidence that PG&E contributed to any the ignitions. But the stock price of parent company PG&E Corp. has plunged over the last week amid investor jitters that the utility could be held responsible. PG&E shares closed Monday at $53.43, a drop of $4.34. Since Friday the company’s stock market value has fallen by more than $5 billion.

The threat of wildfires sparked by electric power transmission lines in PG&E's Northern California service territory will continue into the future after the recent deadly wildfires that ravaged California’s wine country, killing more than 40 people and destroying several thousand homes and businesses. Some predict the hazard will worsen due to climate change and continued residential development near fire prone wildland areas.

Out of crisis, goes the adage, opportunity often follows. For PG&E, that opportunity is to vastly reduce the chance of its power lines starting destructive wildfires and subjecting the company and its shareholders to significant legal liability. How so? By placing its last mile distribution lines serving customer premises in buried underground conduit instead of suspended overhead on wooden poles close to combustible flora and other materials. 

There’s an additional bonus on top of the reduced maintenance and storm outage costs associated with above ground transmission poles and infrastructure. PG&E recently filed an application with California utility regulators to serve as a wholesale telecommunications provider using its fiber optic infrastructure. Conduit for underground electrical power cables could also house fiber for telecommunications and bring it close to residential, business and institutional PG&E customers. PG&E could lease that fiber to internet service providers, providing an additional revenue stream to help offset the cost of undergrounding its premise electrical service lines.

And that's not all. In placing electric power lines in underground conduit, electric utilities can apply shielding to protect the grid from damaging electromagnetic flux from X-class solar flares or EMP weapons detonating at high altitude. 

Stop the Cap! The End of Google Fiber Expansion: Where Did It All Go Wrong?

Stop the Cap! The End of Google Fiber Expansion: Where Did It All Go Wrong? : The bean counters also arrived at Google Access — the division responsible for Google Fiber — and by October 2016, Google simultaneously announced it was putting a hold on further expansion of Google Fiber and its CEO, Craig Barratt, was leaving the company. About 10% of employees in the division involuntarily left with him. Insufficiently satisfied with those cutbacks, additional measures were announced in April 2017 including the departure of Milo Medin, a vice president at Google Access and Dennis Kish, a wireless infrastructure veteran who was president of Google Fiber. Nearly 600 Google Access employees were also reassigned to other divisions. Medin was a Google Fiber evangelist in Washington, and often spoke about the impact Google’s fiber project would have on broadband competition and the digital economy. Porat’s philosophy had a sweeping impact on Alphabet and its various divisions. The most visionary/experimental projects that were originally green-lit with no expectation of making money for a decade or more now required a plan to prove profitability in five years or less. (Emphasis added).

In adopting that five year ROI cutoff, Google Fiber effectively placed itself under the same financial constraints governing slow moving legacy telephone and cable companies it hoped to overbuild with fiber to the premise (FTTP). Having ventured into FTTP nearly a decade ago with no overwhelming technological or marketing advantage and using the same recurring monthly subscription business model -- including TV programming -- as the incumbents, it should surprise no one it's retreating.

As a former advisor to Google co-founder Larry Page was quoted as saying in Phil Dampier's post mortem excerpted above, "There’s no flying-saucer shit in laying fiber." Indeed. So unless Google Fiber figures out how to teleport fiber conduit into the ground or develops fiber cables that hang in mid air defying gravity -- thus avoiding the need for pole access -- it's pointless for Google Fiber to remain in FTTP.

Google Fiber's parent company, Alphabet, has a unit simply dubbed "X" to develop "moonshot" inventions profiled in the November 2017 issue of The Atlantic. Perhaps X will be able to obsolete FTTP and the Internet itself by coming up with a way to store quantum bits of information in the substrate of space time and encrypted by a form of blockchain technology to ensure data integrity.

A Better Deal falls short of urgent need to fully modernize America’s telecommunications infrastructure

Democrats this week unveiled a plank of the party’s A Better Deal platform declaring Internet protocol-based advanced telecommunications an essential modern utility equivalent to electric power service. It proposes a $40 billion Universal Grant Program to subsidize for profits, cooperatives and local governments to ensure it is available to every U.S. home, school and small business.

The proposal falls short relative to the urgent need to modernize America’s legacy metallic telecommunications infrastructure designed for analog telephone and cable TV of decades past to fiber optic infrastructure. Its main flaw is it isn’t framed an infrastructure initiative.

Rather, the proposal calls for a service standard couched in outdated terminology, calling for “universal high speed Internet.” That term describes a level of service and not infrastructure. It and “broadband” distinguish from narrowband, low speed dialup connections over phone lines commonly used in the 1990s (and unfortunately still the case in 2017 for too many American homes). In so doing, the Democratic proposal falls into the trap of the current debate over what constitutes “high speed Internet.” That can only add further delay to solving the deepening crisis of deficient telecommunications infrastructure in much of the United States that now requires an expedited effort.

In addition to its origins in the past, “high speed Internet” is also too present focused since that term means what’s sufficient to support today’s needs relative to high quality voice, video and data. It doesn’t take into account tomorrow’s needs which will undoubtedly require more bandwidth -- and the growth capacity only fiber optic premise connections can efficiently provide. That’s why instead of “high speed Internet,” the federal government should instead launch a cleanly defined telecom infrastructure modernization initiative to bring fiber connections to every American doorstep. And provide sufficient funding to achieve it. That will take at least five times the $40 billion the Democrats propose.