Natural monopoly of telecom infrastructure fosters "capitalism without competition"

Biden added, “Let me be very clear: Capitalism without competition isn’t capitalism. It’s exploitation. Without healthy competition, big players can change and charge whatever they want and treat you however they want. And for too many Americans that means accepting a bad deal for things you can’t go without. So, we know we’ve got a problem, a major problem. But we also have an incredible opportunity.”

https://gizmodo.com/heres-whats-in-joe-bidens-sweeping-executive-order-on-c-1847262645

The problem is not all segments of the economy are competitive markets, defined as those having many sellers as well as many buyers with both sellers and buyers having relatively equal access to information on cost and quality. Telecommunications infrastructure because of its high costs of competitor entry, protracted return on investment and first mover advantage is one of those. It functions as a natural monopoly like other utilities. 

Many wish it to be a competitive market and offer more choices and lower costs. But that's unrealistic, wishful thinking. A presidential executive order cannot change the underlying economic structure. It won't end rent seeking market conduct by investor owned providers that tends to arise in natural monopolies -- capitalism without competition.

This is why fiber to the premise infrastructure owned by entities under less pressure to generate profits is needed as a public option since market forces cannot ensure it reaches every American doorstep at affordable costs -- a component of the Biden administration's proposed American Jobs Plan.  

Limiting publicly owned advanced telecom infrastructure to high cost areas isn't the answer to access and affordability challenges

Doug Brake and Alexandra Bruer of the Information Technology and Innovation Foundation write the excerpts below from an article contending local governments are ill suited to provide advanced telecommunications service.

However, municipal or otherwise nonprofit broadband should be limited to those areas that are legitimately high cost and do not support investment of more than one provider. Municipal broadband advocates often attempt to define broadband at unreasonably high speeds in an attempt to define away competition existing in the market. They know that many providers have no desire to provide broadband speeds far in excess of what the market actually demands, and so by providing networks with more capacity than is needed, they hope to make the case for municipal networks. While flat bans on any municipal broadband do not make sense, they should be reserved for narrow cases wherein market options are extremely limited and private providers are unwilling to provide service, even with subsidies offered.

Sounds sensible in theory. But advanced telecom infrastructure is very unevenly deployed and highly granular, making it difficult to define these high cost areas and attain the economies of scale the authors discuss with contiguous infrastructure. One need only glance at those crazy quilt, checkerboard "broadband maps" to see it graphically -- the accuracy of which are subject of continuous debate. 

High cost area subsidies proved effective for ensuring universal telephone service. However, high cost subsidies have historically not motivated investor owned providers to build advanced telecom infrastructure absent regulatory incentive to offer service to all premises requesting it (such as Title II of the U.S. Communications Act that governs voice telephone service) and better opportunities elsewhere that offer faster and higher return on investment such as mobile wireless.

Some neighborhoods deemed sufficiently profitable have fiber to the premises infrastructure while others adjacent do not. Or there may be fiber to the prem deployed for business customers but not for residential service. That's why publicly and consumer cooperative owned fiber passing every American doorstep is needed to ensure access and affordability.

There are variety of different models for what a municipality’s level of partnership with broadband providers can look like. If municipalities that believe they fit in that narrow category should generally avoid providing retail service, and instead provide an open-access fiber network wherein the retail service and the electronics are left to the private sector. In an open-access provider, municipalities offer the use of their broadband networks at wholesale for various providers to leverage in order to sell broadband services. In a retail provider model, a municipality both owns the broadband network and offers broadband services directly to customers. The government can take on the most static parts of the network—ideally providing just open conduit or dark fiber—and allow the private sector to continue to innovate with the electronics on either end.

This is clearly a superior role for the private sector instead of the current dominant model wherein investor owned providers own the infrastructure and must also regularly refresh the electronics that make it run. As the authors point it, the latter role is far more suited to the private versus public sector. The private sector can fulfill that function without having to own the infrastructure outright and battle continued public and regulatory pressure to build out fiber infrastructure to reach more homes and keep rates affordable.

Biden administration correct in framing advanced telecom as national vs. local infrastructure issue

June 30, 2021–Congress should allow the states authority over where and how to invest broadband dollars, experts said on a panel Tuesday.  The panel discussed the problem with federal agencies restricting states to only use funds for a distinct purpose, as opposed to allowing them to decide where the money can best be spent.

Federal agencies tend to focus on accessibility, affordability, and future-proofing broadband, but states all have different immediate needs, according to the panelists hosted by America’s Communications Association (ACA) on Tuesday. The panelists were discussing the $65-billion allocated to broadband as part of the infrastructure package announced by President Joe Biden last week.

https://broadbandbreakfast.com/2021/06/congress-should-give-states-more-authority-over-broadband-priorities-experts-say/

This is self serving propaganda from small investor owned advanced telecom providers seeking to influence American Jobs Plan funds so that they are more likely to flow to them. Affordable, accessible access to fiber to the home isn't a local issue. It's a broad-based national issue affecting every state, region and county of the United States. The Biden administration is correct in framing this critical national infrastructure as it has in its proposed American Jobs Plan. Telecom infrastructure like roads and highways is by definition interstate.

Legacy telephone companies’ power isn’t so much lobbying as controlling the narrative

Conventional wisdom holds the United States is unable to timely modernize its legacy copper telephone infrastructure to fiber reaching every doorstep because of the lobbying power of big legacy telephone companies. They want to protect their natural monopolies against interlopers and deploy fiber only where it produces a rapid return on investment to select neighborhoods at highly profitable, unregulated prices.

But their more formidable power isn’t so much their armies of lobbyists and campaign contributions to public policymakers. It’s that they’ve established and controlled the narrative built around a single word: broadband. They were so successful that they even managed to get public interest-oriented officials and advocates to adopt the term, creating a decades-long obsession with chasing “broadband” bandwidth instead of concentrating on advanced telecommunications infrastructure that delivers that bandwidth. It also serves as a great distraction since fiber technology has been around for decades and was being considered by telephone companies as early as the 1980s for two-way video communications.

It began with the enactment of the Telecommunications Act of 1996, at a time when Americans used screeching modems to connect to online services such as CompuServe and America Online. The statute defined progress as advancing from that narrowband dialup service to “always on” broadband. It largely left it to the private market to set the course instead of stating industrial policy establishing fiber as the universal infrastructure standard as twisted pair copper was before it. As well as establishing a timeline so that fiber reached nearly all homes by 2010. Instead, more than a decade later, only about one third of all U.S. homes can get a fiber connection. Baked into the 1996 Act is a cognitive bias known as anchoring. Dialup -- state of the art connectivity at the time it was enacted -- is the anchor. Any technology offering incrementally greater throughput came to be valued more highly than modernizing legacy copper telephone lines to fiber.

Lacking a fiber infrastructure standard, in the quarter century since the 1996 Telecommunications Act was enacted, America has found itself bogged down in incrementalism, debating the definition of broadband and even trying to map its location. Elected officials have been dogged by constituent complaints over spotty, poor and unaffordable Internet access, priced at whatever the market will bear. Those complaints grew more strident as time went on and especially during the COVID-19 pandemic that turned homes into offices, classrooms and medical clinics.

With telephone companies dragging their feet on transitioning to fiber in order to accommodate their short term oriented business models, cable TV companies leveraged their coaxial cable to provide Internet access in the decade since the Act was signed into law. Since they have not been regulated as telecommunications carriers with universal service mandates and price controls, they too can -- and do -- charge whatever the market will bear. And bear it the market must since cable has taken a dominant role, putting it in a controlling position.

Seeing that fiber was being slow walked at the same time people grew more desperate for connectivity, various wireless technologies and even satellite services came about to fill the fiber voids. The sad consequence is the nation once seen as a world leader in telecommunications no longer is.

AT&T's Stankey misrepresents true high cost component of fiber to the home

AT&T CEO John Stankey yesterday called President Biden's plan to fund municipal broadband networks "misguided" and said the US shouldn't pay for any broadband deployment in areas that already have networks. But as AT&T and other ISPs lobby against public networks and government-funded competition, Stankey said he is confident that Congress will steer legislation in the more "pragmatic" direction that AT&T favors.

In an interview with The Economic Club of Washington, DC, (video), Stankey was asked, "Do you support the president's proposal to have municipalities own broadband facilities?" Stankey responded, "I think actually the president's proposal is probably a bit misguided in that regard." "It would be a shame that we take taxpayer money or ask local governments to go into a business that they don't run today," Stankey said. "You know, their job is to deliver water, patch streets, things like that, not be in a capital-intensive technology business that requires constant refresh and constant management." (Emphasis added)

https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2021/06/att-ceo-seems-confident-industry-can-kill-bidens-municipal-broadband-plan/

Actually, the most capital intensive element is constructing fiber to homes -- largely labor costs -- not equipment refreshes and management. This is where AT&T can play a role since public sector and nonprofit entities like consumer telecom cooperatives could benefit from an operator with AT&T's experience managing fiber.

Neither AT&T nor any other legacy telephone company can afford to own, build, maintain and manage fiber on a scale America needs considering every doorstep should have had fiber connections no later than 2010. The lack of those connections with only about a third of homes having them became painfully apparent during the social distancing public health requirements in response to the COVID-19 pandemic that turned homes into offices, classrooms and clinics.

To Fix America's Infrastructure, Start Here

Such has been the state of infrastructure in the U.S. for decades — fixes get put off until they’re absolutely necessary, and U.S. airports, roads and public transportation draw frequent comparisons to those in nations with far fewer resources. Meanwhile, countries in Europe, Asia and the Middle East have leapt ahead with so-called smart cities, high-speed trains and eco-friendly buildings. In 2019, the U.S. ranked 13th in the world in a broad measure of infrastructure quality — down from fifth place in 2002, according to the World Economic Forum’s Global Competitiveness Report.

Source: How to Fix America's Infrastructure

When it comes to advanced telecommunications, it's even worse. Progress has been impeded for decades because it hasn't even been regarded as critical infrastructure but rather a commercial service of providing "broadband" bandwidth and service bundles to qualifying households. That's changing with the Biden administration's proposed infrastructure investment plan, the American Jobs Plan, that regards telecom as critical infrastructure and as such, it cannot be left to the private market to build it.

As the administration makes a long overdue shift of the policy discussion from broadband to infrastructure, it must be careful not to allow legacy investor owned telephone and cable companies to continue to control the narrative by focusing on broadband bandwidth as they have for the past quarter century. (Or that the problem is largely confined to rural areas when only one third of U.S. homes are passed by fiber.) It's evident in their complaints that publicly or consumer cooperative owned fiber to the home would be wasteful "overbuilding" arguing their limited deployments provide sufficient bandwidth. 

Similarly, consumer advocates and public policymakers should avoid falling into the bandwidth trap by calling for more and better "broadband maps" showing what bandwidth is offered in a given neighborhood. The goal should be fiber connections to nearly every American doorstep, a goal the private sector cannot achieve quickly enough relative to the need that has been heightened during the public health restrictions accompanying the COVID-19 pandemic.

Verizon, AT&T look to wireless, C-band spectrum as cheaper alternative to building fiber to the home

That expanded opportunity is thanks to adding 4G fixed wireless access to the equation, as well as the addition of C-band spectrum to Verizon’s spectrum portfolio. C-band spectrum provides a broader reach. Initial 5G Home service was based on short range mmWave spectrum.

Verizon has suggested it will go on the offense with fixed wireless, hoping to take on cable company dominance in residential broadband access in major markets. Outside of its fiber footprint in the Northeast, Verizon has little wireline broadband assets to take on cable.

AT&T CEO John Stankey also shared some views on fixed wireless at the J.P Morgan conference yesterday. AT&T has not been a recent advocate of broad use of fixed wireless, but the company has a very limited fixed wireless offering for rural markets funded through the CAF program. It appears the company may try to build on that.

Stankey now says fixed wireless will play a larger role in the company’s future, although the strategy looks to be very different than Verizon’s take. AT&T appears to be looking to fixed wireless as a way to retire DSL in its non-fiber markets, rather than go on the offense in urban areas. The company has already stopped taking new orders for DSL.

 Verizon CEO: Verizon Fixed Wireless is Key to Monetizing 5G

 

Both big telcos are apparently hoping to utilize C-band radio spectrum -- Verizon over its mobile wireless infrastructure -- to provide advanced telecommunications services to homes as a cheaper alternative to building fiber connections to them. For AT&T, it's a replacement strategy for its obsolete DSL over copper technology being discontinued.

Memo to Biden administration on telecom infra component of infrastructure initiative

As the Biden administration negotiates with Congress on the advanced telecommunications infrastructure component of its American Jobs Plan infrastructure initiative, here are some points it should bear in mind. Some should alleviate concerns of fiscal conservatives who are leery of the amount of the funding proposed and how it will be financed.

• Don’t cut the funding below the $100 billion originally proposed. Consider that a partial amount for what will ultimately be required to provide a public option of fiber connections reaching every American doorstep. It’s likely at least twice that amount will be necessary.
• Allocate 90 percent of the funding to long term, low interest loans and 10 percent to technical assistance grants targeted to public sector and nonprofit entities as prioritized in the initiative.
• Factor in future income tax revenues from enhanced economic activity ubiquitous fiber will enable.
• Avoid framing this infrastructure component as promoting market competition. It’s a nonstarter as telecom infrastructure like other utilities is a natural monopoly where no meaningful market competition (many sellers and buyers) can exist. The goal should be to provide public option open access fiber infrastructure, not to compete with legacy telephone and cable companies.
• Similarly, avoid framing this infrastructure element as addressing “unserved” or “underserved” or “rural” households and falling into the speed trap of debating what constitutes “broadband” and where it’s offered. An estimated two thirds of U.S. homes are not passed by fiber and can be found in urban, suburban and exurban as well as rural areas. Public option open access fiber infrastructure will not only help them gain access to modern telecommunications service, but also boost affordability for those households that are passed by fiber.

U.S. at telecom infrastructure crossroads, needs a public option

Biden’s plan is one step toward imagining a new social contract that guarantees universal broadband services. Incentivizing municipal broadband to challenge corporate ISPs’ political and commercial hegemony, the plan is a strong start. But municipal broadband initiatives tend to be highly localized and fragmented, with many communities unable to build their own networks. The federal government needs to coordinate and scale these efforts to build publicly owned Internet networks to ensure that all Americans have access to a “public option” for their broadband services. 

*   *   *

Today we find ourselves at a crossroads. For too long, we’ve tinkered at the margins instead of confronting the corporate capture of the pipes, wires, and other infrastructure powering the Internet. Now we must take a firm stand: We can either have a democratic Internet that includes reliable and affordable access to all or a highly commercialized Internet that delivers profits to a few enormous corporations. We cannot have both.

https://www.thenation.com/article/politics/broadband-infrastructure-biden/

 

Public option open access fiber provides much needed alternative to commercial “broadband.”

A major benefit of public option open access residential fiber connectivity offered by a regional or local governmental entity or consumer telecommunications cooperative is it provides an accessible and affordable alternative to commercial “broadband” service sold in multiple incrementally priced speed tiers offered in select neighborhoods.

Most residential users don’t know what their throughput level is. They are only aware of throughput when there’s a functional issue such as websites taking a long time to load, choppy video and/or audio on calls, or video streams that pixelate or buffer too much and produce the dreaded “spinner.”

Instead of a speed tiers used by commercial broadband ISPs, open access fiber service can instead offer a single national throughput service level standard. Starting out, that should be the 100 Mbps symmetrical standard proposed in the telecom infrastructure component of the Biden administration’s American Jobs Plan. Over time, the standard would be increased to accommodate continued growth in bandwidth demand generated by devices and application services. VOIP should be included for those households that want voice telephone service rather than relying on commercial mobile wireless service.

Along with a single throughput standard, there should be a flat monthly rate, similar to that offered when Google Fiber made its debut in a few U.S. metros a decade ago. Ideally, that should be around $45 a month with a $20 lifeline rate for qualifying low-income households.

Revised California state budget proposes $7 billion investment over 3 years to enhance advanced telecom access and affordability

A revised budget for the State of California’s fiscal year beginning July 1 calls for spending $7 billion over three years to enhance advanced telecom access and affordability. According to a budget summary issued today, slightly more than half of state residents have access to infrastructure providing fiber level service. “Service at speeds below 100 Mbps is not enough for households who are juggling the demands of distance learning, telework, and accessing health care on-line,” the summary states. “These numbers are an indication of lack of access, lack of quality infrastructure, and lack of affordability.”

The budget would also appropriate state funds to supplement federal American Rescue Act funds to construct a statewide transmission network. “The statewide network will incentivize providers to expand service to unserved and underserved areas by substantially reducing their upfront infrastructure costs, creating new opportunities for municipal fiber networks, and promoting affordability for consumers,” the summary states. “This essential backbone infrastructure is a foundational step towards the entire state having access to broadband. Moreover, the generational investment will create tens of thousands of quality jobs to help the state’s economy recover from the pandemic.”

The proposed budget would also establish a $500 million Loan Loss Reserve Account to help local governments, tribes and non-profits secure private financing for fiber infrastructure. “These last-mile networks require large upfront investments but the return to customers, communities, and California is significant,” the summary notes. The budget also proposes to supplement an existing high-cost area subsidy program managed by the state public utility commission with $500 million in federal American Rescue Act funds.

The state Legislature must approve the proposed budget by June 15. Separately, lawmakers are considering submitting a bond measure (AB 34) to state voters that would raise $10 billion for grants to local governmental entities and Indian tribes for advanced telecommunications infrastructure and services.

Biden admin telecom infrastructure policy: Rural vs. urban not just a false choice. It's a false dichotomy.

For now, at least, the debate over the Biden broadband plan has mostly broken down along party lines, with familiar divisions emerging between those working to close the broadband availability gap in rural America and those working to close the access and affordability gap in cities. To Jonathan Chambers, a partner with the rural fiber-connectivity company Conexon, the Biden plan risks diverting funding to cities, when it ought to go toward building out networks in rural America, where it's more costly to build and where a sparse population makes it harder to recover costs through subscription fees. "I'm in favor of spending money on infrastructure, but unless you identify the problem first and target the money toward the problem, you're just going to perpetuate the problem," said Chambers, who previously worked for both the Senate and the FCC. Chambers worried that the Biden plan is motivated by "the folks in the Biden administration want[ing] to support their constituency, which are cities." Proponents of the Biden plan view the rural-urban divide as a false choice. "We have a real challenge in connecting both rural and urban populations," said Mitchell. "To the extent that we have to choose between them, I think we're doing something wrong." (Emphasis added)

https://www.protocol.com/policy/biden-broadband-plan

Mitchell's right. Not only is this a false choice, it's a false dichotomy. When it comes to telecommunications infrastructure policy, too many discuss the issue as if it were still 1950 and there were largely two Americas, one urban and one rural. 

Today, it's not as binary. Americans have also settled in suburbs, small towns and expanding exurbs at the edges of metropolitan areas. Advanced telecom infrastructure deployment is very unevenly deployed in these areas, where people have moved to escape congested and costly urban areas. The public health restrictions of the past year or so have accelerated that trend. The Biden administration's American Jobs Plan that would allocate $100 billion to building public option open access fiber to the home advanced telecom infrastructure offers a substantial start to meet this need.

Argument that public option open access fiber is unnecessary "overbuilding" misses the point

Cable companies' argument against municipal broadband is not new. Cable, they say, already blankets the country. Why build more capacity where it already exists when there are still parts of the country with no capacity at all? Besides, they argue, it's not the government's place to interfere with private competition. "The belief that municipalities deserve some type of preference in the distribution of funds and that that somehow is going to lead to some greater consumer benefit? We don't think that's true or that there's any real evidence," said James Assey, executive vice president of NCTA. That argument has gotten cable companies their way in state after state, including in Tennessee, where AT&T fought efforts by Chattanooga's successful municipal network to expand in 2016. And it's gaining ground among lawmakers in Congress too. "The proposal today would prioritize, unfortunately, inefficient government-run networks, at the expense of private networks, and create arbitrary speed thresholds that favor fiber-only projects with no restrictions to prevent overbuilding in areas where broadband already exists," Republican congresswoman Cathy McMorris Rodgers said during a hearing of the House Energy and Commerce Committee last week.

https://www.protocol.com/policy/biden-broadband-plan

The "overbuilding" argument misses the point. Building open access fiber to the home infrastructure provides a badly needed public option (and NOT market competition given telecom infra is a natural monopoly) to ensure access to and affordability of advanced telecommunications. Investor owned companies answer first to their shareholders and have no public obligation to ensure those exist. By contrast, the Biden administration's telecom infrastructure plan proposed as part of the American Jobs Plan serves the American people whose interests undoubtedly outweigh those of shareholders.

The timing of the proposed public option is propitious. Legacy telephone and cable companies lack the financial capacity to take on the job and can only invest where they can be assured of a rapid return on investment. Private capital investment is too risk averse, like the legacy providers favoring dense residential "communities" such as planned unit and multi-family development.