Jonathan Chambers on overcoming U.S. telecom infrastructure deficiencies

Overbuilding, aka Competition, is the American Way – Conexon

The following is a non-comprehensive list of rural broadband overbuilders that have announced over the past two years plans to build rural networks:

1. AT&T. Announced Project AirGig to send data over powerlines.
2. Google. Announced Project Loon to use balloons traveling at the edge of space to bring internet access to rural areas.
3. Facebook. Announced conducted tests to use drones to deliver rural broadband.
4. Microsoft. Announced trials to use TV whitespaces for rural broadband.
5. SpaceX/OneWeb. Announced plans to deploy thousands of low-earth orbiting satellites to deliver internet access to rural areas.
6. New T-Mobile. Announced its intention of 5G for all, extending 5G to rural areas.
7. Rural Electric Cooperatives. Dozens of fiber-to-the-home networks under construction.
   
   Which of these initiatives should the government favor?

Only No. 7. It's the only proven technology with headroom to accommodate bandwidth demand that's doubling every few years. And because federal funding of utility cooperatives has a successful record of constructing needed infrastructure in areas not sufficiently profitable for investor-owned providers.

If your answer is the government should not favor any one company or technology, then perhaps you also agree that the government shouldn’t favor telephone companies with their copper networks.

I would agree with the second part of the question. The existing Connect America Fund is regressive and wasteful in that it allows funding of legacy copper telecommunications networks. It's main purpose is to preserve the service area hegemony of legacy telephone companies, not improve infrastructure.

As a small first step, I propose that anywhere one of the overbuilders has already overbuilt a telephone company’s network without any public funding, the government should cease its funding in that area.

Yes, if overbuilt with fiber to the premise, option No. 7 above.

To make the government policy easy to execute, I propose that where 100% of the households in a census block have access to Gigabit service by a company that is not receiving a subsidy in that area, then the government shouldn’t fund any company in that area. That simple policy change would save the public hundreds of millions of dollars,
money that could be used where it is needed.

Let's dispense with the term "Gigabit service." Keep it simple. Fiber to the premise.

 As a second small step, I propose that all future funding follow individual consumer decisions. The telephone companies can continue to get their legacy support, except where a household chooses another carrier with a minimum of 100 Mbps service. In that case, the overbuilder should receive support that is equal to the funding being provided on a per household basis to the telephone company. Such a program should be limited in time, no more than a decade, in order to encourage overbuilders to move quickly and incumbents to improve their networks.

Again, keep it simple. Fiber to the premise infrastructure. That's the real network improvement. Don't fall into the incumbent created trap of focusing on "broadband speed."

U.S. doesn’t have a definitive “rural broadband” problem; it’s all about service area “footprints” and redlining

In the first part of the 20th century, U.S. policymakers appropriated funding to cooperatives and local governments to bring electrical and telephone service to rural America. As the century got underway, these utilities were offered only in cities – where investor-owned providers deemed them sufficiently profitable to build the necessary distribution infrastructure.

Many similarly describe the nation’s advanced telecommunications infrastructure deficiencies as a rural issue as it was for these utilities. It’s not that simple. True, the deficits tend to be greater in rural areas. But it’s not purely a matter of rural geography as it was many decades ago. Back then, entire rural regions lacked electric power and telephone infrastructure.

The situation today is different and more nuanced. Legacy telephone and cable companies first began offering always on “broadband” services using existing infrastructure starting in the late 1990s and early 2000s. It was offered not as a general telecommunications service, but as a premium “high speed” add on service in highly localized “footprints” in urban, suburban, exurban and rural areas compatible with their business models. Those models generally require capital build costs to be recovered in five years or less.

These highly granular "footprints" and the redlined areas outside of them -- passed over due to long durations to ROI and insufficient profit potential relative to the cost of building out infrastructure – cannot be compared to the large rural regions that lacked electrical and telephone service in the early 20th century. Consequently, building out advanced telecommunications infrastructure in the 21st century cannot be undertaken with a 1920s or 1930s perspective, framing it simply as a “rural broadband” issue.

Hence, the inability of “rural broadband” subsidy programs to close the gaps. Rural electrification and telephone subsidy programs were the right approach for their time. But that context does not easily translate to the complexities of modern advanced telecommunications infrastructure. Other factors beyond rurality come into play such as the number of occupied premises per mile of landline infrastructure and average income levels. The former trumps the latter as many high income homeowners in exurban areas without access to landline service can attest.

Legacy incumbent phone companies propaganda canard: Describing a duopoly as "intensely competitive"

Broadband Deployment & Competition Growing: Dedicated Federal Funding Needed to Close Digital Divide | USTelecom: U.S. Broadband Deployment Is Intensely Competitive. Our analysis also examines broadband deployment from the perspective of competition, which is not a focal area for the FCC’s legislatively mandated deployment analysis. U.S. providers have been deploying broadband infrastructure using a range of technologies for more than two decades. As a result, basic underlying competitive infrastructure from multiple providers is available in the vast majority of the country. On top of this foundational infrastructure, broadband providers invest tens of billions of dollars annually to upgrade networks with enhanced technologies, driving a competitive process of ever-expanding network capabilities The data indicate that competitive deployment is strong and growing, even at higher speeds. As of year-end 2016, 97 percent of Americans had at least one wired broadband network platform available to them and 86 percent had at least two wired options. Competitive availability – defined narrowly as at least two wired providers – at 25 megabits per second (mbps) download (DL) and 3 mbps upload (UL) was 50 percent at year-end 2016, up from 31 percent at year-end 2014 and 25 percent at year-end 2012. (Emphasis added).

Claiming that having a choice among two sellers constitutes an "intensely competitive market" is ludicrous. But that assertion is not to be taken literally on its face. The true intent of this propaganda from legacy incumbent telephone companies is to drive a perception that the line delivering telecommunications service to customer premises is somehow fundamentally different from the line that delivered voice telephone service decades before. True, advanced digital telecommunications can deliver data and video as well as voice. But that capability does not fundamentally alter the fact that a single line of fiber can deliver them all just as a copper one did for voice as well as optional custom calling services that came later.

The real goal of this cynical propaganda is to deceive public policymakers into thinking America's telecommunications infrastructure deficiencies can be solved by market forces. That may be true in a competitive market defined as one with many sellers and buyers with relatively equal access to quality and costs. It's certainly not the case for telecommunications infrastructure. Moreover, if market forces truly operated in telecommunications infrastructure, they would drive down deployment costs, making it more widely available on favorable terms to the millions of customers who use it and eliminate persistent infrastructure deficits.