Hopes for patient capital investment in open access advanced telecom infrastructure may prove unfeasible

Private Investment in Community Digital Infrastructure: Gaps will continue until localities and investors find viable solutions that better align community needs with investors’ returns on their investments. The critical first step is to pivot to a digital infrastructure approach in which the long-term economic benefits to community growth and business success accrue to the network deployers, leading to a virtuous cycle that increases network revenue opportunities and returns
on investment.

The author, Michael Curri of Strategic Networks Group, correctly identifies a major reason behind advanced telecom infrastructure deficiencies that have plagued the United States for many years. Investor owned companies build infrastructure where it generates the biggest and fastest returns on investment. They lack business or regulatory incentive to do so outside of their discrete "footprints" of cherry picked neighborhoods. 

That private interest to reward shareholders does not align with the broader public interest in having the infrastructure reach all premises. Localities hoping for infrastructure gains by partnering with private providers run the risk of replicating the problem of unconnected neighborhoods since they too require rapid returns on investment and thus are inclined to prioritize only limited areas to attain the fastest return on their dollars.

The solution, Curri argues, is substituting more patient capital held by pension funds and private infrastructure capital firms that doesn't require a return in five years or less. The risk/reward tradeoff is infrastructure is there for the long run and will generate solid returns for many years. Additionally, investment in open access infrastructure will provide broader benefits for their economies and residents  -- what economists refer to as externalities -- that are of little or no interest to investor owned providers.

Curri correctly points out the presence of incumbent investor owned incumbent providers poses a challenge to the ubiquitous infrastructure needed to attain those externalities. Those incumbents have already grabbed those neighborhoods that spin off the most revenues, complicating obtaining sufficient revenues to attract patient investment capital.

The essential problem for Curri is his concept requires premises to subscribe to services, emulating the subscription-based business model of the incumbents other than it calls for open versus closed access infrastructure. Subscription revenue would be supplemented by charges to service providers to offer services over the open access infrastructure as well as mobile wireless backhaul and "specific value-added services and smart-community services."

Potential patient capital investors may well see the presence of incumbent providers who will seek to protect their private monopolies as a key risk factor that would outweigh the many positive aspects of Currie's concept. Unless in the unlikely event those incumbent providers signal a withdrawal, it may prove unfeasible.

A "free market ethos" does not apply to advanced telecom infrastructure

Online school forces America to confront the digital divide: What went wrong over the years? How did the birthplace of the internet become a nation where broadband is unavailable to large chunks of the population, keeping students from taking part fully in modern education and their parents from taking advantage of the modern economy? Big investments have been made in the internet in the U.S., but not uniformly or with an eye to expanding connectivity as far as possible. It’s not a task that private industry cares to take on, nor is it one that the public sector can solve on its own—not in a country with such a strident free-market ethos. (Emphasis added)

This is a false dichotomy. Advanced telecommunications infrastructure tends toward natural monopoly and not a robust competitive market. As much as some would like it to be, high cost barriers to entry and first mover advantage don't permit that to be the case.

Desperate for fiber connectivity amid pandemic, states grasp for constrained federal funding

The long road to expand NH broadband - NH Business Review: Federal requirements for the CARES Act — such as the requirement broadband networks are prepared to make residential connections by Dec. 15 or else not be reimbursed — were meant to expedite projects to meet immediate needs. Bordering on unrealistic, the guidelines were criticized by the Monadnock Broadband Group and others interviewed by NH Business Review for excluding efforts that were already underway or could have made planning inroads with financial assistance.  “We put an initial $50 million into the fund because it was completely unknown what the application process would yield,” said Sununu. “I think we could have done a lot more with this money, but we just didn’t have the time. That was one of the biggest drawbacks is the time constraints the federal government put on these dollars.”

States desperately need federal funding to build fiber to the premise advanced telecom infrastructure now that homes due to pandemic public health measures now serve as workplaces, classroom, medical clinics and require robust symmetric connectivity. Feeling the pain most sharply are homes lacking access to commercial fiber providers due to neighborhood redlining and monthly rates out of reach for economically stressed households.

As this article highlights, navigating the tight constraints placed available federal funding is producing frustration. CARES Act funding is designed as short term emergency funding to help state and local governments cover costs related to responding to the pandemic and not specifically purposed for longer term infrastructure projects.