If the United States is to rapidly modernize its outdated copper telephone infrastructure to fiber optic lines reaching every American doorstep – the need for which became painfully apparent with pandemic public health restrictions that turned homes into offices, classrooms and clinics – it’s imperative the Biden administration’s infrastructure revitalization initiative reallocate roles and responsibilities in order to make that happen.
A major impediment has been expecting too much of legacy telephone companies. For the past three decades, advanced telecommunications policy has placed the burden on them to do it all: own, finance, design, build and operate. They simply lack the capacity to take on all five functions, even with subsidies to make financing easier. Subsidies haven't worked because unlike legacy voice telephone service where companies must provide connections to all homes requesting them, there is no regulatory incentive to utilize them.
Infrastructure requires billions of dollars. Investors in these companies aren’t willing to make those major investments unless they generate returns in five to six years. That limits them to dense urban and suburban neighborhoods and greenfield and multifamily developments, leavings others unfibered for the foreseeable. These companies also have highly leveraged balance sheets that limit their ability to finance construction even if their investors were more favorably inclined and willing to wait longer for financial paybacks or accept lower shareholder dividends.
These circumstances demand a reallocation of the five functions between the public and private sectors to get the nation to where it needs to be in the 21st century of digital, Internet protocol powered advanced telecommunications. The public sector and utility consumer cooperatives will have to take on finance and ownership and leave it to the investor-owned companies to do what they can reasonably be expected do and do best: design, build and operate -- and not own and finance. As the Biden administration introduces its proposed infrastructure revitalization program, this reordering of roles and responsibilities will be an essential component.
Sunday, March 28, 2021
Monday, March 22, 2021
ITIF’s flawed stance on subsidization of advanced telecommunications infrastructure
The Information Technology & Innovation Foundation (ITIF) aptly notes that federal government subsidization of U.S. advanced telecommunications infrastructure has fallen short. Despite tens of billions in subsidies, the ITIF writes in a policy paper issued today, too many American homes lack connectivity. But the ITIF makes the common error of inaccurately defining the scope of the problem as “rural-urban.”
That ignores the fact that advanced telecommunications infrastructure deployment is far more granular. It’s no longer 1950 when most Americans lived either in cities or on farms. They now live in a variety of communities including exurbs at the edges of metro areas and small towns. Many are poorly served because large investor-owned telephone companies have modernized outdated copper lines designed for 20th century voice telephone service to fiber optic lines needed for the digital 21st for only about a third of homes in their service territories. They’ve largely skipped over homes in the exurbs and small towns and instead cherry-picked homes in more densely developed metro centers that better conform to their business models requiring rapid return on investment.
The ITIF correctly notes a major weakness of current U.S. advanced telecommunications infrastructure subsidization policy intended to support bringing service to every American doorstep (the Universal Service Fund) relies on an outdated formula designed for 20th century voice telephone service. It’s highly illogical because extracting subsidies from old technology in decline does not scale up to support the growth of Internet protocol-based technology that’s replacing it.
The ITIF indirectly argues against subsidies for fiber to the premises (FTTP) infrastructure, terming it an overly costly “gold plated” technology. The other side of that argument is subsidy dollars are best invested in delivery technology with life expectancies of multiple decades and not a single decade or less. As the adage goes, one can pay now or one can pay later. A major fault of American advanced telecommunications infrastructure subsidy policy has tended toward the later. The leaves ongoing infrastructure deficits the ITIF points out, requiring the indefinite, repeated need for additional subsidies. Policymakers didn’t subsidize copper telephone infrastructure that way, nor should they with advanced telecommunications infrastructure. Copper proved “future proof” for most of the 20th century as would fiber in the 21st.
Finally, the ITIF’s concern with the higher cost tradeoff of investing subsidy dollars in fiber over inferior and more obsolescence prone infrastructure fails to consider the inherit conflict of interest between investors and end users of advanced telecommunications infrastructure. Large investor-owned companies must answer first to their shareholders and are naturally sensitive to the cost of building and maintaining advanced telecommunications infrastructure. When cost considerations are brought to bear, households are likely to lose out in the calculation of how to apply subsidies. Particularly when subsidies are awarded without regulatory incentive – the universal service requirement that was put in place for legacy copper telephone service.
That ignores the fact that advanced telecommunications infrastructure deployment is far more granular. It’s no longer 1950 when most Americans lived either in cities or on farms. They now live in a variety of communities including exurbs at the edges of metro areas and small towns. Many are poorly served because large investor-owned telephone companies have modernized outdated copper lines designed for 20th century voice telephone service to fiber optic lines needed for the digital 21st for only about a third of homes in their service territories. They’ve largely skipped over homes in the exurbs and small towns and instead cherry-picked homes in more densely developed metro centers that better conform to their business models requiring rapid return on investment.
The ITIF correctly notes a major weakness of current U.S. advanced telecommunications infrastructure subsidization policy intended to support bringing service to every American doorstep (the Universal Service Fund) relies on an outdated formula designed for 20th century voice telephone service. It’s highly illogical because extracting subsidies from old technology in decline does not scale up to support the growth of Internet protocol-based technology that’s replacing it.
The ITIF indirectly argues against subsidies for fiber to the premises (FTTP) infrastructure, terming it an overly costly “gold plated” technology. The other side of that argument is subsidy dollars are best invested in delivery technology with life expectancies of multiple decades and not a single decade or less. As the adage goes, one can pay now or one can pay later. A major fault of American advanced telecommunications infrastructure subsidy policy has tended toward the later. The leaves ongoing infrastructure deficits the ITIF points out, requiring the indefinite, repeated need for additional subsidies. Policymakers didn’t subsidize copper telephone infrastructure that way, nor should they with advanced telecommunications infrastructure. Copper proved “future proof” for most of the 20th century as would fiber in the 21st.
Finally, the ITIF’s concern with the higher cost tradeoff of investing subsidy dollars in fiber over inferior and more obsolescence prone infrastructure fails to consider the inherit conflict of interest between investors and end users of advanced telecommunications infrastructure. Large investor-owned companies must answer first to their shareholders and are naturally sensitive to the cost of building and maintaining advanced telecommunications infrastructure. When cost considerations are brought to bear, households are likely to lose out in the calculation of how to apply subsidies. Particularly when subsidies are awarded without regulatory incentive – the universal service requirement that was put in place for legacy copper telephone service.
Monday, March 08, 2021
Shifting post-COVID-19 residential settlement trend requires new direction on advanced telecom infrastructure
COVID19 has opened our eyes to a new possibility. Give people a choice of where to live – one that does not depend on where they make their living – and they vote with their feet for lower density, more green space and, most of all, for affordable costs. It has become clear that the celebrated “magnet cities” are threatened by their own success. They are dangerously overcrowded. They are vastly over-priced for all but the most over-paid. That’s why San Francisco and Manhattan have only half the number of children per household as the US metropolitan average, while suburbs and exurbs have over one-third more. Without kids, a community stagnates, even if it you can’t see it now.
The Intelligent Community Forum has been predicting for some time that the future belongs to small-to-midsize places with the broadband assets to fully participate in the global economy. The internet is a distributed platform that offers equal access to those who can afford it regardless of location – as long as your location has good broadband. The unexpected gift of COVID19 is to show that this future possibility is real. It is not where you live that determines your economic destiny. It is how well connected you are and whether you have the education and skills to make the most of it. Those are the issues that deserve our full attention as we recover from the first global plague of the 21st Century.
https://www.benton.org/blog/whatever-happened-magnet-cities
America's current reliance on large investor owned companies to build and operate advanced telecommunications infrastructure has led very uneven, highly granular deployment and affordable access. These companies prefer to build infrastructure to serve dense housing development because their investors require rapid returns on capital investment. A higher concentration of homes better assures those rapid returns investors demand.
As this article notes, demand for advanced telecommunications is heading in the opposite direction, toward less dense development, a trend that preceeds the pandemic. That has enormous implications for U.S. telecom policy and suggests a new direction is necessary, shifting away from reliance on large investor owned providers and toward alternatives. These include companies backed with patient investment capital more aligned with the high costs and slow ROI of infrastructure, regionally owned and operated public sector owned infrastructure and consumer cooperatives.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)