FCC’s Title II order adopts ultra light touch on net neutrality enforcement

While much of the media has been abuzz over the concept of net neutrality – the principle that all Internet traffic be treated equally – an initial review of the FCC’s report and order issued last week classifying Internet services as telecommunications services under Title II of the Communications Act indicates the regulatory agency is adopting a decidedly light touch approach on enforcing net neutrality. The question of whether net neutrality is being respected has arisen at interconnection between network layers, choke points specifically addressed in the FCC’s order and report.

Paragraph 4 states the order’s policy respecting net neutrality, described in the media as a ban on network providers creating paid fast lanes, drawing on the metaphor of toll lanes on a busy freeway:

4. The lesson of this period, and the overwhelming consensus on the record, is that  carefully-tailored rules to protect Internet openness will allow investment and innovation to continue to flourish. Consistent with that experience and the record built in this proceeding, today we adopt carefully-tailored rules that would prevent specific practices we know are harmful to Internet openness— blocking, throttling, and paid prioritization—as well as a strong standard of conduct designed to prevent the deployment of new practices that would harm Internet openness. We also enhance our transparency rule to ensure that consumers are fully informed as to whether the services they purchase are delivering what they expect.

Paragraph 30 however specifically declines to apply Title II rules to interconnection, noting frictions among commercial players have produced differing accounts of how Internet data traffic is being handled:

30. But this Order does not apply the open Internet rules to interconnection. Three factors  are critical in informing this approach to interconnection. First, the nature of Internet traffic, driven by massive consumption of video, has challenged traditional arrangements—placing more emphasis on the use of CDNs or even direct connections between content providers (like Netflix or Google) and last-mile broadband providers. Second, it is clear that consumers have been subject to degradation resulting from commercial disagreements, perhaps most notably in a series of disputes between Netflix and large last-mile broadband providers. But, third, the causes of past disruption and—just as importantly—the potential for future degradation through interconnection disputes—are reflected in very different narratives in the record.

At paragraph 31 of the order, the FCC opts for an information gathering stance vis a vis disputes over interconnection rather than a strong enforcement role:

31. While we have more than a decade’s worth of experience with last-mile practices, we lack a similar depth of background in the Internet traffic exchange context. Thus, we find that the best approach is to watch, learn, and act as required, but not intervene now, especially not with prescriptive rules. This Order—for the first time—provides authority to consider claims involving interconnection, a process that is sure to bring greater understanding to the Commission.

Levin's Law of Internet Infrastructure Inertia may prevail over FCC universal service mandate

This week’s report and order by the U.S. Federal Communications Commission that imposes a universal service requirement on Internet infrastructure providers may do little to over the next decade to ensure all premises have access to landline Internet connections.

As they did soon after the Communications Act was amended in 1996 requiring telephone companies to share their network infrastructures with competitive providers, the large telephone companies -- joined by cable companies – could challenge the rule in the courts and drag their feet implementing it.

They might also argue that they cannot afford to provide universal service within their service territories because there are insufficient subsidies given this week’s draft order defers enforcement of Section 254(d) of the Communications Act requiring telecommunications carriers to fund universal service.

With a generation of progress toward connecting all American premises with fiber already squandered, the associated delays could buy the big incumbent telephone and cable companies another 10 years or more of business as usual, allowing them to continue to cherry pick communities, neighborhoods and roads and streets they prefer to serve and redline those they reject.

That would leave Levin's Law of Internet Infrastructure Inertia* intact and the resulting entrenched disparate access to landline Internet service that leaves about one in five U.S. homes and small businesses unable to order service.

*Blair Levin, a former U.S Federal Communications Commission official and lead author of the FCC’s 2010 National Broadband Plan observed in 2012 that the major landline ISPs had no plans to improve and build out their infrastructures. “For most Americans, five years from now, the best network available to them will be the same network they have today," Levin stated.

FCC adopts Internet universal service obligation

Finding the United States needs improved Internet access, the U.S. Federal Communications Commission today released a report and order classifying Internet service as a common carrier telecommunications service under Title II of the Communications Act. That subjects Internet service providers (ISPs) to the same common carrier universal service obligations under which telephone companies operate, requiring them to provide connections to all customers requesting service in their service territories. Harold Feld of Public Knowledge recently termed universal service “the quintessential common-carrier obligation.”

Under prior FCC rules, Internet service was classified as an information service under Title I of the Act, relieving ISPs of the obligation to provide Internet service to any premise requesting it. Consequently, for more than a decade ISPs have effectively redlined communities, neighborhoods and even portions of roads and streets by not building out their infrastructures to serve them.

The FCC's reclassification of Internet as a Title II telecommunications service invokes Section 201(a) of the Communications Act:

"It shall be the duty of every common carrier engaged in interstate or foreign communication by wire or radio to furnish such communication service upon reasonable request therefor..."

The FCC's order and rulemaking also applies Section 254(b)(3) of the Communications Act that requires ISPs to provide access to advanced telecommunications in all regions of the nation:

(3) Access in rural and high cost areas

Consumers in all regions of the Nation, including low-income consumers and those in rural, insular, and high cost areas, should have access to telecommunications and information services, including interexchange services and advanced telecommunications and information services, that are reasonably comparable to those services provided in urban areas and that are available at rates that are reasonably comparable to rates charged for similar services in urban areas.

The report and order also applies Section 214(e)(3) of the Communications Act, which empowers the FCC to "determine which common carrier or carriers are best able to provide such service to the requesting unserved community or portion thereof and shall order such carrier or carriers to provide such service for that unserved community or portion thereof."

In addition, within the scope of the FCC's action is Section 202 of the Act, which contains an anti-redlining provision barring providers from discriminating against localities in providing service. The report and order notes complaints of violations will be addressed on a case-by-case basis.

In applying most of Section 254 of the Act to ISPs, the FCC noted it rejected calls to delay or phase in its enforcement:

“Even prior to the classification of broadband Internet access service adopted here, the Commission already supported broadband services to schools, libraries, and health care providers and supported broadband-capable networks in high-cost areas. Broadband Internet access service was, and is, a key focus of those universal service policies, and classification today simply provides another statutory justification in support of these policies going forward. Under our broader section 10(a)(3) public interest analysis, the historical focus of our universal service policies on advancing end-users’ access to broadband Internet access service persuades us to give much less weight to arguments that we should proceed incrementally in this context… We therefore conclude that these universal service policy-making provisions of section 254, and the interrelated requirements of section 214(e), give us greater flexibility in pursuing those policies, and outweighs any limited incremental effects (if any) on broadband providers in this context. Because forbearance would not be in the public interest under section 10(a)(3), we apply these provisions of section 254 and 214(e) and our implementing rules with respect to broadband Internet access service.”

Unpacking USTelecom FCC forbearance petition: no obligation to continue copper plant

GN 14-126: USTelecom Comments on 2015 Broadband Progress Report | USTelecom: First, the Commission should grant the petition that USTelecom filed in October 2014 that seeks forbearance from various outdated regulatory requirements applicable only to incumbent local exchange carriers (“ILECs”). As USTelecom explained in its Forbearance Petition, unlike most broadband providers – including cable, wireless, and competitive fiber providers – ILECs are not free to focus their expenditures on next-generation networks designed to deliver the higher-speed broadband services customers increasingly crave; instead they “must direct a substantial portion of their expenditures to maintaining legacy networks and fulfilling regulatory mandates whose costs far exceed any benefits.”

USTelecom is correct in noting there's little point in investing in obsolete copper networks. But its petition to the U.S. Federal Communications Commission fails to cite any regulations that specifically require telephone companies to deliver services solely over copper and not fiber.

Instead, the filing appears to pick a bone with existing rules governing ILEC last mile network operations and access -- rules that are predicated on ILECs having a monopoly over last mile infrastructure. The petition does not explain how these rules operate to discourage investment to upgrade copper networks to fiber.

Expect more legacy incumbent telephone company complaints as the FCC adopts final rules later this year reclassifying Internet service as a common carrier utility under Title II of the Communications Act.

Rhode Island universal Internet service bill introduced

GoLocalProv | Chippendale: Homes Without Internet Access Leave Students Unable to Excel in School: Representative Michael Chippendale (R-Foster, Glocester, Coventry) has introduced legislation that would bring broadband internet to households that currently have no means of accessing it. The bill stipulates that “any public utility providing phone, cable television, or broadband internet service to 75% of the eligible residents of any single city or town shall make available said phone, cable television, or internet services to the remaining 25% of the city or town.” Also, “any broadband service provider which provides internet service to any city or town that is part of a school district that utilizes portable internet devices for student learning at home and has broadband internet provided to at least 25% of the eligible residents of any single city or town, must provide broadband internet service for all residents of the city or town.”

While the U.S. Federal Communications Commission appears to be passing on a universal Internet service obligation in its forthcoming final rules deeming ISPs as common telecommunications carriers under Title II of the Communications Act, this could be the first of a state-based movement to impose such a requirement.

It should be noted this is a limited universal access measure and won't help localities in the all too common scenario where ISPs commonly serve only the doughnut hole of half of all premises -- those close to the center of town -- but not those outside of the center.

Tennesseans want fiber Internet service

More and more areas of the United States are recognizing they need to build fiber telecommunications infrastructure just as they built their own roads and highways. The excerpts below from this story explain why and the growing political sentiment that is reaching a tipping point.

Farm Bureau backs EPB expansions | Local News | Times Free Press: Sen. Todd Gardenhire, R-Chattanooga, said he backs Bowling's bill because his top priority is getting high-speed Internet to rural areas of south Bradley County that are in his district. Some 800 families would benefit, he said.

He said Charter, Comcast and AT&T told him "it's not profitable" to do it. In Gardenhire's view, "private enterprise has given up on taking care of the people."

Some south Bradley Countians are less than a mile from EPB's service area but can't get its broadband, leaving them with dial-up service and a slow connection speed. Joyce Coltrin, whose wholesale nursery is in southern Bradley County, relies on her cellphone to access the Internet.

"It's very hard to use an iPhone for business," said Coltrin, who heads a group of 160 households who call themselves "citizens striving to be part of the 21st century." They, too, have been pushing state legislators to change the law.

*  *  *

Wireless in particular "is capable of a tiny fraction of what fiber can deliver, with respect to speed, reliability, and capacity," she said. "Because of data caps and usage-based pricing, it's also very, very expensive for anyone who uses a lot of bandwidth, such as families who home-school and therefore require lots of online video." Saying that a community "doesn't need fiber because it has DSL or wireless is like saying that the nation doesn't need the Interstatehighway system because we have the Santa Fe trail," Hovis argued.

Big incumbent telcos, cablecos should stop the zero sum game, partner with the public sector on open access infrastructure

Steven S. Ross of Broadband Communities magazine opines in the January/February 2015 issue that legacy incumbent telephone and cable companies should abandon their win/lose, zero sum, all or nothing attitudes toward telecommunications infrastructure and partner with the public sector on open access infrastructure:

"A well-built municipal system (or access to public assets in a public/private partnership) should be open to all carriers and to all content and service providers. They would get a chance to sell products and services with vastly higher revenue potential and much greater reliability than they would by nursing ancient infrastructure to drain a few extra years of cash out of hapless, captive customers."

Indeed.

Click here to read the full article.

On telecom infrastructure, policymakers must choose between sanctioning market failure or serving their constituents

Rural Tennesseans limited in Internet choices

As time goes on, it’s going to grow increasingly difficult for policymakers to continue to provide protection to legacy telephone and cable companies that want to preserve their partial service area infrastructure footprints. Such protectionist policies amount to government sanctioned market failure.

In the face of market failure, naturally those who live outside the boundaries of those limited footprints are looking to the public sector for help to get landline telecommunications service -- just as they did nearly a century ago for electrical distribution infrastructure. 

If their elected representatives fail to support them, they will face growing political risk come election time, particularly as more stories like this one show they’ve sold out their constituents by taking campaign contributions from the legacy providers.

Sell fiber enabled services, not “gigabit.”

There’s a well-established maxim in the sales of information and communications technology (ICT) products and services: Don’t sell bits and bytes, feeds and speeds. Instead, sell features and benefits. There’s a good reason for this selling principle. Most consumers aren’t interested in technology. They’re interested in what it can do to benefit them and its value for the money invested.

The same rule applies in telecommunications. But it has been violated in the marketing of fiber to the premise (FTTP) services, where Internet Service Providers have defined FTTP by its speed – its ability to deliver bandwidths of 1 gigabit or more. Problem is, only a small percentage of consumers really know what the term “gigabit” means, according to a survey by Pivot Group spotlighted in the January/February issue of Broadband Communities magazine. (Sell Services, Not Speed)

“Service providers spend an awful lot of time and marketing spend emphasizing speed, but this research reveals consumers are confused regarding speed references and perceive that their current speed package is sufficient,” Dave Nieuwstraten, president of Pivot Group and co-author of the study, observes.

The takeaway: What really matters isn’t gigabit bandwidth per se but rather the services FTTP can enable in the home where people have high definition televisions, desktop and laptop computers and personal devices such as tablets and smartphones all being supported by the home’s Internet connection. FTTP will play an increasingly important role in the delivery of video content as more is delivered via the Internet, enhancing its value to consumers sensitive to high price points for Internet service used to support only web browsing and email. That will increasingly be so as live sports migrates to Internet streaming.

In the era of FTTP, it’s really no longer useful to market bandwidth or brand it with a speed-based term such as "gigabit” or “broadband” -- a now obsolete term used in the 1990s to distinguish narrowband dialup Internet access from first generation ADSL services. Similarly, marketing Internet services with speed/bandwidth price tiers is no longer truly relevant for premise services. Without benefits described, consumers will naturally tend toward lower cost options.

Emphasizing the utility and benefits of a FTTP connection also fits well with the open access, wholesale model where the owner of the FTTP infrastructure sells access to ISPs who in turn sell retail services delivered over it. Including new ones mentioned in the Broadband Communities article such as installing and supporting the next generation of more robust home Wi-Fi needed to enable all of those wireless devices being used in today’s homes and home-based businesses.

Disparate Internet access likely to continue in US without comprehensive policy, strategies

Want Fiber? Do more to get it, Google exec tells cities | Gigaom: The upshot for the foreseeable future is a patchwork of different broadband speeds across the country as competitors flock to easy-access markets, while leaving many millions of others (including me in Brooklyn) stuck with monopoly service.

According to Cogent CEO Dave Schaeffer, who also spoke on the panel, this situation will require a future wave of policy inducements to produce more broadband offerings.

Lacking comprehensive policy inducements and strategy to further the construction of fiber optic telecommunications infrastructure to reach all homes and businesses and updating outmoded metal wire infrastructure operated by incumbent telephone and cable companies, the United States does indeed face a less than bright future of disparate Internet access in both metro and rural areas.

Today's adoption of rules by the U.S. Federal Communications Commission only partially implementing Title II of the Communications Act subjecting the Internet to common carrier utility regulation will serve to reinforce the disparity without a solid universal service obligation. More in depth analysis of the FCC's action will follow here once the final rulemaking is published in the Federal Register.

Google Fiber's business model emulates -- and shares same downsides -- as incumbents'

Google Fiber: Make It Easier For Us Or Enjoy Time Warner Cable | DSLReports, ISP Information: Numerous cities have been so eager to get Google Fiber, they've signed rather sweetheart deals that, for example, allow Google to simply walk away from builds should TV subscriber uptake numbers not be met. Perks also include the right to redline and cherry pick deployment neighborhoods...

This illustrates how closely Google Fiber's triple play business model emulates that of legacy incumbent telephone and cable companies. And also how vulnerable it is to TV programming costs that are squeezing all but the biggest players such as Comcast and Time Warner.

What's ironic is localities across the United States have literally begged Google Fiber for relief from the legacy incumbents. Google has adopted much of the incumbents' triple play business model but utilizes fiber to the premise plant instead of wire or cable. And since it's such a high cost model, it naturally leads to market segmentation (cherry picking and redlining neighborhoods based on expected revenue) that reinforces an entrenched infrastructure gap that leaves one in five American homes unable to order landline Internet service.

AEI overlooks lack of investment in aging telecom infrastructure

Don't make the Internet a public utility AEI: The result is that public utilities are among our least innovative, worst-performing industries. Search the phrase “America’s aging infrastructure” and you will find dozens of articles and studies detailing lack of adequate investment in our bridges, gas pipelines, electricity transmission systems and other utilities. Sixty-two percent of the gas mains in Washington, for example, are more than 50 years old.

Similarly, one can do a search and find plenty of references to America's aging metal wire telecommunications infrastructure where market forces alone fail to provide sufficient incentive for investment to replace it with fiber.



 

Ellsworth, Maine exemplifies local efforts to address U.S. telecom infrastructure deficit -- and need for federal assistance

Council backs broadband Internet project - The Ellsworth American: Lili Pew, a real estate agent who heads the EBDC broadband committee, pointed out many people have home-based jobs or businesses. She said the number one question she hears from her clients looking at Ellsworth is, “Do I have access to high-speed broadband?”

Running fiber lines to every residence in Ellsworth would be cost-prohibitive — in the range of $8 million to $12 million, according to Tilson — but there are other ways to reach parts of the city that Pew said are “in the black hole of technology right now.”

Paul said service that is “five, 10, 20 times faster” than what customers have currently can be provided wirelessly using the same type of service cell phone users have. Hamilton said Ellsworth “is blessed by having good towers in place already.”

This account out of Ellsworth, Maine illustrates the American can do spirit of meeting and responding to a challenge -- in this case constructing fiber optic telecommunications infrastructure to enable the locality to participate in the digital 21st century economy.

This story is playing out all over the United States as cities and towns like Ellsworth take their telecommunications destiny into their own hands. It also shows these localities will need significant funding assistance from the federal government to ensure all homes and businesses have fiber connections. Ellsworth's economic development TIF (tax-increment financing) program won't provide enough funding to ensure all of its residents will have fiber connections.

The Federal Communications Commission's Connect America Fund isn't up to the task and hasn't been sufficiently tapped by providers to build needed telecom infrastructure in areas where it's not quickly profitable. What's needed is a far more robust federal program to provide funding to states and localities on a scale like that of the Rural Electric Administration in the 1930s to bridge the gap in Ellsworth and other places like it.

Center for Public Integrity delves deep into U.S. Internet infrastructure challenges

A great read on investigative journalism by the Center for Public Integrity that delves deeply into the market and policy challenges of building a complete and modern Internet infrastructure in the United States in 2015. Here’s a summary of the fundamental elements covered in the article.

Incumbent telephone and cable companies can’t afford to upgrade and build out their Internet infrastructures to fully serve their service territories. So they lobby and give campaign contributions to policymakers to allow them to preserve their incomplete networks that leave many disconnected from the Internet. Reporter Allan Holmes describes a typical scenario in much of the nation where those networks don’t extend to reach many suburban and exurban homes:

But then you go outside of Tullahoma (South Carolina), you just drive like 3, 4, 5 miles outside of Tullahoma into this suburban area where there are some very nice homes, and they don’t have Internet access. They don’t even have AT&T, U-verse or Charter Communications which is another telecom there who provides service in Tullahoma. They don’t serve this area.

Leaving these people unserved creates political pressure for action to solve the problem – naturally leading local governments to build their own infrastructure to serve their citizens just as they did in the 1930s for electrical service. That in turn generates resistance from the incumbents to preserve the status quo and put roadblocks in their path. Legislators like Tennessee State Representative Glen Casada are being squeezed by increasing pressure from both the incumbent telephone and cable providers that support their campaigns and the constituents who elect them and want good Internet connections as Holmes relates a conversation with Casada:

“My district is about 2/3 high-speed and 1/3 non-high-speed. So I do hear a lot of that, and I talk to several of those providers: ‘we need help, what’s the solution?’ and their retort is ‘well, we can’t afford to go to the southeast corner of your county because we would lose money and lose money hand over fist.’ And I said ‘we’ve got to figure this out, and real quick, because if we don’t figure it out, then we’re going to have to go with a solution that may not be palatable to the free market system.’ So there is an answer, I contend we have to work it out and figure it out so that the free market solves it, because if a government-run entity solves it, it’s got long-term negative implications.”

The challenge Casada faces is the market for telecommunications infrastructure isn’t a competitive one. It’s a natural monopoly due to the high cost barriers that keep out potential competitors. It’s that natural monopoly that the incumbents want to preserve by keeping local governments from building their own Internet infrastructure with protectionist laws. 

Casada can however have market competition for services provided over Internet infrastructure by treating the infrastructure like public works such as a road or highway. But a competitive market with many sellers and buyers isn’t going to happen for Internet infrastructure because it is fundamentally at odds with market economics.

The larger story underlying this one is the disruption and discomfort that naturally comes with technological and economic change – in this case replacing 20^th century metallic legacy telephone and cable TV infrastructures with modern fiber optic networks for the 21^st century. Naturally the legacy providers will resist this transition out of fear of adverse economic consequences for their shareholders and employees. But policymakers must also consider the economic opportunity and job creation ubiquitous modern fiber Internet infrastructure will enable.
 

For consumers, Title II common carrier universal service obligation far more important than net neutrality

U.S. Federal Communications Commission Chairman Tom Wheeler’s trial balloon proposing to place monopolistic Internet service providers under Title II of the Communications Act and subjecting them to common carrier utility regulation has generated considerable discussion and media coverage of net neutrality – the principle that all Internet traffic be handled equally by Internet Service Providers (ISPs). The net neutrality issue applies at the deeper layers of the Internet affecting business relationships between core content providers like Netflix and Yahoo and so-called “transport layer” players like Level 3 Communications, Verizon and AT&T. Wheeler proposes that Title II regulation would enable the FCC to place rules on these arrangements to ensure they are “just and reasonable” and prohibit blocking, throttling and paid prioritization.

All the discussion over net neutrality however has overshadowed a far more important element of Title II that would apply to common telecommunications carriers -- which ISPs would be deemed if the FCC ultimately adopts rules later this month placing ISPs under Title II. ISPs would no longer be able to serve only parts of communities and even portions of roads and streets, a problem the FCC recognizes leaves millions of Americans unserved by wireline Internet connections in a report issued last month. Like telephone providers currently subject to universal service mandates under Title II regulation, any premise would be able to order Internet service meeting specified standards. ISPs aren’t going to like the disruption that brings to their business models based on market segmentation and redlining less densely populated – and desirable -- neighborhoods. Even municipally-operated ISPs don’t relish the prospect, filing a letter this week with the FCC opposing a potential Title II rulemaking:

“[W]e fear that Title II regulation will undermine the business model that supports our network, raises our costs and hinders our ability to further deploy broadband…Our ability to repay current debt obligations and raise capital at attractive rates could well be adversely affected if we lose control over our retail rates or the use of and access to our networks.”

Some believe the universal service requirement will be applied only relative to eligibility for federal infrastructure subsidies for high cost areas offered through the FCC’s Connect America Fund (CAF). If that ends up being the case in whatever rules the FCC ultimately adopts, it won’t likely move the needle much to speed up infrastructure deployment to these areas since there is little business incentive for ISPs to tap into the grossly underfunded CAF as they concentrate on select wireline market segments and mobile wireless services.

It's a bird, it's a plane, it's the rebirth of satellite Internet | Network World

It's a bird, it's a plane, it's the rebirth of satellite Internet | Network World: There's a ton of room for providers who want to help people in remote or sparsely-populated areas get online, both at home and abroad, dovetailing nicely with the Obama administration's stated goal of getting more Americans online in service of furthering education and stimulating the economy.

The problem is there is also a ton of premises on satellite Internet that aren't in remote or sparsely populated areas of the United States. They're at the outer edges of metro areas, exurbs and semi-rural areas lying outside of the limited footprints of landline Internet infrastructure. While mainstream and tech media may hype a "rebirth," the fact is satellite sucks and is a national embarrassment that so many still rely on it in 2015.

No fast or slow lanes for Internet? New rules proposed | The Sacramento Bee

No fast or slow lanes for Internet? New rules proposed | The Sacramento Bee: "Net neutrality" means that whether you're trying to buy a necklace on Etsy, stream the season premiere of Netflix's "House of Cards" or watch a music video on Google's YouTube, your Internet service provider would have to load all of those websites equally quickly.

This is a much less important problem in the United States than inadequate Internet infrastructure that leaves millions of American homes and small businesses to substandard slow dialup, satellite or costly bandwidth rationed mobile wireless connections. The Federal Communications Commission recently reported that Internet infrastructure is not being deployed in a timely manner.

FCC Chair Wheeler may still be trying to split the baby on regulation of Internet as common carrier telecom service

U.S. Federal Communications Commission Chairman Tom Wheeler issued a fact sheet today summarizing a draft rulemaking the FCC will vote on this month to classify Internet service as a common carrier telecommunications utility under Title II of the Communications Act. It should be borne in mind this document represents a starting point in the FCC's deliberations preceding formal promulgation of proposed regulations and the public comment period before their final adoption.

Here are some quick takes on some of the provisions mentioned in the FCC fact sheet:

Reasonable Network Management: For the purposes of the rules, other than paid prioritization, an ISP may engage in reasonable network management. This recognizes the need of broadband providers to manage the technical and engineering aspects of their networks.

This is a big loophole that will likely send net neutrality proponents up the wall. A major friction point between core content providers and ISPs is the edge ISPs won't upgrade their last mile networks to fiber to support higher throughput. "Reasonable network management" could thus mean core content will have to be throttled so as to not overwhelm their networks.
 

Some data services do not go over the public Internet, and therefore are not “broadband Internet access” services subject to Title II oversight (VoIP from a cable system is an example,

This carves out Internet voice service from Title II -- a major telecommunications service.

Bolsters universal service fund support for broadband service in the future through partial application of Section 254.

It will be interesting to see what exactly "partial" means. Section 254(b) of the Communications Act requires common carriers to provide access to advanced telecommunications and information services (i.e. Internet service) in all regions of the nation. Will the FCC provide waivers for some areas of the country even as it finds Internet infrastructure is not being timely deployed to all parts of the nation?

The proposed Order applies “core” provisions of Title II: Sections 201 and 202 (e.g., no
“unjust and unreasonable practices.”

Section 202 bars “discrimination in charges, practices, classifications, regulations, facilities, or services...” It also contains an anti-redlining provision barring providers from discriminating against localities in providing service. That means dominant providers would have to serve all premises in their service territories and not just selected neighborhoods, roads and streets as is current practice.

No last-mile unbundling.

This effectively neuters common carrier under Title II and protects the closed access monopoly incumbent providers enjoy over what services are sold to customers since they would continue to be able to bar access to ISPs offering competing content and services.

UTOPIA’S “fiber highway” offers roadmap to greater competition for premise telecommunications services

A major complaint about Internet service in the United States is legacy incumbent telephone and cable companies lack incentive to provide better value and customer service and to build out their networks to fully serve communities and neighborhoods and not just selected segments. Many believe the solution is introducing more competition.

But given that telecommunications infrastructure costs a lot to build and maintain, that circumstance creates high economic barriers to potential competitors. That leaves the incumbent telephone and cable companies firmly entrenched in a market that naturally tends to be monopolistic. It puts them in the dominant position and consumers in the weaker role, forced to be what economists call “price takers,” meaning they must pay whatever their ISP charges or go without service. 

Summed up, a market that’s naturally monopolistic can’t easily be transformed into a competitive one without a radical reordering. One such example is the Utah Telecommunication Open Infrastructure Agency (UTOPIA), which operates its regional fiber telecom infrastructure as public works -- like a road or highway. That introduces competition by giving consumers the choice of what Internet services they want to purchase and from which ISPs. “The value to users is generated through greater choice of providers that generates a shift in the balance of power from the ISPs to the user and the superior service that the new network will provide,” notes this recent update by Macquarie Capital on its public-private partnership venture with UTOPIA.

As the report notes, there has been some resistance to a key financing element: a proposed monthly utility fee. But as it also points out, the estimated $22.60 monthly utility fee is offset by better value consumers would receive than as price takers of the incumbent telephone and cable companies.

As the maxim holds, there’s no free lunch. But some lunch deals are better than others, particularly when they help fund fiber to all and not just some premises as with Google Fiber’s “fiberhoods.” UTOPIA’s open access model provides the additional advantage of ensuring everyone is connected regardless of where they live or operate their business. Applied on a regional basis as UTOPIA plans, the utility fee model is a particularly important financing mechanism in places like Bettendorf, Iowa and Danbury, New Hampshire -- small localities that would be challenged to fund Internet infrastructure construction without new revenue streams.

The Obama administration and the Federal Communications Commission – looking for ways to increase competition for premise telecommunications service amid a growing tide of consumer dissatisfaction – would be wise to look to UTOPIA’s open “fiber highway” model. And consider tax incentives such as making utility fees tax deductible for all taxpayers to make them more palatable.

The FCC is moving to preempt state broadband limits - The Washington Post

The FCC is moving to preempt state broadband limits - The Washington Post: Under Section 706 of the Communications Act, the FCC is authorized to promote the deployment of broadband in the United States. By ruling that the anti-municipal state laws constitute barriers to that mission, the FCC's draft order invokes Section 706 in preempting the laws.

But that theory has already been questioned by Republicans who believe private investment is a more effective tool for rolling out high-speed broadband. 

Private investment in theory might be effective -- if there was a lot more of it. The legacy, shareholder owned incumbent providers are constrained in their capital investment capacity by the demand for short term profits and high dividend obligations and debt loads. Witness Verizon, for example. The company stopped new build outs of its FiOS fiber to the premise infrastructure in response to shareholder concerns.

Private pension money might be brought into play as is the case with Australia-based Macquarie Capital, the financial partner of the Utah Telecommunication Open Infrastructure Agency (UTOPIA). But so far no other similar financiers with the billions that are needed have emerged.

In summary, there really isn't any point in debating what's the best source of U.S. fiber to the premise telecommunications infrastructure funding. What's truly important is that there be an adequate and viable funding source -- something the nation is currently lacking.

AT&T ramps North Carolina FTTP workforce to battle Google Fiber's impending entry - FierceTelecom

AT&T ramps North Carolina FTTP workforce to battle Google Fiber's impending entry - FierceTelecom: Just days after Google Fiber (NASDAQ: GOOG) announced it would bring its fiber-to-the-premises (FTTP) service to a number of major North Carolina towns and cities, including Charlotte and the Triangle area, AT&T (NYSE: T) is ramping up its workforce to support its own fiber network push in the state.

After launching its 1 Gbps FTTP GigaPower service in December in Carrboro, Cary, Chapel Hill, Raleigh and Winston-Salem, the service provider said it is committing capital dollars to hire nearly 100 new technician positions to support the service rollout. The service provider also is planning to bring the 1 Gbps service to Durham, Charlotte and Greensboro.

As Google Fiber and the legacy incumbents try to do each other in with duplicative and wasteful parallel fiber to the premise (FTTP) telecommunications infrastructure (like having a premise served with two power lines, two gas lines, and two water lines) in a few select metro areas, the bulk of the United States continues to lack a comprehensive plan to build FTTP. Does it make sense for some Americans to have multiple fiber connections while most others have none?

Where high hopes of fiber telecom infrastructure collide with weak federal funding

Changes to RUS Broadband Loan Program Include Rural Gigabit Pilot - Telecompetitor: When President Obama spoke last week about reforms to the USDA Rural Utilities Service broadband loan program, he was referencing changes adopted in the 2014 Farm Bill, a USDA official advised in an email to Telecompetitor.

Joan Engebretson's report illustrates the wide gulf between the Obama's administration's aspirations for fiber telecommunications infrastructure America needs for the 21st century and the stark paucity of available funding under current federal programs to help finance this high cost endeavor.

Casey Peck, General Manager of the Kalona Cooperative Telephone Co. of Kalona, Iowa pointed up the gap in this opinion piece appearing in the Kalona News:

It seems the President’s objective is to encourage municipal construction of broadband networks, which would compete with existing providers.  The push to allow municipalities to construct broadband networks, which is prohibited by state law in 19 states but not in Iowa, will do little or nothing for the actual rural customers for which Obama claims to be concerned.

The fact is that most companies want nothing more than to roll out the next generation of broadband services, but simply do not have the cash flow to do so.  The biggest hurdle facing those consumers without high-speed internet services is provider’s lack of funding to get these services to the most remote customer in their areas.

Common carrier utility regulation appears a near certainty in 2015

Legacy incumbent telephone and cable companies have threated to sue the U.S. Federal Communications Commission if as expected the FCC follows President Barack Obama’s call to classify Internet services as a common carrier utility under Title II of the Communications Act. The incumbents hope the specter of prolonged litigation and uncertainty will give the FCC pause before it acts next month.

The problem for the incumbents however is even if they make good on the threat, it may not buy them the degree of uncertainty and delay they would like. Any litigation arising from the expected regulatory action by the FCC would likely be disposed of in relatively short order. The courts operate under a doctrine of judicial deference to how regulators interpret and apply statutory law such as the Communications Act. They are loath to put themselves in the place of regulators and second guess administrative rulemaking, reasoning the regulators and not the courts hold the requisite expertise when it comes to figuring out how to apply the finer points of statutory law. 

Possibly realizing this, the incumbents’ lobbying corps is implementing a backup strategy in Congress to amend the Communications Act to carve out Internet service on the grounds that it doesn’t function as a market monopoly – the underlying rationale for classifying it as a common carrier utility like telephone service. Demerits of that legislative rationale aside, that nascent effort also isn’t likely to be productive since even if passed it would face a likely presidential veto.

The outlook for 2015 is common carrier utility regulation of the Internet is coming and isn’t likely to be derailed.

21st century needs new regulation for a new generation of telecommunications services

A major contributing factor to the current crisis over how to regulate Internet-based telecommunications is the passage of time. Lots of it. It's been more than four generations -- 80 years -- since the United States enacted the Communications Act of 1934 regulating telephone service as a common carrier utility.

A 1996 update of the statute incorporated Internet services. But they were so new then regulators -- the Federal Communications Commission -- didn't consider them as a common carrier telecommunications service. Internet was an optional additional service, accessed by special connections made over slow dial up modems to specialized information services such as CompuServe and America Online. Now two decades later, it serves as a all purpose telecommunications service providing data, voice and video over Internet protocol (IP).

In a little more than a month's time, the FCC will decide whether to regulate IP services as a common carrier utility under Title II of the Communications Act. Indications are it will do so -- most likely for landline delivered, premise Internet service. Along with the designation come rules designed to ease and promote the construction of infrastructure to serve all premises and not just selected ones as is the case under the present regulatory policy.

Twentieth century legacy telephone and cable companies have built their business models based on the current policy, models that will be disrupted with the shift toward regulating the Internet as a common carrier utility that must be offered to all and not just some Americans.

But out of disruption comes business opportunity for a generation of new providers. The federal government should put in place meaningful technical assistance and funding -- and not just "funding leads" given the importance of Internet infrastructure -- to help the new Internet telecommunications providers of the 21st century become established and financially viable for the long term.

U.S. needs complete telecom infrastructure construction strategy, not minimalist incrementalism

The United States needs a comprehensive, holistic approach to ensure the construction of fiber optic infrastructure to provide robust Internet enabled telecommunications services in the 21^st century on a par with universal telephone service in the 20^th. The nation won’t achieve that standard in a timely manner by relying on incremental, one off builds.

While it’s laudable that some local governments have built or are planning fiber infrastructure in response to private sector market failure on the supply side (as spotlighted this week in Cedar Falls, Iowa by President Obama), these builds without significant and sustainable funding support cannot cumulatively provide the telecommunications infrastructure the nation needs and should have been planning at least two decades ago. As Steven S. Ross notes in his article in the November-December, 2014 issue of Broadband Communities, Bandwidth: Good for Rural Residents, Good for the Country, these localities that have or are putting in place modern telecommunications infrastructure participate in the same economy as do others lacking it.

New York State’s initiative announced this week it would dedicate $500 million of a $4.5 billion windfall arising from the settlement last year of prosecutions of alleged misconduct by banks and insurance companies to subsidize fiber construction. That’s one time, opportunistic funding that will help construct fiber in areas where it doesn’t exist. But it addresses only a small fraction of the state’s significant need as shown by the accompanying map. The money will quickly be exhausted with no plan fiber up the rest of the Empire State, reinforcing existing disparities. Similar underfunded initiatives exist in other states. Incrementalism allows policymakers to claim small, short term victories but leaves incomplete networks in its wake over the longer term.

Other examples of incrementalism are the continuing circa 2002 debate over “broadband speeds” -- which grows increasingly irrelevant in an age of fiber optic-based telecommunications technology -- and “net neutrality.” Net neutrality – the principle that all Internet traffic be given equal priority – is meaningless without robust network service in the first place. A more important principle than net neutrality is Metcalfe’s Law. It holds that the value of a communications network increases as the number of connections to the network grows. With so many Americans not offered fiber Internet service, the U.S. has a long way to go to recognize the full value of Metcalfe’s Law. It won’t get there with piecemeal incrementalism.

Study finds relationship between recent U.S. settlement patterns and telecom services

The November-December 2014 issue of Broadband Communities includes primary research finding a correlation between population trends and the robustness of telecommunications services. The study covers the period of April 2010 to December 2013.

Editor-at-large Steve Ross, who conducted the research, notes his findings relate to a recent U.S. Commerce Department study showing the relative lack of robust Internet service in rural areas compared with urban areas. Examining census data, the Commerce Department study found for the first time in U.S. history, most rural counties lost population between 2010 and 2012.

Ross includes a couple of caveats on his research. He notes the broad urban/rural county classification used doesn't take into account that exurban counties often include some areas that are functionally urban and others that are functionally rural. He also cautions against drawing conclusions from the data as to whether the availability of strong telecommunications services attracts population and lack thereof drives out migration.

Given the relationship between robust telecommunications services and settlement patterns, Ross's research suggests that U.S. settlement patterns could strongly be influenced with the deployment of more robust telecommunications infrastructure in less populous areas of the nation. Especially given the fact that much of today's information and knowledge-based economic activity can take place most anywhere that infrastructure is available.

USTelecom makes case for Title II common carrier regulation of Internet

Consumers Continue Shift Away From Landline – Regulations Are Behind | USTelecom

This telecom industry article helps make the case for regulating consumer Internet services as common carrier telecommunications services under Title II of the Communications Act. As the article notes, the existing common carrier regulations are designed for a bygone era of analog voice telephone service delivered over copper that is becoming increasingly outdated as landline technology shifts to fiber optic that can deliver voice and other services using Internet transmission protocols.

Administration’s “broadband” push window dressing

Always something happening and nothing going on
There's always something cooking and nothing in the pot
-- John Lennon, Nobody Told Me

The Obama administration’s PR initiative this week on U.S. telecommunications infrastructure deficiencies is largely window dressing and will likely mean the wired network that Americans have today for their home and small business Internet connection is likely the same one they’ll have for the foreseeable. This prediction was made in 2012 by former U.S Federal Communications Commission official Blair Levin and continues to hold true in 2015:

"For the first time since American ingenuity birthed the commercial Internet, we do not have a single national wireline provider with plans (real plans, not “fiber to the press release”) to deploy a better network. For most Americans, five years from now, the best network available to them will be the same network they have today."

The reason is the same as in 2012: insufficient available capital. Building Internet infrastructure to serve homes and businesses is a high cost endeavor. Those high costs have produced market failure on the supply side as the administration acknowledges, noting in this fact sheet that three of four Americans lack networks providing a level of service increasingly required for many online services. “Rarely is the problem a lack of demand — too often, it is the capital costs of building out broadband infrastructure…”

The administration is correct that local governments will have to play a major role in meeting the Internet infrastructure needs of their residents, infrastructure many argue is as critical in the 21^st century as roads and highways were in the 20^th. But it has no meaningful plan to help these localities finance infrastructure construction beyond highly limited and restricted funding available through existing grant and loan programs directed to rural areas of the nation that are only a drop in the bucket relative to the many billions of dollars needed.

In fairness to the administration, even it if did have a plan, it would face difficult odds getting Congress to appropriate the necessary funding. That has left the administration with little to offer in the way of tangible economic assistance. The administration is relaunching its BroadbandUSA website, where among other things it will offer “funding leads” for financing infrastructure construction. Given the lack of needed dollars, the administration has also been reduced to talking points that unfortunately won’t do anything to build last mile fiber to the premise infrastructure including:

• Increasing “competition.” (Sounds great, but ignores the fact that telecommunications infrastructure is a natural monopoly, not a competitive consumer market like groceries, vehicles and air travel. It also undermines Obama's position that Internet should be regulated under Title II telecommunications common carrier rules that are predicated on a monopoly market.)
• Enforcing “net neutrality” rules on Internet service providers. (A wonky term that doesn’t mean anything to consumers with subpar or no wired Internet service options).

Obama administration seeks public option for Internet infrastructure - The Washington Post

Obama wants to help make your Internet faster and cheaper. This is his plan. - The Washington Post: Frustrated over the number of Internet providers that are available to you? If so, you're like many who are limited to just a handful of broadband companies. But now President Obama wants to change that, arguing that choice and competition are lacking in the U.S. broadband market. On Wednesday, Obama will unveil a series of measures aimed at making high-speed Web connections cheaper and more widely available to millions of Americans. The announcement will focus chiefly on efforts by cities to build their own alternatives to major Internet providers such as Comcast, Verizon or AT&T — a public option for Internet access, you could say.

The public option is certainly needed given Internet telecommunications infrastructure is to the 21st century what roads and highways were to the 20th. Relying totally on commercial, investor-owned providers won't build that needed infrastructure. There simply isn't enough investment capital to get it done. And to get the choice and competition for Internet services the administration seeks, that infrastructure must be open access fiber to the premise, selling access on a wholesale basis to service providers who compete to offer services to businesses and consumers.

Like building the highways of the 20th century, that infrastructure won't come cheap. For the public option to become a reality rather than aspirational rhetoric, it will have to be backed with billions of dollars in funding to help regions of the United States build fiber to the premise Internet infrastructure on a par with telephone lines in the last century that served all Americans no matter where they made their homes or operated a business.

Net neutrality takes new twist as Congress appears ready to step in - CNET

Net neutrality takes new twist as Congress appears ready to step in - CNET: Large broadband providers, such as AT&T and Verizon, say that reclassifying broadband as a utility will stifle innovation by imposing antiquated telecommunications regulations. 

The innovation argument is a canard. Fiber optic technology had been around for decades. The challenge isn't technological but rather one based in economics and policy so that fiber is as ubiquitous as copper telephone cable was in the pre-Internet era.

Some consumer advocates and content companies, such as Netflix, say reclassifying broadband services as utilities is the only way to ensure that the Internet will give equal treatment to content and sites.

Net neutrality alone won't ensure equal access to the Internet's core content. Title II classification of Internet services must also ensure all U.S. homes and businesses at the network edge have access to those services -- something they don't currently have given the nation's checkerboard of the limited "footprints" of incumbent telephone and cable providers that serve some areas but leave many others unserved.

The number of Americans lacking broadband could soon go up. That’s a good thing. - The Washington Post

The number of Americans lacking broadband could soon go up. That’s a good thing. - The Washington Post: Virtually overnight, nearly 1 in 5 Americans would no longer be served by what the government considers adequate Internet, according to the FCC. That's 55 million Americans, up from an estimated 13.8 million that lack access under the current definition of broadband, according to a forthcoming FCC report.

But that may be a good thing — a recognition of the way technology has improved over time and a sign the government is finally catching up.

Sorry Mr. Fung of The Washington Post. It's not a good thing. It's an embarrassment. The United States should have had plans and processes in place in the early 1990s to build fiber optic telecommunications infrastructure to serve all Americans regardless of where they make their homes, work or receive education and healthcare services. It was clear by then that telecommunications were going digital and that fiber would be the necessary delivery infrastructure.

Now in 2015 the U.S. and regulators are still using 1990s terms like "broadband" and engaged in a losing game of catch up, chasing after Internet bandwidth demand that's increasing so quickly that by the time regulators issue their latest definition of "broadband," it's already fast headed toward obsolescence.

FCC pronouncements on Internet adequacy won't address U.S. telecom infrastructure deficit

Only 25Mbps and up will qualify as broadband under new FCC definition | Ars Technica: FCC Chairman Tom Wheeler today is proposing to raise the definition of broadband from 4Mbps downstream and 1Mbps upstream to 25Mbps down and 3Mbps up.

As part of the Annual Broadband Progress Report mandated by Congress, the Federal Communications Commission has to determine whether broadband “is being deployed to all Americans in a reasonable and timely fashion.” The FCC’s latest report, circulated by Wheeler in draft form to fellow commissioners, “finds that broadband is not being deployed to all Americans in a reasonable and timely fashion, especially in rural areas, on Tribal lands, and in US Territories,” according to a fact sheet the FCC provided to Ars.

Unless the U.S. Federal Communications Commission under Wheeler's chairmanship decides this year to reclassify Internet service as a common carrier utility that like telephone service must be offered to all premises that request it, the FCC will find itself issuing similar findings next year and every year thereafter.

Blair Levin, who served as chief of staff to one of Wheeler's FCC predecessors, Reed Hundt, predicted in 2012 that for the foreseeable, the best wireline network available to most Americans will be the same one they had then. Nearly three years later, that will remain the case regardless of any FCC pronouncements of what constitutes adequate Internet service and whether Internet infrastructure is being deployed in a timely manner -- lacking meaningful action.

Federal telecom infrastructure funding initiative needed

The American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 appropriated $4.7 billion in grant and loan funding to support the construction of Internet telecommunications infrastructure. Most of it has gone toward middle mile infrastructure projects to bring fiber backhaul closer to homes and businesses. But it was only a drop in the bucket relative to the need. What’s needed now is last mile infrastructure to link the middle mile to these premises.

According to the Institute for Local Self Reliance, nearly 400 communities in the United States have local telecommunications networks, many providing fiber connections to premises. That’s critical to the nation’s future given that legacy incumbent telephone and cable companies aren’t upgrading their metal wire networks to fiber notwithstanding the burgeoning growth in bandwidth demand and the availability of federal and state government subsidies.

Those 400 community networks represent a good start. But other communities won’t be able to follow them unless state laws restricting them are repealed (shown in red on the ILSR map) and there is substantial, relatively unrestricted funding to help them. A likely consequence is these 400 community networks will end up as one off builds, leaving the rest of America to the tender mercies of the incumbents who lack incentive to build out and upgrade given that costly telecom infrastructure is a natural monopoly.

In the wake of the severe recession at the end of the last decade, local governments are still struggling financially and can’t easily fund these projects on their own. A recent survey by the National Association of Counties found only one in 50 U.S. counties has fully recovered economically since the start of the recession in 2007. The federal government should step up with an expanded telecommunications funding program to build on the ARRA stimulus funding. It should include technical assistance grant funding to help communities plan fiber to the premise network infrastructure as well as grants and loans to help finance their construction. In the end, it would likely prove to be a good investment, generating taxable economic activity to defray the expenditures.

Electric power transmission towers and poles provide existing fiber to the premise infrastructure

Nearly two decades ago, investor-owned electric power provider Pacific Gas and Electric Co. considered installing fiber optic telecommunications cable on its poles and towers and leasing it to cooperatives, telephone and Internet service providers. In 2006, PG&E was in discussions with a startup, Current Communications, hoping to roll out new technology to deliver Internet over electrical lines known as Broadband over Power Lines (BPL).

The talks shorted out over money and BPL ultimately proved technologically unfeasible. Interestingly, one of the investors in Current Communications along with General Electric and EarthLink was Google.

Nearly a decade later, Google is building its own fiber to the premise network in two metro areas of the United States and is considering several others although recently put its expansion plans on hold, most likely until the U.S. Federal Communications Commission decides this year whether to regulate Internet service as a common carrier telecommunications utility. Should the FCC do so under Title II of the Communications Act, Google in a December 30, 2014 letter urged the FCC to enforce compliance with Section 224 of the statute requiring utilities such as PG&E to provide access to its poles, conduits and rights of way on reasonable terms and conditions.

controls poles, ducts, conduits, or rights-of-way used, - See more at: http://codes.lp.findlaw.com/uscode/47/5/II/I/224#sthash.YCBB6J1R.dpuf

In the meantime, Google Fiber and PG&E might consider exploring a joint venture that would give Google access to PG&E’s transmission towers and poles that provide existing infrastructure serving millions of premises to speed the deployment of its fiber network. PG&E itself should look not only at Google Fiber but also consider forming a subsidiary that would build an open access wholesale fiber to the premise network. It could then lease access to Google Fiber and other ISPs. (I'll even host the discussions -- off the record, of course --- and some fine Cabernet at an undisclosed winery location if the companies are interested).