Forum discusses broadband possibilities in Alcona - TheAlpenaNews.com | News, Sports, Jobs, Michigan, Community Information - The Alpena News

Forum discusses broadband possibilities in Alcona - TheAlpenaNews.com | News, Sports, Jobs, Michigan, Community Information - The Alpena News

Community forums like this have been going on for at least a decade throughout the United States with little or no change in the status quo. People and community leaders show up and tout the benefits of landline Internet access and demand more of it. Incumbent providers counter they're doing the best they can within the limits of their monthly subscription-based business models that constrain the extent to which they can modernize and build out their networks. And round and round it goes as the locals and community leaders grow increasingly frustrated over the lack of progress.

As I blogged yesterday, Utah may provide a way out of this circular trap. Instead of wholly relying on Internet service provider subscription revenue to fund infrastructure construction and operating costs, nearly a dozen municipalities there are looking into a private-public partnership (PPP) that would entail a per-premise utility fee to help fund them. Communities across the U.S. that are tired of unproductive "broadband" forums should be looking to Utah as a potential path forward.

Future of U.S. telecommunications infrastructure could be determined in Utah

Utah is the site of an economic laboratory for two different business models for the construction and operation of fiber to the premise telecommunications infrastructure. The outcome of the experiment is likely to have significant implications for role of the public sector in these networks as well as the overall future of U.S. telecommunications infrastructure at a time when the nation has reached an inflection point on the issue.

Drew Clark of BroadbandBreakfast has written an overview of the two models: a closed access network based on the business model used by incumbent telephone and cable companies and an open access network operated by a public-private partnership. In a closed access network, the network operator acts as a retailer that “owns” the customer, billing them monthly based on subscribed services. By comparison, an open access network is akin to a public thoroughfare. It wholesales network access to information and service providers that pay to reach customers.

Provo is the site of the closed access model operated by Google Fiber, which is purchasing iProvo, a municipally operated network. Nearby, an open access network operated by the Utah Open Telecommunications Infrastructure Agency (UTOPIA) serves 11 cities. Both the iProvo and UTOPIA networks have encountered financial difficulties but already have deployed a significant amount of fiber serving customer premises, making them attractive test beds for the contrasting business models.

Macquarie Capital, an Australian-based investment company that invests in large scale infrastructure projects like airports, is proposing to invest more than $300 million of debt and equity financing as part of a 30-year leasehold of the UTOPIA network. The rest of the funding needed to fully build out the network would come from a monthly telecommunications utility fee on all residences and businesses within the 11 cities of $18-20 per household, $9-10 per apartment unit and $36-40 per business connection, according to Clark’s summary. Residences would receive free access to a basic broadband network initially offering 3 Mbps symmetrical connectivity.

The key strength of the UTOPIA model is the utility fee assessed on all premises that helps mitigate the business risk of whether enough premises will sign up for services to generate sufficient revenues to offset construction and operating costs and in the case of investor-owned networks, generate operating profits within a reasonable time frame. This uncertainly has been the primary obstacle to build out of incumbent telephone and cable company networks that operate on the customer subscription model. Since Google Fiber uses the same model, it is similarly constrained and thus limits its fiber networks to select “fiberhoods” where the company believes enough premises will subscribe to its network.

UTOPIA’s open access model also has some uncertainty associated with it -- whether Internet service providers will choose to offer services over the network. Since the open access model is novel in the United States and runs counter to the dominant closed access model, UTOPIA has had difficulty attracting enough ISPs necessary to offer services in order to attract customers. Offsetting this uncertainty, however, is the UTOPIA model’s ability to scale and build out to reach areas ignored by closed access, investor-owned networks leery of the business risk associated with deploying to these areas that leaves about one in five U.S. homes without Internet connections.

Suddenly it's the 1990s again as dialup modems screech up AOL profits

AOL Still Relies on Dial-Up Profit as Its Media Shift Continues: AOL has worked hard to reinvent itself as a modern digital media and advertising company, but the bulk of its profits still come from its dial-up ISP business.

While the calendar may read 2014, this week it feels like time has jumped back nearly 20 years when most Americans accessed the Internet with slow dialup modems and Monica Lewinsky was in the news (as she is again this week). It's a sad testament to the retrograde state of U.S. telecommunications infrastructure that enough Americans are still on dialup -- many because it's the only landline option available -- that it continues to be a profitable business for AOL. That can hardly be called progress.

LA Times offers flawed analysis of AT&T interest in DirecTV

Pay-TV field could shrink again with AT&T interest in DirecTV - latimes.com: For AT&T, the value and implications of a DirecTV acquisition are enormous.
First, DirecTV's signal and quality are considered far superior to AT&T's U-Verse television service. This could allow AT&T to rely on DirecTV for broadcast, and free up its fiber lines to increase broadband speeds to U-Verse customers.

This last sentence in this LA Times analysis of AT&T's interest in acquiring DirecTV is rubbish. Fiber lines offer enormous carrying capacity; AT&T does not need to offload video to increase it. The likely reason AT&T is eying satellite for TV distribution is because most of the telco's connections to customer premises are twisted pair copper that can't offer a comparable high definition experience that cable companies can deliver. That gap will only grow wider as ultra high definition TV adoption grows and gobbles up more bandwidth, forcing AT&T to compress it even more to squeeze video content over twisted pair and potentially degrading its quality even further. AT&T is reaching the point of technological obsolescence with its existing copper cable plant and is unable to quickly migrate it to fiber to the premise.

Another major reason is programming costs. AT&T already spends nearly $4 billion a year for programming on U-Verse, and it has just 6 million subscribers. DirecTV pays substantially less per-subscriber for channels than does AT&T.

Unlike the first rationale, this one actually makes sense. AT&T is being squeezed on the consumer side by outmoded delivery infrastructure that requires costly upgrades and on the programming side by TV program cartels that have substantial market power vis Internet service providers.

Net neutrality controversy based on chimera of limited bandwidth

Netflix Reaches Interconnection Deal With Verizon - WSJ.com: Netflix had been at odds with broadband providers such as Verizon and Comcast for months in a debate over who would pay for the huge volumes of traffic Netflix sends over their networks. Netflix has offered to pay for the cost of deploying equipment that will help deliver its videos more efficiently, but the biggest broadband companies have resisted, citing the heavy load Netflix traffic puts on the "last mile" of network infrastructure to their customers' homes.

This claim is utter hogwash and goes to the heart of the net neutrality controversy, which is based on this chimera. Internet providers have created the myth that the Internet is like the electrical grid and its capacity strained on warm days when people crank up their air conditioners. Too many Netflix-powered "air conditioners" are running and taxing our distribution system, ISPs maintain. Therefore we need demand-based pricing to finance upgrades to our last mile infrastructure to handle the additional demand being generated by Netflix and other core network providers that generate substantial bandwidth demand. And it's only fair as a big bandwidth user, Netflix pay a surcharge.

Baloney. Bandwidth is not megawatts or kilowatts and the Internet is not a consumption-based utility like electricity or natural gas. It's no skin off the noses of the ISPs to deliver big bandwidth. If it doesn't transport well over an outmoded and inadequate last mile landline plant to homes and small businesses, consumers and not ISPs pay the price in terms of a poor online experience. And those customers in most cases have no better alternative if they don't like that experience and their ISP chooses to pocket any extra revenues paid by core providers like Netflix to finance fat shareholder dividends instead of last mile infrastructure.

Top Cable Lobbyist Argues Against Broadband as Utility - NYTimes.com - NYTimes.com

Top Cable Lobbyist Argues Against Broadband as Utility - NYTimes.com - NYTimes.com: While the Internet and broadband systems were built “with the help of the government,” Mr. Powell said, “they have suffered terribly chronic underinvestment.” In 2002, when Mr. Powell was chairman of the F.C.C., the agency voted to regulate cable-modem broadband service as a lightly regulated “information service” rather than as a “common carrier.”

Mr. Powell, a former U.S. Federal Communications Commission chairman, correctly diagnoses the poor state of American Internet telecommunications infrastructure in characterizing it as suffering from chronic underinvestment. But oddly, he offers the wrong remedy in declaring the government should take a hands off approach and avoid treating it as a common telecommunications carrier like landline telephone service, available to anyone who wishes to order it.

That's been the status quo since the 1996 Communications Act become law, leaving about a quarter or more of all premises without modern landline Internet access, with some still offered only dialup service that most Americans were using since before the law was enacted. Powell's tortured logic would suggest that requiring Internet service providers serve all premises will somehow make that sorry situation worse. It simply doesn't add up.