Despite more favorable market conditions, incumbent telephone and cable companies unlikely to expand limited Internet infrastructure footprints

Over the past 15 years, the market dynamics for incumbent legacy telephone and cable Internet service providers have improved from a risk standpoint. Early on, there was substantial uncertainty as to how many customers would subscribe to premise Internet connections. Telcos marketed advanced “broadband” services as an add on to their voice telephone service as did cable companies as an adjunct to their pay TV offerings.

They calculated only a fraction of customers would choose to receive these services -- and pay extra for them. Hence, they deployed the infrastructure to deliver them to a select set of homes and small businesses -- favoring higher density and income levels -- to reduce the risk that there would not be sufficient revenues to cover the cost of deployment and ongoing maintenance.
 
Some developed formulaic approaches to utilize large numbers to spread their risk. For example, Comcast adopted a hard rule that it would build infrastructure only in areas where there were 16 occupied premises per linear road or street mile. That mitigated risk because it could be reasonably predicted that with that many premises, enough would take Internet services to help defray the cost of building out and upgrading the network in order to serve them.

Now with premise Internet service increasingly regarded as essential as landline telephone service was before it was succeeded by the Internet, the risk picture has changed. The likelihood of residential and small business customers subscribing to the incumbents’ Internet service is significantly higher, even than it was just five years ago.

One might think given the improved commercial risk picture, the legacy incumbent telephone and cable companies would be undertaking an aggressive effort to construct infrastructure to serve nearly all and not limited “footprints” within their service territories. Not likely. The reason is the large, shareholder- owned incumbents that dominate in much of the United States lack business models that allow them to make the significant capital expenditures that would be required. That would divert dollars that could boost earnings, pay generous shareholder dividends and fund stock repurchases.

Consequently, the nation continues to need alternative approaches to ensure all premises have Internet service to meet their current and future telecommunications needs such as community operated networks or public-private partnerships that tap into sources of patient investment capital such as Utah’s UTOPIA.

Rural America: Welcome to Verizon LTE Broadband - $120/Mo for 5-12Mbps With 30GB Cap • Stop the Cap!

Rural America: Welcome to Verizon LTE Broadband - $120/Mo for 5-12Mbps With 30GB Cap • Stop the Cap!: “Definitely stay away [...] unless you like to see your data charges skyrocket (in my case more than doubling) when your use doesn’t,” reported Richard Thompson. “I’ve pulled the plug on it — literally.”

Time to dump the "bandwidth by the bucket" pricing model that bears no economic relationship to the marginal cost of providing it. It's a gouge, pure and simple, enabled by a natural monopoly market. Verizon has these consumers over a barrel in areas where its landline marketing partner, Comcast, doesn't offer service.

Frontier Faces Lawsuit in West Virginia Alleging False Advertising, Undisclosed DSL Speed Throttling • Stop the Cap!

Frontier Communications customers in West Virginia are part of a filed class-action lawsuit alleging the phone company has violated the state’s Consumer Credit and Protection Act for failing to deliver the high-speed Internet service it promises.

The lawsuit, filed in Lincoln County Circuit Court, claims Frontier is advertising fast Internet speeds up to 12Mbps, but often delivers far less than that, especially in rural areas where the company is  accused of throttling broadband speeds to less than 1Mbps. The suit also alleges Frontier’s broadband service is highly unreliable.

Frontier Faces Lawsuit in West Virginia Alleging False Advertising, Undisclosed DSL Speed Throttling • Stop the Cap!

Another exhibit in the case demonstrating how the United States has thoroughly bungled telecom infrastructure deployment and regulation under the Clinton, Bush and Obama administrations, creating lack of access and uncertainty. It also illustrates the moral hazard associated with excessive (and lazy) policymaker reliance on telecom provider promises relative to service availability and quality.

Instead of devoting resources to litigating how many bits and bytes constitute "broadband," we should be developing plans to construct fiber to every American home and place of business -- work that should have been started two decades ago.

Deficient telecommunications infrastructure limits growth of telehealth

Just What the Doctor Ordered: Telehealth Poised for Growth: “Rural healthcare providers (HCP) continue to suffer from limited access to broadband speeds necessary to fulfill their rapidly expanding public and private Internet network needs vital for telehealth communications with patients and HCPs,” said Tim Koxlien, founder and CEO of Rural Health Telecom. “Upgrading rural health care provider broadband networks will dramatically enhance their ability to implement new telemedicine technologies and increase access to electronic medical records. This will ultimately enable them to better serve patients through streamlined operational efficiencies, expanded patient service access, reduced costs and improved quality of care.”

Koxlien also noted that high equipment installation costs and a workforce deficit of trained IT personnel as two challenges facing telecom accessibility. “Many local service providers are reluctant or unwilling to expand into these underserved markets because of the costs associated with designing and implementing rural networks, [and a] lack of funding,” Koxlien said.

Disruptive forces bringing U.S. telecommunications infrastructure to an inflection point

Several disruptive forces are building toward a tipping point heralding a new era of construction, operation and regulation of telecommunications infrastructure in the United States. 

• The realization amid exponential growth in bandwidth demand that the nation needs to rapidly fiber up its legacy metal wire infrastructure and should have begun the work 20 years ago.
• The growth of local fiber to the premise infrastructure projects inspired by Google Fiber and the associated push back against state laws restricting the ability of local governments to build and operate telecom infrastructure.
• The obsolescence of bandwidth-defined "broadband" delivered over legacy metal wire infrastructure as an extension of plain old telephone service (POTS) and cable TV.
• The Federal Communications Commission's potential classification of Internet infrastructure as a common carrier telecommunications service amid growing popular sentiment that premise Internet service is a utility that should be universally available. 
• Excessive commercial risk that limits fiber infrastructure deployment to discrete neighborhoods.
• The recognition of the large moral hazard risk associated with public policy reliance on incumbent promises to build out the footprints of Internet infrastructure in their service territories.
• Growing unease with Comcast gaining excessive market power and getting a lock on most U.S. Internet premise infrastructure.
• The breakdown of the triple play "smart pipe" vertical business model due to high video programming costs and the rise of a la carte Internet video offerings.

High TV content costs threaten the “triple play” commercial Internet infrastructure business model

Television programming costs associated with the “triple play” (TV, Internet, voice) offering of legacy telcos and cable companies are the primary business risk facing the subscription-based, closed access, “own the customer” infrastructure business model employed by the legacy telephone and cable companies as well as Google Fiber.

Those costs are steep and threaten the viability of commercial fiber to the premise deployments that depend on future cash flows from service offerings – which include TV – to cover CAPex and provide ROI to investors.

So dear are TV programming costs that Google Fiber’s Milo Medin described them “the single biggest piece of our cost structure” and “the single biggest impediment" to further expansion. The Wall Street Journal reports costly TV content has prompted some small cablecos to scrap the triple play offering and reposition themselves purely as Internet and VOIP (Voice Over Internet Protocol) providers. Over the top (OTT) TV offerings by Sony and Dish Network are also similarly struggling with the high costs of TV programming.

Susan P. Crawford’s book Captive Audience: The Telecom Industry and Monopoly Power in the New Gilded Age describes the self-reinforcing TV programming market dynamics that cement the dominance of the big subscription-based incumbent telcos and cablecos – and Comcast in particular for live sporting events. These large players can afford the high TV programming costs. But large scale notwithstanding, it’s not TV for all since the big legacy telcos and cablecos cherry pick their service areas, leaving lots of consumers redlined and without Internet TV since they opt not to build the infrastructure to deliver it.

One possible way around this negative circumstance would be for the OTT Internet TV content players to organize consumers into large regional purchasing pools and cater to smaller providers as well as open access community fiber networks operated by local governments and utility cooperatives. That would shift market power to the purchasing side while at the same time bolstering these home grown Internet infrastructure players.

Spiral Internet gearing up for fiberoptic network in Nevada County | TheUnion.com

Spiral Internet gearing up for fiberoptic network in Nevada County | TheUnion.com: “Years ago, every home in the U.S. had copper wires put in, going to each home, but we never got wired again for the 21st century,” he said, referring to fiber. “That’s the kind of network we need.”

Very true words spoken by Spiral Internet CEO John Paul as his Nevada City, California company soft launches fiber to the premise infrastructure serving 2,900 households and 300 businesses with deployment planned for 2015-17.

US Telecom Association wants 'archaic' regulations gone | TheHill

US Telecom Association wants 'archaic' regulations gone | TheHill: Steve Davis, chairman of the board of U.S. Telecom, said some of the regulations cited "don't apply to cable companies or any of our competitors, and to the extent that they ever served a purpose, that purpose has long since evaporated."

The group pointed to a number of regulations they want to avoid, including requirements that companies "separate local and long-distance business, and requiring traditional phone companies to continue the provisioning of obsolete technology."

The group cited a speech Wheeler gave in February in which he noted that a large percentage of investment recently by telephone companies went to "maintaining the declining telephone network, despite the fact that only one-third of U.S. households use it at all."

"The future regulatory environment should be one that is based upon the world as it exists today," the group’s president and CEO, Walter McCormick, told reporters. "That is sort of like the overall theme we think public policy should move towards. This petition is a little tiny baby step in that direction."

The world of POTS (Plain Old Telephone Service) is still very much alive in much of the United States, where some 19 million homes and small businesses still rely on the publicly switched telephone network (PSTN) and dialup wireline Internet service. As long as it exists, regulators will be hard pressed to scrap rules designed for POTS without a firm transition plan in place.

The Incumbent Local Exchange Carriers (ILECs) could potentially get more than they wish for in making this request. The Federal Communications Commission could respond by effectively saying, "OK, if you don't want to comply with outdated POTS rules, you are hereby subject to Title II of the Communications Act and thereby must deploy advanced telecommunications infrastructure throughout your service territories."