America stands at broadband crossroads

Much of America like El Dorado County remains stuck with an outdated telecom infrastructure better suited to the 1970s and 1980s than 2006 and beyond. Perceptive commentators are rightly beginning to ask deep questions to determine why that’s the case and why market competition hasn’t spurred more rapid deployment of advanced telecommunications services.

Al Senia suggests in America’s Network that the lack of a national telecom policy rather than fostering vibrant competition benefiting consumers amid minimal regulatory oversight is actually holding us back. Another article appearing in techdirt postulates a key reason is telecom infrastructure is an inherently uncompetitive monopolistic system just like roads and highways. We don’t see competition for thoroughfares because they are so expensive to build and maintain that the only the government can afford to run them.

Given the very slow deployment of telecom infrastructure, it appears increasingly possible that private sector providers despite their substantial resources won’t be able to rapidly raise the billions of dollars of investment capital that will be necessary to expeditiously put the telecom infrastructure on a par with those of other nations that are now surpassing the U.S.

The nation may well need a huge national telecom infrastructure authority like the Eisenhower administration’s massive federal highway project in the 1950s to get us caught up. Otherwise, America may fall further behind and become economically uncompetitive with other nations, relegated to driving the telecom equivalent of the old Route 66 while the rest of the world travels on modern freeway systems.

Letter to Gov. Schwarzenegger requesting veto of AB 2987

Readers are encouraged to send this letter or a modified version to Gov. Schwarzenegger.

* * *

The Honorable Arnold Schwarzenegger
Governor
State of California

RE: AB 2987

Dear Gov. Schwarzenegger:

I urge you to veto AB 2987, the Digital Infrastructure and Video Competition Act of 2006. While the legislation’s stated purpose is to expand modern digital telecommunications and market competition and consumer choice, it would not benefit large numbers of Californians living and working outside urban areas of the state.

Since the bill’s provisions require telephone and cable companies to only partially build out their digital networks, it locks in a flawed public policy of leaving less urbanized areas behind and undermines the decades-old public policy of universal common carrier access to telecommunications services.

AB 2987 would produce two separate but unequal Californias: one with access to modern, digital telecommunications services and one without. Residents of urban areas would be the winners and those outside these areas the losers under AB 2987.

There is no doubt that modern telecommunications services including broadband Internet access is critical to California’s economic well being by facilitating commerce and encouraging business and job formation. Such services also reduce impact on highways and the environment by reducing commute trips since they allow information work to be conducted remotely. Since most jobs are located in urban areas whereas housing development has spread far beyond these areas, Californians are traveling ever-longer distances between their homes and workplaces.

It is vital that all Californians and not just those in urban areas share in the benefits of modern, digital telecommunications services. Given the enormous impact of telecommunications policy on California’s economy, rather than sign AB 2987 into law, I suggest you instead direct the Public Utilities Commission or other appropriate body to study California’s telecommunications needs to determine the best policies and incentives to encourage the rapid deployment of digital telecommunications services that will benefit all Californians.

More evidence AB 2987 won't benefit El Dorado County

The big telcos and cable companies pushing AB 2987 that’s now headed to Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger’s desk claim consumers will benefit because it will increase competition and consumer choice. That’s not true for El Dorado County.

Take Verizon, for example. In a recent news release, the telco asserted the Digital Infrastructure and Video Choice Act “overhauls the state's outdated cable-franchising process and paves the way for new competitors such as Verizon to offer consumers a choice in video programming, better technology and increased value in a highly dynamic marketplace.”

The news release goes on to promise that if Schwarzenegger signs the bill into law, Verizon plans to accelerate the pace of its fiber network construction “to deliver the fastest broadband and best video service in many more communities across the state.” Does that increased competition mean Verizon will compete with AT&T in El Dorado County with its fiber optic-based system, possibly spurring Ma Bell to upgrade her creaky, aged copper cable-based system to fiber optic as well? Nope, says Verizon spokesman Jonathan Davies. Davies says that for the “foreseeable future, we will be concentrating on building the fiber network in our service territory.” In other words, where it’s not currently competing with AT&T for wire line-based telecommunications services. From this blogger’s perspective, that’s hardly the competition Verizon, AT&T and the cable providers promise consumers in their lobbying and PR for AB 2987.

Davies adds that Verizon hopes its fiber optic network will establish “a new standard for broadband capacity” to “encourage other carriers to upgrade their networks.” That’s also a fallacy. It might be plausible if there was true competition between Verizon and AT&T in places like El Dorado County. The fact is there is none. Only one telco (AT&T) serves El Dorado County. So the choice for county residents and businesses is whatever Ma Bell’s offering, which for too many is noisy, unreliable voice service, antiquated, circa 1993 dial up Internet access, or costly and inferior satellite-based Internet. Or simply do without and live in the 19^th century. When there’s no competition, consumers lose and they’re losing big time in El Dorado County.

Broadband in Grizzly Flat?

I'm attempting to confirm with AT&T a report that Ma Bell has recently and rapidly (in the space of only two weeks) deployed wire line based broadband services, possibly as a test project, in the remote El Dorado County community of Grizzly Flat.

The story seems highly improbable, but nevertheless the tip comes from some good sources and deserves checking out.

If any readers know any details concerning this possible speck of light deep into the dark side of the county's digital divide, please share them in an email or post a comment to the blog.

Power company abandons BPL in favor of fiber

Last week, I posted a San Francisco Chronicle story reporting talks between El Dorado County's electric utility, PG&E and a provider of broadband over power lines (BPL) bogged down over money.

Here's a story from NRTC Update reporting that a municipally owned Tennessee electric company has opted not to pursue BPL, concluding it represented an inferior technology in the long run compared to a fiber optic-based system that rolls out in January.

Pulaski Electric System, a municipal electric power provider in rural Pulaski, TN, says it plans to begin offering triple-play (voice, video and broadband Internet) communications to its service area of 4,750 households by January 2007. The city of Pulaski is financing the fiber-to-the-home (FTTH) network for the services through an $8.2 million bond measure. The group expects to exceed 50 percent penetration within the first three years. Greg Solomon, Pulaski Electric’s vice president and chief information officer, said the group made the decision to go with FTTH because the technology has matured to provide reliable service and the cost of fiber optic infrastructure is dropping to affordable levels. “Compared to the other technologies out there today and [considering] the bandwidth required for future applications, fiber to the home is the one we see as being the ultimate way to get to the customer,” Solomon said during an online presentation earlier today hosted by the Fiber to the Home Council. “We evaluated broadband over power line and it was more in its infancy then [in 2002] than fiber to the home was.” Pulaski Electric also evaluated hybrid fiber coaxial and fixed wireless approaches before deciding on FTTH, he said.

Broadband may be up to 2 years off -- and not even that's certain

After a meeting with AT&T officials, El Dorado County Supervisor Norma Santiago believes DSL Internet service could arrive in areas with dial-up within 18 to 24 months.

But she needs help.

Those who do not have the high-speed Internet service and wish to have it are requested to provide addresses and telephone numbers that will allow AT&T officials to begin a planning and cost analysis for a construction budget submission to the county, Santiago said.

Click here for rest of the story in the Tahoe Daily Tribune (registration required)

Let's analyze this for a moment. AT&T's actions mean either one of two things:

1. AT&T's system planners had planned to deploy advanced broadband services no sooner than 5 to 10 years from now, knowing that in order to do so it would need to upgrade its aged, pair gained copper cable system that isn't able to support expanded DSL to fiber optic. In the meantime, Ma Bell is "playing" Santiago and Handal in a delaying tactic to gather market data it likely already possesses in a cynical game of rope a dope. It's highly implausible that AT&T doesn't already know its customers' phone numbers and service addresses as well as the tremendous pent up demand for broadband as well as reliable voice service. The company's acting as if this information is "news" strikes this blogger is disingenuous.

2. AT&T has essentially written off large portions of its service area and has no plans to upgrade its system in El Dorado County to support advanced services such as high speed Internet, concluding it's not in its business interests to do so. But rather than say this publicly amid growing pressure to act, AT&T is engaging in a public relations palliative and running a "drill" to gather information and create an appearance of genuine concern.

Anger in Adelaide over lack of broadband

Even while El Dorado County is considered part of a metropolitan region, it suffers from widespread lack of broadband access that is increasingly angering local residents and business owners.

Turns out they are not alone. Residents of metro region down under in Adelaide, Australia are also upset over the same problem:

In metropolitan Adelaide there are many Internet users who still can't access broadband technology.

Broadband anger is not confined to the bush where Telstra has ditched a $4 billion roll-out of high speed internet connection.

The company has told some customers they will have to wait up to three years for the service.

Internet user Geremia Porcaro lives in Adelaide city and is fed up with being stuck on 1980's dial-up technology.

He lives close to the Unley telephone exchange and yet it takes him five minutes to receive an email using Telstra's basic dial-up service.

"I reckon if I go to the African jungle I can get faster dial-up speed there" he said.

Click here for full story.

California bill would define broadband as 384kbs or higher

Late amendments to SB 909 would define broadband Internet connections as running at a minimum of 384kbs. That's above the current Federal Communications Commission standard of 200kbs.