State franchise bills make digital redlining public policy

If telephone and/or cable companies are pushing legislation to create a state-based broadband franchising regulatory scheme in your state, most likely there's a provision in the bill that requires them to serve only half of their customers six years after the law takes effect.

If the provision's in there, your state is about to be partitioned into two halves: one half will have access to high speed Internet and other advanced digital services while the other half won't. And despite language giving lip service to the notion that state franchising laws will speed broadband deployment, there are typically no incentives in the bills to reward telcos and cable companies to do so. Just the opposite: these bills have a built in stalling mechanism to hold off deployment to large areas over the next six years and leave the future uncertain beyond that. The franchise bills also contain another fallacy: that statewide franchises will spur competition that's good for consumers. Not true. There is no meaningful competition with a duopoly of incumbent telcos and cable providers and in many areas, a monopoly where consumers can get digital services from either the telephone or cable company, but not both.

Here's the latest example from Tennessee, where AT&T is supporting an amendment to that state's franchise legislation incorporating the 50 percent over six years build out requirement.

"Systematic redlining on a statewide scale"

Consumer groups and local governments are opposing proposed Illinois legislation backed by AT&T that would take away the authority of local governments to require broadband services be offered throughout their jurisdictions and instead put the state in charge of issuing statewide franchises.

Illinois PIRG was joined by national consumer groups including Consumers Union in opposing the bill in its original form. “The unintended consequence will be systematic redlining on a statewide scale,” according to a letter from Consumer Union’s Jeannine Kenney and others to state legislators. They say other states with similar deregulation schemes have seen prices increase, “leaving consumers with nothing but empty promises.”

FCC begins inquiry on broadband deployment

The Federal Communications Commission, apparently chastened by its poor data gathering methods to determine whether broadband services are being deployed to all Americans in a reasonable and timely fashion as required by Section 706 of the Telecommunications Act of 1996, has undertaken an effort to get better data.

The FCC issued a notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM) to explore alternative methodology to replace its much criticized Zip code-based parameters that deemed broadband being offered if only one customer in the Zip code has service at a speed of least 200kbs.

The Commission is reassessing how to define broadband in light of the rapid technological changes occurring in the marketplace, including the development of higher speed services and new broadband platforms. The Commission will also focus on the availability of broadband, including in rural and other hard-to-serve areas; on whether consumers are adopting new services; and on the level of competition in the marketplace. The Commission also wants to determine what can be done to accelerate the rollout of broadband services, and seeks comment on current investment trends in the industry. The Commission also seeks comment on external data sources that shed light on broadband prices and the extent to which consumers have a choice of competing providers of broadband service in the United States, ideally on a house-by-house and business-by-business basis, as well as comparable data on speed, price, availability, and adoption in other countries.

FCC Commissioner Michael J. Copps said the proceeding is long overdue, warning the United States is falling behind the rest of the world on broadband access and cost.

We can start by facing up to our problem and doing our level best to diagnose its causes. We need to know why so many Americans do not have broadband, and why those who do (or think they do) are paying twice as much for connections one-twentieth as fast those enjoyed by customers in some other countries. This is not just an exercise in self-flagellation (though we certainly deserve that by now).

Rather, it is the first step in coming up with some solutions that can start to reverse our nation’s slide into technological and communications mediocrity.

Copps also lamented a decade wasted with poor data gathering efforts that have left gaping broadband black holes in much of the U.S. produced by "commercial and regulatory missteps."

If the Commission had prudently invested in better broadband data-gathering a decade ago, I believe we’d all be better off—not just the government, but more importantly, consumers and industry. We’d have a better handle on how to fix the problem because we’d have a better understanding of the problem. We would already have granular data, reported by carriers, on the range of broadband speeds and prices that consumers in urban, suburban, exurban, rural and tribal areas currently face. We would know which factors—like age, gender, education, race, income, disability status, and so forth—most affect consumer broadband decisions. We would understand how various markets respond to numerous variables. We could already be using our section 706 reports to inform Congress and the country of the realities of the broadband world as the basis for charting, finally, a strategy for the ubiquitous penetration of truly competitive high-speed broadband. I don’t believe we’d be 21st in the world had we gone down that road. But that was the road not taken.

Fiber is key to bridging the broadband gap

Increasingly there's consternation about a broadband gap between the U.S. and Great Britain and Southeast Asia, where connections in U.S. and U.K. tend to run 1 to 2 mbs compared to 100 mbs in Seoul and Hong Kong.

"The move to broadband in Britain has been very successful, and credit must be given to companies like BT," said Kip Meek, the chairman of BSG - the Government's advisory group on broadband and digital convergence.

He added: "But the next step is extending fibre optic or wireless connections, and that involves significant investment."

More broadband troubles from down under

I've posted about the ongoing broadband "drought" in Australia. Looks like things aren't much better next door in New Zealand. The government is reportedly considering subsidizing satellite service for about seven percent of New Zealanders who won't be able to get ADSL wire line broadband despite the government's telecom reforms apparently designed to promote wider broadband access.

There are rumours that the Government may consider subsidising the cost of satellite equipment that could be used to deliver broadband to the 7 per cent of New Zealand homes that couldn't be served using Telecom's ADSL network. It is understood some work is under way within the Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet, but suggestions of a major initiative are being played down.

The cost of satellite equipment has hindered take-up to date, though there are other drawbacks to the technology such as latency, which make satellite connections less suitable for delivering interactive applications such as Internet telephony.

New Internet architecture on the drawing board

While many still lack broadband connections to the existing Internet, researchers are planning a new and improved Internet architecture:

No longer constrained by slow connections and computer processors and high costs for storage, researchers say the time has come to rethink the Internet's underlying architecture, a move that could mean replacing networking equipment and rewriting software on computers to better channel future traffic over the existing pipes.

The National Science Foundation wants to build an experimental research network known as the Global Environment for Network Innovations, or GENI, and is funding several projects at universities and elsewhere through Future Internet Network Design, or FIND.

NY legislation would mandate 85% build out requirement

New York Assembly Bill 3980 would create a Broadband Development Authority to increase the availability and quality of high-speed broadband Internet to Empire State residents.

At first glance, it would appear the measure is backed by the telco/cable duopoly since it features a key component of industry sponsored broadband regulatory reforms: preemption of local government authority to regulate advanced digital services and instead putting state regulators in charge of issuing digital franchises.

But telcos and cable companies don't like the bill, which sets a higher build out requirement than the 50 percent or less over six years favored by the industry and enacted in several states such as California's Digital Infrastructure and Video Competition Act that took effect this year. AB 3980 would instead require that level of system build out be achieved in just three years and 85 percent in six years.

Click here and scroll down to read the report High-Speed Debate in the New York alternative weekly Metroland Online.

Two emerging alternatives to the telco/cable duopoly

AT&T and Comcast are like the big kids on the block prone to bragging and boasting about what they can or are going to do. Ma Bell boasts she's rolling out Internet Protocol TV (IPTV) including HD channels. Comcast says it's introducing digitial voice telephone service in addition to its TV programming and high speed Internet (HSI) services.

Behind the braggadocio, however, there exists a far different and less boastful reality. Fully one fifth or more of AT&T customers can't even get broadband Internet access over Ma Bell's aging copper cable system let alone IPTV. They're told to suck it up and get by with sluggish, impractical dial up connections running at 24kbs or plunk down hundreds of dollars and pay too much for too little from a satellite provider.

The story's the same for many would be Comcast customers who don't happen to reside where Comcast currently provides service. The big cable company doesn't appear to be expanding its service areas, calling into question its strategy of going head to head with the telcos for telephone service. Comcast can't compete with the telcos if it doesn't penetrate their service areas.

The situation won't change unless local governments and/or public utility districts partner with companies with expertise in installing and operating fiber optic-based infrastructure that can form the basis for open access telecommunications networks.

Without these local endeavors, the alternative is back to the future -- a 1984-style federal government ordered break up of the telco/cable duopoly, only this time in combination with a government takeover of the nation's telecommunications system on the principle that it is vital infrastructure that can't be left to the whims of monopolistic private sector providers.