Protecting the telco/cable duopoly

This story out of New York state shows that telcos (in this case, Verizon) can offer broadband-based Internet Protocol TV (IPTV) in without legislation the telcos are seeking in the Empire State to put the state in charge of issuing so-called "video franchises" In this case, Multichannel News reports, the towns of West Haverstraw and North Castle approved Verizon's applications to provide IPTV over its propriety fiber optic FiOS infrastructure.

The telco/cable duopoly has pursued similar legislation in about a dozen states, claiming it would allow them to bypass local governments, bring greater market competition (pretty hard to do in a duopolistic market) and deploy broadband-based services more rapidly. However, at the slow pace at which the telcos and cable companies are expanding the availability of their broadband services, doing with local government regulation one area at a time certainly doesn't seem to be an impediment.

Rather than speed up deployment of broadband, the true objective of the state franchise measures, like a recently-promulgated Federal Communications Commission rule (which is being legally challenged by local governments), is to protect telcos and cable companies from local government demands they hasten the build out of their infrastructures in order to make broadband available to unserved areas.

Ma Bell pipe dream: $1 billion in ad revenue in 3 years

Seems that everyone wants a piece of Internet-based ad revenue. Now even the companies that provide the "pipes" that carry the Internet want in on the action, including Ma Bell.

John Stankey, AT&T's president for operations support, told the Reuters Global Technology, Media and Telecoms Summit in New York that advertising could bring $1 billion to Ma Bell's top line in three years time. Stankey said AT&T can reach that revenue goal by virtue of being the biggest U.S. broadband provider, a wireless carrier and most recently, a purveyor of Internet Protocol Television Service (IPTV) via its nascent U-Verse video service.

I think Stankey's time line is far too optimistic given the slow pace of AT&T's U-verse rollout whose functionality hasn't yet been demonstrated on a large scale. Also the company's sluggishness in even upgrading large portions of its service area that must continue to use early 1990s dial up modem technology to access the Internet or the so-called "Molasses Net" -- satellite Internet service -- which AT&T is hawking via a reseller deal with satellite provider WildBlue.

Rather than the pipe providers getting into the advertising biz, the more likely scenario is the media giants like Rupert Murdoch's News Corp. and Web portals Yahoo! and Google getting into the pipes business, partnering with other companies to build their own broadband infrastructure after tiring of waiting on the telco/cable duopoly to expand their networks.

Vermont legislature approves $40 million bond measure to speed universal broadband access

Blogger Tom Evslin reports Vermont legislation that would make the state the nation's first "e-state" featuring universal broadband and wireless coverage by 2010 is on its way to Gov. Jim Douglas. It defines fixed broadband as a symmetrical (same speed for both uploads and downloads) 3Mbs connection.

The bill encourages both public and private provisioning of service. It includes authorization for up to $40 million in revenue bonds by the State to build infrastructure like radio towers and middle-mile fiber. The State is NOT authorized to become a retail ISP but the plan is to encourage private wireless ISPs (WISPs), wireline ISPs, and cellular operators – as well as municipalities – by making infrastructure broadly available at a reasonable cost even in areas where the short term economics are tough. The bonds need to be repaid out of revenues but this will be “patient” money.

The measure also authorizes local governments to engage in municipal broadband projects. As Evslin states in an earlier post on the legislation, implementation of it could prove more difficult than getting the bill into law. I would agree, considering that $40 million likely represents a small portion of the investment that will be needed to bring universal broadband access to Vermont in just three years.

U.S. Dept. of Agriculture revamps rules for funding rural broadband projects

Dorr outlined several key elements of the proposed rules: Promoting deployment to rural areas with little or no service; Ensuring that residents in funded areas get broadband access more quickly; Limiting funding in urban areas and areas where a significant share of the market is served by incumbent providers; Clarifying and streamlining equity and marketing survey requirements; Increasing the transparency of the application process, including legal notice requirements, to make more informed lending/borrowing decisions; Promoting a better understanding of all application requirements, including market survey, competitive analysis, business plan, and system design requirements; and ensuring that projects funding are keeping pace with increasing demand for bandwidth.

Dorr noted that significant progress has been made in facilitating rural broadband deployment since the program began. Over 70 loans have been made totaling $1.2 billion for broadband deployment projects headquartered in 36 states. Through these loans, more than half a million households in more than 1,000 rural communities will receive broadband service. Over 60% of these communities had little or no broadband service at the time.

HD Net's Cuban calls for broadband infrastructure investment

"[T]he reality is that the consumer internet,…has matured, and its future, unless there is significant investment will constrain economic development in this country.”

Colorado video franchise fight reveals true goal of provider "competition," Comcast's hypocrisy

Here's an interesting story from the Rocky Mountain News that illustrates what the real competition between cable companies and telcos is all about. It's not about which can capture the most customers in a given market -- the traditional measure of market competition -- but rather who can force the other guy to provide service to everyone in a given local government jurisdiction.

Cable provider Comcast insists Denver-based telco Qwest be required to provide broadband video service to everyone in the Colorado municipalities it wants to serve, charging Qwest will leave some neighborhoods unserved if local governments don't require it to do so in exchange for granting Qwest a video franchise. (Note however, hypocritical Comcast does exactly what it accuses Qwest of doing, including in my own El Dorado County, California ZIP code where Comcast serves some neighborhoods but refuses to serve others).

If Colorado local governments force Qwest to serve their entire jurisdictions, the Rocky Mountain News reports Qwest may counter by invoking a recently promulgated Federal Communications Commission rule that Qwest sought prohibiting local governments from imposing "unreasonable" build out requirements on telephone companies seeking franchises to offer enhanced broadband-based video services. The rule also requires local governments to make a decision on a video franchise application within 90 days.

If Qwest presses ahead with this reported effort to accelerate local government video franchise applications, it will set the stage for litigation over the meaning of what constitutes an "unreasonable" build out requirement under the FCC rule. Local governments have already gone to federal court to challenge the rule, contending the FCC overstepped its authority.

Qwest's initiative also marks a quick reversal of a strategy announced earlier this month by CEO Richard Notebaert, who told Bloomberg Qwest planned to hold off offering video over phone lines, concentrating instead on accelerating residential broadband Internet access.

California's AB 2987: Market competition in a tightly limited market

I agree in concept with Pacific Research Institute think tanker and TechNewsWorld columnist Sonia Arrison that allowing telcos to compete with cable companies for broadband video services as California's recently enacted Digital Infrastructure and Video Competition Act (AB 2987) provides is good public policy in that it spurs some degree of market competition. "California lawmakers -- and others across the nation -- would do well to learn from the success of cable franchise reform and discard recycled proposals to over-regulate the technology sector," Arrison opines.

The problem is that competition is geographically restricted, playing out in a limited market where both the telco and cable provider have a presence. Consumers not in these proscribed markets don't benefit from the increased competition envisioned by AB 2987.

In California and most states, there exists a de facto duopoly in which the big telcos and cable companies like AT&T and Comcast have the market all to themselves. There are few if any other competitors nipping at their heels and forcing them to provide more and improved services.

Exhibit A is the large number of broadband black holes that exist in California where hapless residents can't get broadband Internet access from their telco (who in AT&T's case tells them to "go suck a satellite") or from the cable provider (upon whose maps these would be customers simply don't exist). Here, AB 2987 fails to spur competition and better services and does nothing to expand broadband services to unserved areas of the Golden State since the legislation allows the telco/cable duopoly to offer services to just half of potential customers by 2012. That effectively locks the providers into the market they presently serve, creating two separate but unequal Californias -- one with broadband Internet access and the other without.