"Copper cartel" of telcos has anti-competitive stranglehold over U.S. last mile telecom infrastructure, CLEC complains

U.S. telcos such as AT&T and Verizon comprise a "copper cartel" that maintain an anti-competitive stranglehold over the nation's last mile telecommunications infrastructure, the head of one of the largest competitive local exchange carriers created under the federal Telecommunications Act of 1996 told Congress this week.

“The predominant issue of 21st century telecommunications is broadband choice and options for businesses and consumers which allow them to choose their broadband provider based on customer need," XO Communications CEO Carl J. Grivner told the U.S. House Telecommunications Subcommittee on Telecommunications and the Internet, according to a news release issued by the CLEC. "But we continually face incumbents’ efforts to restrict access to essential last mile links that are critical to competitive broadband offerings.”

Griver complained telcos are using provisions of the 1996 law to get around rules requiring them to sell last mile connections at wholesale rates.

Monopoly power of U.S. telcos harms national interest, Internet protocol developer Vint Cerf says

Internet protocol developer and Google Internet evangelist Vint Cerf warns the existing structure of U.S. telecommunications providers impedes Internet access and harms the national interest. Cerf criticizes the monopolistic market power of the telcos, which allows them to hold out for regulatory concessions before investing in their infrastructure -- infrastructure he says is as vital as roads and highways.

While not calling on the government to bust up the monopoly, Cerf says providers need to be restructured, according to a Canadian account of a recent interview Cerf gave to a Silicon Valley blog:

Cerf said large internet service providers (ISPs) need to be split into two entities — one wholesale arm that sells access to the company's network to other firms, and one retail arm that sells internet access to customers. The wholesale arm would have to sell access to other service providers at the same rate that it charges itself.

The model has been adopted in the United Kingdom and New Zealand, where Cerf said it is working.

U.S. should regard broadband as information utility and ensure universal access, congressman says

This from the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette on the Federal Communications Commission's July 21 hearing held in Pittsburgh, PA:

U.S. Representative Mike Doyle, D-Forest Hills, who help to organize the event, said the hearing was intended to address two major concerns -- the so-called "digital divide" between those who have broadband access and those who don't, and "net neutrality," or the openness of the Internet.

Rep. Doyle favors a "guarantee of universal service" similar to telephone service, that views the Internet as a type of information utility. Making broadband Internet service available to all "has to be a joint effort by the federal government and the private sector," he said.

Along with universal service, he said, the United States needs "a policy that establishes basic core principles for the Internet" to ensure that service providers do not become "gatekeepers" who can restrict users access.

Uneven U.S. broadband deployment distorts market perceptions, drives digital downturn

The uneven, hodge podge deployment of last mile broadband infrastructure in the United States in the current decade has affected market demand by distorting perceptions about broadband availability. In areas that still don't have wireline-based broadband access in 2008, some inhabitants have apparently concluded that if they don't have service now they aren't likely to in the foreseeable. The practice of cable companies and telcos of not giving residents time frames as to when broadband will be offerred only reinforces that perception.

Commenting on the recently released Home Broadband Adoption report by the Pew Internet and American Life Project, the National Rural Telecommunications Cooperative (NRTC) observes in its July 2008 Update newsletter that the perception ironically persists even when broadband services are actually available. That naturally drives down demand, known as "take rate" among providers.

Cost and lack of availability were the main reasons rural consumer gave for not subscribing to broadband. Twenty-four percent of the rural dial-up users in the Pew survey said they would take broadband if it were available. This might indicate that rural consumer perceptions in some areas do not match the actual amount of service available from rural broadband providers. For years, NTCA broadband surveys have shown that rural providers have been building out broadband services, but that there have been very low take rates.

This market phenomenom isn't confined to rural areas since broadband black holes can be found in all areas of the U.S.: urban, surburban, quasi-rural and rural.

Low take rates understandably make providers reluctant to invest in broadband infrastructure, particularly in higher cost areas. The end result of this depressed dynamic is self perpetuating and highly persistent broadband black holes in those areas where there are in fact no wireline-based broadband services. Providers in turn can justify the existence of these black holes, fearing low take rates. It's the equivalent of an economic downturn: a lack of confidence on the part of both sellers and buyers.

This is primarily a supply side problem given that the supply of broadband services in these areas has been nonexistent over a period of many years. The way out of this digital downturn is for providers to drive demand by both aggressively deploying services and advertising their availabilty. The latter element is key to overcoming entrenched market perceptions in long-established broadband black holes that broadband isn't available and isn't coming any time soon.

On Sept. 8, 2008, the Broadband Stakeholder Group (BSG), the British government’s advisory group on broadband, issued what it termed "the most comprehensive analysis produced to date on the costs of deploying fibre in the UK."

This report supports the notion that ISPs must proactively drive up demand for advanced services in order to support the business case for fiber-based broadband infrastructure deployment in costlier, less densely populated areas instead of passively writing them off as unservicable as all too many are wont to do. “If operators could achieve a higher than expected level of take-up in rural areas, then the business case for deployment in those areas could improve significantly”, said the BSG's CEO, Antony Walker.

U.S. at "critical juncture," in danger of becoming second class broadband state

Yet another organization is sounding the alarm over the pathetic state of U.S. broadband telecommunications infrastructure. This time it's the National Association of Telecommunications Officers & Advisors (NATOA), which today adopted and released formal Broadband Principles encouraging the immediate development of a national broadband strategy.

"Today, the United States is at a critical juncture," the organization states. "Economic and social development increasingly depend on advanced communications infrastructure. However, there is no strategy in place for widespread deployment of next-generation broadband networks. Our failure to take immediate action threatens to relegate our country to second-class status in the broadband age."

Forget about studies, broadband demand aggregation surveys and pretty maps of broadband black holes and other delaying tactics, well meaning or otherwise. The situation is so dire, NATOA asserts, it requires urgent action rather than contemplation: the immediate deployment of advanced broadband infrastructure -- preferably over open access fiber optic cable systems -- providing synchronous connections.

The NATOA's statement also shuns a search for magic bullets to speed broadband deployment. "Different methods may be preferable in different communities," it reads. "For example, networks may be financed by private investment, by government investment, by public-private partnerships, by tax incentives, or by other means. None of these approaches should be prohibited by law or burdened by special restrictions (such as laws that forbid cross-subsidy by governments but allow it for private entities)."

Aside from the need for immediate action, another theme strongly emerges from the NATOA's statement: that local government play a key role and the current model of that concentrates ownership of telecommunications infrastructure in the hands of just a few private owners is part of the problem.

That makes sense given that the U.S. broadband crisis is really a local crisis over the so-called last mile connection. Consider roads and highways to which the telecommunications system has often been compared. The big telecom players may own and operate the interstates and major highways. Local governments have traditionally had responsibilty for providing roads and streets and NATOA argues they should also play a critical role in upgrading the nation's inadequate broadband infrastructure.

Vexed in Vermont over slow progress on broadband access

Considering that broadband has been likened to an information interstate highway, Vermont is settling for just a two lane blacktop, laments Lawrence Keyes in a op-ed in the Rutland, Vermont Herald.

Keyes, who chairs Vermont's Software Developer's Alliance outreach committee, says Vermont's E-State initiative "is largely an exercise to convince ourselves that 'something is being done, and 'we've got it covered' as broadband black holes remain numerous.

What worries me is that with E-State we're going to get people barely off dialup. By going with wireless Internet connections, we believe that we have a state-of-the-art high-tech infrastructure superior to other states. That is how it is being sold. But, we're really just paving the dirt roads.

Keyes suggests investment in broadband infrastructure should be given the highest priority by all candidates for governor.