Common carrier universal service obligation -- not net neutrality – primary reason for incumbent telephone and cableco opposition to FCC Title II enforcement

Threats by the legacy incumbent telephone and cable companies to sue the U.S. Federal Communications Commission if it acts to enforce Title II of the Communications Act aren’t solely motivated by net neutrality. President Obama and other net neutrality supporters look to enforcement of Section 202 of the statute that bars “discrimination in charges, practices, classifications, regulations, facilities, or services...” Net neutrality supporters maintain enforcement of this provision will prohibit telephone and cable companies (and other ISPs) from creating “fast lanes” to speed traffic from users like Netflix to its subscribers. They also argue enforcement would similarly bar ISPs from charging consumers more to access selected websites, for example.

The primary reason the big incumbents are gearing up for possible litigation against the federal government isn’t net neutrality. Rather, it’s two words in Title II: common carrier. The incumbents don’t want to be classified as common carriers. Why not? Because Section 254(b) of the Communications Act requires common carriers to provide access to advanced telecommunications and information services (i.e. Internet service) in all regions of the nation. Section 202 of the law also contains an anti-redlining provision barring providers from discriminating against localities in providing service. That means they’d have to serve all premises in their service territories and not just selected neighborhoods, roads and streets. That would obligate the incumbents to invest billions to connect the approximately one in five premises they have opted to leave unconnected to the Internet.

That doesn’t jibe with their business models because those customers tend to be located in less densely populated areas that are less likely to generate a quick return on the investment in infrastructure needed to serve them. In addition, Section 214(e)(3) empowers the FCC to "determine which common carrier or carriers are best able to provide such service to the requesting unserved community or portion thereof and shall order such carrier or carriers to provide such service for that unserved community or portion thereof."

It could be the policy environment on Internet regulation has reached a tipping point. Oftentimes it takes just a single, well publicized incident to create the final push toward change. The previous post on the sad plight of an upstate New York family being asked to pay more than $20,000 to get their home connected to the Internet might be one of those proverbial straws that brought us to that point

CNY man says Time Warner Cable wants to charge $20,000 for broadband Internet | syracuse.com

CNY man says Time Warner Cable wants to charge $20,000 for broadband Internet | syracuse.com: Think your cable and Internet bill is too high? Jesse Walser might disagree with you.

Walser, who lives about 20 miles outside of Syracuse in the rural town of Pompey, told Ars Technica that Time Warner Cable wants to charge him more than $20,000 to hook him up with broadband Internet. What baffles him is that he can see TWC lines from his house, just 0.32 miles from the road.

"I didn't think it would be that difficult, because the cable was on my road," he told the tech news site. "I have phone. I have electricity. It's not completely 'Green Acres.'"

As this blog has previously pointed out, many Americans lack wireline Internet access because of this kind of arbitrary redlining by legacy incumbent telephone and cable companies. It's difficult to make a credible argument that living less than a half mile from existing infrastructure puts a customer premise out in the middle of nowhere, making it cost prohibitive to serve. As Mr. Walser points out, his circumstance bolsters the argument that last mile Internet service providers be classified as common carriers.

This situation has existed unchanged throughout much of the United States over the past decade (and isn't likely to change anytime soon), leaving some 19 million homes offline according to the U.S. Federal Communications Commission. The FCC is currently considering common carrier regulation of Internet service providers.

The view from South Korea: Incumbent protectionism hobbles U.S. Internet infrastructure

Now that the Internet is maturing to the point that it's the de facto global telecommunications system, the view of the United States -- the nation that innovated the Internet -- from the outside can be quite unflattering. Other developed nations watch as Americans struggle with high cost, low value service. Or no service at all as is the unfortunate circumstance for some 19 million U.S. homes, according to the U.S. Federal Communications Commission.

Why didn't the U.S. put in place policies and plans decades ago to ensure all American homes and businesses have fiber optic connections to the Internet? How did it lose its way? Sometimes when one is lost, they don't know it until someone else points out to them they're off course or wandering about.

A spokesman for South Korea's SK Broadband, which is preparing to introduce 10Gbps fiber service, provides an answer: protectionism of legacy telephone and cable companies that failed to put in place plans to transition to fiber infrastructure.

“In my travels to the United States, it is very plain they have lost their way in advancing broadband technology,” said Pyon Seo-Ju. “Internet access is terribly slow and expensive because American politicians have sacrificed Americas’s technology leadership to protect conglomerates and allow them to flourish. Although unfortunate for America, this has given Korea a chance to promote our own industry and enhance the success of companies like Samsung that are well-known in the United States today."

The American way of broadband: slow - LA Times

The American way of broadband: slow - LA Times: In Southern California, for example, an open-access arrangement would allow upstart Internet companies and low-cost wireless providers to book space on broadband and cellular networks owned by the likes of Time Warner Cable, AT&T and Verizon.

"If you want to lower prices and improve service, you need to increase competition," said Allen Hammond, a professor at Santa Clara University School of Law who specializes in telecom issues. "One way to do that is keep the network open."

A primary reason existing telecom infrastructure providers are slow to upgrade and build out their networks is their reliance on closed access, proprietary networks serving customer homes and businesses. That introduces a lot of business risk that impedes upgrades since they cannot easily predict how many will subscribe to and maintain Internet service offerings.

Since they operate on a wholesale basis selling access to Internet service providers, open access networks substantially reduce and spread that risk since any one provider doesn't have to bear network construction costs directly alone and cover them by signing up and keeping subscribers.

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.