AT&T’s planned “wireless local loop” plant could help it meet its Title II universal service obligation

When AT&T began the regulatory review process of its planned acquisition of DirecTV one year ago, it proposed to offer fixed wireless Internet service to about 13 million residential premises in its service territory not offered Internet service in order to improve the deal’s odds of gaining approval. These premises were never offered AT&T’s legacy ADSL service after it was introduced more than a decade ago. And even if they were today, ADSL would fall far short the Federal Communications Commission’s speed-based minimum standard for Internet service of 25 Mbps for downloads and 3 Mbps up.

Now that the FCC’s rules deeming Internet a common carrier telecommunications service under Title II of the Communications Act are going into effect requiring Internet service providers to “furnish such communication service upon reasonable request” under Title II’s universal service and nondiscrimination provisions, AT&T may be seeking another, more important role for its planned “wireless local loop” fixed wireless plant. 

Specifically, helping it meet its universal service obligations. With so many premises in its service territory refused Internet service for a decade or longer, AT&T could face a potential barrage of complaints and penalties if these premises remain without premises Internet service and it continues to say no to service requests.

However, as arstechnica reports today, AT&T’s fixed wireless service is expected to provide connectivity of up to 20 Mbps – below the FCC’s minimum standard for Internet service. The only way to get more wireless bandwidth is more fiber backhaul bandwidth and/or more wireless transmitters. That means AT&T would likely have to spend more than it would like on its planned “wireless local loop” plant to bring service up to the FCC’s standard in order to keep itself out of hot water with regulators.

‘Quad Play:’ Remedy for the failed "triple play" business model as Title II universal service obligation kicks in?

Are Americans Ready to Pay for ‘Quad Play’? - WSJ: A combination of T-Mobile US Inc. and Dish Network Corp. would merge two companies rooted in different industries.

For consumers, it would merge some of the fastest-growing bills in their budgets.

American households spent more than $191 a month on average for television, Internet and phone services in 2013, according to Labor Department data. That was up 24% from 2007 and about what they spent on health insurance.

The question is whether Americans are going to take to paying all that to one company. The prospect isn’t so far-out anymore. With satellite broadcaster Dish Network pursuing a merger with wireless carrier T-Mobile US, AT&T Inc. about to close a $49 billion acquisition of Dish rival DirecTV and cable companies experimenting with cellphone plans, many of the services that keep people entertained and in touch are moving under the same roof.

Such providers are betting on so-called convergence—the idea that they will be better off if they can bulk up, as services that used to flow via different wires and satellite dishes all start traveling on the Internet.

It makes technical sense to deliver all these telecommunications services via Internet Protocol (IP). But there's a disconnect between Internet technology and economics. Many homes and small businesses are not offered landline premise Internet service since the economics of the current "triple play" business model (phone, Internet and TV) don't pencil when the costs of infrastructure CAPex and OPex are factored in.

Will bundling in mobile wireless to create a "quad play" offering improve the business case? One might think so when there's ARPU approaching $200 a month. And it might well better once new rules issued by the U.S. Federal Communications Commission go into effect this month classifying Internet as a telecommunications service under Title II of the Communications Act.

Title II subjects Internet service providers to universal service and nondiscrimination requirements and bars ISPs from redlining higher cost neighborhoods not offered triple play services. That in turn increases the pressure on ISPs to consolidate to ensure they can offer these all inclusive service bundles under their preferred vertically integrated business models where they own both the Internet "pipe" to the home and the services delivered over it.

Incumbents' petition to block FCC's Title II rules faces steep legal hurdles, likely dismissal

John Eggerton of Broadcasting & Cable outlines the legal arguments being made by incumbent telephone and cable companies seeking to block enforcement of the Federal Communication Commission's recently promulgated regulations reclassifying Internet services as common carrier telecommunications services under Title II of the Communications Act.

The incumbents' petition is likely to be dismissed. The reason is what's known as judicial deference: courts generally defer to regulatory agencies' interpretation of statutory law requirements. The doctrine holds that regulators have the necessary expertise to discern and apply the finer points of statutes whereas judges, who generally do not, are naturally reluctant to second guess the decisions of regulators or interject themselves into disagreements over statutory law between regulators and regulated entities. Under the doctrine of judicial deference, the appropriate forum to work out disagreements with regulators over application of statutory law is the rulemaking process and not the courts.

In this case, the incumbents face an especially steep challenge because the Communications Act specifically grants the FCC broad discretion to apply Title II of the Act in the first section of Title II. Section 201(b) states that "[t]he Commissioner may prescribe such rules and regulations as may be necessary in the public interest to carry out the provisions of this Act."

Tom Wheeler tells cable industry to stop complaining, start competing | Ars Technica

Tom Wheeler tells cable industry to stop complaining, start competing | Ars Technica: Part of looking forward, in Wheeler's opinion, is boosting competition. With some exceptions, cable companies have generally not competed against each other, letting a single company dominate each region instead of "overbuilding" in each other's territory.

"You don't have a lot of competition, especially at the higher speeds that are increasingly important to the consumer of online video," Wheeler said. This means there isn't the kind of "intense and constant pressure to continue to improve" as there was in the days when DSL posed a serious threat to cable, he said.

The thing is, Mr. Chairman, telecommunications infrastructure doesn't easily lend itself to competition due to the high costs to build and maintain it. It functions as a natural monopoly like roads and highways and electrical distribution infrastructure. We don't build competing thoroughfares to offer motorists the choice of taking Highway "A" and "B" and "C," for example from the same starting point to the same destination. Or multiple power lines serving the same property. Having multiple landline Internet connections passing by premises is similarly overkill and economically wasteful. Just ask any of the legacy phone companies who feel compelled to issue news releases announcing "gigabit fiber" to compete with Google Fiber. It's a helluva lot cheaper to issue a news release than to actually overbuild competing infrastructure and doesn't risk the ire of shareholders averse to big capital expenditures.

The competition Wheeler's FCC and the federal government should be supporting is helping fund the planning and construction of open access fiber to the premise telecommunications infrastructure over which Internet Service Providers would compete to sell services to customer premises. This would also potentially provide greater opportunity for new services than could be offered over a vertically integrated cable provider that owns both the pipe and the services offered over it.

FCC's Sohn: Wired Broadband Competition Lacking | Broadcasting & Cable

FCC's Sohn: Wired Broadband Competition Lacking | Broadcasting & Cable: Gigi Sohn, senior counselor to FCC chairman Tom Wheeler, told a New Haven, Conn., audience Monday that "the simple truth is that meaningful competition for high-speed wired broadband is lacking."

She came not to bury broadband, but to praise the state's 1 gig community broadband project as a way to provide that "lacking" competition.

Viewed in the context of landline Internet infrastructure as a whole, Sohn is correct. It's a natural monopoly due to high cost barriers that keep out potential competitors as well as inefficiencies that make building parallel infrastructures as nonsensical as building multiple competing roads and highways serving the same area. If they were privately owned and operated for profit -- as is most telecommunications infrastructure in the U.S. -- the likelihood of their having a net present value greater than zero is slim to none.

What this story as well as many others lamenting the lack of "broadband competition" fail to mention is how Connecticut's project does offer competition to the consumer for Internet services via open access fiber infrastructure that provides wholesale access to Internet Service Providers (ISPs) as an alternative to the vertically integrated, closed access infrastructures used by the legacy telephone and cable companies as well as Google Fiber. ISPs would then compete to sell their services to consumers. From the CT Gig Project website:

Competition:

The open-access model would introduce true competition into the Internet
marketplace. The idea is to build the infrastructure and then give Internet
providers equal access to utilize it. Your Internet choices should be made
based on price and service, not solely by the town boundaries you reside in.

Internet infrastructure emerging as political issue in UK; America likely to follow

When people in the United Kingdom go online, many of them likely mutter -- or shout -- “bloody hell,” particularly in the evenings when video streaming gobbles up bandwidth and degrades the quality of their connections.

That dissatisfaction with Internet service is now being politically mobilized, with nearly 20 percent of UK voters indicating Internet infrastructure policy will be top of mind when they go to the polls, according to a recent survey. That number will likely rise as bandwidth demand inexorably grows at pace rivalling Moore’s Law on microprocessor capacity, doubling about every 18-24 months.

Similarly, I expect American voters will increasingly cast their votes based on candidates’ positions on Internet infrastructure expansion given the U.S. Federal Communications Commission reported in January that Internet infrastructure deployment in the United States was failing to keep pace with today’s advanced, high-quality voice, data, graphics and video offerings. The FCC’s 2015 Broadband Progress Report found 55 million Americans – 17 percent of the population – lack access to Internet connections capable of delivering bandwidth of 25 Mbps for downloads and 3 Mbps for upload.

An indication of Americans’ growing political interest in Internet service is the large volume of comments the FCC received on its recent rulemaking that classified Internet as a common carrier telecommunications service as well as the substantial coverage of the issue in mainstream media.

Media accounts lament lack of "broadband competition" in U.S. but overlook the solution: open access fiber infrastructure

This is how Internet speed and price in the U.S. compares to the rest of the world: So why are Americans paying more for slower service? The answer: There’s limited competition in the broadband market.

In fact, half of American homes have only two options for Internet service providers for basic broadband, according to the Federal Communications Commission. And for faster speeds, a majority of households have only one choice.

Everyone favors competition for Internet services. But what most media stories miss including this one is the only way to get it is through open access fiber to the premise telecommunications infrastructure that offers wholesale access to Internet service providers and other vendors selling services to consumers such as is the case in some of the comparative nations. In the U.S., competition is limited because vertically integrated providers like Comcast, AT&T and Verizon own the infrastructure over which they offer services like data, video and voice.

The story goes on report that "a handful of cities have chosen to create their own municipal broadband services to compete with private broadband providers: Chattanooga, Tennessee, Bristol, Virginia, Lafayette, Louisiana, Cedar Falls, Iowa, and Wilson, North Carolina."

This is inaccurate. These municipalities have not endeavored to compete with the legacy incumbent telephone and cable companies. Rather, they acted to address private market failure on the sell side. Their citizens and businesses want fiber to the premise Internet connections the incumbent providers are unable to offer them.

States can't do it alone -- federal funding needed to modernize U.S. telecom infrastructure

Coalition seeks overhaul of Maine broadband plan - The Portland Press Herald / Maine Sunday Telegram: A coalition of Maine businesses, towns and nonprofit groups on Tuesday threw its support behind a bill to overhaul the state’s broadband policy for the first time in nearly a decade, a component of which suggests financing the expansion of high-speed Internet service through a new tax on cellphones.

The proposal, introduced by state Rep. Sara Gideon, D-Freeport, would require an updated strategic plan to expand broadband access in Maine and stronger efforts to support community broadband planning efforts.

Members of the Maine Broadband Coalition – a collection of more than three dozen towns and cities, businesses and nonprofit organizations – said expanding access to high-speed Internet service is expensive, but necessary for economic development.

“This is not a million-dollar problem. It is far larger,” said Fletcher Kittredge, chief executive officer of Great Works Internet and a member of the coalition.

Kittredge nails it. State telecommunications infrastructure financing programs provide funding in the modest millions for infrastructure that costs billions to deploy. The United States needs to revamp its telecommunications for the Internet age just as it financed electrical distribution facilities and highways in the 20th century.

Given the U.S. Federal Communications Commission has deemed Internet telecommunications a common carrier utility -- one that plays a vital role in supporting interstate commerce  -- the federal government clearly has a stake. It should appropriate comprehensive funding to get the job done and not leave it solely to the states that lack the economic resources to do it themselves. Federal funding for telecom infrastructure modernization would produce a multiplier effect that will return much of it to the U.S. Treasury through increased economic activity.

Google's wireless service leaves bandwidth rationed business model undisturbed

Google's soft launch today of its Project Fi mobile wireless offering won't be a game changer for homes and small businesses unfortunate enough to be located outside the limited footprints of landline Internet service providers (or not in a Google Fiber "fiberhood") and reliant on wireless premise Internet service such as Verizon's 4G Installed service offering.

While Project Fi does allow the creation of wireless hot spots at a customer premise, it retains the metered pricing schemes of existing wireless providers wherein end users must purchase monthly bandwidth allowance levels, referred to as "bandwidth by the bucket."

That makes the service a poor value for premises service. It's easy to blow through the bandwidth allowances and end up with a large bill via software updates and video streaming. Parents in homes with teenage children who stream video such as Netflix have been shocked by jaw dropping bills. Or who do class work online, which has been spotlighted by Federal Communications Commissioner Jessica Rosenworcel as a key issue in America's Internet access disparities.

The Project Fi Plan and Pricing FAQ states:

Do you offer an unlimited data plan?

No, we do not offer an unlimited data plan. We believe you should only pay for the data you use.

 And you'll pay for it, all right.

If Google truly wishes to disrupt the existing wireless business model, it should build out fiber closer to neighborhoods and homes lacking fiber to the premise service and use it to backhaul really robust and not bandwidth rationed wireless service. This would be an interim step in a longer term effort to deploy fiber to the premise connections in these areas.

Title II universal service obligation could complicate, delay Comcast-Time Warner merger

New regulations issued this month by the U.S. Federal Communications Commission reclassifying Internet access service as a common carrier telecommunications service subject to universal service requirements under Title II of the Communications Act could complicate and delay Comcast’s planned acquisition of Time Warner Cable.

Comcast is currently the dominant Internet service provider in many markets and its domination would increase if the merger is consummated. In addition, Comcast typically provides Internet bandwidth at or above the FCC’s definition of 25Mbps. While the FCC is opting to forbear several Title II provisions, the universal service requirement is not one of them. 

Utilities regulators in states where the combined companies have major market presence could well require the combined entity to provide service to all customer premises in their service territories under the Title II universal access mandate as a condition of approval of the merger. Under current market practices, cable and telephone companies deploy infrastructure to deliver Internet services in limited footprints that serve only selected neighborhoods and parts of streets and roads. To gain a green light from the California Public Utilities Commission, Comcast is offering to spend $25 million on building out infrastructure to serve unserved communities. That’s mere table crumbs that won’t go far in a state as large as California as Steve Blum of Tellus Venture Associates notes on his blog.

Imposing universal service as a merger condition would likely significantly alter the financials of the deal and potentially doom it since shareholders of both companies are likely to object to any major capital construction expenditures to expand infrastructure.

The new rules take effect June 12, 2015. Meanwhile, legacy telephone and cable companies and their trade groups have gone to court to attempt to block them from becoming law. Presumably they could argue enforcement of the universal service obligation would subject them to immediate financial harm and the rules therefore must be put on ice until the merits of their legal arguments against them can undergo judicial review. By the same token, regulators could in turn opt to put the Comcast-Time Warner consolidation on hold pending the outcome of the litigation challenging the FCC’s Title II rulemaking.

A crisis in telecommunications infrastructure as Moore's Law turns 50

Silicon Valley marks 50 years of Moore's Law - ContraCostaTimes.com: Thanks to Moore's Law, people carry smartphones in their pocket or purse that are more powerful than the biggest computers made in 1965 -- or 1995, for that matter. Without it, there would be no slender laptops, no computers powerful enough to chart a genome or design modern medicine's lifesaving drugs. Streaming video, social media, search, the cloud -- none of that would be possible on today's scale.

"It fueled the information age," said Craig Hampel, chief scientist at Rambus, a Sunnyvale semiconductor company. "As you drive around Silicon Valley, 99 percent of the companies you see wouldn't be here" without cheap computer memory due to Moore's Law.

As I've blogged in this space before, Moore's Law is directly affecting and redefining Internet telecommunications where bandwidth demand is growing at a pace comparable to microprocessor capacity.

That's creating a crisis because the fiber optic telecommunications infrastructure serving homes, businesses and institutions that's needed to accommodate this growth isn't in place in most areas or plans drawn up for its construction and financing.

Telemedicine: Benefitting Providers & Patients | USTelecom

Telemedicine: Benefitting Providers & Patients | USTelecom

A number of presenters at this week's California Telehealth Network 2015 Summit #TELEHEALTH2015 mentioned deficient telecommunications infrastructure and services as a key impediment to greater adoption of telehealth, particularly in rural areas where it can offer the greatest benefit to patients and providers.

New eBook cites telecommunications infrastructure deficiencies as impediment to location independent knowledge work

My new eBook Last Rush Hour: The Decentralization of Knowledge Work in the Twenty-First Century is out. This book discusses how the proliferation of Information and Communications Technology (ICT) is changing how, when and where knowledge work is done and the implications for individuals, organizations and society.

Telecommunications infrastructure deficiencies are mentioned as a speed bump slowing the momentum of this major socio-economic shift.

California Internet infrastructure subsidy rules erect roadblocks for last mile fiber projects

A notable aspect of California’s eight-year-old program to subsidize the cost of constructing Internet telecommunications infrastructure is the general lack of participation by incumbent telephone and cable companies. In that regard, it has not fulfilled the usual public purpose of subsidy programs designed to help offset the costs of building and operating telecommunications infrastructure in high cost areas such as those used for landline telephone service.

The program, the California Advanced Service Fund (CASF), is administered by the California Public Utilities Commission, which is directed under California Public Utilities Code Section 281(a) to "administer the CASF to encourage deployment of high-quality advanced communications services to all Californians that will promote economic growth, job creation, and the substantial social benefits of advanced information and communications technologies..."

Instead, the CASF has subsidized mostly middle mile fiber and a small number of last mile wireline and wireless projects by non-incumbents. The last mile projects have nearly all been located in remote areas of California not served by the incumbent telephone and cable companies. Proposed projects elsewhere such as the Bright Fiber project in the Sierra Nevada foothills have been subject to lengthy bureaucratic delays under CPUC rules governing CASF eligibility.

The rules parse the state into thousands of discrete “unserved” and “underserved” areas where existing providers don’t sell specified advanced telecommunications services and authorize incumbents to challenge projects that would overbuild them and fall outside of these designated areas. The rules and a federally-funded project by the CPUC to map these areas have served to erect red tape roadblocks that stymie projects proposed by non-incumbents as project proposers, incumbents and consumer advocates argue over the mapped territories and boundaries. These parochial disputes have chewed up enormous amounts of time and resources and delayed construction of much needed telecommunications infrastructure, defeating the public policy intent of Section 281(a).

While California is not among about 20 states that have statutes designed to protect incumbents from overbuilders, the CASF rules have operated to produce a similar result, leaving millions of California residents without robust wireline Internet service options. California innovated much of today’s information and communications technology and is rightly regarded as a leader in the field. However, when it comes to advanced telecommunications infrastructure, the Golden State is a laggard.

Why legacy telcos, cablecos are incorrect in arguing government-built fiber telecom infrastructure is "unfair competition"

The primary public policy argument advanced by the legacy incumbent telephone and cable companies in support of state laws proscribing or prohibiting the public sector from building or subsidizing community owned fiber to the premise (FTTP) Internet telecommunications infrastructure is that doing so represents unfair competition against them.

It’s a fallacious argument because the incumbents and communities aren’t in the same business – a basic prerequisite for market competition.

The incumbents are in the business of packaging and selling discrete bits of Internet bandwidth. They sell it by throughput speed with speed tiered pricing for wired premise service and by volume – the gigabit -- for mobile (and inappropriately for premise) wireless services. The faster the connection and the more bandwidth consumed, the higher the price. Naturally, the incumbents segment their service territories and product offerings to generate the highest possible profit for that bandwidth. After all, they owe it to their shareholders.

State and local governments on the other hand aren’t in the bandwidth business or selling it to generate maximum profit. They are in the infrastructure business – planning, constructing and financing it to support public objectives such as economic development and enhancing the delivery of public services. In the 20th century, they did that by building roads and highways. In the 21st, they do it by building FTTP infrastructure.

Tiered rates for Internet service cannot be justified and demand attention from utility regulators

Homeowners and business operators are familiar with tiered rates in which a premise pays more for using higher amounts of water, electricity or natural gas. These are consumptive utilities that impose greater costs on utilities to provide them in larger quantities, thus justifying higher rates. At the same time, tiered rates encourage conservation of these finite resources by tapping into the economic principle of price elasticity. The principle holds that as price increases, demand declines and vice versa.

Encouraging conservation by making consumers pay more to use more – and hence reducing demand via price elasticity – makes sense in the case of water, for example, in the severe drought being experienced in California and other parts of the western United States. But it doesn’t make sense for America’s latest utility as recently declared by the U.S. Federal Communications Commission: Internet telecommunications service.

Internet service providers inappropriately price the utility as if it were a consumptive, resource-based one like water, electricity or natural gas. For example, this week Frontier Communications announced it is offering fiber-delivered Internet service with speed tiers of 30/30, 50/50, 75/75, 100/100 and 150/150 Mbps in Beaverton, Oregon. The higher the speed, the higher the monthly price.

It makes no sense to slice and dice Internet bandwidth like this on a fiber circuit with huge carrying capacity. Nor can it be rationally argued that providing higher speed tiers to a customer premise imposes higher marginal costs to deliver them and they therefore should be priced above lower speed tiers. This market practice cannot be economically justified. Moreover, it is exploitative of and unfair to consumers and demands attention by telecommunications regulators.

AT&T launches ultrafast Internet service in Cupertino - ContraCostaTimes.com

AT&T launches ultrafast Internet service in Cupertino - ContraCostaTimes.com: It's also unclear just who in Cupertino will be able to receive the GigaPower service. At launch, the service is available at "several thousand" homes in the city, said Terry Stenzel, vice president and general manager of the Northern California and Reno region for AT&T. But Stenzel declined to give an exact number or say what percentage of the 20,000 households in the city or what neighborhoods have access to the service, citing competitive reasons.

"They're unwilling to tell anybody. Not even me," Mayor Sinks said.

Cupertino doesn't have any commitment from AT&T to offer service to all areas of the city or to bring service to government buildings, schools or hospitals, Sinks said.

"They've stopped short of any commitment on that," he said.

Now that the U.S. Federal Communications Commission has adopted rules this month classifying Internet as a universally available common carrier telecommunications service, it's going to be more difficult as time goes on for dominant providers to cherry pick and redline neighborhoods as is being done here.

Open access fiber networks offer way to boost access to Internet services

The United States suffers from costly and disparate Internet access due to a vertically integrated business model based on the old copper telephone network. Under that model, the network infrastructure and the telecommunications services sold over it are provided by a single company such as AT&T or Verizon. It’s the same model used by cable companies, where the network operators that bring the cable to customer premises “own” the customer and bill for separate or bundled services on a monthly subscription basis. Google Fiber also operates under this business model.

That business model is inherently limited because it can expand and upgrade service only to the extent new customers and revenues can be added quickly enough to generate a rapid return on the money invested to build out the infrastructure. That circumstance and the high cost of constructing telecommunications infrastructure naturally make telcos and cable companies very conservative when it comes to expanding their networks.

That risk aversion in turn has brought about widespread market failure. There are potential buyers clamoring for service but the telephone and cable companies decline to provide it. This is essentially where the U.S. has been stuck for the past decade, creating massive frustration for consumers and for state and local governments hoping to improve Internet telecommunications access that has grown increasingly vital for their communities and economies.

Fortunately, there is a way out of the mire with open access fiber networks as Andrew Cohill of Wide Open Networks explains in this article appearing in the March/April issue of Broadband Communities magazine. Highly recommended reading for government officials and consumers.

As health care goes online, Internet infrastructure takes on greater importance

Internet Backup Options Can Be Pricey, Complicated - Data Centers on Top Tech News: Disruptions to Internet service can and do happen for many reasons, ranging from hacker attacks to solar storms. With online access vital for so many services today, such interruptions can be far from merely inconvenient.

Last month's vandalism in Arizona, for example, raised "major implications for telehealth in northern Arizona," according to the Arizona Telecommunications & Information Council. That's a concern for many rural and tribal communities for whom phone and Internet services can be the primary means of accessing health care.

San Antonio’s size proving to be a challenge for Google Fiber - San Antonio Business Journal

San Antonio’s size proving to be a challenge for Google Fiber - San Antonio Business Journal: One of the challenges for Google is developing the infrastructure needed to support a new fiber-optic network, including a system of equipment shelters. That process is complicated because of land mass and topography.

But Google officials insist that the company continues to work with San Antonio officials and expects to have a progress report on the Alamo City’s expansion status before the end of the year.

Reading between the lines, it appears Google Fiber is facing the classic demand muni officials have made of cable providers in franchise negotiations, i.e. that the providers serve all addresses and not just some per Google Fiber's walled garden "fiberhood" infrastructure deployment strategy.

As Google Fiber looks to expand, it will likely increasingly confront this demand and choose to walk away, especially if state public utility commissions back up local governments by enforcing the U.S. Federal Communications Commission's recently adopted rules designating Internet services as common carrier utilities subject to a universal service mandate. That factor along with its limited financial resources to build costly telecommunications infrastructure will significantly limit Google Fiber's U.S. expansion under its current "own the customer" business model.

AT&T hopes to squeeze more milk from the pay TV cow to boost earnings and pay dividends -- not to fund network CAPex

New Services Cloud AT&T’s Bet on Pay TV - WSJ: AT&T Inc. knew it was buying a melting ice cube when it agreed to acquire satellite-TV company DirecTV last year for $49 billion. But recent moves by HBO, Apple Inc. and the National Football League have turned the temperature up a few degrees.

A wave of new TV services delivered over the Internet allow Americans to get prime programming like the hit HBO series “Game of Thrones” and ESPN sports without paying a big cable or satellite bill. That, in theory, means fewer customers for bundles of TV channels like those sold by DirecTV. And unlike cable companies, DirecTV doesn’t have a significant broadband business to fall back on.

AT&T is aware of the risks. Chief Strategy Officer John Stankey says the telecom giant figured when it did the deal that demand for traditional bundles of TV channels probably had peaked. But AT&T is betting the decline will be slower than many people think—a gradual 34-degree melt, as opposed to a 75-degree one— and that it will be able to milk the cash produced by the declining satellite business in the meantime to fund upgrades in its networks. (Emphasis added)

It's an unlikely bet since given AT&T's business structure and strategy. Milking the pay TV cow boosts earnings and pays fat dividends, not CAPex.

FCC Commissioner Pai should resign, get new job as lobbyist or run for Congress

This report courtesy of ExtremeTech:
 

FCC Commissioner Ajit Pai spoke to the House of Representatives on Tuesday, and took the unusual step of requesting that Congress forbid the FCC from using any appropriated funds to enforce its net neutrality ruling.

Pai's entitled to his opinion, of course. But for a sitting Federal Communications Commission member to go before Congress asking it to restrict its funding doesn't pass the smell test of proper protocol respecting the constitutional separation of powers. If Pai wants to appropriate, he should resign his FCC post and run for Congress. Or become a lobbyist. 

UTOPIA holdout cities should adopt broader view of economic benefit of UTOPIA-Macquarie PPP

Orem, Utah and four other cities that have opted out of a public-private partnership between the Utah Telecommunication Open Infrastructure Agency (UTOPIA) and Macquarie Capital Group are now grappling with a fundamental question as to how to finance the future operation of fiber to the premise (FTTP) telecommunications infrastructure to serve their residents. The question: support the partnership’s public works approach to the increasingly essential infrastructure or default to legacy incumbent telephone and cable companies and the poor value and customer service and disparate access they typically offer as monopoly providers.

Six of the 11 cities comprising UTOPIA agreed in concept in 2014 to assess a parcel utility fee to help offset the cost and mitigate the business risk associated the pure subscription-based model used by incumbent providers. They mitigate their business risk by cherry picking neighborhoods believed to have the greatest profit potential for their proprietary network investments while redlining those that don’t.

The utility parcel fee is a key sticking point in negotiations between UTOPIA and the five hold out cities including Orem. A Daily Herald dispatch cites from a memorandum to the Orem mayor and council from Orem City Manager Jamie Davidson:

"There is a concern that Orem is unpredictable and not easy to work with," Davidson said. "It's concerning to me to see new options entering the market [UTOPIA] with a stranded investment for the future."

“However, bottom line, the proposal remains a utility fee-based model,” Davidson said. “If, as a council, you cannot wrap your arms around the assessment of a monthly utility fee to all customers (with potentially a few exceptions, for example, the indigent), nothing else matters.”

Davidson’s right. The parcel fee is essential to making the UTOPIA partnership with Macquarie pencil out by mitigating the business risk of relying solely on customer subscription revenues. UTOPIA operates an open access fiber network, enabling competition among ISPs that want to offer customer premises services delivered over the network. In that regard, the UTOPIA network is like a road or other public works project that benefits and enhances the value of the properties it passes. The UTOPIA cities benefit because these properties can support higher levels of economic activity as well as boosting their market value and, by extension, their ad valorem property tax revenue potential to fund other municipal services.

New Homeowner Has To Sell House Because Of Comcast’s Incompetence, Lack Of Competition – Consumerist

New Homeowner Has To Sell House Because Of Comcast’s Incompetence, Lack Of Competition – Consumerist

A sad tale of a consumer jerked around by incumbents and misled by the U.S. government's "broadband map" -- a major and useless component of the Federal Communications Commission's 2010 "National Broadband Plan."

And the consumer might find it hard to sell his home since not having an Internet connection is increasingly becoming like living off the grid.

Let's hope the FCC's recent policy deeming Internet as a common carrier telecommunications service requiring providers to universally serve all premises can help avoid these kinds of unfortunate circumstances that leave consumers high and dry.

Opinion: Internet infrastructure can't be built in a reasonable time frame with limited, incremental funding

Want to boost rural tourism in Maine? Raise Internet speeds — Opinion — Bangor Daily News — BDN Maine: The catch is that corporate providers, like Time Warner Cable and FairPoint Communications, see no profit in extending fiber optics to remote, sparsely populated areas. So the state must be involved, and several remedies are being explored at the State House. Most of these approaches are “incrementalist”; that is, focused on giving slightly more funding to the ConnectME Authority. One proposal would authorize ConnectME to provide more grants so additional communities can plan for extending fiber-optic networks, creating wireless nodes and boosting connection speeds. Other bills propose small bonds to boost ConnectME’s funding.

Incrementalism, however, has fundamental limitations: Few rural communities are prepared to compete for limited ConnectME funds, and few low-density, low-income communities can afford broadband investment on their own. With incrementalism, it will take years, perhaps decades, to connect all of Maine.

Some progress is better than none, but ultimately rural Maine needs a “big push,” analogous to the New Deal’s Rural Electrification program that transformed life in rural America. The big push strategy’s basic premise is that broadband is critical for rural economic competitiveness and also a public good to which all should have access. Rural electrification relied on community-level planning, but it was also backed by massive public investment.

The author of this op-ed nails it. Internet infrastructure like any infrastructure is costly and can't be put in place in a reasonable time frame with limited, incremental funding. The states can't do it alone. The United States needs a national Internet initiative on the scale that built today's highway and electrical distribution infrastructures.

The medium is the message: Google Fiber is primarily an advertising platform

Lest anyone forget that notwithstanding Google's construction of proprietary closed access fiber to the premise networks in a few metro areas of the United States, Google's core business is and remains advertising. FTTP is simply a better way to put ads on more screens and in front of more eyeballs, albeit an expensive one -- hence the limited deployment of Google Fiber.

And what better way than the leading advertising medium: high (and super high) definition TV. Over the next few weeks, Google Fiber will test targeted TV ads over its Kansas City build. The ads will run during existing ad breaks, along with national ads, on live TV and DVR-recorded programs and will be matched to the viewer based on geography, the type of program being shown or viewing history, according to a March 20 post by Google Fiber. Subscribers will be able to opt out of seeing ads based on viewing history, according to the post.

In addition to generating advertising revenue, the TV ads will also help offset operating costs, particularly the rising costs of TV programming. Google recently increased the monthly price of its TV and Internet bundle to $130 a month, according to a report in the Kansas City Star.

Advertising on large screen devices is critical to Google's business according to this analysis which notes online stores that advertise via Google are not optimized for small smartphone displays.

US federal government will have to provide substantial funding for Internet infrastructure construction

Obama: This federal council will jumpstart broadband - CNET: Obama first introduced this idea in January, when he traveled to Cedar Falls, Iowa to announce his plan to promote "Broadband that Works," a public-private effort to help more Americans get access to speedier broadband.

As part of this new push, he urged the FCC to strike down state laws to ensure communities could build or expand their own 1 gigabit-per-second networks, which offer downloads 100 times faster than conventional connections.

The new council will include 25 federal agencies and departments that will work with private industry to understand how the federal government can help communities increase broadband investment and reduce barriers to deployment. The council will be co-chaired by the U.S. Commerce and Agriculture departments. The council will report back to Obama, within 150 days, with the steps each agency will take to advance these goals, including specific regulatory actions or budget proposals.

The biggest barrier to Internet infrastructure investment is private market failure on the sell side. That's been patently obvious for more than a decade; it doesn't take more than two dozen federal agencies and departments to ascertain that. The existing dominant U.S. commercial model for providing telecommunications services is based on selling "subscriptions" to and "owning" the customer, consistent with the natural monopoly market that favors large vertically integrated legacy telephone and cable TV providers.

Its primary weakness is it is wholly dependent on ARPU and ROI which don't easily pencil out in much of the nation and aren't likely to given that labor costs that make up about 70 percent of network deployment and maintenance expense are not declining and don't benefit from economies of scale. This produces an all or nothing scenario and lots of winners and losers -- with millions of premises stuck in the latter category for nearly two decades.

If the United States is to have modern telecommunications infrastructure in the 21st century that serves all Americans wherever they live or operate their businesses, the federal government must commit big as it did for electrification, water, telephone and highways in the 20th century. The states don't have the funding to do the job on their own such as Maine, for example, where the state has appropriated only $1 million to fund Internet infrastructure projects that won't go very far when billions are needed. In New York, $500 million in matching public funds isn't attracting much interest as legacy incumbent providers stand warily on the sidelines.

What will be truly interesting is what regulatory actions and budget proposals will be recommended by the newly created federal council. On the regulatory front, the Federal Communications Commission has already acted by deeming the Internet as a common carrier telecommunications service. That leaves it up to fiscal strategies, which should include substantial technical assistance and infrastructure funding for the states along the lines of existing block grant and federal highway programs. Or in recognition that the nation is a generation behind on construction progress, the federal government could built it directly on a crash program basis with early completion bonuses for contractors. Then operate the network on an open access basis, contracting for operations and maintenance and leasing out access to providers under long term contracts.

Obama administration continues to ignore US need for ubiquitous FTTP

The Obama administration continues to ignore the need for ubiquitous fiber to the premise infrastructure serving all American homes and small businesses.

The administration instead is pursuing a PR campaign to shift attention to mobile wireless service that can't accommodate growing premise bandwidth demand as well as pointless activities such as "broadband mapping" and measuring "broadband speeds" that will do nothing to construct the FTTP infrastructure the nation should have been putting in place a generation ago.

Major fail: West Virginia Internet infrastructure policy

The Charleston Gazette | W.Va. broadband panel to get new duties, but no funds: Roper’s group supported the broadband expansion bill, arguing the project would help improve education and healthcare, and spur entrepreneurship in West Virginia.

“If we solely depend on private industry, we’ll just stay at the status quo,” Roper said. “If students can’t access textbooks online at home, and if doctors can’t access electronic health records, we’re in trouble. [Broadband] is like good roads and water lines. It’s everything.”

This sums up the situation well, but the state's plan is to essentially pass the buck (and the hat) while continuing the useless exercise of mapping and comparing "broadband speeds" -- the do nothing approach favored by all too many state and local governments that won't build needed infrastructure:

The new legislation, which Tomblin is expected to sign into law, creates a “broadband enhancement fund,” but state lawmakers didn’t set aside any money for the fund. The bill, however, seems to  allow outside groups to donate to the fund. The panel also will receive any  money remaining from the former Broadband Deployment Council’s account, but the  council announced last year that it planned to spend all leftover funds on  final reports and audits. At the outset, the new broadband  council is expected to gather data about residential and business customers’  Internet speeds – and compare speeds to those advertised by broadband  providers. The new council also will be asked to examine existing  broadband networks.

Accelerating implosion of pay TV will hasten AT&T exit from residential wireline

The accelerating implosion of subscription pay TV offerings will hasten AT&T’s exit from the residential wireline market segment and could also result in the telco’s withdrawal of its planned acquisition of satellite provider DirecTV announced in 2014.

AT&T offers video packages with its U-Verse-branded triple play Internet-video-voice product. With the DirecTV deal pending regulatory approval, AT&T hopes to expand its audience of potential viewers and consequently, boost its purchasing power with TV programming providers as negotiations with the programming providers have hardened in recent years.

Viewers have historically regarded the TV programming packages as a poor value for the money since they typically watch only a handful of a few hundred channels. Now they can stream only the video programming they desire via their Internet connections, disrupting the triple play revenue model.

In addition, AT&T’s U-Verse product is delivered to residences over its aging legacy last mile copper cable plant that offers far less bandwidth headroom -- much of it consumed by video -- than hybrid fiber-coax (HFC) cable plants. To keep technologically abreast of cable, AT&T would have to replace its copper plant with fiber. But it is unable to easily do so, constrained by shareholder expectations for earnings and high dividends that militate against substantial capital expenditures.

That leaves AT&T with only one viable option – to continue to sell off chucks of its residential market as it did in December 2014, spinning off its Connecticut residential landline unit, including Internet and TV services to Frontier Communications for $2 billion.