Local government Internet infrastructure efforts spurred by FCC's non-enforcement of Title II, encourgement of "competition"

EPB Lays Out Plans To Provide All Of Bradley County With High-Speed Internet, TV Service; Cost Is Up To $60 Million - Chattanoogan.com: State Rep. Dan Howell, the former executive assistant to the county mayor of Bradley County, was in attendance and called broadband a “necessity” as he offered his full support to helping EPB, as did Tennessee State Senator Todd Gardenhire. “We can finally get something done,” Senator Gardenhire said. “The major carriers, Charter, Comcast and AT&T, have an exclusive right to the area and they haven’t done anything about it.”

The "exclusive right" mentioned here isn't generally a government-granted or regulated license or franchise to offer Internet service. It's actually a de facto duopoly market of legacy telephone and cable companies. Title II of the federal Communications Act recognizes that telecommunications infrastructure due to its high cost of construction and operation tends to function as a natural monopoly. In accordance with this, the Federal Communications Commission classified Internet as a telecommunications utility under Title II by adopting its Open Internet rules in 2015. But the FCC is currently not enforcing the universal service and anti-redlining provisions of Title II.

It's therefore unsurprising that barring such enforcement, local governments will attempt to fill in the gaps in unserved or poorly served areas in response to their citizens' complaints. When those living and operating businesses in landline unserved areas attempt to order Internet service, without FCC enforcement of Title II the incumbent telephone and cable companies can summarily turn them down without consequence. That leaves them little recourse other than to demand their local elected officials do something to help. The FCC's non-enforcement of these Title II provisions correlates with its current policy position advocating local government "competition" with incumbent telcos and cablecos -- in conflict with its Open Internet rules predicated on a monopolistic and non-competitive market.

Another year, another U.S. "broadband" conference & same conclusion: Great need for fiber infrastructure -- but no funding

Mayor Murray: Municipal broadband too costly; public-private deal is way to go | The Seattle Times: The best way to expand Internet access in Seattle is through public-private partnerships, (Seattle) Mayor Ed Murray said at a regional broadband conference Monday. The mayor reiterated the position he formed after a city-commissioned study released last summer showed it would cost between $480 million and $665 million to build out a municipal-broadband network across the city. That price tag is less than previously estimated, but the mayor said it was still too much to be feasible.
“When I came into office, I was very excited about the possibility of municipal broadband until the study came back and indicated it would be literally the largest tax increase in Seattle,” Murray said Monday at the conference, co-hosted by the nonprofit Next Century Cities and the National Telecommunications and Information Administration, an agency of the U.S. Department of Commerce.

And so it goes across the United States as it has at these "broadband" confabs for the past decade like a never ending season of Seinfeld reruns. Municipalities can't ante up their own dollars to build telecommunications infrastructure, particularly with so many other needs such as transportation infrastructure, public buildings and skyrocketing employee pension obligations all competing for big bucks. Don't look to the states either. They're dealing with similar financial challenges on a larger scale in the slow economic recovery in the years since the 2008 recession. Billions of dollars are needed to fund America's long overdue replacement of its legacy metallic telecom infrastructure with fiber -- now a generation late. Only the federal government can step up with that level of funding. But don't expect much from the current federal government as the Seattle Times story reports:

The federal government did finance about 230 broadband projects nationwide through the 2009 American Recovery and Reinvestment Act. Those funds are now spent, but municipalities can apply for smaller grants through other federal agencies, said Lawrence E. Strickling,assistant secretary of commerce for communications and information.
Strickling said Monday the federal government helps municipalities by providing guides to funding and other technical expertise.

Vermont lawmaker: "No adequate ongoing resource" to fund telecom infrastructure

Deerfield Valley News - VTel House at odds over Internet access info: Guite also said that some Vermonters may have been misled into believing covering every person in the state was possible. “That could require a billion dollars,” he said. He also said that he has been making this comment publicly for at least five years. “I made that statement at a meeting that Bernie Sanders organized in 2010.” H. 870 also calls for an increase of 0.5% in the universal service charge. Sibilia said that this was to help create a vitally needed program. “There is no adequate ongoing resource for expanding Internet or cell,” she said. Her hope, she said was this increase would help create that resource. She also said it would be an inadequate amount.

Bernie Sanders should paraphrase the late Illinois Senator Everett Dirksen: "A billion here, a billion there, and pretty soon you're talking about real access."

San Francisco eyes municipal telecom infrastructure project to bring fiber to every doorstep

San Francisco Municipal Broadband Targets $26 Monthly Base Price - Telecompetitor: City officials have recommended construction of a San Francisco municipal broadband network based on a public-private partnership. The recommendations came in a 103-page report issued by the office of Supervisor Mark Farrell on March 15.
According to the San Francisco Municipal Fiber Advisory Panel’s report – Financial Analysis of Options for a Municipal Fiber Optic Network for Citywide Internet Access – a publicly funded broadband utility network would cost the city an estimated $867.3 million in construction costs plus $231.7 million a year in maintenance costs. Projected subscriber revenue would result in an annual deficit of $145 million. Given this, as well as the desire to build in some market competition, the authors recommended the city launch a public-private partnership model that calls for all San Francisco homes and businesses to pay an average $26 per month utility fee for baseline Internet access. Introducing tiered pricing models based on type of service or bandwidth use could offset operating costs and lower baseline fees.

The Utah Telecommunication Open Infrastructure Agency (UTOPIA) had planned to expand its services using a similar financing mechanism with a private finance partner, Macquarie Capital Group. It pulled the plug on the partnership last month amid resistance to the utility fee. However, the model could fare better in the city by the bay due to multiple factors including its relative affluence, more liberal political leanings and its well established place in the information technology industry. Unlike UTOPIA, a regional network involving several municipalities, San Francisco is also a much more compact service area of just 14 square miles with pre-existing municipal infrastructure that would facilitate construction. That likely made it easier for San Francisco to reject the model used by legacy telephone and cable companies and Google Fiber that builds infrastructure serving some but not all neighborhoods.

Why the “more competition” argument for better Internet service is misguided

Hardly a day goes by without calls for “more competition” as the elixir to make modern Internet-based telecommunications services more widely available and offering better value than those offered by the legacy incumbent telephone and cable companies. U.S. Federal Communications Commission Chairman Tom Wheeler has curiously joined the chorus calling for more competition -- even though his agency and its 2015 Open Internet rules are predicated on regulating Internet service as a natural monopoly common carrier utility.

The problem is telecom infrastructure by nature isn’t a competitive market defined as having many sellers and buyers. There are many buyers but there cannot be many sellers because it’s too costly and economically inefficient to have multiple providers building and owning infrastructure connecting homes and businesses. More competition isn’t a solution here. 

In the states, the legacy incumbents reinforce the notion of competition by blocking projects that would threaten their service territory monopolies. From their perspective, these projects represent competition because they would potentially steal away customers. Therefore, proponents reason, competition must be a good thing if the incumbents oppose it. This however illustrates the faulty reasoning of the “more competition” argument. 

The problem is the pro-competition proponents are buying into the incumbents’ concept of competition -- and not a consumer perspective. For the incumbents, any project that would build infrastructure in their service territories is competition. However, for consumers, having a choice among many sellers is competition. That’s not possible with telecommunications infrastructure. But it is possible if the infrastructure is publicly owned like roads and highways. That would open up Internet service to competition since multiple Internet service providers could offer their services over that infrastructure.

Time to punch the reset button on U.S. telecom infrastructure

AT&T, Comcast Kill Local Gigabit Expansion Plans in Tennessee | DSLReports, ISP Information: For some time now municipal broadband operator EPB Broadband (see our user reviews) has been saying that a state law written by AT&T and Comcast lobbyists have prevented the organization from expanding its gigabit broadband offerings (and ten gigabit broadband offerings) throughout Tennessee. These state laws currently exist in more than twenty states, and prohibit towns from deploying their own broadband -- or often even striking public/private partnerships -- even in cases of obvious market failure. A proposal that would have recently lifted this statewide restriction in Tennessee was recently shot down thanks to AT&T and Comcast lobbying. Even a new compromise proposal (which would have simply let EPB expand slightly in the same county where it is headquartered as well as one adjoining county) was shot down, after 27 broadband industry lobbyists -- most of whom belonging to AT&T and Comcast -- fought in unison to kill the proposal.

It's understandable the legacy telephone and cable companies want to keep out interlopers who might threaten their de facto monopolies for Internet service. The incumbent protectionism on display in Tennessee plays out in multiple states in the form of laws barring public sector involvement in telecom infrastructure projects or as this month in California and Kentucky, efforts to block fiber to the premise (FTTP) projects from gaining access to utility poles. This obstructionism isn't going to go away and requires a major reset in order for it to come to an end.

As I wrote in my recently issued eBook Service Unavailable: America's Telecommunications Infrastructure Crisis, the nation is already two decades behind where it should be relative to replacing its legacy metal wire telecom infrastructure with FTTP. The book proposes the federal government construct universal FTTP as public works. As roads and highway were to the 20th century, it's vital infrastructure for the 20th that's too important to be left in control of the legacy incumbents. It's time to punch the reset button so the United States can move forward to the future.