AT&T seeks state sanction to exit residential premise service, transition customers to mobile wireless

Fellow blogger Steve Blum of Tellus Venture Associates calls bullshit on AT&T for sponsoring California legislation that would relieve it from its premise landline universal service obligations under Title II of the federal Communications Act. Blum has the same problem with the bill as I do. It's dressed up as enabling AT&T to transition from copper POTS service to Internet protocol-based service. As Blum points out, AT&T can do that without the need for enabling legislation. It has chosen not to make an orderly transition over the past two decades. That's a business issue, not one of regulatory policy.

The bill is essentially seeking state sanction to transition AT&T residential landline customers to its mobile wireless service. The thing is, that's not premise service under Title II's universal service obligation. However, with the U.S. Federal Communications Commission not enforcing its 2015 Open Internet rulemaking bringing IP-based services under Title II's universal service requirement, AT&T faces no regulatory consequence for "mobilizing the world" of its residential customers with service not engineered or priced for residential premise service.

AT&T miscasts telecom infrastructure as competitive market requiring level playing field

AT&T GigaPower Ready to RSVP | Light Reading: AT&T has been known for taking action, politically and in the courts, to fight municipalities that want to build and operate their own networks, but Harrison insisted her company does not oppose government-owned networks. "We only want to have a level playing field for all competitors, so everyone works by the same rules and regulations," she said. That means a municipality can't favor its own network when it comes to using public rights of way or issuing permits in a more timely fashion.

Translated, that means we (AT&T) want to control the rules on our terms, not the public's. That's an overreach on AT&T's part. The government and the private sector are not equal partners and cannot be because unlike a private company, the government is obligated to act in the public interest. If the government wants to provide telecommunications as a common carrier utility consistent with the U.S. Federal Communications Commission's Open Internet rules (and accordingly serve all properties unlike AT&T's rampant redlining and cherry picking), it can do so regardless of what AT&T or any other legacy incumbent desires.

Finally, AT&T as a monopoly market player knows better than to cast telecommunications infrastructure as a competitive market of many sellers where a level playing field is necessary to ensure fair competition. It is not.

Service Unavailable: The Failure of Competition - Community Broadband Bits Podcast 196 | community broadband networks

Service Unavailable: The Failure of Competition - Community Broadband Bits Podcast 196 | community broadband networks: If you are paying close attention to discussions about broadband policy, you may have come across Fred Pilot's reminders that competition is not a cure-all for our Internet access woes across the United States. The blogger and author joins us for episode 196 of Community Broadband Bits.

Fred Pilot's new book, Service Unavailable: America's Telecommunications Infrastructure Crisis, discusses some of the history behind our current challenges and proposes a solution centered around federal funding and cooperatives.

We discuss the switch from telecommunications as a regulated utility, to which everyone was guaranteed access, to a system relying on competition, in which some people have many choices but others have no options. We also discuss the merits of a national solution vs encouraging more local approaches with federal financial assistance.

Christopher Mitchell interviews me for his Community Broadband Networks podcast. Give it a listen.

Barring ambitious federal program, state & local government P3s with legacy providers not a solution for U.S. telecom infrastructure deficits

CenturyLink, Frontier and TDS mull public, private fiber network partnerships - FierceTelecom: CenturyLink (NYSE: CTL), Frontier Communications and TDS are amongst a growing group of service providers that are considering partnering with local communities to build out and upgrade their networks to support higher speed residential and business services. Jennifer M. Fritzsche, senior analyst for Telecommunication Services - Wireless/Wireline at Wells Fargo, said that while CenturyLink, Frontier and TDS are looking at working with local communities, the one remaining barrier is who will oversee and operate these networks.

Actually, the bigger -- and biggest barrier -- is funding. These legacy players lack business models to generate adequate funding to build out fiber to the premise infrastructure serving all premises within their service territories within a reasonable time frame. But so do state and local governments. Especially as they continue to cope with the aftermath of the Great Recession and many competing needs for public funding such as deteriorated roads and highways and other infrastructure and enormous public pension obligations.

Some local governments and particularly those with pre-existing telecom or electric power infrastructure such as those mentioned in this article are the sole viable candidates for these P3 arrangements. That could change if the federal government launched an ambitious program appropriating the many billions needed to ensure every American home, business and institution has a fiber connection.

Affordability only part of the solution to #homeworkgap; lifeline goes hand in hand with universal service

Boost the homework connection - Times Union: But more can be done. For starters, on Thursday, the FCC is expected to vote on a proposal to modernize a program called Lifeline. Lifeline began more than three decades ago, when President Ronald Reagan was in the White House and rotary phones were still in style. Then and now, this program provides a discount for basic phone service. But broadband is the essential technology of our time. So it's time for the FCC to take steps to make this program broadband-capable and use it to help close the homework gap.

It should be recalled that when lifeline was implemented in 1985, the United States had achieved universal or near universal access for telephone service. Unlike today when according to the FCC's figures released earlier this year, 34 million Americans are unable to obtain telecommunications service capable of delivering high-quality voice, data, graphics and video.

Universal service is an essential component and not separate and distinct from lifeline subsidies for low income households. Another difference from 1985 is telephone service rates were tightly regulated in order to keep them affordable, unlike Internet service today. Notwithstanding the fact the FCC classified Internet service as a common carrier telecommunications utility in 2015 with its Open Internet rulemaking. Prices will naturally tend to be unaffordable for low income households in a price unregulated natural monopoly market.

Why the privatized, vertically integrated business model of telecom produces market failure and disparate access

Australian telecom strategist Malcolm Moore posted in a LinkedIn discussion forum one of the best and most succinct explanations I've read of why market failure and disparate access results from regarding telecommunications infrastructure as privately held, vertically integrated and highly localized service. According to Moore, this is a "diametrically incorrect business model for infrastructure (that) focuses on every wrong economic aspect." Moore adds its widespread adoption explains why fiber to the premise technology "was developed about 20 years ago but never rolled out."

Moore elaborates on the economics and makes a case for policymakers to regard telecommunications as essential public infrastructure and to stop thinking of it as a private "broadband" service offering:

The primary focus of (privately held telecom infrastructure) is very short term maximised ROI (minimised service delivery, maximised end user cost) - perfect for retail reselling / product bundling.

For Infrastructure Business: e.g. Telecomms / FTTP / Mobiles, Electricity Power Stations / Distribution, Transport / Roads / Rail / Ports, etc., the primary focus is long-term, minimum cost, maximised service delivery.

Why states fall short, kick the can on telecom infrastructure modernization

Minnesota to Expand Its Broadband Grant Program: Broadband Internet access has been one of the main policy discussions in Minnesota for the past few years. Governor Dayton’s Broadband Task Force has recommended the state use public dollars to jumpstart broadband infrastructure investment. For FY2016-2017, Governor Dayton and Lt. Governor Smith propose a $100 million in their supplemental budget for this issue, while the Minnesota House’s bill proposes $35 million.

Back in 2010, Minnesota set its broadband development goal: that every resident and business have access to high-speed broadband with minimum download speeds of ten to 20 megabits per second and minimum upload speeds of five to ten megabits per second by 2015 at the latest. As we recently reported, the state failed to achieve its goal, but recently updated its goal to match the FCC’s latest definition of broadband Internet with minimum download speed of 25 megabits per second and minimum upload speed of three megabits per second.

This item points up the futility of state "broadband" initiatives. Instead of setting an infrastructure-based goal of universal service, they use throughput speeds as a benchmark. In doing so, they fall into the speed trap set by the incumbents who've framed the issue of modern telecommunications service as being all about "broadband speeds." That promotes a "how many angels can dance on the head of a pin" and "what's fast enough?" debate that by cynical design shifts the focus away from infrastructure. Then when the "broadband speed" goal isn't met, states kick the can and set a new "broadband speed" goal.

Why do states end up kicking the can? Because they are endeavoring to build the 21st century's information highways that cost billions with mere millions -- and without the federal funding that was available for the blacktops and interstates of the 20th century. “This is not a million-dollar problem," Fletcher Kittredge, CEO of Maine's Great Works Internet astutely observed in 2015. "It is far larger.”