Response to #USTelecom re pandemic and advanced telecom infra

Broadband & COVID-19: #TogetherApart: Twenty million Americans do not have an on-ramp to high-speed internet. The capacity exists for the government and broadband companies to relegate this fact to the history books in relatively short order. A surge now in federal funds to connect the final frontier — primarily unserved areas that are cost-prohibitive for businesses to serve on their own — can get us to the long-distant mountaintop of universal connectivity. Now is the time for our nation’s policymakers to think and act boldly and decisively about achieving — permanently — truly universal service for all Americans.

But that surge in federal funds should NOT go directly into the coffers of investor owned telephone and cable companies but instead create a “public option” of fiber to the premise #FTTP infrastructure. These companies should be limited to designing, building, maintaining and offering services over it -- but not ownership. The past 25 years have shown universal connectivity – a public interest – conflicts with the private interest of investors to limit capital expenditures on infrastructure. That’s what created the service gap to which the writer refers. Members of USTelecom also oppose regulating Internet connectivity as a common carrier utility under Title II of the Communications Act because doing so would mandate universal service and prohibit neighborhood redlining.

In the meantime, additional funds should be made available immediately to quickly create a nationwide broadband map that can identify with pinpoint accuracy every last unserved home and business in America. This will allow for the expedited and highly targeted deployment of resources to connect them.

Utter rubbish. USTelecom members know exactly where unserved homes and businesses are. They deliberately redlined neighborhoods they deemed unable to provide the rapid return on their infrastructure investments their investors demand. Calling for better mapping is a disingenuous delaying tactic intended to protect their service territory monpolies. It's time to place this propaganda in the trash heap where it belongs.

California proposes 3-day backup power for cell towers, communication networks - SFChronicle.com

California proposes 3-day backup power for cell towers, communication networks - SFChronicle.com: “It’s important to remember that one size does not fit all when it comes to network management during an emergency,” AT&T spokesman Jim Kimberly said in an email. “Adding 72 hours of backup power could mean adding large fuel tanks or multiple refrigerator-sized cabinets in the middle of communities, which in many areas is simply not feasible. A combination of fixed and mobile solutions is what is needed.”

Kimberly is right re fixed solutions. Residential fiber connected to premises backed up with premise generators and batteries would provide one such solution. That would require AT&T to rapidly change out its aged legacy copper outside plant to fiber -- something it should have done decades ago -- and consider placing in underground conduit in high wildfire risk areas to increase suvivabilty. Also, to offer both business and residential fiber service. In some of its Northern California service territory, AT&T has deployed fiber to business customers but does not offer fiber service to nearby residences.

Why "broadband competition" is a misnomer

Tell The Story We Know: Broadband Competition is Too Limited | Benton Institute for Broadband & Society: This is a familiar story, known to the members of CLIC but not given sufficient attention generally. The Benton Institute’s “Broadband for America’s Future: A Vision for the 2020s” calls for an ambitious goal. That every person in America have the ability to use High-Performance Broadband by the end of this decade. To achieve that goal requires success in each of four building blocks: more deployment, greater competition, emphasis on affordability and adoption, and empowerment of community institutions. The competition story needs to be told: We can expect people with only one choice to pay monopoly prices, and people with only two choices to pay the higher prices typically charged by duopolies. People with three or more choices typically pay less. Clearly, people who can barely afford to pay a competitive price, say, low-income Americans, are particularly vulnerable to artificially high prices.

Problem with reliance on competition is telecom infrastructure naturally tends toward monopoly. It favors first mover incumbents and high cost barriers make it impractical for a competitive market to exist. All providers face high labor costs for deploying infrastructure, giving none a cost advantage such that it could drive another out of business with ultra low pricing or serve a larger customer base.

That naturally high concentration and few providers also means buy side market forces cannot hold down prices over the long run. Providers know end users have little or no real choice to vote with their wallets and go with another. Particularly in the U.S. where large investor owned corporations own both the infrastructure and the services provided over it, making the equivalent of an electronic toll gate. Pay the toll or you don't pass.

It also makes little sense to have multiple premise fiber connections from different vendors. We don't have that for electric power connections for the same reason: it's economically inefficient and impractical. One fiber connection will do just fine now and for the foreseeable. Preferably publicly or consumer cooperatively owned open access fiber.