California: Use bonds for public utilty, consumer coop-owned fiber to the premise telecom infrastructure as stimulus

Don’t expect an economic stimulus package using state tax money.States can’t print dollars like the feds can. President Trump and Congress will do all the stimulating. But (California Senate President pro tempore Toni) Atkins and (Assembly Speaker Anthony) Rendon want to tap into infrastructure bonds that have already been authorized by voters and quickly push the borrowed money out into job-creating projects. There’s $42 billion in unsold bond authorization.

Source: Newsom wields California executive power amid coronavirus - Los Angeles Times

That bonding capacity should be tapped to fund public utility and consumer coop-owned fiber to the premise telecom infrastructure as an economic stimulus initiative. Not only would doing so directly create jobs; it would also provide a boost to California's knowledge and information economy. Particularly as its constituents rely on advanced telecommunications services to work at home and especially those in Northern California counties lacking good infrastructure. They need robust and reliable connectivity only fiber can offer.

FCC head Ajit Pai grossly mischaracterizes telecom infrastructure as competitive market

Pai Explains Commission's Coronavirus Philosophy - Radio World: But I also think that the market creates powerful incentives for companies to do the right thing. If your company doesn’t step up for you, or even worse, engages in bad behavior, consumers will be much more likely to turn to the competition in the weeks, months, and years ahead.

Pai's right. But only when it comes to competitive markets. Telecommunications infrastructure isn't one due to high cost barriers that keep out potential competitors and first mover (incumbent) advantage that make it a natural monopoly or duopoly. It's simply not economic to have multiple lines running to a home to deliver Internet protocol-based telecommunications services.

I’d also argue that the general regulatory approach that we have in the United States have applied to the broadband marketplace gave us much stronger infrastructure in the first place, as it gave companies the incentives to invest in resilient, robust networks that could withstand unprecedented consumer demands. (Emphasis added)

This requires some explaining on Pai's part. With competitive market forces absent and no regulatory requirement to meet market demand by requiring they provide fiber connections to homes asking for them, legacy telephone companies lack incentive to invest in replacing their decades old copper lines with fiber. Only fiber to the premise #FTTP can assuredly support "resilient, robust networks that could withstand unprecedented consumer demands."

U.S. policymakers should expedite public option #FTTP infrastructure planning, construction

Rebuilding and modernizing America’s infrastructure has taken on greater urgency in the current sharp economic downturn. Those efforts should expedite the planning and construction of advanced telecommunications infrastructure whose role has taken on greater importance as people work, study and receive medical care at home to prevent contagion of the SARS-CoV-2 virus.

As people are thrown out of work by public health efforts to contain the pandemic, construction of this infrastructure should create an accessible and affordable “public option” for originating and receiving high-quality voice, data, graphics, and video. Doing so will create jobs while supporting post pandemic economic recovery.

Legislation should be enacted quickly that would create a make available to state, regional and local governments and consumer electric and telecom cooperatives:

• Technical assistance grants for fiber optic to the premise (FTTP) infrastructure design and business planning;
• Guaranteed low interest loans backed by federal government for FTTP projects with engineering designs and business plans meeting specified quality and level of service standards.

Don't limit federal loans to publicly and coop owned fiber to rural areas

Opinion | Post-Pandemic, Here’s How America Rises Again - The New York Times: “Building fiber infrastructure all across heartland America ensures that high-paying jobs can take place anywhere,” explained Matt Dunne, executive director of the Center on Rural Innovation, and it makes the whole country “more resilient to future pandemics and climate change-related weather events that require children and workers to stay home.” High-speed internet basically enables anyone anywhere to get training for a better job, often at low to no cost, from online universities or YouTube instructional videos. And if you connect them, they will invent.

 *  *  *

What Dunne proposes is that the federal government create a new loan program, reminiscent of the Rural Electrification Act, which would offer 50-year, no-interest loans to communities and co-ops creating rural fiber broadband networks and an easing of regulations to enable public-private coalitions to build rural broadband and attach high-speed fiber to existing telephone poles.

Why limit this program to rural areas when only about a third of the nation has fiber advanced telecom infrastructure connections? The lines between urban and rural America in the early 21st century aren't as sharply drawn as they were in the early 20th century. Then, the division between those served by electric power infrastructure -- urban areas -- and unserved rural counties was distinct. The comparison to the Rural Electrification Act doesn't cleanly apply in 2020. Exurbs at the edges of large metro areas typically lack residential fiber service. Often, they lack any landline advanced telecom infrastructure whatsoever -- redlined by legacy telephone and cable companies or at best served by DSL over aging copper phone lines.

Pandemic an inflection point for U.S. telecom policy

We Need Our Internet Access Networks to Be Something They Are Not: As the Covid-19 medical crisis is contained and Congress does what it can to recharge the economy, an important economic recovery question will be whether our political leaders will push huge stimulus dollars to Big Cable and Big Telecom companies under the premise that we need better networks and they are the logical choice for solving that problem. Giving big checks to the seven companies that control most of our internet infrastructure will mean we are doubling down on a system that should be overhauled. The Boards at the large incumbent ISP’s have their fingers crossed that Covid-19 doesn’t lead to a re-thinking of the current arrangement. To make sure the $500 Billion annual ISP annuity continues, an army of lobbyists is likely tasked with making sure the pandemic is not an inflection point for internet access and infrastructure.

If Congress wants to stimulate the deployment of very reliable, low-cost networks that are designed to favor consumers, it should provide low-interest loans that allow municipalities, electric co-ops, and entrepreneurs to create non-profit, open access, fiber optic networks where the subscribers to the network own the infrastructure. If Congress made inexpensive capital available to build this infrastructure, the entire country would get reliable and robust networks over the next ten years and the next time we’re all forced to live life at a distance, we won’t have to worry if our networks will have the capacity and flexibility to meet the demands we place on them.

The incumbents have a real credibility issue now having built up a track record over the past two decades of taking billions of dollars in federal subsidies yet leaving lots of Americans with substandard advanced telecom infrastructure.

Policymakers have been punked by the incumbents into believing the issue is one of addressing a "broadband" bandwidth gap inherent in their scarcity, unit pricing based business models. When in fact as the author of the Medium post points out, the real issue is insufficient fiber to the premise #FTTP infrastructure. American consumer culture makes it easy for the incumbents to frame bandwidth as a "good, better, best" consumer commodity and price tiered accordingly. As long as policymakers see this as a consumer commodity, they'll continue to fly blind, chasing "broadband speeds" and have a difficult time properly seeing #FTTP as essential infrastructure.

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.