U.S. telecom infrastructure modernization an interstate and not urban issue

Great presentation by Susan Crawford on America's telecommunications infrastructure shortfalls and challenges. However, I am disappointed by what I view as Crawford's (and others' such as Next Century Cities) near exclusive focus on cities. Particularly given Crawford's observation that 20 percent of American homes are off the Internet and unable to purchase access at any price -- a situation that has existed for at least a decade. These homes are not in cities but in the exurbs, quasi-rural and rural areas where legacy telephone and cable companies have not modernized their infrastructures to reach them. They need fiber connections just as much if not more so than urban dwellings, especially so given the ability of fiber to bridge the greater distances between them and economic and educational opportunities and health care.

In the last analysis, the United States is a nation of states, not of cities. Telecommunications infrastructure is fundamentally interstate, connecting cities and states to each other and the nation to the world. It would be a mistake to view it too narrowly as an urban matter.

Vermont's failure to ensure universal premise Internet service demonstrates need for national telecom infrastructure initiative

Some Vermonters Are Still Stranded In A Broadband 'Wilderness' | Vermont Public Radio: The importance of good broadband for work and education has been stated many times. Yet, as many clamor for faster speeds, there are hundreds of Vermonters still without anything the state considers broadband service.

* * *

Most have satellite broadband but aren’t satisfied with it. They say at
the prices they’re willing or able to pay, slower speeds and limits on
downloads keep them from doing much more than checking email.

* * *

But nearly two years after Gov. Shumlin’s self-imposed deadline for providing broadband to every address in Vermont, there are still those who are stuck in the wilderness.

This situation isn't likely to change in Vermont and other states anytime soon unless as I discuss in my recent book Service Unavailable: America's Telecommunications Infrastructure Crisis, the federal government steps in with an aggressive and well funded national telecommunications infrastructure initiative. Given how far the nation has fallen behind in the generation since the Internet came into popular use, a crash program is needed to catch up.

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.

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.

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.

Center for Public Integrity delves deep into U.S. Internet infrastructure challenges

A great read on investigative journalism by the Center for Public Integrity that delves deeply into the market and policy challenges of building a complete and modern Internet infrastructure in the United States in 2015. Here’s a summary of the fundamental elements covered in the article.

Incumbent telephone and cable companies can’t afford to upgrade and build out their Internet infrastructures to fully serve their service territories. So they lobby and give campaign contributions to policymakers to allow them to preserve their incomplete networks that leave many disconnected from the Internet. Reporter Allan Holmes describes a typical scenario in much of the nation where those networks don’t extend to reach many suburban and exurban homes:

But then you go outside of Tullahoma (South Carolina), you just drive like 3, 4, 5 miles outside of Tullahoma into this suburban area where there are some very nice homes, and they don’t have Internet access. They don’t even have AT&T, U-verse or Charter Communications which is another telecom there who provides service in Tullahoma. They don’t serve this area.

Leaving these people unserved creates political pressure for action to solve the problem – naturally leading local governments to build their own infrastructure to serve their citizens just as they did in the 1930s for electrical service. That in turn generates resistance from the incumbents to preserve the status quo and put roadblocks in their path. Legislators like Tennessee State Representative Glen Casada are being squeezed by increasing pressure from both the incumbent telephone and cable providers that support their campaigns and the constituents who elect them and want good Internet connections as Holmes relates a conversation with Casada:

“My district is about 2/3 high-speed and 1/3 non-high-speed. So I do hear a lot of that, and I talk to several of those providers: ‘we need help, what’s the solution?’ and their retort is ‘well, we can’t afford to go to the southeast corner of your county because we would lose money and lose money hand over fist.’ And I said ‘we’ve got to figure this out, and real quick, because if we don’t figure it out, then we’re going to have to go with a solution that may not be palatable to the free market system.’ So there is an answer, I contend we have to work it out and figure it out so that the free market solves it, because if a government-run entity solves it, it’s got long-term negative implications.”

The challenge Casada faces is the market for telecommunications infrastructure isn’t a competitive one. It’s a natural monopoly due to the high cost barriers that keep out potential competitors. It’s that natural monopoly that the incumbents want to preserve by keeping local governments from building their own Internet infrastructure with protectionist laws. 

Casada can however have market competition for services provided over Internet infrastructure by treating the infrastructure like public works such as a road or highway. But a competitive market with many sellers and buyers isn’t going to happen for Internet infrastructure because it is fundamentally at odds with market economics.

The larger story underlying this one is the disruption and discomfort that naturally comes with technological and economic change – in this case replacing 20^th century metallic legacy telephone and cable TV infrastructures with modern fiber optic networks for the 21^st century. Naturally the legacy providers will resist this transition out of fear of adverse economic consequences for their shareholders and employees. But policymakers must also consider the economic opportunity and job creation ubiquitous modern fiber Internet infrastructure will enable.
 

Where high hopes of fiber telecom infrastructure collide with weak federal funding

Changes to RUS Broadband Loan Program Include Rural Gigabit Pilot - Telecompetitor: When President Obama spoke last week about reforms to the USDA Rural Utilities Service broadband loan program, he was referencing changes adopted in the 2014 Farm Bill, a USDA official advised in an email to Telecompetitor.

Joan Engebretson's report illustrates the wide gulf between the Obama's administration's aspirations for fiber telecommunications infrastructure America needs for the 21st century and the stark paucity of available funding under current federal programs to help finance this high cost endeavor.

Casey Peck, General Manager of the Kalona Cooperative Telephone Co. of Kalona, Iowa pointed up the gap in this opinion piece appearing in the Kalona News:

It seems the President’s objective is to encourage municipal construction of broadband networks, which would compete with existing providers.  The push to allow municipalities to construct broadband networks, which is prohibited by state law in 19 states but not in Iowa, will do little or nothing for the actual rural customers for which Obama claims to be concerned.

The fact is that most companies want nothing more than to roll out the next generation of broadband services, but simply do not have the cash flow to do so.  The biggest hurdle facing those consumers without high-speed internet services is provider’s lack of funding to get these services to the most remote customer in their areas.

21st century needs new regulation for a new generation of telecommunications services

A major contributing factor to the current crisis over how to regulate Internet-based telecommunications is the passage of time. Lots of it. It's been more than four generations -- 80 years -- since the United States enacted the Communications Act of 1934 regulating telephone service as a common carrier utility.

A 1996 update of the statute incorporated Internet services. But they were so new then regulators -- the Federal Communications Commission -- didn't consider them as a common carrier telecommunications service. Internet was an optional additional service, accessed by special connections made over slow dial up modems to specialized information services such as CompuServe and America Online. Now two decades later, it serves as a all purpose telecommunications service providing data, voice and video over Internet protocol (IP).

In a little more than a month's time, the FCC will decide whether to regulate IP services as a common carrier utility under Title II of the Communications Act. Indications are it will do so -- most likely for landline delivered, premise Internet service. Along with the designation come rules designed to ease and promote the construction of infrastructure to serve all premises and not just selected ones as is the case under the present regulatory policy.

Twentieth century legacy telephone and cable companies have built their business models based on the current policy, models that will be disrupted with the shift toward regulating the Internet as a common carrier utility that must be offered to all and not just some Americans.

But out of disruption comes business opportunity for a generation of new providers. The federal government should put in place meaningful technical assistance and funding -- and not just "funding leads" given the importance of Internet infrastructure -- to help the new Internet telecommunications providers of the 21st century become established and financially viable for the long term.

U.S. Internet needs radical reorientation toward value-based, future edge demand

Legacy incumbent telephone and cable companies are fighting a fiber future for telecommunications infrastructure. People don’t need fast fiber connections, they maintain. Two legacy telcos, AT&T and Verizon, have urged the U.S. Federal Communications Commission to maintain its outdated definition of “broadband” at its current asymmetric 4/1 Mbps. (Not that it matters much anyway since the telcos have largely spurned federal subsidies to help them cover the cost of building out their limited footprints to serve premises lacking even that pokey standard of service.) Their stance reflects the incumbents’ decidedly retrospective philosophy, driven by their highly CAPex risk averse business models that are unlikely to change even though demand for Internet connectivity has grown substantially over the past decade. This retrograde view of Internet demand and infrastructure planning is largely responsible for the current dismal state of American Internet service where many homes and neighborhoods are unserved and those that are pay too much for sub-par service.

Industry expert Michael Elling argues rather than managing the economics of Internet infrastructure with an ex post, cost-based pricing model, instead it should be based on an ex ante, value-based pricing that takes into account the potentially enormous future demand for high bandwidth. The growth of bandwidth demand emulates Moore’s Law for microprocessors, roughly doubling every 2-3 years. It will continue to explode with applications such as 4k video streaming and two-way, HD videoconferencing.

Moreover, Elling astutely observes, contrary to the current market segmentation strategies where providers cherry pick discrete neighborhoods in densely populated metro areas, Elling sees the greatest demand growth for premise Internet service coming from less densely populated areas where residents obtain relatively higher value via its enabling remote work and e-commerce, distance learning and telehealth.

Elling also sees an ex ante perspective that anticipates future demand rather than focusing on past and present demand as mooting the current regulatory policy debate over net neutrality. The net neutrality issue has come about because providers at the core, transport and edge network layers don’t share a unified view of how prices for their services should be set. While those at the core and the transport layers might be inclined to work out a pricing scheme with the edge providers based on ex ante demand at the edge, it’s impossible to do so as long as the edge providers hang onto their ultra risk averse, cost-based ex post demand perspectives. If all the layers agreed to adopt an ex ante perspective, Elling believes, it would bring about a unified pricing scheme based on balanced settlements and price signals that would provide incentives for rapid investment and ubiquitous upgrades at all network layers.

Elling’s concept deserves serious consideration by Internet providers at all network layers as well as public policymakers and regulators. If the United States – the nation that invented the Internet – is to realize the Internet’s full potential and benefit for all Americans, it must first make an attitude adjustment. To an attitude that forsakes a retrospective orientation of bandwidth poverty and embraces a forward thinking outlook based on bandwidth abundance and prosperity.

Telecom Plan Raises Questions About Future Internet Service | Vermont Public Radio

Telecom Plan Raises Questions About Future Internet Service | Vermont Public Radio: “It’s shortsighted to make that investment in technology that can’t go the whole nine yards,” says Irv Thomae, chairman of the governing board of ECFiber, which currently serves 800 customers in six central Vermont towns.

Thomae says the draft plan doesn’t represent a commitment to the Legislature’s goal.

“If the Telecom Plan says we aren’t to take the 100 Mbps seriously, then we aren’t going to take it seriously,” he says.

Thomae says state funded "dark fiber" projects constructed by the Vermont Telecommunications Authority should be the model for reaching the 2014 goal. These projects enable service providers to lease space and compete for customers.

Thomae says the state should raise money through the sale of bonds to finance an extensive dark fiber system.

Thomae raises a key issue on U.S. telecom infrastructure planning and financing policy. The nation is at an inflection point where the service line extensions of the legacy telephone and cable companies have gone about as far as they can within their business models in terms of making landline Internet service accessible to all American homes and businesses. And possessing the capacity to deliver the bandwidth that will be needed going forward as bandwidth demand doubles every couple of years or so, consistent with Moore's Law on microprocessor development.

Vermont's situation is a metaphor for the United States as a whole and points to the need for greatly expanded public sector financing capacity for this infrastructure that's as critical to the 21st century as highways and electricity were to the 20th.

Latta ascribes wrong cause to constrained investment in last mile infrastructure

Rep. Bob Latta Weighs in on STELA, Title II & E-Rate | USTelecom: On the topic of Title II, net neutrality and broadband legislation, Latta said, “First of all, I believe in an open Internet — a free Internet without government intervention. When you look at where the Internet has come and where it’s going in the future, this has all been done on the private sector. It’s not been done because of what the Federal government has done.” According to Latta, by putting broadband under Title II to make it more like telecommunications using a law from 1935, “What we will see happen then is that the innovation out there that’s spurred about a trillion dollars in private investment is all of a sudden going to be tied up like it would be with a telephone company. We don’t want that. Because once you start that up, then all of a sudden innovation is going to slow up — not only innovation — the dollars put in it and the tens of thousands of jobs being created. So we don’t want that to happen. We want to make sure that it remains free, it stays open and it stays away from government control.”

The problem with this position is regulation isn't the cause of what the Federal Communications Commission estimates as nearly 20 million Americans who are not offered landline Internet connections to their homes. In addition, much of the nation remains served by outdated twisted pair copper plant built many decades ago for analog telephone service and not fiber to the premise needed today and in the future as bandwidth demand grows dramatically.

If legacy telephone and cable companies had innovative solutions to build that necessary infrastructure, they would have pursued them over the past two decades. They haven't been able to do so not because of regulatory burdens but rather market failure on the sell side. It's because their business models are oriented to gaining a return on infrastructure capital investment over time frames far shorter than what's needed given the high costs -- mostly labor -- of deploying that infrastructure. It is this economic consideration that stifles investment in last mile Internet infrastructure in the United States, not regulation.

FCC examining reasons for Internet traffic jams - Yahoo Finance

FCC examining reasons for Internet traffic jams - Yahoo Finance: Former FCC Commissioner Michael Powell, now president of National Cable & Telecommunications Association, blasted Netflix and other unnamed Internet companies for trying to "move the goal posts" to suit their own interests. "They want to protect their profits by ensuring that the disproportionate impact caused by delivering traffic to their customers is spread across all broadband subscribers and not just those who actually use the service," Powell wrote in a blog post earlier this week.

Powell's narrow, outdated cable TV perspective is old school thinking that no longer works given the growing multiplicity of those holding a stake in and benefiting from modern Internet-based telecommunications and its vital role in interstate and international commerce.

Netflix is just one of many services the Internet makes available just as roads and highways bring us both direct benefit when we travel over them and indirect benefit when they bring us goods and services. We need a new way of thinking and a new way of building out and regulating the Internet ecosystem that takes into account this reality.

Clashing perspectives from core and edge network players show urgent need for Internet policy review

FCC looking into slow Internet download speeds - Yahoo News: "Netflix has been paying (for traffic delivery) since inception. It wants free, I get it, but someone has to pay for it," Jim Cicconi, AT&T Inc senior executive vice president for external and legislative affairs, said earlier this week.

Netflix streaming accounts for nearly one-third of North American web traffic during peak times, according to research by Sandvine Corp.

Netflix vice president for global public policy, Christopher Libertelli, this week said the company already invests money in delivering traffic to the Internet provider.

"We pay a lot of money to drop content at the doorstep of an ISP. All we're really asking is for the ISPs to swing the door open," Libertelli said at the Aspen Institute think tank. "This has become a new choke point."

These statements make clear as day that it's high time for a core to edge review of Internet policy. 

Netflix believes it is adding value to the network edge operators like AT&T by providing core content for their customers. AT&T and other edge providers however hold the exact opposite view -- that Netflix is instead imposing a cost burden to transport that core content to the homes and businesses they serve. Meanwhile, edge providers prevent core provider content from fully reaching all potential consumers with ultra risk averse policies that leave much of the last mile network infrastructure in their service territories only partially constructed.

Time for the FCC to hit the reset button on Internet regulation

Congressional Democrats jump into net neutrality mix - Tony Romm and Brooks Boliek - POLITICO.com: AT&T, meanwhile, launched a counteroffensive. Executives from the company warned the FCC in a Thursday meeting not to reclassify broadband as a telecommunications service, saying such a step “would ignite multiyear regulatory controversies on a variety of issues,” according to a filing with the commission. Telecoms dislike that approach because they fear new regulations would unfairly restrict their business.

By classifying Internet service on a par with telephone service subject to common carrier mandates that all premises be offered service, the U.S. Federal Communications Commission (FCC) would not be restricting telecoms. Just the opposite. It would be opening up their markets beyond where they want to go by forcing them to embrace the fact that the Internet is the new telecommunications system. Notably, that's something the telcos themselves acknowledge in petitioning the FCC for relief from rules governing analog plain old telephone service (POTS) so they can allocate more capital investment to Internet infrastructure. With this reclassification of the Internet as a telecommunications service, telcos would be barred from their current market segmentation practices that arbitrarily redline parts of neighborhoods and even discrete roads and streets.

Telcos have been trying to hold onto the past by acting as if it's still 1996 and the Internet is a novel information service and not the global telecommunications service it has now become, carrying voice, data and video. It's time for the FCC to do an intervention and point to a calendar that reads 2014 (and for the Obama administration to fire the enablers who help the telcos cling to the past.) And at the same time, develop a new regulatory framework that allows a fair and orderly settlement scheme across all network layers and boundary points as called for by industry expert Michael Elling. As Elling correctly points out, that's what the "net neutrality" debate is really all about.

U.S. at inflection point on premises Internet infrastructure

The United States is at an inflection point relative to premise Internet infrastructure serving homes and small businesses. The “walled garden” business model of legacy incumbent cable and telephone companies has reached the limits of its reach. Connecting the remaining 20 to 30 percent of premises outside the wall isn’t economically practical as testimony at a U.S. House Small Business Subcommittee hearing this week in upstate New York illustrates.

Mark Meyerhofer, a government relations administrator for Time Warner Cable, said while there has been a change in the national mindset that favors a greater focus on unserved areas, nevertheless “It remains extremely challenging to extend broadband to most rural areas of New York State, where geographic isolation and topographic issues make it economically infeasible for companies to reach these areas,” Meyerhofer explained. “Investments simply cannot be recouped before it is time to reinvest.” Although Meyerhofer was specifically referring to only one part of the country, his testimony applies elsewhere across the nation including many suburban and exurban areas where service gaps exist. That economic reality of the walled garden Internet also applies to Google Fiber, which plans to expand into several metropolitan areas.

The other challenge faced by the legacy incumbent providers (but not Google Fiber) is the ever growing demand for more Internet bandwidth. It’s similar to the problem facing manufacturers of silicon-based microchips that eventually will reach a physical barrier where no additional circuitry can be crammed onto the chip. That will require the incumbent providers to change out their metal wire-based premise service infrastructure with fiber optic connections to accommodate the additional bandwidth demand and stave off technological obsolescence. But barring a revolutionary breakthrough that significantly reduces the cost of constructing fiber to the premise infrastructure, their shareholders aren’t likely to approve of such large capital expenditures that could cut into dividends as shown by Verizon’s 2012 pullback of its FiOS fiber to the premise product offering.

Given the growing consensus that the so-called “last mile” premise Internet infrastructure challenge can’t be met within a commercial framework, it strongly suggests other business models including a nonprofit cooperative or public works approach similar to that used for roads and highways will be necessary in many areas of the U.S.

The 3 big U.S. Internet infrastructure policy choices

The United States now has three major policy options on the build out of Internet infrastructure to serve all American homes, businesses and institutions:

1. Continuation of the status quo of investor-owned Internet infrastructure and associated private market failure that will leave significant numbers of premises lacking affordable Internet access over the long term and potentially permanently.
   
2. A well funded federal aid program including technical assistance grants for community fiber to the premise network construction projects, funded by existing programs such as the U.S. Department of Agriculture's Rural Utilities Service, a program jointly administered by multiple agencies or by a newly created, dedicated agency.  In addition, federal preemption of state laws barring local governments from constructing, owning or operating Internet infrastructure.
   
3. De-privatization of all Internet infrastructure (either immediately or over a period of years) combined with a fast track federal construction project to build out fiber to serve all U.S. premises, similar to the 1950s interstate highway project.

Please add your comments.  Which do you favor and why?