Phillip “Artificial Scarcity for Fun and Profits” Dampier

It would be an understatement to say I’ve heard the argument once or twice that there is simply no economic room for additional players to enter what Big Telecom companies always claim is a robustly competitive marketplace for Internet access.

Virtually every company facing inquiries from regulators, politicians, and consumers always makes the point today’s deregulated broadband playing field is an excellent example of free market competition at its best.

While they advocate for even more deregulation, oppose the entry of community-owned broadband services, and demand more spectrum from Washington lawmakers, we endure a veritable monopoly/duopoly for Internet access. Their defense, after a dismissive rolling of the eyes, is that we just don’t understand business.

Enter Tim Lee, writing for the alternate reality reader of Forbes, who decided to prove his argument by comparing broadband with Supercuts:

Being the first to build a hair-cutting shack in a particular customer’s backyard can be pretty lucrative. It gives you a de facto monopoly on that household’s haircut business. Let’s assume that it takes 4 years worth of haircuts to recoup the costs of building a shack for a particular household. While barbers will need to raise some extra capital to build the shacks, in the long run the owner of the first shack may be able to earn big monopoly rents.

Now along comes a new barber who wants to enter the hair-cutting business, but every household already has at least one hair-cutting shack. So he needs to build hair-cutting shacks in backyards where another barber has already built one. And that’s an economically precarious situation. Remember, we assumed a monopolist needs to do 4 years worth of haircuts in order to break even. But if you build a shack in a backyard that already has another barber in it, you shouldn’t expect to get more than half of the customer’s business, on average, over the long run. Not only that, but competition will push down prices, so you’ll have to do more haircuts to recover the costs of construction. So you’ll be lucky to recover your initial investment within 8 years, and it could easily take more than a decade.

And things are even worse for the third or fourth barber who builds in a particular backyard. The fourth barber will be building in a yard that already has three barbers. He can only expect to attract 25 percent of the household’s business, and strong competition among barbers means his margins will be pretty thin. It’s hard to see how he could ever recover the costs of his investment.

Brushing away the hair-cutting analogy, Lee’s point is that it is wasteful and inefficient for competitors to overbuild new networks where others already exist. The phone and cable companies that dominate the marketplace today decry additional competition as a death blow to their business models, because with so many providers fighting for customers (by lowering prices and offering better service), not every provider can sustain a profit Wall Street investors expect quarter after quarter. This argument is particularly common when attacking those dastardly socialist community-owned broadband providers they say destroy private enterprise (while unconvincingly also warning they will always fail and cost taxpayers millions on the way down). It is also why Wall Street continues to beat the drum for additional consolidation in the wireless marketplace, where anything more than AT&T and Verizon Wireless represents too much revenue destruction.

Lee does make some valid points:

1. Infrastructure costs are the biggest expense in launching a new network, especially wiring the last mile to customers;
2. Verizon FiOS overestimated its potential market share and found it harder to turn a profit than first anticipated;
3. Other utilities have avoided building redundant networks (ie. you don’t have two companies providing their own electric, water, and gas lines).

When communities decide to offer their own broadband service, incumbent cable and phone companies spend big bucks to scare residents.

But Lee’s conclusion is entirely favorable to the industry he often defends — that is just the way things are and customers should not expect anything better.

Those arguments are usually also the basis for free market declarations that if a private company cannot find a way to deliver a service at a profit, then those left out will just have to do without.

Thankfully, despite Lee’s criticism of Google Fiber in Kansas City as “extremely wasteful,” the search engine company is perhaps best positioned of all to turn the industry’s common refrain against new competition on its head.

Every so often, a surprising third party shows up with the resources to ignore Wall Street’s conventional wisdom. Enter the deep pockets of Google Fiber or a bond-backed community provider threatening to deliver service far better than what a community currently enjoys. The predictable defense from incumbent providers:

• Nobody needs faster broadband speeds;
• Community networks are a government takeover of the Internet;
• Fiber optics are expensive and represent an unnecessary investment;
• Public broadband destroys private investment and jobs at incumbent commercial providers;
• This is just a political stunt, not a real effort at taking Internet speeds to the next level.

Without the kind of competition on offer from Google, community providers, and private providers like Verizon taking a chance on FiOS fiber optics, there would be no room for innovation in the marketplace.

Provider tolerance for today’s marketplace duopoly and the lackluster service that results is reminiscent of a joke told by President George W. Bush’s in 2000: “If this were a dictatorship, it would be a heck of a lot easier…just so long as I’m the dictator.”

It is easy for today’s comfortable duopoly providers to take shots at would-be competitors while dragging their feet on network upgrades. They have little to fear with Wall Street on their side, joining opposition to new competition as harmful to profits. Even Verizon Communications, one of the two dominant providers, quickly heard from analysts irritated with the infrastructure expenses involved upgrading to a fiber optic network. At the heart of that criticism was a sense it was an unnecessary expense, with no reason to change the safe and reliable status quo. Innovation that costs money is the enemy of Wall Street, unless competition warrants the investment.

Therein lies the key. Effective, disruptive competition demands companies do something different. Lee may be right that three companies cannot easily bring home the big profits. Wall Street may have to make do with less. In a competitive market, the player offering the least will be the first to innovate to keep or attract customers, or eventually close their doors. Those remaining will compete in turn to deliver the best possible service at the lowest possible price. That itself is a departure from the comfort zone enjoyed by phone and cable operators today where neither feels much pressure. Cable companies won’t ever compete with other cable companies and the same is true for phone companies. But if a company like Google arrives, the decade-long coffee break is over.

Want proof? Just look at cable operators struggling to keep video customers who are now finding alternatives with Netflix and online viewing. They are increasingly looking for ways to enhance the value of cable television by offering online viewing themselves. Even rate increases have slowed. If Netflix and cord-cutting were not factors, would cable companies have changed the way they do business?

Google’s marketplace disruption delivers for consumers.

Lee is right saying it is not easy to break into the broadband business. Only some might realize the same investors and Wall Street barons that dislike profit-eroding competition also often happen to be in the business of loaning money to finance new businesses. More than a few will turn those loans down as too risky to contemplate.

But here comes the rhetorical trap Lee’s argument gets ensnared in: If running redundant networks is wasteful and we still need competition, the logical solution would be to construct or nationalize one advanced network on which all providers would market their services. Why waste time and money on duplicate copper and coaxial networks when a single fiber to the home network could deliver improved service well beyond what the local phone and cable company can offer.

Isn’t the answer to run a single telecommunications line into customer homes (one preferably not controlled by any provider), and let competition bloom on that advanced infrastructure? That is the solution Australia has chosen, scrapping the country’s ancient copper wire phone lines in favor of one national fiber network. Most community providers also operate open networks that other cable and phone companies can utilize (but often petulantly refuse).

Somehow, despite the enormous savings possible from sharing or offloading network infrastructure expenses, I doubt providers will consider that the kind of innovation they want or need.

The FCC’s UHF TV Diet Plan: Slimming Down the Free TV Dial to Make Room for Expensive Wireless Broadband

By the end of this month, the Federal Communications Commission will vote on proposed rules governing a planned 2014 auction that will allow over the air TV stations to surrender their “free TV” channels in return for money from the nation’s wireless phone companies looking for more mobile broadband spectrum.

The Commission is considering reallocating UHF TV channels 31-51 for mobile data, compacting the nation’s over the air TV stations onto VHF channels 2-13 and UHF channels 14-30. But the FCC also expects many stations, particularly smaller independent or specialty channels in large cities, will be happier surrendering their broadcast TV licenses in return for cash compensation.

If the five FCC commissioners approve the plan, it will be the largest spectrum auction since 2008, and could earn the U.S. treasury billions, tempered by payouts to television stations agreeing to shut down their transmitters, and to compensate remaining stations for the cost of moving operations to a new channel number, when necessary.

“To ensure ongoing innovation in mobile broadband, we must pursue several strategies vigorously: freeing up more spectrum for both licensed use and for unlicensed services like Wi-Fi; driving faster speeds, greater capacity, and ubiquitous mobile Internet coverage; and taking additional steps to ensure that our invisible infrastructure for mobile innovation can meet the needs of the 21st century,” the agency’s chairman, Julius Genachowski, said in a statement.

The controversial auction would compensate broadcasters even before the FCC knows exactly how much spectrum it will eventually have available to auction to wireless carriers. Nobody is sure how many stations will ultimately choose to abandon their over-the-air audiences, but an FCC report predicts the largest number of station losses would be in large metropolitan areas, which often have more than a dozen stations devoted to infomercials/home shopping, ethnic shows, religious programming, and independent network affiliates. The FCC suspects some of these lower-rated stations will see the money as a strong incentive to surrender their broadcast licenses.

Genachowski

The FCC considered several spectrum-saving proposals that would free up as much channel space as possible to resell to wireless operators. One proposal would have full power broadcast outlets switch to low-powered cellular-style transmitter networks to reduce the potential interference on an increasingly crowded dial. But that proved unpopular and expensive for broadcasters. Instead, the FCC predicts stations could effectively share channels and still retain HD service. For example, a local CBS station could agree to surrender its license and broadcast instead over the transmitting facilities of the local NBC station, splitting one station’s allocated channel bandwidth in half. Other stations will be relocated on the dial or moved to different transmitter sites to reduce potential interference from stations in nearby cities.

Stations that do not require an HD service could share space with those serving several standard definition channels to the public. These are typically public, educational, or ethnic-oriented broadcasters.

As a consequence, the FCC says many stations might have to give up on their “multicast” standard definition secondary services — the 24 hour local weather or news channel, Me-TV, This TV, Retro TV, Antenna TV, and Bounce, for example, because there would be insufficient bandwidth when two services sharing one channel are transmitting in HD.

The FCC does not believe stations would mind too much, quoting from RBR/TVBR:

“So far, nobody’s been able to figure out what can go on a digital side channel and pay for its own presence there. Mostly it’s been used as a revenue-neutral or money-losing place to put 24-hour weather… Nobody watches these things in strong enough numbers to generate any advertising revenue.”

But the FCC did recognize that certain viewers in fringe reception zones could experience a loss of service — one that could be addressed by subsidizing improved antennas for homeowners or requiring cable or satellite operators to develop a “lifeline” television service consisting of local broadcasters, either for free or at a minimal monthly cost.

Some consumer groups worry that any forthcoming spectrum auction would be dominated by Verizon Wireless and AT&T — the nation’s two largest carriers, who could easily outbid smaller cell phone companies also clamoring for spectrum. During the last auction in 2008, which netted nearly $20 billion, Verizon Wireless walked away with the bulk of the spectrum on offer. Without auction rules setting aside significant spectrum for smaller competitors, both dominant carriers could lock up one of the last spectrum auctions for the next 5-10 years, cementing their de facto duopoly.

The FCC is considering reworking its market concentration rules before the bidding begins, which could constrain Verizon and AT&T from bidding and winning the bulk of available frequencies in the cities where they dominate.

[flv width=”640″ height=”380″]http://www.phillipdampier.com/video/Bloomberg FCC Chair on Spectrum Auctions 9-10-12.flv[/flv]

FCC Chairman Julius Genachowski talks about rising demand for mobile broadband access and the outlook for spectrum auctions to free up more airwaves. He speaks with Cory Johnson on Bloomberg Television’s “Bloomberg West.”  (7 minutes)

Frontier Communications is ready to deliver some customers faster DSL speeds in portions of West Virginia that have, until now, been stuck with 3-6Mbps from the phone company.

Residential and business customers in certain exchanges within Kanawha and Putnam counties can now upgrade to speeds up to 25Mbps for $54.99 a month, which Frontier claims also includes a combination modem-wireless router. Small business customers can get up to 40Mbps DSL service, where available.

Dana Waldo, senior vice president and general manager for Frontier’s operations in the state told the Charleston Daily Mail the company’s new Broadband Ultra and Ultimate DSL will be gradually extended within both counties by the end of this year. In order to sell faster DSL service, Frontier has to replace portions of its existing network with fiber optics and install new equipment to reduce the length of copper wire between the phone company and the customer.

Larger businesses in West Virginia are being marketed an even faster Metro Ethernet product, which can deliver gigabit speeds and beyond, for an exceptional amount of money.

The speed expansion, which covers both the city of Charleston and the growing suburbs to the west in Putnam County along Interstate 64 towards Huntington, is likely designed to curb customer defections to competing cable providers, which have delivered faster speeds in the rapidly growing region.

Frontier has not indicated when it plans faster broadband service for the rest of the state.

On important issues for the online community, there are some substantial differences between the Democratic and Republican parties, particularly regarding Net Neutrality.

A review of the yas and nays in both party platforms (and past history in Congress) shows your vote can make a difference when Washington ultimately deals with privacy, network traffic, piracy, cybersecurity, and broadband expansion.

Net Neutrality – “Preserving the free and open Internet”: Prohibits providers from discriminating against different types of network traffic for profit or control

• Democrats: Yas
• Republicans: Nay

While the Democratic platform specifically states, “President Obama is strongly committed to protecting an open Internet,” one “that fosters investment, innovation, creativity, consumer choice, and free speech,” Republicans have treated Net Neutrality as anathema to the free market. Although virtually every Republican member of Congress has voted against Net Neutrality or publicly opposed the concept, some Democrats have as well, particularly those who have received significant financial contributions from the largest phone and cable companies lobbying against the policy.

Net Neutrality has not proved to be a major issue in Congress this year, with most of the recent battles taking place at the Federal Communications Commission. FCC chairman Julius Genachowski applauded a ‘third way’ for Net Neutrality, staking out a middle-of-the-road policy that pleased few outside of the FCC. It largely leaves the concept a “suggestion” for wireless carriers. Replete with loopholes and enforcement issues, even wired providers like Comcast have run around the policy for their own benefit.

Network Privacy – Full disclosure when websites track your browsing habits, and how online companies protect your private information

• Democrats: Yas, provisionally
• Republicans: Yas, provisionally

Net privacy is a topic many consumers hear about the most when a website gets hacked and private customer information is stolen in the process. But a growing number of consumers are also concerned about what websites are doing with their information and how their web visits are being tracked for advertising purposes. Large online companies like Facebook and Google have a vested interest in keeping this space as unregulated as possible to maintain lucrative revenue earned selling demographic information to advertisers. But consumers may not want advertisers to know the websites they visit, and members of both political parties have expressed growing interest in taming who gets their hands on your private stuff. Republicans are primarily concerned about tracking by government agencies, Democrats are more concerned with for-profit use of customer data.

The Republican platform abhors government intrusion into private liberty — primarily a reference to certain forms of surveillance. But the GOP platform is silent on enhancing privacy rights of consumers. The Obama Administration has been calling for a “Privacy Bill of Rights” that permits consumers to opt out of web tracking cookies and other tracking technology. Democrats separately want companies to do a better job disclosing and explaining how private information is being used. But Congress, under heavy lobbying to avoid the issue, never acted on the administration’s request.

Expanding Broadband: Finding New Wireless Spectrum and Improved Rural Access

• Democrats: Yas on both
• Republicans: Yas on one, vacillating  on the other

While neither party fully embraces their respective platforms while governing, their stated positions often reflect political positioning when new laws are contemplated.

The Democrats tout both their National Broadband Plan and the Obama Administration’s commitment to find Internet access for 98 percent of the country and expand spectrum available to meet the growing demands for wireless data. The Democratic platform touted President Obama’s proposal to promote wireless broadband as a possible rural Internet solution.

Maitreyi Krishnaswamy, Verizon’s head of FiOS TV admits she practically never watches live television — she records everything on her DVR first.

Krishnaswamy has been responsible for many of the interactive video services offered on Verizon’s FiOS TV platform, including on-screen apps, the media program guide, and how customers connect various devices to the FiOS television experience.

Now she’s directing Verizon’s consumer video services — deciding which channels make the lineup on FiOS TV and the networks available for streaming to mobile devices.

Krishnaswamy told the Tampa Tribune she recognizes the way Americans watch television has changed over the past few years, and she admits it has led to the “growing” trend of customers’ cord-cutting their cable TV subscriptions in favor of online viewing.

Krishnaswamy

“The question is: Is it growing enough for us? For us, it’s a matter of cord-cutters versus cord-shavers — people who switch to smaller tiers,” Krishnaswamy said. “Is the migration to a-la-carte enough that we can go that route? It has a way more important impact that just on them. It impacts how we negotiate TV contracts with studios. It’s not something we can do overnight, but definitely something we’ve been looking at.”

Verizon has made it clear it intends to compete for customers regardless of how they watch television, but Krishnaswamy signals the company is also considering protecting their core video business model, and would only say Verizon had no announcements to make “just as yet” regarding an Internet Overcharging scheme including usage caps and overlimit fees. Critics of data caps argue that limiting broadband usage prevents customers from taking their viewing experience online because it threatens consuming the majority of their monthly data use allowance.

But Verizon does not mind offering customers a TV Everywhere experience — streaming video content over its broadband network, so long as a customer also subscribes to its TV package. The company already offers live streaming television of many channels on its lineup and wants to bolster that with on demand content. Verizon also is experimenting with non-traditional set top boxes, and although Krishnaswamy had nothing to say about supporting the forthcoming Apple TV, she is actively working on improving how Verizon’s television service works away from the traditional company-provided set top box.

Some highlights:

• Verizon’s partnership with Redbox will let the company offer a new streaming and DVD rental service for customers, regardless of whether they live in a Verizon FiOS area or not. Customers will be able to access the service over mobile broadband, Wi-Fi, or any home broadband connection;
• Verizon will introduce an online viewing app for forthcoming versions of Amazon’s Kindle;
• The company has thus far only managed to secure streaming rights for in-home viewing and has run into difficulty getting content providers to let customers watch shows while on the go;
• Google Fiber is “interesting,” but Krishnaswamy doesn’t believe they are “a real operator” when only offering service in one city. She thinks the project is a good idea, however, because it forces competing providers “to increase your speed;”
• Verizon is considering simplifying its family of apps to reduce customer confusion. They currently have different apps for home security, home media, the remote control, and the program guide. Verizon wants its MyFiOS app to become a “super-app” that manages everything.

[flv width=”640″ height=”500″]http://www.phillipdampier.com/video/TVnext Interview – Maitreyi Krishnaswamy Verizon FIOS 1-28-11.m4v[/flv]

Back in 2011, Maitreyi Krishnaswamy explained her thinking about where Verizon FiOS was taking the TV experience. Many of these applications have since been released, but Verizon — like most providers — still runs into brick walls with content providers getting licensing to allow more flexible viewing of content.  (12 minutes)