Ford, Jr. (D-The Green Room)

Harold Ford, Jr., a former Democratic congressman from Tennessee and John Sununu, former governor of New Hampshire, are unhappy with an Op-Ed piece written by David Cay Johnston in the New York Times that calls out the telecom industry for high prices and and an uncompetitive marketplace.

Ford, who can usually be found in the green room of various cable news networks waiting to deliver his pro-industry messages on behalf of front groups like Broadband for America, says that 93 percent of Americans are happy as can be with their broadband Internet service.

Sununu joined Ford in some less-than-factual arguments about the state of American broadband:

Second, nearly 90 percent of all Americans can choose from two or more wireline competitors and at least three wireless broadband providers, most of whom now provide some of the fastest 4G LTE broadband networks in the world. Meanwhile, new fiber optic, satellite and wireless choices keep emerging.

Third, during the past four years, broadband providers invested $250 billion in the nation’s broadband infrastructure, while other industries sat on their cash.

Fourth, unlike many other consumer products, the monthly prices for broadband Internet have remained relatively constant, while average speeds have increased by 900 percent or more. Free-standing broadband service is now routinely available for $20 to $30 a month.

That is playing fast and loose with the truth. In reality:

• Most Americans have one cable and one phone company to choose from, not “two or more.” Wireless broadband providers offer service with a cap so low, it can almost never provide a suitable replacement for wired broadband service. Although AT&T and Verizon Wireless have growing 4G LTE networks, neither carrier has provided universal access to LTE speeds. T-Mobile and Sprint are only getting started. The fiber optic choices that are emerging these days are primarily from community-owned providers Ford’s industry friends vehemently oppose. AT&T does not offer fiber to the home service and Verizon effectively suspended expansion of its FiOS fiber network several years ago.  Wireless choices are now shrinking because of mergers and acquisitions and satellite broadband remains a painful experience regardless of the provider;
• Most that the investment made in “broadband” is focused on expanding wireless 4G service. That investment allowed both AT&T and Verizon to pay Uncle Sam dramatically lower tax bills — AT&T even collected a refund. Home broadband expansion has been far less expansive;
• Monthly broadband bills have not remained constant — they are rising, and more rapidly than ever. Speeds enjoyed by average customers have not increased by 900 percent, only some top speeds that are priced well out of range for most Americans. The price both quote for free-standing broadband is for “lite” service, often so slow it no longer even qualifies as “broadband.” Often, that budget service also comes with usage caps, sometimes as low as 5GB per month.

Sununu and Ford close:

Fortunately, very few policy makers in either party have endorsed the kind of heavy-handed regulations that Mr. Johnston’s arguments seem to imply — regulations that would only stifle investment and truly put America at risk of falling behind.

America has already fallen behind, and will remain in decline as long as regulators and Congress listen to a handful of telecommunications companies speaking from their sock puppet front groups and handing out campaign contributions to elected officials to keep things exactly as they are today.

A very frustrated employee of Frontier Communications working in one of their Ohio offices sent Stop the Cap! a detailed report on some of Frontier’s problems with customer service, unfair fees, and other horror stories. In this final part, a look at Frontier’s broadband service and how the company is still struggling to integrate ex-Verizon customers now a part of the Frontier family. “It is as if Dollar Tree bought out Wal-Mart.” 

Frontier recently began marketing faster Internet speeds to many of their customers who can finally sign up for something roughly equivalent to today’s standard speeds from cable operators. But even in its more advanced forms of bonded DSL, ADSL2+, and VDSL, all remain distance-sensitive. Customers may simply never get the speeds they were promised if they live too far from the phone company’s central office.

Frontier wants to see the end of speed test results like this.

We recently started pushing our premium speed broadband to customers who qualify for our new speeds, which run up to 25Mbps for residential customers. Customers who truly qualify for this service will actually get to receive decent speeds comparable to what Time Warner Cable and Comcast offers.

We were originally planning to market this as competitive with FiOS fiber optic speed, but I’m honestly not surprised they dropped that angle once they thought of how stupid it would sound to veteran DSL customers that a standard telephone line could reach those speeds. Even the majority of our Frontier FiOS customers are sometimes lucky to receive the speeds that cable offers, but for different reasons.

If a representative says you do qualify for faster Internet service, it is still an absolute crap-shoot whether or not you will actually get through a two-hour streamed Netflix movie in two hours instead of four thanks to buffering issues.

We are still in the early stages of rolling out these new speeds and there are still many issues in our internal systems to work out. For example, if our internal Salesforce/DPI system has not been updated, you are not going to get the faster speed service even if you can see the central office from your house. When it does show a customer is qualified, both the customer and I rejoice because I get a commission and the customer can now successfully access Facebook in less than three hours. Unfortunately, we don’t live in a perfect world and three of my orders for premium broadband Internet failed to complete despite the fact our system said they were qualified.

The cryptic reason? “Technology restraints do not allow this customer to reach any higher speeds.” That comes courtesy of our techs, who use it as a catch-all to cancel orders. Nobody can tell me why. I’ve asked dispatch, assignment, and tech managers and they have given me different explanations — none that seemed valid.

That leaves me calling back the customer, now excited they can finally use our broadband service to play online video games or Skype their son in college without being disconnected and let them know I was a big fat liar when I promised them something better, only to leave them stuck with what they had.

Next we need to update the information in those customers’ profiles so future reps do not lead them on. I have rechecked those accounts and to this day none of that information was updated. I just see my cancelled orders. So, there is even misinformation taking place within the company, preventing us from providing a risk free service.

Modem fees are a nuisance to a number of Frontier customers. The company is eliminating them for some customers.

Modem fees no longer apply to many Frontier broadband plans

Modem fees used to be an issue, however they are now increasingly included in the price of your broadband service. This can be especially good news in a competitive market where your broadband bill drops by nearly $7 a month, but those already using their own equipment will no longer see any savings from service credits applied to their monthly bills.

Are you really getting Frontier FiOS broadband speeds? Maybe not.

Speaking about misinformation, we have several Frontier FiOS customers that are actually only getting basic cable or DSL Internet speeds because their house was never actually wired with fiber. A street may have fiber optic cables all around, but if a customer is still using copper cable from the pole and inside their home, they are paying for services they are not getting. These customers are often noted in customer records we can access, but we are discouraged from sharing that information. This is not entirely our fault. This was a problem left over from the previous owner, Verizon Communications, which left us the mess to clean up. If you are only receiving half of the FiOS speed you are paying for, this may be why. If you complain, we will issue credit or create what we call a “SIFT Ticket” to send a tech to investigate a possible service upgrade.

Playing the Telephone Game with the telephone company

There have been countless times when I’ve been told five different things by five different people about how to handle a customer calling in for assistance. I understand that with millions of customers it is hard to predict what will happen on that next call, but simple things such as a consistent way to handle customer requests should be standard stuff. So, what can I do? Pick one of the five options and hope it is the right one for the customer.

Working for Frontier means dealing with short term goals that vary wildly day to day with no focus on any sort of objective. These loose operations and inconsistencies come straight from the top. This affects our long term goals as a company (whatever the hell those might be). These endlessly varying short term goals leave us with no foundation for long term goals because… again, there is no focus. That needed to be said twice.

Customers notice the rampant inconsistencies. A lot of customers candidly tell me, “you guys are spread too thin, and there is a severe lack of communication between all of your call centers.”

This is true, and much of it has to do with our purchase of former Verizon landline customers. It is as if Dollar Tree bought out Wal-Mart. I feel like we have bit off more than we can chew, despite the fact management dismissed these concerns as “speed bumps from the conversion.”

It is now 2012 and 2013 is coming closer every day and I am still dealing with the same issues that should no longer be happening as often as they should.

So, in closing, this has been my rant about the company I work for. I do enjoy my job (honestly, I do) and the people I work with are great. Even the customers who scream and yell at me, or the ones who commend me for my work, they’re all great in their own way. Nothing is as satisfying as actually calming someone down who has an issue with their bill, only to have them apologize and be grateful they got me on the phone. You have to truly be a people person to do this job, and not just do it for the money or it won’t work out for you. I’m not the most perfect representative, but I hope to strive to truly make every day I’m there in my cube less and less miserable and tedious.

Hopefully this crap can eventually be flushed and one day soon Frontier’s wheels will run smoothly.

Verizon has a moratorium on further expansion of its fiber to the home service except in areas where it has existing agreements to deliver service.

Verizon Communications will not expand their FiOS fiber optic network beyond the current obligations the company has with communities where it presently provides service.

Verizon chief financial officer Fran Shammo told investors the company intends to wind down FiOS expansion once its contractual commitments to state and local authorities are met to reap the financial rewards of the fiber optic network it began building in 2006.

“At this point we won’t build beyond that, because at this point we have to capitalize on what we have invested,” Shammo told an investor at the Goldman Sachs Communacopia Conference.

From 2014 beyond, Verizon plans to substantially decrease capital investments in its wired networks and continue to shift spending towards Verizon Wireless. Shareholders may also benefit from an increased dividend payout as the company’s balance sheet improves.

In real terms this means that Verizon will only expand FiOS where it previously signed agreements that allowed the company to gradually roll out its fiber optic network. Large sections of Verizon’s service areas, including major cities in the northeastern corridor, are not on the upgrade list and will not get the service.

Verizon’s experience and scale rolling out fiber to the home service over the past five years allowed the company to achieve a cost of  just $700 to reach each home, less than half the original estimated expense for fiber upgrades. But Verizon still considers the network too expensive to expand further.

Shammo also admitted Verizon is targeting its landline investments to bolster its more profitable wireless business.

“The fact of the matter is wireline capital — and I won’t give the number but it’s pretty substantial — is being spent on the wireline side of the house to support wireless growth,” Shammo said. “So the IP backbone, the data transmission, fiber to the cell, that is all on the wireline books but it’s all being built for the wireless company.”

Bruce Kushnick found no bump in construction expenses for FiOS after 2008 and no major increases in capital expenditures in general. In fact, Verizon, on average, spent more on construction from 2000 to 2004 than from 2005 to 2011, when FiOS construction was at its peak.

Bruce Kushnick from New Networks Institute has been tracking Verizon’s capital investments for the last decade and found Verizon was hardly hurting paying for FiOS network upgrades. In fact, Kushnick suspects much of the money to pay for FiOS came from a combination of ratepayer rate increases and diversion of investments intended to maintain Verizon’s existing landline network:

Whatever amount Verizon did spend on FiOS — and obviously it was a not insignificant amount — would therefore appear to have come out of the standard construction budgets that were supposed to be used to upgrade the lines that most Americans are still using for their phone service: the Public Switched Telephone Networks, or PSTN. It would seem that customers, including seniors, low income families, minorities and municipalities have been funding the construction of a cable service through the hefty monthly fees they pay for a dialtone and ancillary services. In some states this is actually illegal.

If Verizon did actually spend $23 billion, then it appears to have come at the expense of the traditional maintenance and upgrades of the utility plant — and the PSTN got totally hosed. At the very least, prices for basic phone service should have been in steep decline as one of the major costs, construction, was dramatically lowered.

Instead, Verizon was also getting rate increases specifically to pay for FiOS. For instance, Verizon persuaded New York officials to increase rates for “fiber optic investments,” where the only service that could use the fiber optic service was Verizon’s FiOS.

For instance, when New York State Department of Public Service Commission Chairman Garry Brown announced the approval of a $1.95 a month rate hike for residential phone lines in 2009, he said “there are certain increases in Verizon’s costs that have to be recognized.” He explained: “This is especially important given the magnitude of the company’s capital investment program, including its massive deployment of fiber optics in New York. We encourage Verizon to make appropriate investments in New York, and these minor rate increases will allow those investments to continue.”

Of course the states weren’t told that everyone would be charged extra for a service that only some people were going to get. In New Jersey, for instance, Verizon made a firm commitment to rewire the entire state with fiber optics — capable of 45 Mbps in both directions. It was supposed to be 100 percent completed by 2010. Instead, Verizon claims to have “passed” 1.9 million homes, representing 57 percent of the households in its territories — but “passed” may or may not mean that they can actually get service.

With Shammo reporting FiOS investments winding down by 2014, Verizon is not increasing the budget to maintain the copper infrastructure it will require non-FiOS customers to keep using for service. Instead, capital investments will continue to be spent supporting Verizon Wireless, although in lower amounts.

“So if you look at overall, I continue to say [investments] will be flat to down and I think we will be probably more slightly down than flat, and [CEO] Lowell [McAdam] and I are really starting to focus in on where we spend that investment and make sure that that investment returns on a shorter period of time,” Shammo said. “And that is really the focus. So what I like to say is that our ratio of CapEx to revenue will continue to decline.”

A N.J. State Commission report from June 2010 saw this coming two years earlier and noted:

“While it is possible for Verizon to extend service throughout its authorized territory, to an additional 155 municipalities in the state that are not included in its current application of 369 towns, Verizon has indicated it will now concentrate its capital expenditures, expected to be between $16.8 billion and $17.2 billion in 2010 on its wireless telephone network. Further FiOS expansion will be limited to increasing penetration in those communities where FiOS is currently available, according to the company.”

Verizon is pulling back on its traditional landline service and FiOS expansion to continue focusing on its more-profitable wireless service.

Verizon Communications’ landline customers will endure continued cost cutting as the company focuses on its increasingly profitable wireless division, now set to bring in even more profits with Verizon Wireless’ transition to new, often higher-priced service plans.

Verizon executive vice-president and chief financial officer Fran Shammo yesterday told investors attending Bank of America-Merrill Lynch Media’s Communications & Entertainment Conference that the company is pleased with Verizon Wireless’ successful transition to Share Everything, which includes a shared data plan for multiple wireless devices.

Shammo characterized the true nature of Share Everything as a data plan that happens to include unlimited calling and messaging.

“It really comes down to data consumption and that is what drives revenue,” Shammo told investors. “And really the reason we did this was because we saw what happened in Asia with some of the text messaging and the dilution and voice migration.  So you are protecting that revenue stream going forward and we think that is beneficial to the consumer and the company.”

Shammo sees increased profits in Verizon’s future as customers transitioning away from unlimited data plans eventually bump up and over their new plan limits. But the revenue gains actually begin the moment customers sign up, as those bringing various wireless devices to a shared data plan are immediately told to upgrade for a larger data allowance at an additional cost.

“We are telling them that they really need 2GB per device,” Shammo said. “So if they want to bring five devices, they really should be buying the 10GB ($60/month) plan. What we are finding is customers are very receptive to that formula because they can get their head around the 2 gigabytes. They understand what their usage is. So part of it is that they are actually buying higher up packages than we’ve anticipated.”

Verizon also has a plan to deal with potential bill shock from customers using their wireless devices for high bandwidth applications. The company is receptive to letting content producers pay Verizon to cover customer usage charges.

Share Everything = a data plan that happens to include unlimited calling and messaging

“So when you look at that, revenue per account may not go up, but service revenue will because you are just getting it from someone else,” Shammo said. “So the LTE network allows the differentiation, and the way I like to classify it as you can have an 800 service over here, which is ‘free data’ because somebody else is paying for that and then you have your consumption data over here.”

Shammo believes customers who gave up their unlimited data plan believing Verizon’s basic data allowance will suffice for years to come will be surprised at how fast they will hit their limits as wireless data becomes more important.

“I think we are going to see this accretion faster than people think,” Shammo said. “If you look at our SpectrumCo [cable operators Cox, Comcast, Bright House Networks, and Time Warner Cable] deal, [CEO Lowell McAdam] and the team did an outstanding job convincing the Department of Justice about the innovation that can happen here and maybe being the first in the world to really integrate wireless with inside the home and content outside the home. And if you think about how that content can be streamed outside the home within cars, you really say this is unlimited as to where this can go. So I think the innovation is going to come very, very quickly here.”

With the spectrum deal with cable operators in place, Shammo said Verizon will not be in the market for any large spectrum acquisitions in the near future, and even plans to sell off some excess spectrum it does not currently need, so long as the company gets paid what it believes the spectrum is worth.

Verizon’s concern for keeping large amounts of cash on hand is evident as it continues to reduce investments in traditional landline service and FiOS. In fact, Verizon said it would continue increasing prices for its FiOS fiber network to more closely align with the higher prices cable companies are charging.

“We have really concentrated this year on getting our price points equivalent to where the rest of the market was,” Shammo said. “We were actually underpriced with a superior product to cable. So the concerted effort was we needed to do some price-ups and we are doing that over — we started in the first quarter. We did it in the second; we are doing it in the third. You saw some of that benefit come through in the second quarter where we delivered a 2.5% mass-market revenue increase, which was I think the best in years and I see that doubling by year-end. So I think that, coming out of this year, we will be on a very good path for a mass-market revenue increase.”

Two service calls in six months may get your traditional landline canceled and moved to Verizon FiOS phone service, which requires 10 digit dialing for every number.

But those rate increases will not deliver improved service. If fact, Shammo said Verizon will continue reducing costs and investments in its network. Much of its investment in the landline business has been to support Verizon Wireless’ growth through its IP backbone and fiber-to-cell-tower projects. Shammo predicts capital investments will continue to be flat to down.

One example where the cost-cutting is apparent is how Verizon deals with service calls for troubled phone lines.

Verizon landline customers in FiOS areas who report chronic service problems may find themselves disconnected and switched to FiOS Voice over IP phone service instead, because Verizon has quietly set new in-house rules about the number of permitted service calls for each customer.

“If we have a copper customer who is what we classify as a chronic (two truck rolls in a period of six months for that copper line), I am losing money on that copper customer,” Shammo said. “So if I can take that chronic customer and move them to FiOS, I deplete the amount of operational expense to keep that customer on and now I have moved them over to the FiOS network where they get the benefit of FiOS digital voice, which is clearer.”

Once a customer gets switched to FiOS, Verizon’s marketing machine swings into action.

“I now can put their DSL service onto FiOS Internet where they now realize the speeds of FiOS and what we are seeing preliminarily is even if we take a voice and DSL customer and move them, they are starting to buy up in bundles because they are starting to see the benefit of the higher speeds,” Shammo said. “Then we open up the sales routine to go after them, now for the FiOS TV product.”

Unlimited data holdouts can leave

Shammo added Verizon is becoming more concerned than ever about long term investments that leave the company waiting years for a return.

“Lowell and I have a very concerted effort to really make sure that the investments we make are returning their invested capital in a very short period of time,” said Shammo.

That spells trouble for landline service upgrades and future FiOS expansion, which both require the company to take a long term view recouping those investments. But even Verizon’s wireless business’ capital expenses are down — by $1.3 billion through the first half of this year.

Verizon Wireless has also picked up nearly $5 billion in cost savings through restructuring, including lucrative revenue earned from new activation and upgrade fees and also tightening up on subsidized wireless phone upgrades.

For customers holding onto unlimited data plans, intending to get their money’s worth from them, Shammo has a message:

“Quite honestly, they could leave my network because you are not making much money on those.”

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.