Fundamental Changes to PSTN: What Would You Do?

Legacy regulation doesn't make much sense in a non-legacy new "public switched network" context. Nor do legacy concepts work very well for a communications market that changes faster than regulators can keep pace with, both in terms of technology and the more-important changes of business model.

In a world of loosely-coupled applications, old common carrier rules don't make much as much sense. Nor is it easy to craft durable rules when rapid changes in perceived end user value, which relate directly to revenue streams, are anything but stable.

Consider the public policy goal of ensuring a ubiquitous, broadband networking capability using a competitive framework, to promote the fastest rate of application creation and development, under circumstances where the government has neither the financial resources nor ability to do so.

The typical way one might approach the problem is regulate intramodally, looking at wired access providers as the domain. The other way might be to regulate intermodally, comparing all broadband access providers, irrespective of the network technology.

Then consider how a major broadband provider might look at the same problem. No wired services provider, as a practical matter, is allowed for reasons of antitrust to serve more than about 30 percent of total potential U.S. customers. Mobile providers are allowed, indeed encouraged, to serve 100 percent of potential customers, if possible.

Would a provider rationally want to invest to compete for 30 percent of customers on a landline basis, or 100 percent, using wireless?

Ignoring for the moment the historically different regulatory treatment of wired networks and wireless networks, in the new historical context, is it rational to spend too much effort and investment capital chasing a 30-percent market opportunity, or is it more rational to chase a 100-percent market opportunity?

Granted, network platforms are not "equal." Satellite broadband networks have some limitations, both in terms of potential bandwidth and network architecture, compared to wired networks.
Mobile networks have some advantages and disadvantages compared to fixed networks. Mobility is the upside, spectrum limitations impose some bandwidth issues. But fourth-generation networks can deliver sufficient bandwidth to compete as functional substitutes for many fixed applications.

Verizon has already stated that they're going to launch LTE at somewhere between 5 and 12 Mbps downstream. LTE theoretically is capable of speeds up to 80 Mbps, but that assumes lower subscriber demand and also low distance from towers.

The point is simply that discussions about national broadband frameworks will have to open some cans of worms. It is a legitimate national policy goal to foster ubiquitous, high-quality broadband access.

It may not be equally obvious that the best way to do so is to impose "legacy" style regulations that impede robust mobile capital investment and business strategies. That isn't to discount the value of fixed broadband connections. Indeed, broadband offload to the fixed network could play an invaluable role for mobile providers.

Still, aligning policy, capital investment and business strategy will be somewhat tricky.