Cbeyond Asks FCC for Mandatory Wholesale Optical Access

Cbeyond has the Federal Communications Commission to reverse its rules on wholesale obligations for fiber-to-customer networks. On copper access networks, competitors have rights to buy wholesale access. The FCC has ruled that on new fiber-to-customer networks, competitors have no similar rights.

Predictably, incumbents say the current rules should remain in place, which allow any voluntary wholesale deals, but do not require incumbents to offer wholesale access. The rules are consistent with rules that apply to U.S. cable companies, which likewise have no obligation to sell wholesale access to competitors.

The Telecommunications Industry Association  and the Fiber-to-the-Home (FTTH) Council have filed comments opposing the change.

The debate is an old one. Incumbents argue that the business case for FTTH is troublesome, and that they need the ability to profit from FTTH investments without being required to make those faciltities available to competitors who do not have to build expensive facilities of their own when they can simply lease capacity from others.

Though it is difficult to prove, one way or the other, the FCC has faced a dilemma. It can seek to spur competition by mandating robust wholesale access, or it can spur deployment of new optical access facilities, but might not be able to achieve both goals.

The reason is that incumbents can simply refust to upgrade their networks when they do not feel they will get an adequate financial return. There is some important evidence that incumbents are right about the ability to raise investment capital for FTTH.

Investors punished Verizon Communications for pushing ahead with its FTTH program, preferring AT&T's less-costly FTTN approach, for example. Calle and telco executives point out that all competitors are free to build their own facilities if they want, and most observers would note that in markets where there are three ubiquitous FTTH or FTTN networks, it has proven difficult to sustain business models allowing all three competitors to remain in business.

The calls for mandatory wholesale come at a time when everybody acknowledges that the business case for traditional cable TV and voice services is becoming more difficult, and that neither cable companies nor telcos can rely on their mainstay businesses (video and voice) for future growth. In fact, both types of companies are seeing steady shrinkage of those legacy businesses.

Under such circumstances, and given the shift to Internet-based applications, it might not make lots of sense to weakent he business case for robust optical access investments at a time when the financial returns for doing so are under pressure in any case.

Supporters of mandatory optical access obviously would benefit from a rule change, as they could offer optical access without incurring the expense of building new facilities. So the dilemma the FCC faces is an emphasis either on innovation or competition, in some clear sense.

Since virtually all applications now can be delivered over IP-based connections, it no longer makes as much sense as it once did to directly link "access" and "competitive" services. With or without broadband access, companies now can deliver virtually any service over the top, on any broadband connection.

Under such circumstances, robust competition occurs at the application level, not the access level. In fact, that is precisely the problem telcos face with VoIP, and that cable companies face with online video.

FTTH is inevitable

No matter what posturing now occurs, cable operators and at&t someday will switch access platforms and adopt fiber-to-home as the standard wired access approach. For the sake of pleasing investors, who seem to hate investments in FTTH that are the only long-term hope for any wired access provider, lots of companies insist they do not presently need to do so, and they arguably are correct.

Other small independent providers in very-rural areas likewise will insist they cannot afford FTTH. That ultimately will be resolved either by new forms of rural or high-cost area subsidies, or by some new hybrid delivery platform using fixed wireless as the tail circuit.

None of that is relevant. Demand continues to increase, and at some point, the only sane choice for a fixed network that has to deliver a minimum of 100 Mbps worth of data bandwidth, not to mention video, is FTTH.

We might be four to eight years away from that point. The precise timing, though, isn't so important. No matter what executives may now believe, they ultimately will have to scrap hybrid fiber coax and fiber to the node, for competitive reasons. When wireless broadband starts to offer anything close to that sort of bandwidth, no wired network is going to be able to avoid upgrading.

That doesn't mean it is sound business practice to deploy platforms of such bandwidth today, in the mass market. The ramp up frankly is best handled on a gradual basis, as local competitive conditions dictate, to conserve capital for a time when the move is unavoidable, under conditions where there is little incremental revenue to be gotten.

But that won't always be the case. One way or another, service providers are going to discover and then create funding mechanisms that make FTTH a rational choice. Just because we can't predict in precise detail what those mechanisms will be is not the issue. Neither could cable industry executives have rationally explained in detail what all the new demand for video choices would be if capacity were upgraded.

Nor could wireless executives, 10 years ago, have presented a clear and compelling line of argument about why text messaging, email or ringtones or music would be generating significant or growing amounts of revenue.

Though there now is an investor revulsion to financing "build it and they will come schemes," in fact that precisely is the history of innovation in the communications and entertainment business. When given choices, developers have responded and consumers have bought.

That doesn't mean every new application, or even most, are going to succeed in the mass market. The point is that we never are very good at figuring out what developers will dream up, and what consumers will flock to.

It is clear that supply creates its own demand, ultimately.

Is FiOS a Different Product?

Verizon says it has 8.2 million broadband access subscribers. During the fourth quarter, Verizon added 245,000 net new FiOS Internet customers and 19,000 net DSL subscribers. So here's the question: is T1 (1.54 Mbps) a different product from a DS3 (45 Mbps) connection? Is T1 a different product from an asymmetrical cable modem or Digital Subscriber Line service? I suspect most people who create and deliver such services would say "yes."

So if a customer buys a FiOS fiber to home service, is that a different product than the alternative it replaces? If Verizon added just 19,000 DSL subs and an order of magnitude more FiOS subs, what does that suggest? Right now it is hard to tell what it means, as Verizon does not appear to be providing detail on DSL penetration as distinct from FiOS Internet.

So far, Verizon says it has 21 percent FiOS Internet penetration where it can sell the service.
Presumably that includes virtually all of the DSL subs who converted over to FiOS. At the end of March 2007 Verizon said it had overall broadband penetration of about 16.8 percent.

So it is conceivable that FiOS availability boosts broadband access penetration by something slightly less than four percent of marketable homes, as well as garnering 16 percent of homes as video subscribers.

For the moment, FiOS Internet appears largely to be a substitute for DSL. That should change over time, as nearly all major market consumers in Verizon's footprint have a chance to buy Ethernet services ranging from 10 to 50 Mbps. It's hard to imagine that not emerging as a differentiated product.

Verizon FiOS TV up 356% Year Over Year

Verizon has broken the one million TV customer mark for the first time, growing its subscriber base 356 percent in 2007. Clearly, Verizon's network construction and video franchising phase now is yielding to the marketing phase. The next couple of years will provide us with a better handle on just how well Verizon will do as a provider of video entertainment services, but FiOS TV does not appear to have suffered the technology or performance challenges that have beset at&t's U-verse offering in the past.

So the issue now is how well Verizon will do in the market share battle with cable companies, as each swaps share in their legacy businesses while trying to gain the upper hand in the broadband access business. Up to this point cable has had the advantage, gaining more voice customers than Verizon and at&t have gained video customers.

Depending on whose data one wished to cite, telcos either have closed the gap with cable or are taking more new share in the broadband access business than cable companies are. The installed base generally is seen as reflecting a lead for cable, but the installed base gap is expected to close over the next couple of years, by most estimates.

FiOS, FTTN as Marketing Platforms

BT plans to launch its 24 Mbps service in April 2008 with available coverage reaching in excess of 50 percent of the U.K. market by April 2009. It will be using a fiber-to-node network very similar to at&t's FTTN network, with copper drops. Both BT and at&t believe that is sufficient bandwidth for anticipated customer demand. In at&t's case that also includes IPTV and HDTV services.

They might be right. But there is something more than bandwidth at issue here, and that is the marketing platform. If you have Millenial children, ask yourself what their preferences are in the area of broadband and video entertainment providers (You know they all rely on their mobiles).

Up to this point, though, it has been the common pattern to buy both video and broadband from the cable company. What we need to watch is what happens when services such as Verizon's FiOS fiber to home service are available. The issue is not just how much bandwidth they need or will pay for.

The issue is whether FiOS or fiber to home services are a more compelling product than cable modem services.

at&t FTTH, FTTN Marketing Issues

Marketing operations, as much as anything else, will mean at&t customers who actually have fiber-to-the-home will get the same bandwidth and services as customers served by the U-Verse networks, which use very-high-speed Digital Subscriber Line as the drop wire. That means 6 Mbps data access and one high-definition TV stream at a time, even though FTTH networks are capable of more.

About a million at&t customers actually will have fiber drops by the end of 2008.

The marketing issue is analogous to what happens when a citywide broadband network has to be build and marketed. In the early stages, it isn't really possible to use mass media such as radio or television because the service provider simply generates lots of calls for service which it cannot meet. Early on, door hangers and direct mail work better.

To market U-Verse with scale economies, at&t wants to avoid confusing the market by touting offers that one out of 18 customers actually can get. So at&t has to "dumb down" the fiber access pipe. It makes total operational sense, even if some users who know the difference will be disappointed they can't take advantage of the optics.

New Qwest FTTN Plan

Though it might be said to be a baby step, Qwest Communications has decided to up capital spending by an incremental $200 million over the next two years to bring 20 Mbps service to 1.5 million customer dwellings. The fiber-to-node plan obviously will rely on Digital Subscriber Line of some sort for the drop, but Qwest did not specify which particular approach it has in mind. It could use ADSL2 or VDSL, of course.

Basically, the company, which normally spends between $70 million and $100 million on fiber-to-node access plant, is incrementally spending the extra $200 million to pick up the tempo.

In a bit of a twist, Qwest will not deliver linear entertainment video over the network, relying instead on its DirecTV satellite service for that. Instead, it really sees the FTTN upgrade as a data services play.

As is always the case, investors seem not to like the idea. They didn't like Verizon's FiOS plan or fiber-to-customer plans launched by independent providers in France, for example. Investors fear Comcast and other cable companies will wind up spending more money on upgrades of their own as well.

Qwest is doing the right thing. Bandwidth is the reason any terrestrial wireline network has for existing. Failure to invest in bandwidth means business death. Sure, investor expectations have to be managed. But were in up to the investors Qwest would pay out a dividend and condemn itself to ulimate bankruptcy.

The program is not nearly as sweeping as upgrade programs underway at Verizon and at&t. Qwest simply can't afford that. But neither can Qwest sit still and do nothing. Investors might finally be seeing the fruits of at&t and Verizon investments in broadband infrastructure. They will see the same at Qwest, as unpopular as the investments are.