FCC Has No Authority to Regulate Internet, Verizon EVP Says

The Federal Communications Commission does not have the explicit power to regulate the Internet, and should wait for Congress to grant it that authority, says Tom Tauke, Verizon EVP. The statement is not as controversial as some might think, as Comcast has challenged such authority in federal court, and many observers think Comcast will prevail.

Comcast has challenged the FCC’s authority to punish it for throttling the bandwidth of customers using bitTorrent programs to share huge files.

“The authority of the FCC to regulate broadband providers under the so-called ‘Information Services’ title, or Title I, of the Communications Act [is] at best murky,” Tauke said. “In confronting this hard question about jurisdictional authority, we [are] also faced this policy question: If Title I and Title II don’t apply to the Internet space, what are you saying about the authority of government in this space?

“In a market developing at these speeds, the FCC must follow a piece of advice as old as Western Civilization itself: first, do no harm," said Tauke.

“Today about 96 percent of Americans have access to at least two providers of wireline broadband and as many as three wireless providers, and more than 55 million Americans can connect to a broadband network capable of delivering at least a 50 Mbps stream," Tauke said.

What Future for Telecom Business of 2015 or 2020?

The telecommunications industry has experienced more change in the last decade than in its entire history, says IBM. Consider that, in 1999, only 15 percent of the world’s population had access to a telephone; by 2009, nearly 70 percent had mobile phone subscriptions.

So where will the industry be in five years, in 2015? While nothing is certain, forecasters at the IBM Institute for Business Value say they see four possible outcomes, and none of them offer rosy futures.

(click image for larger view)

In fact, IBM's scenarios likely mean further, and major, industry consolidation at a very minimum. The more-radical alternatives include fundamental industry restructuring in ways that separate network operations from retail operations.

In some of the scenarios where radical industry restructuring occurs, today's service providers might find themselves competing against device manufacturers or even today's suppliers of network infrastructure.

The key observation is that IBM presents a range of five-year scenarios that all involve significant pressure on service provider profit margins or gross revenue, or both. Further service provider consolidation is the least disruptive change in industry structure that could happen.

In half of the most-likely scenarios, the industry is structurally separated into wholesale network services operations and separate retail operators.

Keep in mind IBM believes it will take only five years for one of these scenarios to develop.

In one scenario, which IBM calls "survivor consolidation," consumer spending for communications drops, leading to industry "stagnation or decline."

In this rather-bleak scenario, developed market operators have not significantly changed their voice communications and "closed" connectivity service portfolios and also have failed to expand horizontally or into new verticals.

That will trigger an Investor loss of confidence in the telecommunications sector, which produces a cash crisis and leads to industry consolidation.

In an alternate scenario IBM calls "market shakeout," carriers are structurally reshaped into separate wholesale and retail businesses, and the market is further
fragmented by government, municipality and alternative providers.

In this scenario private capital is available only to dense urban areas. Telecom provider growth occurs in large part through sales of services to business partners.

In a third scenario called "clash of giants,"  carriers consolidate, cooperate and create alliances to compete with "over the top" providers and device manufacturers or even equipment suppliers.

In a fourth scenario IBM calls the "generative bazaar," open access infrastructure leads to more competition from "asset light" and over the top competitors.

It is easy to dismiss the level of change the last 10 years has wrought. It might be easy to dismiss the level of change IBM believes can happen in just another five years. As always, the forecast might be too aggressive in terms of its timetable.

The major implication, though, is that the telecom industry might well be a very-different sort of business by 2020, if not by 2015. If you look at revenue sources, it is virtually certain that in developed markets, less revenue--in some cases far less revenue--will be earned from voice and text services.

More revenue will be earned from broadband services, and possibly from business partners rather than end users.

Canada's Telecom Market Faces Deregulation

Canada's telecom market looks to  be on the cusp of a major wave of market restructuring as national government authorities now appear committed to liberalizing the Canadian telecom market by allowing investment by foreign interests above the current 46 percent cap on foreign investment in any Canadian provider.

That could potentially allow majority control by foreign investors. Observers say that if the liberalization moves succeed, it likely will drive a major wave of consolidation among Canadian providers, driven in part by the need to bulk up in advance of an expected wave of new entrants, many of whom will have significant resources.

The Canadian telecom business is about a $40 billion a year business and only recently allowed Egyptian-backed Globalive Communications Corp. into the mobility market.

Some speculate that any new rules would cap such control to firms controlling about 10 percent of the total Canadian market. One logically would expect the major interest to be in wireless assets, as wireless is the segment of the business with the strongest growth prospects.

Canada's leading service providers, such as Rogers Communications, BCE and Telus have criticized the Globalive decision.

Some financial analysts are not so sure there will be too much interest, though. "Even if foreign ownership restrictions were lifted today, we do not see much foreign strategic interest in Canadian incumbents," says Dvai Ghose, Genuity Capital Markets analyst.

AT&T, Verizon and Comcast still seem focused on domestic operations. In addition, Canadian telcos and cable companies currently trade at significant premiums to U.S. and European peers.

Still, mobile challengers are likely to attract some interest. That likely means more cap[ital will be available for mobile upstarts Wind, Public Mobile and Dave. Incumbents are likely to consider mergers as a defensive move, says Jeff Fan of Scotia Capital.

"We believe opening the doors to foreign investment in Canada will benefit the new wireless entrants in the near term by providing them with greater access to capital and allowing them to simplify their business structures," says  Phillip Huang, UBS Securities Canada analyst.

 source

Regulatory Pendulum Swings: But Which Way?

In the telecommunications business, the regulatory pendulum swings all the time, though slowly. So periods of relatively less-active regulation are followed by periods of relatively more active rule-making, then again followed by periods of deregulation.

It has been apparent for a couple of years that the regulatory pendulum in the the U.S. telecom arena was swinging towards more regulation.

What now is unclear, though, is whether such new rules will largely revolve around consumer protection and copyright or might extend further into fundamental business practices.

Current Federal Communications Commission inquiries into wireless handset subsidies and contract bundling, application of wireline Internet policies to service wireless providers, as well as the creation of new "network neutrality" rules are examples.

But so will the settting of a national broadband policy likely result in more regulation. And there are some voices calling for regulating broadband access, which always has been viewed as a non-regulated data service, as a common carrier service.

One example is a recent speech given by Lawrence Strickling, National Telecommunications and Information Administration assistant secretary, to the Media Institute.

He said the United States faces "an increasingly urgent set of questions regarding the roles of the commercial sector, civil society, governments, and multi-stakeholder institutions in the very dynamic evolution of the Internet."

Strickling notes that “leaving the Internet alone” has been the nation’s Internet policy since the Internet was first commercialized in the mid-1990s. The primary government imperative then was just to get out of the way to encourage its growth.

"This was the right policy for the United States in the early stages of the Internet," Strickling said. "But that was then and this is now."

Policy isues have ben growing since 2001, he argued, namely privacy, security and copyright infringement. For that reason, "I don’t think any of you in this room really believe that we should leave the Internet alone," he said.

In a clear shift away from market-based operation, Strickling said the Internet has "no natural laws to guide it."

And Strickling pointed to security, copyright, peering and packet discrimination. So government has to get involved, he said, for NTIA particilarly on issues relating to "trust" for users on the Internet.

Those issues represent relatively minor new regulatory moves. But they are illustrative of the wider shift of government thinking. Of course, the question must be asked: how stable is the climate?
Generally speaking, changes of political party at the presidential level have directly affected the climate for telecom policy frameworks. And while a year ago it might have seemed likely that telecom policy was clearly headed for a much more intrusive policy regime, all that now is unclear.

A reasonable and informed person might have argued in November 2008 that "more regulation" was going to be a trend lasting a period of at least eight years, and probably longer, possibly decades.

None of that is certain any longer. All of which means the trend towards more regulation, though on the current agenda, is itself an unstable development. One might wonder whether it is going to last much longer.

That is not to say some issues, such as copyright protection or consumer protection from identity theft. for example, might not continue to get attention in any case. But the re-regulatory drift on much-larger questions, such as whether broadband is a data or common carrier service, or whether wireless and cable operators should be common carriers, might not continue along the same path.

You can make your own decision about whether those are good or bad things. The point is that presidential elections matter, and the outcome of the 2012 election no longer is certain.

Not Every Telecom Market Did as Well as U.S. in 2009

The U.S. telecommunications and network-based video entertainment markets (cable, satellite, telco) grew revenue in 2009, largely on the strength of performance by the large incumbents that account for most of the industry's revenue.

That was not the case in all markets, though, as the Columbian market, for example, declined about eight percent in 2009, according to researchers at Pyramid Research.

The Columbian market also is in major deregulation shift, so new competitors are expected, especially in the wireless area. Pyramid Research does not think any such new competitors will be able to alter the current market structure, though. Incumbency has its advantages, it seems.

More Price Regulation Coming?

Though European Union regulators are putting strong pressure on Europe's service providers to dramatically lower data and voice roaming costs, that isn't likely to happen anytime soon in Asian markets, says Rosemary Sinclair, International Telecommunications Users Group external relations officer, and reported by CommsDay.

“The significance to me of what has happened in the EU is that it indicates to us that the cost structure of delivering these calls is much, much lower than the retail prices,” Sinclair says. “The operators know exactly what the costs of services are,
but they are not prepared, without regulatory oversight, encouragement,
or if necessary, intervention, to do something about it."

"At the moment, as far as I can see, the only thing that would fix this is regulatory action," she says.

Service providers take notice: a re-regulatory wind is blowing around the world, though it isn't as windy everywhere. Telstra seems to be in a different situation than EU carriers. U.S. carriers have enjoyed a decade of less intense regulation. But there's one thing you can be sure of: it the telecom business, no set of rules, and no climate, lasts forever. The next swing will be back the other way.

FCC Relaxes Cross Ownership Rules

By a vote of three to two, the U.S. Federal Communications Commission has approved a plan to relax media cross-ownership rules. The rule change, which comes amid opposition from some politicians, allows companies to own both newspapers and broadcast stations within a top-20 market. The rules originally were put into place to safeguard the "diversity of voices" within media markets.

Of course, the context was different then. There were three national networks and maybe one or two major newspapers in a market, with a fragmented radio audience. Since then, cable programming has exploded, with three 24-hour-a-day news channels and two 24-hour-a-day business national news channels available in most markets, and multiple local news channels in many major metro markets as well.

The daily newspaper business, meanwhile, has continued its inexorable, decades-long decline. Indeed, one can argue reasonably that the daily metro newspaper might not exist in the future, at all.

And on top of that we have the rise of blogs, Web news portals, podcasts, Webcasts and other media and news outlets.

Though there was not unanimity on the issue, one can argue that local media markets bear little resemblance to markets of the past, and are in transition to an even-more-different structure in the future.

The last time I looked, the major broadcast networks had become "entertainment focused" in the extreme. I can't even tell you how the "voice" of any of the five local national broadcast networks differs from any of the others. To the extent that the concern about "voices" explicitly is about "political" voices, there seems even less justification than there used to be for cross-ownership restrictions.

National broadcast TV networks don't seem to have any substantial differences of voice. Newspapers are on the way to extinction. Radio is highly fragmented. And then there are the cable news outlets, national and local, plus Web-based news and opinion portals and blogs too numerous to count.

As elsewhere, legacy rules are straining to keep pace with rapid changes in media, communications and information infrastructure.

CLECs Must Race Tide

Even though consumers now account for only about 22 percent of total incumbent telco revenue, and even though dominant telcos are losing share in that market, competitors in the business segment essentially are racing an incoming tide.

That tide is lost incumbent market share. At some point, regulators will decide the market leaders have lost enough share, and give incumbents more freedom to price and package their services, which inevitably will lead to higher wholesale rates for competitors that now rely on incumbent facilities--and wholesale discounts based on their market power--to build their businesses.

So the essential strategic task is to take share now, while it can be more easily gotten, knowing that competitive conditions will sharpen once the incumbents are more free to package and price. And that tide is coming in.

U.S. telcos continue to lose residential phone subscribers to both cable VoIP and wireless subscriptions at a steady seven to eight percent a year, according to Citigroup analyst Michael Rollins. Wireless is a lesser issue, as incumbents own a majority of that business, and simply must cope with product substitution. Wireless penetration should rise from an estimated 83 percent this year to 87 percent by the end of 2008.

Indeed, by 2010, wireless-only households should rise to 27 percent, from 13 percent last year and an estimated 17 percent this year, Rollins argues.

Cable VoIP penetration should jump from 10 percent last year and an estimated 14 percent this year to 25 percent by 2010. If the Federal Communications Commission sticks with precedent, that is going to be enough lost share to trigger an end to wholesale access policies favorable to CLECs.

If Rollins is right, those deregulation rules will start to trigger in just a couple of years. Of course, one can argue that market share losses in residential are not the same thing as losses in the business markets. But that hasn't stopped the FCC from deregulating in the past.

Ironically, incumbent market share loss is the very thing that will unleash them as more formidable competitors.

No Rate Deregulation in 6 Verizon Markets

The Federal Communications Commission had concluded that there is not sufficient competition in six Verizon markets to lift rules regulating special access pricing. Essentially, the FCC concluded that the level of competition in those markets did not approach the threshold set by market conditions in Omaha, Neb. at the point Qwest was allowed to deregulate its special access prices.