Canadian Regulators Try to Help, Might Harm

One of the enduring challenges of "regulating" in the public interest is that it is not always possible to foresee all outcomes. The Canadian

Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission has been grappling with rules on wholesale pricing of broadband capacity sold to third parties who use that wholesale capacity to provide retail broadband service.


Metered pricing has been among the issues. Wholesalers, especially Bell Canada, wanted a metered system of rates, where wholesale customers pay based on the volume of data their customers actually use. ISPs oppose that scheme. 


If the goal was to stimulate competition by helping third parties create new retail plans for end users, that goal might be unattainable under the new rules, at least according to independent ISPs. 

“A key component of our costs [under the rate plan for business access] just went up 70 per cent,” said Michael Garbe, president of Accelerated Connections, a Toronto-based ISP that serves business customers. CRTC's broadband pricing rules will lead to price hikes


Whether that will be the case for consumers isn't entirely clear. 

Unbundling, Wholesale Might Not be a Good Thing for Broadband

Almost without exception, owners of broadband access infrastructure are opposed to unbundling requirements (wholesale). Almost without exception, competitors who do not own facilities are in favor of such requirements.

Blair Levin,  former executive director of the Omnibus Broadband Initiative at the Federal Communications Commission and now Aspen Institute fellow, appears to have said that "due to the uncertainty of unbundling; providers will not be able to produce enough capital to support a business."

Levin was a top advisor to FCC Chairman Reed Hundt, when the Telecommunications Act of 1996 was created and passed, and is quite familiar with the market impact of wholesale access policies.

It might go too far to say Levin prefers wholesale to other mechanisms. Under different circumstances, he might approve. But given the reliance on the competitors one has got, rather than the competitors one might wish for, he seems to have realistically concluded that, in the United States, at this time, the approach has to rely on continued investment by the competitors actually in the market and able to make facilities investments.

In other words, given the capital intesity of ubiquitous broadband deployments, the uncertainty around the business case and the prevailing constellation of commercial and governmental forces, it likely is unreasonable to expect more than a couple, perhaps a few, facilities-based contestants in the fixed-line space or the wireless space, though there may be more room for competitors in the wireless space.

Given those economic realities, policies that discourage continual investment by the few players able to compete on a facilities-based basis almost dictates a policy that does not impose wholesale or unbundling requirements that choke off investment.

It might not be the best of all possible worlds, but that is not the world we have been given.

link

Is Clearwire's Future as a Wholesaler?

Clearwire today is partly a retailer of services under its own name, and a major retailer of spectrum services to cable companies and Sprint. But one wonders, given its continuing capital needs, and the existence of at least one major mobile provider that desperately needs new fourth-generation spectrum (T-Mobile USA) whether Clearwire will not ultimately find it is primarily or exclusively a wholesale provider of 4G spectrum.

Comcast, Intel, Time Warner Cable, Google and Bright House Networks are minority investors while Sprint is the majority owner.

A research note from Credit Suisse evaluates the value of mobile satellite spectrum of the sort Harbinger Capital has been touting as the basis for a brand-new U.S. Long Term Evolution network, as being worth something on the order of $0.50 per MHzPOP. That evaluation apparently is derived from prices paid in 2006 for AWS spectrum that mobile providers now are using.

If those prices are sustainable in today's marketplace, then Clearwire might well be sitting on spectrum worth about $20 billion, Business Week has suggested. Some think it might be worth more.

read the Business Week story here

For Clearwire, much is riding on whether its strategy of buying up some 85 percent of the U.S. 2.5-GHz spectrum band will pay off.

The $5 billion Clearwire will pay its license holders for its spectrum over the next three decades is a bargain compared to what its rivals are paying. AT&T and Verizon bought their spectrum that can be used for 4G at government auction in 2008, paying a combined $16 billion, though many would argue those allocations, at much-lower frequencies, have propagation characteristics so much better that the premium is worth paying.

An unfunded business plan also remains an issue. At its current rate of spending, Clearwire will burn through its cash in 2011, according to Steve Clement, an analyst at Pacific Crest Securities. Clearwire may need $3.8 billion more to reach its goal of building a network that covers 270 million people, Clement says.

Clearwire now has about one million subscribers, double what it had in 2009. It added 283,000 net new subscribers in the first quarter, compared with 133,000 new customers in the previous quarter.

But even that rate of growth is unlikely to get Clearwire close to players such as Verizon Wireless, which had 93 million customers or so in the first quarter, out of 286 million total subscribers. Verizon has 31 percent of the market; AT&T has 25 percent; Sprint and T-Mobile USA both have 12 percent of the market.

Even at five million subscribers, Clearwire would still have only about 1.5 percent to two percent of the U.S. market, by the time it reaches that level, in two years, perhaps, assuming the overall market grows over the next two years about as much as it has been this year, and if Clearwire's growth accelerates.

link

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.

Indian Wireless Firms Structurally Separate

Three Indian Wireless companies have concluded that owning and operating layer one infrastructure is not essential for retail operations.

Bharti Infratel Ltd., a unit of Bharti Airtel Ltd., is merging its telecom tower business with Vodafone Essar Ltd. and Idea Cellular Ltd.

The three companies will form an independent tower company called Indus Towers Ltd. that will provide passive infrastructure services in India. Bharti and Vodafone Essar will hold 42 percent each of the company, and Idea will own the remaining 16 percent.

Passive infrastructure services include towers, shelters, cooling systems, power supply and other items that enable telecom systems to work.

The new firm will merge the passive infrastructure assets of the three companies across 16 telecom territories in India and will initially have about 70,000 telecom sites, the statement said.

The move parallels "structural separation" (creation of a legally distinct and separate wholesale facilities company) more than "functional separation" (creation of an owned wholesale facilities company). Still, the move is interesting given the move to functional separation in Europe, where wholesale facilities are run by one entity, and all retail providers lease capacity and features to run their retail operations.

The move by the three wireless service providers mirrors a broader change in the global communications business from a completely vertically-integrated model to a partially horizontally-integrated model. Basically, communications networks increasingly operate the way data networks do, with applications running on top of facilities that are owned by many different entities in the value chain.

You might call this a move to more "open" networks, and indeed that is precisely what is happening, in small steps.