This is the first in a series of posts by Rita Stull -- her bio is available here. The short version is that Rita has a unique perspective shaped by decades of experience in this space. Her first post introduces readers to the often misunderstood concept of the Right-of-way, an asset owned by the citizens and managed mostly by local governments.

In the process of knitting a baby blanket, a whole ball of yarn became tangled into this mess. . . .

. . . reminding me of the time, in the early eighties, when I was the second cable administrator appointed in the U.S., and found myself peering into a hole in the street filled with a similar looking mess—only made of copper wires, instead of yarn.

Why talk about yarn and copper wire in the same breath on a site dedicated to community broadband networks? Because it was the intersection of ‘art and cable’ that got me started in the ‘telecommunications policy’ arena, the same kind of thinking that continues today in our tangled telecom discussions: Is it content or conduit, competitive, entertainment, essential, wireless, landline, gigahertz, gigabits?

I transferred from the Recreation Department to launch the city’s cable office as an experienced government supervisor with a Masters in Theater. My employer and I thought cable TV was the ‘entertainment’ business and I had the requisite mix of experience and skills to manage one of the first franchises awarded in 1981.

Yikes. Imagine my surprise on discovering that cable was a WIRE LINE UTILITY using PUBLIC LAND, which each citizen pays TAXES to buy, upgrade and maintain! And, our three-binders-thick, cable franchise was a ‘legal contract’ containing the payment terms for use of our public rights-of-way, as well as protection of local free speech rights. I was thirty years old, a property owner who had never thought about who owned roads, sidewalks and utility corridors.

Rights-of-way are every street plus about 10 feet of land on each side. That land belongs to everyone in the community. Rights-of-way are a shared public asset—sometimes called part of our common wealth.

The reason we all own rights-of-way, over four million miles of it, is so essential services such as roads, water, gas, electric, and telephone are available, universally—another legal concept—new to me — meaning ‘used by and available to everyone’. We co-own roads and utility corridors to transport ourselves, our goods and services and now our information—essentials required for survival in a developed nation.

Local, state and federal governments manage land assets on our behalf, as follows:

• 75.2%: 3 million miles of rights-of-way are managed by local governments—towns, cities, counties, villages, parishes, townships.
• 20.5%: 820,000 miles of rights-of-way are managed by state governments.
• 4.3%: 172,000 miles of rights-of-way are managed by the federal government.

Important Business Notes Regarding Rights-of-Way

1. To be in business, phone and cable companies must locate their lines in public rights-of-way. Wireless companies must connect towers for ‘signal backhaul’ via landlines. So wireless carriers also use rights-of-way. Customers can’t buy cable, phone, mobile or any Internet services—can’t stream videos—without an Internet Service Provider (ISP) owning or buying ‘landline’ capacity.
2. Telecom is a natural monopoly. The first telecom occupant in the rights-of-way gains tremendous advantage, making it difficult for competitors to finance duplicate infrastructure. In the past, when the threat of competition reared its ugly head, operators used their market dominance, as the incumbent in the rights-of-way, to drastically slash prices, retain customers and force nascent competitors out of business. Once the competitor is eliminated, rates can be doubled or tripled, leaving consumers without the option of changing providers.

Arguably, rights-of-way are the most valuable land asset in the nation. Now that you know you’re the proud owner of four million miles of rights-of-way, what do you think telecom occupants pay to use it?

Do you know that:

• Phone companies generally hold hundred year leases, some in perpetuity, and pay nothing to use rights-of-way. Only the old basic phone rate is regulated. Offered in a duopolist market, most revenues are generated from unregulated phone-line services. Your phone company charges whatever it wants for business and residential service packages, late fees, security deposits, etc., while paying nothing to use your rights-of-way. This reality means that we, as taxpayers, subsidize phone companies by giving them free land.
• Originally, cable operators, because they were offering entertainment services, set the precedent for paying a fair price to occupy rights-of-way. In the late 70’s/early 80’s, as a result of the mostly non-exclusive, franchise competitive-bidding wars, operators agreed to pay the following to use rights-of-way:
  • Up to 5% of gross revenues,
  • Dedicated institutional networks (I-Nets),
  • Public, education and government (PEG) access channels and funding for facilities, equipment, video production training.

From 1980-1985, thousands of local governments monitored the private sector’s deployment of millions of miles of coaxial cable plant in public rights-of-way. In this phenomenal five-year, local, public/private, collaborative undertaking to ‘cable the country for TV’, the U.S. became a ‘wired nation’, as envisioned in Ralph Lee Smith’s seminal book of the same name.

You Did It! … Or did you?

Don’t get all excited about local governments’ successful rights-of-way management – even though it resulted in cable operators wiring the country in five short years. And don’t kid yourself that local governments can effectively leverage their valuable land-use powers in negotiations with telecom incumbents.

Time for a REALITY CHECK:

• Among the wealthiest and most powerful in the country, the telecommunications industry spends tens of millions of dollars, annually, lobbying to retain free use of rights-of-way land.
• Once the country was wired in the early eighties, the cable industry spent the next thirty years lobbying federal and state legislatures to void franchises and eliminate as many payments for using community-owned rights-of-way as possible.

Legal Jargon

Creatively designed telecom regulations confound legislators, confuse consumers, and distort the national discourse. Current regulatory language contorts our understanding of what telecom is and its importance in our lives. Simply stated, telecommunications means the transporting of information on connected networks of boxes (engineering shorthand for computers and switches) and wires, located on poles or under streets.

Today we hear a cacophony of marketers, profiteers, duopolists and plain old crooks – purposely confusing us with: it’s voice - video – data - information – fiber – coaxial cable – wireless - WiFi – broadcast TV – satellite – streaming video - 4G - WiMax - radio – cell phone –- gigahertz – gigabits – megabits – digital - Internet – etc. The list goes on.

As fraught with engineering/marketing jargon as telecom laws are, none address the convergence of digital, Internet and fiber technologies — a convergence that means all information formats—voice, video and data are transported by the same myriad, interconnected wired and wireless networks.

The telecom industry’s lobbying goal is free use of rights-of-way to protect duopolist markets. Twenty states adopted franchising laws depriving local jurisdictions of regulatory authority, thus confiscating communities’ assets and reducing accountability to consumers.

The industry aggressively lobbies for state laws that prohibit or severely constrain jurisdictions use of rights-of-way, specifically to block deployment of next-generation telecom infrastructure: fiber-to-the-premise networks.

Wildly Escalating Telecom Costs for Public Services

When the industry lobbies for state laws that void in-kind services such as I-Nets, the cost can be enormous for the communities they serve. For example: Years ago, a California city, with a population of ninety-thousand, connected thirty municipal facilities, schools, colleges, universities, hospitals and libraries with its institutional network, provided as partial payment for rights-of-way use. When state franchising voided local requirements, the cable operator began billing the city $45,000 a month to use the institutional network. Over the fifteen-year life of the franchise, the operator expects to collect a whopping $8.1 million dollars from the city (thus the taxpayers), instead of paying to use the community’s rights-of-way.

Extorting Future Public Resources

Currently, the industry is lobbying states to PROHIBIT governments from building fiber-to-the-premise (FTTP) networks. Not only do telecom companies refuse to universally upgrade existing wire lines and provide I-Nets, they now want to prevent communities from becoming self-reliant by building their own networks (as in North Carolina and South Carolina, for instance).

Don’t be fooled into thinking that telecom regulations benefit some larger public goal. The U.S. lags behind developed nations in broadband deployment because we are not using rights-of-way to build FTTP infrastructure. We need to ‘catch up’ to competitor nations, where residents, as well as business, buy affordable, bidirectional broadband at gigabit speeds.

We must clean up our tangled regulatory mess, reclaim use of rights-of-way and build the FTTP networks needed to create jobs and compete in a global economy -- starting with JULIET (Joint Underground Location of Infrastructure for Electric and Telecom) [pdf]).

It's 2011 and time for Qwest to renew a push to gut local authority in a number of states - Idaho and Colorado to start. An article for the Denver Post explains the argument:

Phone companies say state-level oversight of video franchising fosters competition because it is less cumbersome for new entrants to secure the right to offer services.

Many states have also eliminated the condition that new video competitors must eventually offer service to every home in a given municipality, a requirement placed on incumbent cable-TV providers.

Gutting local authority is the best way to increase the disparities between those who have broadband and those who do not. Qwest and others are only interested in building out in the most profitable areas -- which then leaves those unserved even more difficult to serve because the costs of serving them cannot be balanced with those who can be served at a lower cost.

The only reason that just about every American living in a city has access to broadband is because franchise requirements forced companies to build out everyone. Without these requirements, cable buildouts would almost certainly have mirrored the early private company efforts to wire towns for electricity -- wealthier areas of town had a number of choices and low-income areas of town had none.

In Idaho, those fighting back against this attempt to limit local authority are worried that statewide franchising will kill their local public access channels - a reality that others face across the nation where these laws have passed.

The channels, which are also used to publicize community events, provide complete coverage of Pocatello City Council, Planning and Zoning and School District 25 board meetings, as well as candidate forums before elections.

Without these local channels, how could people stay informed about what is happening in the community? Local newspapers are increasingly hard to find. In many communities, these channels are the last bastion of local news. 

This fight over statewide franchising goes back a number of years, but the general theme is that massive incumbent phone companies promise that communities would have much more competition among triple-play networks if only the public ceases to derive benefits from its Right-of-Way.  Statewide franchising laws limit local authority to negotiate for access to this valuable asset that is managed by the local government. The laws strip communities of the power to negotiate with video providers, creating a single franchise process in the state government (which typically has very little or no oversight). Communities lose public access channels, fees for creating local content, and often oversight to require certain levels of customer service.

The states that have gutted local authority in this way have seen very few benefits -- the increase in competition is negligible - because the real barrier to competition has nothing to do with local or statewide franchising. The only barrier worth addressing is the massive advantages incumbents have -- a result of the high cost of building these networks. When a competitor builds a network, it is often competing with an incumbent that has amortized the costs of its network and will be able to cut its prices while cross-subsidizing its operations from non-competitive markets. A number of incumbent providers have engaged in predatory pricing, taking a loss on their customers in an effort to prevent the network from generating the necessary revenues to operate and make its debt payments.

The price of gutting local authority to benefit Qwest, a company with no capacity for the upgrades necessary to match the speeds and prices of DOCSIS3 cable networks, is far too great.

My friend, Geoff Daily at App-Rising.com, has questioned the wisdom of running fiber to all anchor institutions.

There's been a lot of buzz around the benefits and relative viability of wiring all community anchor institutions (schools, libraries, hospitals, etc.) with fiber as the way to get the best bang for the broadband buck. But recent conversations with my fiber-deploying friends have led me to worry that doing this could be a big mistake.

...

The reason is simple: if you build a network to serve community anchors, then those institutions won't be available to serve as anchor customers for a community-wide deployment. Without those community anchors as customers, the economics of deployment, especially in rural areas, becomes much harder and may actually make robust, sustainable broadband impossible in some areas.

This is a question I have wrestled with also, in trying to help communities understand the real impacts of decisions they make on whether to build their own broadband network.

My first reaction is on philosophical grounds - public institutions like schools, police departments, etc., do not exist to prop-up the business models of cable or telephone companies. Large entities like municipal and county governments should own their own network because it will save them money and expand their capabilities. When will the tea-party protesters start protesting government paying exorbitant fees to telephone companies for slow T-1 lines and the like? After all, these are our tax dollars and they should be spent wisely.

My second reaction is that I seriously doubt removing these institutional networks will impact the business model significantly. Maybe it would have last decade, but now we know that Comcast and probably many more have ">massive margins in their broadband operations. Losing the libraries and schools will do little to their bottom lines. Even if it takes a bit out of their profits, they won't go missing meals.

But really, the answer is more complicated. Many municipalities already get "free" services from their cable company as a part of the video franchise. To gain access to the right-of-way, cable companies have often given "free" (meaning paid for by the subscriber base) services via an I-Net. Though this has been helpful for communities it was never a particularly fair, efficient, or rational means of solving connectivity issues for local governments.

It wasn't fair because cable subscribers paid for the costs of local government that should be paid by all citizens. It wasn't efficient because cable companies often did not live up their responsibilities or franchises did not require modernization of networks over the many years of the agreement. And it wasn't rational because neither entity had an incentive to build the kind of network local governments need to do their jobs effectively.

But the right-of-way is a valuable asset and communities should have the freedom to negotiate access to it as they choose. Those choices are also constrained by what state and federal laws allow (I said this was complicated, right?)

So - getting back to the question of whether building fiber to these public buildings is a good idea or not, I say it absolutely is ... if it is locally owned and the local community is responsible for it.

In the unlikely event that such a network causes private companies to cease investing in the community (though continue refusing to invest in the community is likely a more accurate description), the community should take initiative to build the last-mile networks necessary for future vitality.

Either this is an essential infrastructure or it isn't. If it is, local governments must take a stronger role in ensuring everyone has access. If it isn't essential, then we can continue watching private companies deploy networks wherever they decide it is profitable.

Update: In an attempt to be more clear, I will say that I think federal policy should make it a priority to make funding available (loans where possible, mixing in grants where absolutely necessary) so that local communities can connect their anchors. Local ownership is paramount. Statewide networks are a poor approach in that it would de facto prevent communities from building their own networks.

I don't think these networks will interfere with business plans of those private companies who have already made investments - but I also don't think this should be a major concern because local government's mission is to serve the needs of the community, not those of absentee-owned cable or telephone companies. To the extent that people in the community need better networks, local government must be ready to step in -- just as they do with roads, water treatment plants, and other elements of infrastructure.

Folks who are mostly interested in broadband are probably unfamiliar with video franchising laws. Many people still apparently believe that cable companies are able to get exclusive franchises from the city (granting them a monopoly on providing cable television). However, that is not true and has not been true for many years.

Most cable companies still have a de facto monopoly because it is extremely difficult to overbuild an existing cable company - the incumbent has most of the advantages and building a citywide network is extremely expensive. This is not a naturally competitive market; it is actually a natural monopoly.

However, most people want a choice in providers (something that goes beyond a single cable company and a satellite option or two depending on whether you rent/own and your geographic location. In talking with many local officials and the National Association of Telecommunications Officers and Advisers (NATOA), it seems that almost every local government wants more competition in its community too.

This is where telephone and cable company lobbyists have stepped in - more successfully at the state level than at the federal level. They have convinced legislators that the barrier to more competition is local authority over the franchise (the rules a company agrees to in return for the right to use the community's Right-of-Way in deploying their network). These rules include red-line prohibition (you cannot refuse to serve poor neighborhoods), an affordable "basic" tier of service, local public access channels, broadband connections at public buildings, etc.

Some states have listened to the lobbyists and enacted statewide franchising - where local communities are stripped of the authority to manage their Right-of-Way and companies can offer video services anywhere in the state by getting a state franchise from the state government. Every year, we gather more data that this practice has hurt communities, raised prices, and barely spurred any competition. Most of the competition it is credited with spurring came from Verizon's FiOS deployments, which would have occurred regardless of state-wide franchise enactment.

This touches directly on broadband because the statewide franchises often give greater power to companies like Verizon to cherry-pick who gets next generation broadband. Wealthier neighborhoods will increasingly get access to faster networks as private companies are allowed to cherry pick. This practice not only leaves poorer parts of town behind, it makes them even harder to serve when those areas cannot be balanced with higher-revenue sections producing sections of town (who already have service).

Recently, this issue resurfaced with new evidence that state-wide franchising was little more than a giveaway to private companies who are increasingly profits at the expense of communities who still have no choice in providers.

Both Phillip Dampier at Stop the Cap and Karl Bode at DSLReports have deeply linked posts on this matter that cover Michigan, Tennessee, and Wisconsin. Stop the Cap also delves into how Comcast spends in millions lobbying - you didn't think we get hit for rate increases every year for nothing, did you?

The Detroit Free Press ran Brian Dickerson's "With Regulation like this, who needs Monopoly?"

Now, three years after AT&T's champions in the Legislature crowed that Comcast's reign as the 800-pound. guerrilla of Michigan cable service was over, Comcast remains the state's dominant provider, maintains a de facto wire-line monopoly in most its franchise areas, charges higher rates for basic cable service, and has far fewer legal obligations to the subscribers and communities it serves.

What most of this comes down to is accountability. Local governments are accountable to the citizens. Companies like Comcast and AT&T are accountable to their shareholders. There is no perfect arrangement, but I would err on the side of a network being accountable to the community.

Photo courtesy of photocamp.