Telecommunication Costs

The modernization of America’s legacy twisted pair copper plant to fiber to the premise (FTTP) has been inhibited – described by observers as “stalled” and “stalemated”– by the conservative, risk averse business models of large investor owned players that require relatively rapid and assured returns on capital investment while also paying generous shareholder dividends. Several years ago, Verizon scaled back its FTTP deployment. In 2016, Google Fiber paused new deployments. AT&T hit the brakes on its FTTP deployments this year at the same time voters and policymakers want to press the gas pedal.

The sluggish progress has prompted localities to seek alternative business models that can more rapidly build FTTP infrastructure serving all and not just some premises along with rising demand for greater reliability and better value. The task isn’t easy. State and local governments and their taxpayers still feel the trauma of the economic crisis a decade ago. They’re thus risk averse when it comes to taking on debt or assessing new taxes. If localities are to build FTTP infrastructure and operations and maintenance, they will have to investigate new financing models that require less public funding.

One that is emerging and bears watching is localities partnering with operators of open access FTTP networks that tap pension funds as a source of patient capital. The 30-50 year lifespan of FTTP telecom infrastructure is far better aligned with the long term investment horizon of pension funds than the shorter timelines of investor owned ISPs. And now that advanced telecommunications is considered an essential utility (but not by legacy telcos and cablecos who prefer it be regarded as an information and entertainment service) and FTTP as a future proof means of delivering it to homes, businesses and institutions, there’s less uncertainty its ability to generate demand and revenue over the long term.