Public Funding of Incumbent-Centric Broadband Networks

In a post titled, "Incumbents and national Broadband Networks-Broadband Deliver U.K Project" under the label "Broadband Deliver U.K Project" I had written about U.K's Public Accounts Committee's criticism about lack of competition in choice of implementing agency for this project. Another recent news item  talks about PAC's doubts about misuse of public funding. There are allegations of predatory pricing and misguiding/ intimidating customers in local markets.

Fears have been expressed about recreation of BT's monopoly in fixed line broadband. A telling critique goes as follows, " There are many other providers around the country which are delivering future-proof networks today, both in the community sector and the private sector. All of those face the danger of being overbuilt – having their networks overbuilt by BT turning up with state funding. That seems to be entirely the wrong way round.”

This is the point I make in my posts about National Broadband Plans. I believe that public funding of incumbent-centric optic fibre roll outs is a classic case of repeating past mistakes. It goes against competition and will ultimately affect long term growth, innovation and customer service.

Regulation-Competition, Operator Profits and Customer Welfare

The constant tussle between firms' profits, customer welfare (prices and quality) and the regulatory burden of balancing theses interests in the real world (less than perfect markets) is a worldwide phenomenon. 

A recent news item about Canada's Competition and Radio-TV and Communications Regulators issuing a joint statement to the effect that they would work together to "ensure access to services at competitive prices" also informs us that large  domestic firms are up in arms against the government's decision to allow foreign participation in spectrum auctions. The government justifies its decision as it finds that "Canadians pay some of the highest wireless rates in the developed world and that more players would help boost competition." Three big operators insist that "wireless rates in Canada are competitive with those in the United States." 

My question is that is U.S.A the correct benchmark?

The Importance of Being Connected

I quote below from two studies.They highlightsthe importance of connectivity for political, social and economic development and underline how ICTs help bridge the lack of infrastructure in developing countries, thereby contributing to citizens' empowerment and growth.

The first is  "Measuring the Impact of Broadband on Income" by Ericsson. The second is a study by Vodafone Institute for Society & Communications titled "Mobile Technologies the Digital Fabric of our Lives."   The first study focuses on impact of broadband access and speed on income. It indicates inter alia that for Brazil, China & India(BIC), even a 0.5 Mb broadband connections increases household income by USD 800 per annum. Further, "[i]n  BIC countries, upgrading from 0.5 to 4 Mbps increases income by USD 46 per month." (Access to more sophisticated services " boosts personal productivity and teleworking and telecommuting allow for more flexible work arrangements."

A longer quote (below) from the second study reiterates the importance of mobile phones which continue to predominate in countries like India with very low fixed line penetration.

"In developing countries, mobile phones have changed everyday lives for many people. Often, mobile phones are the only accessible and functioning infrastructure. As a result, it is unsurprising that people have become inventive by using their mobile phones to replace or create other societal and economic institutions thatwere inefficient or sometimes non-existent. M-Pesa, for instance, has enabled millions of Kenyans to transfer money without having to travel. It is the most successful mobile banking service in the world, but by far not the only one: around the globe, more than 150 mobile banking systems have been introduced, mainly in developing countries. A similar pattern was found regarding the impact of mobile phone subscriptions on social development. 

• [M]odels show that more mobile phone subscriptions correlate with more democratic participation, less gender inequality and more time in education. Our results support this evidence on the macro-level across a sample of 202 countries. They show a significant relationship between the number of mobile phone subscriptions and the voice and accountability index, which is taken as a proxy for democratisation. This relationship is more pronounced in developing countries as there is naturally more scope for improvement in relation to political participation. 
• Women and girls are often the most vulnerable members of communities in developing countries. Their access to the outer world is often very limited and they have to cope with numerous hurdles. First and foremost, they have to ensure the health and well-being of their families and changing their traditionally assigned roles is often the only way forward. The connectedness and   communication without intervention by (male) others can facilitate such a change and reduce gender inequality. Our model across 148 countries supports this idea based on macro-economic data. It shows that with increasing mobile phone subscriptions gender inequality decreases. Again, the effect is most visible in developing countries.
• Mobile phones can have two major types of effects on education:the most direct impact is the use of education via SMS texts or mobile applications, which can reach children as well as adults tend to be larger in developing countries. 
•  In practice, mobile phones fill the gap that other poor or non-existent infrastructure in these countries leave wide open. It is therefore not surprising that many innovations related to mobile phones are adopted more quickly in developing countries than in developed countries. 
• Finally, mobile phones are often the first and only way of communication without having to travel under difficult circumstances. 

The Economist says it Best

I am an ardent fan of the Economist magazine and have been reading it for decades. I love it for its language and  variety. A recent article titled, "A World Turned Upside Down with a catch line" Giant state-owned firms have fallen back out of fashion" captures an important lesson in economics (which I hapr on frequently in this blog) in a most engaging fashion with pop music analogies and irreverent certainty of its line of argument.

It states that,

"These vast organisations are not going away; most still make huge profits, often boosted by cheap public funding. But governments must recognise that the slump in their valuations is a sign they are allocating capital badly. That is in no one’s interest. Petrobras has made a baby step by allowing outside shareholders to appoint a director, while China sometimes mutters about modest reforms of its industrial fiefs. But the hybrid model of a firm beholden to both investors and politicians is as full of contradictions as Karl Marx said capitalism was. Privatisation is the best way to resolve these tensions. Businesspeople, at least, can now be a little less dazzled by state firms. To outlast the average pop star’s career, companies need a culture of innovation, financial discipline and, increasingly, global reach. These are things only a few managers are able to deliver—and which no government can."

I have nothing against the public sector but I do feel that a level playing field is imperative for healthy growth of a liberalised sector/economy. I am against ill analysed public funding of PSUs and believe that they must compete (and be allowed to compete) on equal terms with private counterparts to create value for customers. This applies also to Broadband Networks and National Broadband Plans. 

There is more to Broadband Penetration than Physical Infrastructure

This is a theme that runs through by blog. In this case I am speaking not only about broadband enabled services and capacities of stakeholders but also the need for a vibrant market with multi-stakeholder participation and abundant competition at every level, infrastructure, services and content.

An article in the Economic Times titled "Why Broadband is Stuck"  by Mr Pradip Baijal, draws attention to the heavy reliance on PSU incumbents in India to the detriment of outcomes. An example cited by him is the present NOFN scheme which is still in the roll out phase. He speaks about the need for sharing available infrastructure including the aspect of unbundling available fixed line infrastructure. There is also a mention of spectrum sharing. 

What this boils down to is Telecom Regulation. I have argued time and again in  this blog about the need for regulation to keep customer interest in focus and that encouraging competition is one of the best ways of doing so. As regards, the regulatory issues in universal access to broadband services in the Indian context, my article titled "Universal Service Policy in India-Theory and Practice" pointed out the damage done to rural wire line and broadband penetration by regulation that favoured the incumbent at the cost of competition and growth  of services. This paper was written in 2010 but we perhaps have not progressed much in practice as is evident from USOF India's current activities.

Broadband for Sustainable Development

Sustainable development demands that economic growth is inclusive and balanced in terms of trade offs between short term gains and long term consequences.

Broadband Commission's new report,  “Transformational solutions for 2015 and Beyond"  explores the importance of broadband for sustainable growth. It states that,

" while national broadband plans increasingly recognize broadband’s role in socio-economic development, much more needs to be done to support this ‘invisible technology’ transforming our world. A regulatory environment that encourages widely accessible and affordable broadband deployment is the only way to realize its potential to advance sustainable development – for example through proactive policy on spectrum and the protection of inventions.

As far as comprehensiveness of National Broadband Plans goes, the figure below is telling

Inclusion of Socio-Economic Elements in National Broadband Plans 2013

Encouragingly more and more countries include education, employment and health as important elements in national broadband plans. However, the lack of emphasis on universalizing access is evident from the last 4-5 bars. Broadband cannot work its magic unless it is universally accessible, relevant and affordable.

The report makes 10 recommendations to fully leverage the potential of broadband in this regard:

1. Make ICT and high speed broadband universally available at affordable cost for all.

2. Ensure that ICT and broadband are embedded in all of the universal goals and national targets to be defined as part of the Post-2015 global development agenda to fully capture transformative, sustainable solutions.

3. Deploy national development policies and plans to actively drive cross-sector integration of economic and social outcomes deliverable and scalable through ICT and broadband.

4. Create a streamlined and enabling regulatory environment for the broadband era that accelerates removal of barriers to market entry for broadband ICT uptake.

5. Provide consumer incentives and harness government procurement to drive demand and stimulate private sector innovation and investment.

6. Twin broadband innovation and investment with sustainable multi-stakeholder business models to capitalize on the transformative potential of universal ICT

7. Drive the game-changing potential of mobile broadband through the optimized use of radioelectrical frequency spectrum for universal ICT for development penetration

8. Promote the utilization of global standards to enable the harmonization and interoperability of ICT and broadband-enabled services and applications, putting special emphasis on affordability and accessibility.

9. Establish a comprehensive monitoring framework for broadband deployment and robust accountability mechanisms to track development progress via industry-wide broadband ICT metrics and indicators.

10. Develop appropriate solutions to maximize resource mobilization, innovation and investment in broadband for both developed and developing countries.

The report also analyse broadband's actual and potential role in achieving sustainable development goals such as ending poverty, hunger and gender inequality and provides best practices from across the globe.  

Please also see previous posts on National Broadband Plans and Broadband Ecosystemhttp://ictsforall.blogspot.in/search/label/Broadband%20Ecosystem

NBN-Changes Ahead

Australia's Financial Review carries an article titled "Coalition mulls NBN Co split to speed construction"
The new government is considering creating two separate entities -one in charge of construction and the other,operations. This article stats that,

The proposal comes as the NBN rollout struggles to ramp up and meet its targets. Under Labor, the NBN rollout missed several key construction targets. NBN Co’s 2012 corporate plan forecast it would pass 359,000 homes and businesses with fibre by June 30, 2013, but it only reached 207,500 premises.

The delays were frequently blamed on labour shortages, planning issues and a range of other problems that resulted in dissatisfaction among unions, contractors and sub-contractors.

Leaked internal forecasts showed NBN Co was set to miss its target of connecting fibre-optic cabling to 1.13 million existing homes and businesses by June 30, 2014, by 273,065 premises.

Service Stream, one of the key companies building the NBN, reported a 672 per cent fall in net profit as it pulled out of the project.


My views on massive  incumbent-centric state sponsored broadband roll outs can be seen under the labels National Broadband Plans, Broadband Networks. I believe lack of competition is a major concern in such initiatives.