Fibre, Regulation & Competition

It may be noted that a common strain running throughout my blog is my concern with huge, national level roll out of incumbent centric state-sponsored fibre networks. In the enthusiasm for broadband and its inclusion as a key component of growth or stimulus plans, developed nations too seem to have relaxed their strict concern for competition or at least have had to modify competition/telecom regulation to accommodate these projects (NBN). Developing nations like India that have adopted a "me too" approach are perhaps even worse off for the lack of adequate regulation and almost complete lack of competition assessment at a policy and project level. (BBNL)

I have often warned that there would be problems ahead. Please see my posts under national broadband plans, broadband networks and competition and have suggested an alternative approach based on tendering and infrastructure sharing.

It is of interest that the fears surrounding fibre backhaul as a key, potentially bottleneck input are being articulated even in Europe with much more sophisticated regulation in place. These have led to plea for (re)regulation of access to especially backhaul owned by former fixed line incumbents.Please see the report on Vodafone lobbying for regulated fibre access,

Do we want to go back to the era of complicated (and often less than perfect) fixed line type of regulation or can we learn from the past?

Going Around in Circles?

The whole idea of universal service funds was that at least  theoretically they are considered to be a more transparent, targeted and efficient means of achieving universal service as compared to cross-subsidies, access deficit charges and roll out obligations. 

The Economics Times today reports that USOF, India is considering a reduction in universal service levy for operators that meet roll out targets. This is a flawed approach. 

Firstly roll out obligations in Indian licenses do not  and cannot ensure that specific rural areas (uncovered/.under-served) will be covered. They generally require coverage of a certain percentage of rural area in the licensed  service area or telecom circle and history has shown that the areas covered are those closest to cities/towns. Secondly, mere technical roll out cannot ensure universal individual/household access which requires inter alia affordability or accessibility of connections. A well designed USF scheme can achieve both these objectives.

 An overall reduction in Universal Service Levy based on assessed requirement of funds is a different matter but retaining/relying on roll out obligations as a means of achieving universal service when a universal service fund exists is not advisable. It is likely to increase the government's regulatory and administrative burden while defeating the purpose of the Fund.

The Future of Wireless Communication?

An extremely interesting article from the Economist hints at the possibility of bidding farewell to electrical signals as the prime means of wireless communication.

The article explains that chemical based communication as found in nature-animals do it (your dog leaving urine samples replete with telling "chemical markers" at every nook and corner during his walks or internal communications within the human body are examples), could be used to transmit data which would be read by sensors.

Present trials are crude at best, with very low speeds, but there is hope for higher data transmission becoming a reality in the future especially if messages can be encoded in the molecules themselves.

A particularly useful application of such technology is in disaster related search and rescue operations where the situation does not permit normal mobile communications. This happens when a building collapses as mobile services are not of much under the debris. However a group of robots could go under the collapsed material and leave each other chemical messages about what areas were searched and what has been found.

Another lesson to learn is that we should not preemptively put all our eggs in one basket  assuming that a particular technology is the best-please see my post titled "Disruptive Technology and Public Funding of High Speed Broadband Networks." under the label Technology

Banking on Incumbent Status

Recently the Department of Post (DoP) has been in the news as regards its attempts to obtain a banking license. As analysts point out its one thing to have non-computerized make-shift rural post offices housed in a single room huts to deliver letters, but quite another to run a bank from such post offices. These rural branches lack physical infrastructure and human resource (with the requisite skill set) to run banking services. Even DoP's attempts to tender for hand held devices to serve as mobile ATMs are unsuccessful apparently due to rudimentary specifications and infeasible terms and conditions.

The recent liberalization of banking in India is intended to attract  more players so as to inter alia make banking inclusive, but the postal department may not be the ideal candidate to do so.

The persistence of efforts by the DoP in this area is  more about a loss making incumbent postal operator trying to survive in the face of competition (from private couriers and broadband/email) by reinventing itself,  than about helping the banking sector thrive and ensuring that its customer base increases or is better served. It must be remembered that this reinvention is not costless and these costs including recruitment/retraining of staff, must be weighed against benefits. (This applies equally to National Broadband Plans like NOFN/BBNL that hinge on huge public investments in enhancing incumbent's networks.)

This is exactly the sort of iffy policy that government's should be wary off. Universal Service whether in banking, airlines or post or telecommunications should not become an excuse / for helping an incumbent survive. This is throwing good (public) money after bad. Not something a developing economy can afford. In the end economic efficiency must allow for creative destruction rather than endless and expensive preservation of redundant public investments

National Broadband Plans- Cracks Emerge

Two interesting pieces of news that make me feel like a seer. 

First a post titled "Fibre fanaticism overrode proper NBN planning says report" that quotes Australia's   National Productivity councils draft report as follows,

 Early planning for Australia's National Broadband Network (NBN) focused on “how best to implement the government’s policy objectives, rather than considering the merits of different options.”

This implies that rather than exploring various options on how to provide high speed broadband to end users, a policy decision on fibre as the preferred mode  and the NBN  as a delivery mechanism was taken. This obviously restricted options.

Thus instead of "conducting a cost benefit analysis to ensure economic efficiency and value for money", an implementation study was conducted which "did not evaluate the decision to implement NBN via NBN Co" or the macroeconomic and social benefits of implementing a super fast broadband network.

This often happens in Government, but in fast changing field like telecommunications, such costly mistakes lead to long term regulatory headaches and negative consequences in terms of competition, growth and customer service. Please see my previous post on disruptive technology in this regard.

In the short term  NBN is already facing time and cost overruns.

Another news item  about USA's National Broadband Plan 2010, states that, "major U.S. carriers have started to seek relief from their vow to support the plan as its enormous costs become clearer...........They are persuading state legislatures and regulatory boards to quietly adopt new rules—rules written by the telecoms—to eliminate their legal obligations to provide broadband service nationwide and replace landlines with wireless. This abrupt change in plans will leave vast areas of the country with poor service, slow telecommunications and higher bills." 

Please see my previous posts on National Broadband Plans and Competition.

Renewable Energy for Powering Smart Phones

The Times of India today has an article that reports  that scientists have developed bio-batteries that use sugar to generate electricity enough to power cell phones for 10 days. These batteries are also lighter. In the Indian scenario this would be a boon. At present rural areas face heavy power cuts and people resort to unconventional means such using tractor batteries to charge cell phones.

The smart phone with its potential for job search, education, data, e-commerce  and e-government applications is the primary device though which the average Indian would access ICTs and ICT enabled services. Making it last is vital. Long lasting batteries are also vital from the disaster communications viewpoint.

Disruptive Technology and Public Funding of High Speed Broadband Networks

In my posts on the issue of National Broadband Plan and Broadband  Networks, I have consistently cautioned against creating publicly funded monopolies for OFC Networks and reminded readers about the regulatory issues involved in managing our legacy of wire line based incumbents. One of the reasons for avoiding the same is the nature of telecommunications where technology change is the rule.The advent of affordable  and competitively provided mobile services debunked the notion of telecoms as natural monopolies, yet we risk repeating this faulty argument when it comes to high speed broadband.

In India, the Public Sector Incumbents BSNL and MTNL have been supported with billions of rupees to survive in a competitive environment. However, not even their dominance in wire line telephony has helped them compete with a nimble private sector. On the other hand, regulatory protection of legacy public investment in their wire line networks has had a negative effect on competition in that segment in the country. The result is very poor broadband penetration.

Today's Times of India carries an article about a new laser developed by the California Institute of Technology that promises to greatly  outdo the speed of existing OFC cables (that are based on older S-DBF lasers). This sort of disruption should be expected in telecommunications. There could be many more such developments even before the roll out of nation-wide  OFC network projects which is underway in many counties (like India's NOFN by BBNL) is even completed. What then will be the fate of the sunk (public) investment in these (then) obsolete megalithic OFC networks?

This will inevitably throw up complex regulatory issues such as those described above, with less than optimal results. This brings me back to what I wrote in my posts titled  "Broadband Networks through Infrastructure Sharing" and National Broadband Networks: Regulation, Universal Service, Competition and Monopolies."

We may need to learn from the story about the "Tortoise and the Hare" that we may not win in the long run if in our haste to speed up high speed broadband deployment, we ride roughshod over hard learned lessons about competition and technological neutrality.