Quite possibly, but not necessarily. If an incumbent telecomm or TV service provider is the first, then I give your posit a maybe. But if the electric utility is the first, they will seek to wholesale their capacity to the other two or three of four, since they will have created a neutral, common infrastructure -- for the others to place their services on -- except for the thicker group of utility related telecom and telemetry services that they might offer themselves. But the bulk of the utility-laid fiber would be for wholesaling. And this would make a great deal of sense for bottom-line-oriented thinking folks, one would imagine. I'd like to hear more comment on this aspect, if anyone is so inclined.
The bolded section of your comment is my point.
The transport of bits (telecom) is little different then the transport of electrons (electric power).
In deregulating the electric industry it has been (I believe) recognized that transport was a natural monopoly. However, generation and marketing are not.
Transport in the electric industry carries an undifferentiated product.
For almost 80 years the ILEC monopoly was unassailable because there was no need to and further it was inefficient to bring in a second pipe for analog voice.
The incumbent could predatory price making it impossible for a new entrant to gain sufficient market share with which to amortize the cost of a duplicative build. Hence, such a build could not be funded.
Two events cracked (even though the crack is not overly wide) the ILECs monopoly: (1) cable television and (2) digital data.
In both cases the ILEC monopoly pipe was unsuited for delivering the newer product. Hence market share could be gained and risk capital was made available.
In the former case, since the technological delivery mechanism was so divergent it was commonly assumed that the coax pipe was also a natural monopoly and for all practical purposes - at least up to a few years ago - it was proven to be true in practice. There were very few successful overbuilds, and the ones which were successful can be explained by the specific circumstances.
Yet digital data and fiber changes all that. Once again, we have a situation where one pipe can do it all (harkening to WTC's post - his list of service offerings is a household dream and would seem to satisfy even the most aggressive demand forecasts far into the future.)
...The system can deliver hundreds of broadcast liner video digital streams, maybe several hundred megahertz of analog NTSC for settop-less TV connection, 4 to 6 lines of traditional telephony, and, say, 100 - 200 Mb/s of data, shall we say symmetric data, per customer. Not my personal specifcation for a residential PON, but clearly, beyond most concepts today of what demand for residential bandwidth may be in 10 to 15 years. If you think the future demand is even higher, substitute your specification -- that is not the issue here.
Message 12561661
As monopoly providers, the ILEC and the cableco have a wonderful opportunity. They already have 100% (or damn close) penetration. By biting the bullet, building the future network now, they could bundle all the existing products, massively underprice any competitor and basically drive everyone from the market. Worst case we would be left with the present situation - an oligopoly of 2.
The economics and the finance of the proposition are unassailable. The only thing which prevents its occurrence is regulatory uncertainty - that the successful implementation of the plan would force the exact scenario you described - the regulators mandating the creation of a transport company wholesaling to any and all comers.
Which gets me to the point I started with. Transport is now again a natural monopoly. Just like it is woefully iefficient (and hence not done) for there to be multiple electric lines carrying power into the home, it is similarly inefficient to to have multiple bit pipes (coax, copper, or fiber.)
The problem for the overbuilder of fiber to the home is also uncertainty, i.e., that eventually they will be regulated and therefore will they be able to generate adequate return on equity before the inevitable ceilings on ROE (after they've driven the other transport company's out) are imposed on them.
The whole regulatory regime is flawed. Given a digital world and multimode fiber, the regulators should have broken the ILECs (and the cablecos) into transport, and marketing arms. (Or combined the transport functions of the ILECS and cablecos into one). The transport arm would sell capacity to any and all comers. The marketing arm would have gotten the 100% penetration customer base. Then let the best marketer win.
If it had happened, we'd now been enjoying that fat pipe, at a far lower price then today. Of course, too many oxen would have been gored for such a radical restructuring of the telecom and media industries, so we'll just have to wait 20-30 years till it sorts itself out.
FWIW
ww |
