"Service" or "Utility"? What's in a Word?

In the early 20th century, access to the life-changing service of electricity (and soon thereafter, telephony) were the topics on everyone's lips. Just imagine going from kerosene lanterns to incandescent light bulbs! What a dramatic shift!

It was a big, big deal and it's really hard for us to put ourselves back in that place. But times moved slower back then, so I guess folks were both a little more excited about electricity and telephone service, and a little more patient than we are now, used to instant gratification as we are. At any rate, it certainly proved worth the wait to get electricity and the telephone. As today, larger cities were first to get electric networks, first for light, and soon thereafter, for power to run electric machines in households, businesses and factories.

Those unfortunate souls without this utility service looked on their more privileged brethren with envy and soon brought political pressure to bear. Electrification became a national debate and presidential, gubernatorial, legislative, and municipal elections were won and lost based on policy positions on these utility topics (and don't forget, multiple fortunes were also made with these new technologies and spin-off industries). And let's not forget telephony. AT&T became a blue-chip stock, after all, a foundation of Wall Street, and Bell Labs the source of unending innovation.

Back then, unlike now, we started with an agreed upon public policy of cheap affordable electric access for all thanks to strong leadership from the public and private sectors, and open public debate. We ended up with three types of electric utility monopolies mostly (along with some rare competition in dual or multi service territories), as well as state and federal regulatory regimes to ensure that the policy of universal and affordable access was carried out.

About the same time, when telephone networks began to be constructed, we had a similar approach to fair and affordable access and rates, and ended up with a national monopoly utility regulated at the state and federal level, and a Universal Service Fund to fill the gaps. It was a matter of national policy to ensure that everyone got connected, regardless of location.

When it came to electricity and telephony back then, rural areas received special, if a little belated attention from the federal government. The dramatic impact on the 20th Century US economy of these policies and strategies, and the networks they spawned, is not in dispute.

But somehow, Broadband Access at this early stage we're currently in receives different treatment than electricity and telephony did in their own youths, at least here in the US. And what's more, despite great success from national utility policies and strategies in other countries that actively encourage broadband deployment, here in the US we continue to rely on incumbents and a laissez-faire regulatory regime - yet most seem resigned to accept this as a political reality that we're not positioned to challenge or impact. Sad, but not necessarily inevitable. Where is the fire in the belly?

In the absence of a national strategy, or even a national debate, we're puzzled about how to treat broadband and what to do. Amid industry head-scratching and disputes over the definition of broadband, the best delivery technology, and the appropriate business models, we fall behind competitively. Why do we accept this fate?

I think it's not too late for change - we're just confounded by our assumptions and paradigms, which make the problem seem more complicated than it need be. We need a collective "whack upside the head," a clean slate and a fresh start. As Homer Simpson would say, "Doooohhh!"

I'm reminded of the Winston Churchill quote:

"Americans can always be counted on to do the right thing...after they have exhausted all other possibilities."

The fact is, there are buckets of money at stake on the outcome of this debate, if we ever get around to having it, and there will be as many opinions as there are technology and business options, no matter when we get the debate started. But that's no reason to not get the debate started.

So far, rational discussion tends to be sidetracked by politics, strongly held positions, and industry biases. We talk past each other at different conferences and in different publications. As a nation, we're in the middle of that quote, busy "exhausting all other possibilities" before we "do the right thing."

Despite the impact on our collective futures, we still see relatively little leadership in this debate from the federal level, and little discussion about a utility approach, at least so far. That's my main beef.

We're stymied not only by a lack of leadership, but also by a motivation for change. The issues appear too numerous and too complex. but also,when it comes to John and Mary Consumer, most have grown accustomed to their $100+ Triple Play bundles, cellular calling plans, and latest digital devices. For many, there is no sense of urgency.

Yet. I believe most consumers today are unaware of the different broadband paradigm in advanced countries, where prices for broadband are dramatically lower and service options bounteous. But what if something were to come about to change that level of awareness? For instance, what if the ExaFlood materializes, where would we be as a nation then? We need to start talking now and come up with a plan that works for all parties. And what of the current industry leadership? What of the telephone, cable and electric providers?

Incumbent telecoms and cable companies jealously guard control of the networks for themselves in our National Broadband Status Quo (and who can blame them?). If I held stock in their companies, I might even support their approach. (I'm stretching here for the sake of argument.)

Electric utility managers, on the other hand, with a sterling record of providing a miracle service, have done well by sticking to their knitting and not sticking out their necks. But the Smart Grid debate, climate change, and national energy policy are beginning to change that long-held status quo.

The bottom line on current utility and telecommunication providers: unless pushed and prodded under some new set of motivations, the lion's share of current utility, telecom, and cable leadership are unlikely to step out with a new approach to broadband service anytime soon, certainly not on someone else's time line.

I'd argue then that it's time to quit waiting on leadership from the top, and to create the necessary leadership from the bottom up. (I'm not alone - See ConnectKentucky in an upcoming blog).

Notwithstanding current leadership constraints, from where I sit, the similarities between fixed and wireless broadband infrastructure and services and the electric and telephone national experience are compelling, and they become more and more apparent as time goes on. Some combination of wireless broadband and FTTH becomes ever more likely as a standard for a vital communication service of the 21st century. But there's that little Last Mile Infrastructure headache, and the unspoken question on everyone's lips is "Who will pay for it?" Then fingers start pointing. The utility approach is how they managed this 100 years ago.

My perspective is no doubt somewhat different than most, because I'm a generalist with background in public policy, electricity, and telephony, and wireless broadband. I get a little impatient, but I have to admit I'm seeing more progress in connecting the dots between information and electricity. But it's all so sloooow...

* From 1995-2000, I worked at a pioneer telecom subsidiary of an electric utility, Central and South West (now part of American Electric Power), where we did some pioneering work in demand response and fixed wireless automated meter reading.
* I spent nine months on the GENie Project at Austin Energy in 2004-2005, evaluating the use of broadband in the nation's 10th largest municipal electric utility. Under the GENie Project (Geodesic Energy Network: information + electricity), the CIO and I explored the natural fit between electricity and information and the role a general purpose IP network could play to promote Smart Grid goals.
* I authored several white papers on the impacts of wireless broadband on utilities for Wi Fi Mesh pioneer Tropos Networks when they were my client in 2005 - see here, here, here, and here.
* I'm currently consulting with a city client - San Marcos, Texas, which is actively pursuing a metropolitan broadband network, as well as an automated meter infrastructure (AMI) network for its water and electric utilities.)

It makes good business sense for all kinds of electric utilities to take a much greater interest in broadband (municipally owned, investor owned and cooperatives), consider the impact, if only:
* they embraced community broadband in their traditional roles as regional stewards of economic development for their communities and ratepayers;
* they were to consider the advantages of broadband networks to address their Smart Grid issues and to improve their management of their critical distributed infrastructures and to prepare for disaster recovery;
* they were to take the relatively minor step of inviting private sector operators to take advantage of their considerable assets (streetlights and distribution poles for mounting, power lines, existing and new fiber, billing systems, billing envelopes, fleets of bucket trucks and linemen, etc.).

If not for any of those reasons, electric utility managers should strongly consider that the nature of broadband (information access) is arguably akin to the nature of electricity (energy access). Why not see broadband then as another utility service, that they could lend a hand to on behalf of their communities? Who has more experience at delivery of a non-differentiated commodity? How about some local community leadership from the network operators out in the sticks, among the communities that need broadband help?

I'll stop for now, and drill down on the Utility Forum tomorrow morning, I promise.