WHY OPEN ACCESS?
Part 2 of a series written by Mathers Farr
I was planning for installment 2 of this series to overview some of the different Open Access models but after some responses and comments from the introduction article, I realized that I need to clarify my purpose and intent for writing the series. I am going to save the description of the different OA models for installment 3 and focus this article on why Open Access models were developed and how the changing broadband landscape is pushing us toward them. There are plenty of forums out there to debate Open Access vs Single Provider Networks, as well as public vs private ownership. This series is not intended to be a debate forum, it is simply to provide information (based on my personal experiences) to the general public and particularly to community leaders for consideration.
Onward with Purpose: So, before going any further down the Open Access road, I need to clarify my purpose and position. This series is not being written to promote Open Access models, debate their merits, or to suggest that incumbent internet providers should change their business models or practices. I am not attempting to inform providers on the growing trend or advise them on how to respond to it, as most of them are fully aware of the impact OA is having in the industry and see it as a threat to their captive broadband markets. Many have formed opposing opinions and arguments and are already actively campaigning against it. I have heard the arguments and am not trying to open another forum to debate them. Open Access does not compete with providers, in fact, it needs their participation to succeed. Providers who vehemently oppose OA are generally the ones who know they won’t compete well in an OA environment. The intent of this series is to explain the OA concept, how it evolved, and identify options for communities who are frustrated with their broadband situation.
The topic of Open Access is political and philosophical. It can also be controversial. No private business owner wants their business advantage to be undermined by what they may see as a socialistic cause. Nobody wants to see jobs go away because it is more efficient to maintain a single infrastructure than several plants in the same community. In my career, I have seen many sides of the internet access world. I have worked as an employee, manager, a consultant, and as a contractor in engineering/design roles. I have also worked for municipal entities under engineering contracts. In these various roles, I have seen this topic from several perspectives, both biased and objective.
An Engineer’s Perspective: As an engineer, my underlying goal in all projects is to design high quality communications infrastructure that efficiently delivers services, have low environmental impact, and have long life-cycles – whether it be for a provider or a municipal entity. I have designed many networks – including several different Open Access models and seen them in operation. Many of these came about through the grass roots efforts of community coalitions who are fed up with the high priced, limited access, and/or poor quality of internet in their communities. I have been part of high-quality engineering and construction projects, and conversely, have seen quality compromised for cost and schedule resulting in poor designs and premature deployments that circumvent regulations and jurisdictional authorities. I have been in management meetings to strategize how to mitigate perceived threats and gain market share against competing entities – public and private. From these career experiences, I have come to three general conclusions:
1. Local public entities and elected leaders tend to act in the public interest. When it comes to the internet, community leaders are recognizing that it is an essential service and they want to ensure their residences and businesses have the three pillars of broadband: Reliable Service, Equitable Access, and Affordable pricing. Most communities are without one or more of these three, and many are frustrated at having no control or influence over making the three pillars available in their communities.
2. Privately owned internet providers act in their own business interest. This statement is not intended to be derogatory; it is a natural and necessary element of our economic system. Many privately owned providers (especially small independents) have strong commitments to the communities they serve. They provide jobs and make philanthropic contributions to schools and communities. However, in the end, they all must answer to boards and shareholders, and their business decisions must be made based on profit margins and bottom lines.
3. Broadband is evolving from a commodity to a utility. As a commodity, the private provider model worked for the most part. Private companies would invest in infrastructure and manage their pricing for a return on their investments. Competition kept pricing under control in metropolitan areas, and rural areas were subsidized with price regulation. As broadband is now being recognized as an essential utility, and public funds are being invested for broadband infrastructure, the square peg of private enterprise system is not fitting into the round hole of public benefit.
The public funding programs are recognizing the broadband change from a commodity to a utility, but they are still trying to manage it through the single private provider model. Managers of the public funds are placing themselves in a position to select winners and losers in broadband markets. Winners are rewarded with public funds to build and own private assets with no public controls or regulation. The losers have no way to compete in markets where the Winners have huge infrastructure investment advantages. The program eligibility regulations are highly influenced by lobbying campaigns and funding decisions are, perhaps unknowingly, suppressing fair competition in the marketplace.
Recognizing these three premises is key to understanding Open Access. OA models were not the invention of evil socialists that were trying to kill capitalism and private investment, but rather are an evolution of ideas from proactive communities who are recognizing that the old system is not fitting the new broadband environment. At its core, Open Access is actually a champion of capitalism by equalizing the playing field on a common publicly owned infrastructure.
The Right Fit: After seeing many sides of the broadband polygon up close and intimate, and from an engineer’s perspective, I see Open Access as not only viable, but as a preferred method of accomplishing the goal of bringing accessible, affordable, and reliable internet to the public in an efficient and equitable way. It seems reasonable to me that public funding systems should give equal, if not preferred funding to communities that are actively trying to improve their broadband atmosphere by, not becoming providers, but by creating platforms for providers to compete in an open market. This statement does not imply that all communities are dissatisfied with their internet. Some are content with their provider options, pricing, and reliability, or do not want to instigate a change in the status quo. Some have engaged in public-private partnerships and have supported single source providers in their communities. Others don’t feel like they have the resources, expertise, or support to take on the responsibility of facilitating the new utility. These are all legitimate reasons for Open Access not being the right fit for a community.
Nevertheless, communities that are not content and want to change how the internet is locally distributed should not feel restricted by their size and demographics or their lack of technical knowledge or resources. There are models and adaptations that can work for any public entity that wants to make a change. The journey is not easy, and public leaders can expect to face very real opposition campaigns and attacks through the process. My hope is that this series of articles will provide community leaders with the information and understanding about Open Access options so they can make the best decisions for their specific circumstances, without being deterred by false information or political pressure.
Article Link for this installment:
Stay tuned for the next installment that explores the pros and cons of different Open Access models and operational structures.