I like this quote from Todd Spangler who commented yesterday in a blog post about Google one gigabit per second initiative in Kansas City:

“ISPs that serve a large and diverse customer base — over large service areas — must weigh the network investment required to deliver 1 Gig with the return they’re going to get. Getting to market too soon is a poor use of capital: Chest-thumping, high-fives and happy headlines don’t pay the bills.”

The take away from Mr Spangler’s blog post is it’s too early for one gigabit per second speed in the vast majority of American households unless, as he points out, you have 300 Netflix accounts running at the same time. Most Ameircans would have to invest today in the hardware to address that type of speed.

What I do appreciate about Google’s efforts is that as a major content provider it is investing in getting American households to adopt broadband. Granted, its initiative is not for altruistic reasons; Google wants you to come to its site to search, hangout, and watch videos so like any good land developer, Google is going to make sure that it builds the roads necessary for you to come and visit it.

The FCC should take heed in how it promotes the flow of capital. Going around calling for gigabit communities shows some vision but the vision should be tempered by the actual needs today of the consumer.

Last week a coalition, led by Google, wrote a letter to the chairman of the Georgia House Committee on Energy, Utilities, and Telecommunications urging him to not pass HB 282, the Municipal Broadband Investment Act. The bill, if passed, would require that municipal broadband networks serve only areas that are not being served by a private broadband provider. It also requires that the Georgia Public Service Commission (GPSC) make a determination as to whether an area is unserved and to draft rules that specify violations of the Act.

Seeing Google and the National Association of Telecommunications Officers and Advisors (NATOA) is scary enough. These two have nothing on common other than they represent content providers who would rather not directly pay to have their content distributed over the Internet. Both have been pro net neutrality, NATOA more so, because they don’t want to see their content throttled.

Scarier yet is the lack of support for the assertions made in their letter to the committee chairman. Most glaring is their arguments about how the bill would hinder economic growth in Georgia. What’s hindering economic growth in Georgia isn’t the lack of broadband, although the job creation resulting from construction and deployment of broadband infrastructure wouldn’t hurt. What is really hurting growth in Georgia is the lack of a more diversified economic base compounded by a loss of manufacturing jobs. Also, Georgia is trying to get from under a foreclosure crisis exacerbated by high unemployment.

Even if broadband deployment were the panacea for our economic ills, HB 282 would direct deployment where its most needed; in the areas that are unserved and could probably get a boost from the type of industry where a broadband connection is key.

Google and NATOA should spend less time playing carpetbagger and get to know the state before making unwarranted assertions about economic growth. That phrase has been bandied about to the point where it’s staring to lose value.

If Google and NATOA are so concerned about expanding broadband, they should support legislation that calls for an universal service assessment on cost causers like Amazon, Facebook, and Google, requiring that they pay a percentage of income made from advertisements and/or online retail. That would go long way toward getting the unserved online, whether they reside in an area serviced by multiple broadband providers or none.

The Federal Communications Commission pushes its universal service program the way a drug dealer pushes cocaine. To keep carriers in check, it has devised a system that some carriers believe they have to depend on, while the FCC sells them on the need to keep doing lines because it will give the carrier the confidence it needs to go out and serve unserved areas of the country. It’s time for carriers to break the dependency and free themselves from this regulatory crossfire. The carriers are not the bad guys when it comes to broadband adoption and I would go further and argue that they should not be responsible for financing its expansion. That responsibility should lie with online content producers, including companies that publish news, movies, and blogs.

Content providers, not broadband providers, are the primary beneficiaries of broadband adoption by the remaining 100 million households the FCC targeted in its national broadband plan. If a land developer wants to ensure people come to its development, buy houses, and live in the development, the land developer is going to build roads, lay conduits for communications and water, and maybe throw in a school building. Google, Amazon, and Netflix are not doing that with broadband, even though it’s broadband that brings them the eyeballs for their content.

Content providers are not doing that with broadband networks. With the help of the FCC, they have dumped the negative externality of adoption costs unto broadband providers. Net neutrality is famously their prime mechanism for doing so; by requiring that traffic from all content providers be given first class treatment on a broadband provider’s network. The other instrument, universal service via the moniker Connect America Fund, while reimbursing broadband providers for the cost of deploying facilities where their business models dare not tread, really takes final payment of this subsidy out of the wallets of the end using consumer.

The Connect America Fund had about $185 million left on the table for broadband providers to apply for and use to help with the cost of getting broadband to Farmer Smith and Dr. Jones so that they can deliver services to an increasingly demanding broadband consumer. These funds are also meant to help people access the Internet at high-speed so that they can take advantage of news,information, goods, and services provided by larger e-commerce entities including Amazon, Ebay, Walmart, and Google.

If these companies, who need the Internet like humans need air, want to reach their potential customers that bad, why don’t they invest the cash sitting on their books to subsidize broadband adoption? For example, Google, with four dollars of current assets with one dollar of current liabilities, has enough cash on hand to kick in and incentivize broadband adoption. And let’s not forget Facebook, with 1.1 billion subscribers, some of whom are connecting via wired and wireline broadband, has ten dollars in current assets for every dollar of current liability has enough liquidity and cash to kick in some direct funding for broadband adoption.

Carriers are just middlemen, unless they are endowed with content properties like Comcast. Being in the middle makes you a target for regulation, including the onerous requirements of a universal broadband service fund, but equity calls for the incidence of broadband adoption initiatives to fall on the entities with the most to gain, and those entities are the content providers and e-commerce companies selling goods and services.

According to Gigaom.com, Consumers are uploading 72 hours of video to YouTube per minute. That’s a lot of content.

YouTube is owned by Google, Inc.

With all the smart phones equipped with cameras, uploading video is easier to do. This increases demand for access to the airwaves or spectrum. Will technology, and more importantly, regulation be able to keep up?

What this also tells me is that Google is a much bigger threat to Facebook as we know it. Google has a much more lucrative advertising business. They are able to get more eyes to their content because of YouTube. All that is missing is the social networking piece. They will either keep plodding along with Google+ or go after Facebook.

Now that would be fun to watch on YouTube or anywhere else.

A couple posts ago I shared the idea of Apple buying T-Mobile. What would really be an act of charity would be Google buying Sprint. Talk about putting a company out of its misery. Shares of Sprint have been falling for six months and this company needs a parachute. It waged a successful legal/regulatory campaign against the AT&T,T-Mobile merger, but looks like it may be in need of some help itself.

Here is a quote from an analysis by Morningstar:

“We believe this strategy is correct, but execution has failed thus far in one critical area: financing. That Sprint needs to raise capital isn’t a surprise, given the steady debt maturities it faces during the next few years. Sprint’s initial reluctance to clearly lay out its funding needs and continued uncertainty around Clearwire CLWR have caused the market to lose faith in management. Backed into a corner, the firm was forced to accept costly terms on its recent $4 billion debt offering. Sprint should now have the financial resources to work through Network Vision, but the firm still has little room for error.”

Google definitely has resources and could be Sprint’s white knight. In addition, keeping Sprint viable is good for public policy reasons because it keeps another choice for mobile broadband access in the game.