Where do you think that the United States ranks internationally in deploying broadband (high-speed) Internet technology?  Among the top ten nations?  Wrong.  We currently rank 13th.

Foreign Affairs (May/June 2005) reports:  "In the first three years of the Bush administration, the United States dropped from 4th to 13th place in global rankings of broadband Internet usage.  Today, most U.S. homes can access only 'basic' broadband, among the slowest, most expensive, and least reliable in the developed world, and the United States has fallen even further behind in mobile-phone-based Internet access. . . .  In fact, the United States is the only industrialized state without an explicit national policy for promoting broadband."

According to a recent report, only 29% of Americans had broadband access in 2004 (versus 75% of South Koreans).  Part of the discrepancy is that the U.S. is geographically more spread out, but this is not the whole story.  Even in urban and suburban areas, broadband may not be available at all or, if it is, may be priced out of the reach of most people.

Those of us who have had the good luck (and the income) to afford a switch from dial-up to high-speed Internet (cable or DSL) know the difference.  Dial-up is far too slow to encourage much Internet usage.  "Basic" broadband (which, according to the article quoted above, is all most Americans have) is significantly slower than "advanced" broadband.*  Most people do not use the Internet extensively for shopping, business transactions, or information searches until they have broadband.  Limited availability or high cost thus stifles economic activity and stunts economic growth.

High-speed Internet represents far more than being able to access the latest Internet jokes or to look up the answer to trivia questions more quickly.  It means more than being able to easily post the family vacation photos on the Web for everyone to see.  It can have a huge effect on the economy and on the quality of life, and the educational advantages of high-speed Internet in a wired world should be obvious to anyone.

Our government could afford to provide this access – if legislators would abandon such pork-barrel politics as the energy bill just passed by Congress and signed by President Bush.  (It contains, among other boondoggles, provision for a bridge that will be higher than the Brooklyn Bridge and longer than the Golden Gate.  What will this bridge do?  It will connect Alaska's Gravina Island [population about 50] and the metropolis of Ketchikan [popuation 8,000].)  As Steven Levy writes in the Aug. 22, 2005, issue of Newsweek:  ". . . why not hasten the process [of implementing broadband] with a national policy that recognizes the importance of universal service and invests wisely to give everyone access to the Net at geek-pleasing speed?  Isn't it better to build connections to everywhere than to build a bridge to nowhere?"

It's obvious to everyone except the dinosaurs who occupy seats in the nation's government that inexpensive, widespread, high-speed connectivity is important.   Possibly these legislators know what they should be doing but are under the thrall of lobbyists representing cable companies – Comcast is a striking example – that enjoy government-sanctioned monopolies and can, with impunity, gouge customers and keep rivals from the field.  Thus, while our nation continues to decline in deployment of broadband coverage, Comcast's profits rose 64% in the second quarter of 2005.  (Source:  Click Here)

Why does a company with this kind of profit charge $45+ a month for high-speed Internet ($58 if one does not subscribe to Comcast cable TV) and raise cable TV rates faster than the rate of inflation?  Don't ask.

Faster, less expensive wireless technology is available.  Why hasn't it taken off?  One reason is that, in places where local governments want to implement it, companies that profit from the status quo do everything they can to block implementation, as Verizon is now doing in Philadelphia (See this article and this one).

The Internet is rapidly becoming – if it has not already become – more a public utility than a mere commodity.  As such, it needs to be regulated as electricity is and not left to the manipulation of profiteers.  In some areas, capitalism (which has served us well in many ways) must compromise to serve the public interest.  The Internet is such an area.

Other countries have recognized the importance of this kind of connectivity.  The chief reason that the U.S. is falling behind in broadband Internet deployment is that our government has failed to support it, not that we lack the technology.  It's a classic example of how politicians cave in to short-sighted private interests and engage in pork-barrel politics rather than pursuing the long-term public interest.

Government subsidy of high-speed Internet does not mean government control of the Internet.  It does not mean that capitalism will suffer.  Indeed, the more people have access to broadband, the more businesses will benefit from the rapidly expanding area of Internet commerce.  Add to this the benefits of faster, more efficient dissemination of information, the advantages for education, and the value of rapid access to emergency services, and deployment of national broadband coverage looks even more vital to the nation's well-being.

Isn't it ironic that we have thousands of government websites but that millions of people cannot access them or, if they can, must go through such a slow and inefficient process that it's almost better to climb into the family car, drive to city hall or the appropriate government office, and wait in line?

*The distinction between basic broadband and advanced broadband is that the former downlinks at a speed of at least 512 Kbits per second, whereas the latter downloads at a speed of at least 2 Mbits per second.  Advanced is, on average, four or more times faster than basic. (Source: Click Here)