If you live in the United States – especially if you have a cable, DSL, or fiber optic Internet connection – you probably believe that the US leads the world in providing high-speed (broadband) Internet.  Nothing could be further from the truth.

Among the 30 nations in the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD), the US ranks 15th in household broadband adoption; among all the world's nations, it ranks 24th.*  Although the US has more broadband subscribers (58 million)than any other nation in the OECD, it has only 8.5 subscribers for every 100 people in the population.  That puts it just a little behind Portugal (8.7) and Ireland (9.1) but far behind such countries as Finland (23.5), Norway (21.5), and France (19.1).  In the UK, broadband almost twice as many people (16.5 per hundred) are broadband subscribers as in the US.  The figures for Germany are about the same.  The only countries that seem to be behind the US in this regard are those in which there is far less wealth (e.g., Mexico), but some nations not associated with wealth are ahead of the US in broadband adoption.  In fact, Iceland leads the OECD nations with 28.8 per hundred.  Austria, Spain, and Korea, while not high in proportions of subscribers, are still ahead of the US.

These data are only part of the picture.  The same studies note that people in these countries pay less for faster and better service than is available in the US.  Obviously, besides availability, one barrier to adoption is cost.  Yet here we have a nation in which per capita income is high, yet per capita adoption of broadband is low.  Even more distressing is the evidence that the US is falling further behind.  The data given here are for December 2006.  The US position relative to other countries has declined steadily in recent years; there is every reason to believe that the December 2007 figures will be even more dismal.

What is the cause?  The report concludes:  "American consumers are trapped in a duopoly marketplace with no relief in sight.  The boasts of 'third-pipe' competition from wireless providers ring hollow, as the offerings from these companies are slow, expensive, and extremely restrictive.  . . . We rely on the market forces of a duopoly to produce a robust cross-platform competition at our peril.  When the chief supporters pf the status quo, wait-and-see approach to the arrival of a third competitor to DLS and cable are the incumbents themselves, we should understand that they do not expect it will happen."

The duopoly referred to here is that of the cable and telecom companies who have put in place – and want to keep in place – a system that limits consumers' choices.  In most areas, consumers have only two choices; in some, they have only one supplier of broadband service.  These suppliers offer excuses for why broadband in the US does not measure up to that in other countries, but they are all self-serving excuses intended to preserve the status quo.  Why wouldn't they want to do this when the status quo is profitable?  It not only allows them to charge high prices but also frees them from any need to improve the quality or speed of service.  I won't go into all the myths they propagate to maintain their grip, but the article that I've used as a source here goes into considerable detail and convincingly debunks all these myths.

Our representatives in Congress and in the state legislatures need to get up-to-date.  The Internet is not just a place where teenagers waste time chatting or downloading music, where people go sometimes for entertainment, or where bloggers raise hell and cause trouble for politicians.  It is an integral part of the world's economy, the vastest communication hub ever developed, and an increasingly vital tool for education.  It is far more important for Congress to make high-speed Internet available to all citizens than it is for Congress to bring high-definition television into every home, yet the latter has been legislated while the former has been ignored.  No wonder Americans are probably the most overentertained and underinformed people in the world.

A government-controlled Internet is certainly not what we want.  However, government can act to liberate the market from duopolistic and even monopolistic control that keeps prices up and service down.

New Jersey provides an example of a move in the right direction – though it is only a partial solution.  Until recently, localities tended to give cable companies exclusive rights to cover areas under their jurisdiction.  As a result, these companies (notably Comcast) had no competition for supplying broadband (and none for TV either, except satellite).  The already high prices got gradually higher, and service and reliability ranged from bad to terrible, especially with Comcast, which, as the oldest cable supplier in the area, had been remiss in maintaining its infrastructure.

A little over a year ago, the state legislature passed a law that opened access to previously restricted areas, enabling telecommunications companies to supply broadband (DSL or fiber optic) statewide.  That has broken the back of the cable monopoly (which, of course, spent millions in lobbying to prevent this from happening).  However, in most areas, the result is a duopoly.  The public has only two choices, and for many households both are prohibitively expensive.  Because of the cost of broadband, many people reluctantly suffer with dial-up, which has always been cheap because of the abundance of competitive players.

Much as we may dislike a Big Brother approach to government, wherein the federal government butts into everything, we do need government regulation of Internet access suppliers.  This is not to be confused with government regulation of Internet content, a policy that we would vehemently oppose as unconstitutional.  We refer to regulation that would prevent price-gouging and profiteering, making broadband affordable by everyone.  I might even suggest vouchers for those who have difficulty affording it.  (Once again – If Congress is going to pick up the tab for high-def converters for those who can't afford HDTV sets, is underwriting broadband out of line?)

Furthermore, government oversight is necessary to ensure that suppliers are doing everything they can to provide the essential qualities of Internet service:  reliability and speed.  Both can be tracked and measured; in fact, they already are.  There is no need to rely on anecdotal evidence.  Suppliers who fall short would be penalized.  In the US, the broadband suppliers are enjoying the benefits of eating a high-priced carrot.  There are no sticks beating on their butts to motivate them to lower costs or improve service.  They want to preserve a status quo that is not in the public interest, just as, until recently, Comcast in New Jersey spent millions attempting to preserve a monopolistic status quo – millions that could have been spent on infrastructure, upgrading, and service.

In our free-market system, nothing can make a company lower prices or improve service if it has little or no competition.  This may work with physical products, if only because the free market inevitably creates competition.  However, services are different.  If a product is unsatisfactory, we do without it or try a different one.  We have fewer options with services, and services have a greater impact on our lives than any product does, excepting perhaps our automobiles.  Services – electricity, gas, water, telephone, and now the Internet – are too important to be left in the hands of corporate entities, who are quite naturally going to care more about profits than about the public welfare.

The reason the US is behind other countries in both adoption of high-speed Internet and speed and quality of service is not that we lack the technology.  The US still dominates the globe in innovation and computer technology.  One reason is that high-speed Internet in this country is in the hands of greedy and short-sighted providers.  The reasons that there is no public outcry about this situation are that:  (a) most people are unaware that the US is lagging; (b) those who have broadband probably don't realize that what they have is slow by global standards; (c) even among those who use high-speed Internet for private purposes, there is little awareness of the impact of the Internet in a nation's economy and education.  Even politicians, who are learning of the power of the Internet as they campaign, are saying little about expanding the availability of broadband.  It is, to use a popular cliché, simply not on their radar.

*Statistics in this article are from the OECD website and from "'Shooting the Messenger'[:] Myth vs. Reality:  U.S. Broadband Policy and International Broadband Rankings" by S. Derek Turner (Free Press:  July 2007).