Like a 14.4k modem, broadband is crawling into the nation debate as an actual issue. Barack Obama reminded voters of his plan to use tax money to expand broadband lines to rural areas (where the government is almost discouraging expansion), though John McCain disagrees. Also, the Senate passed a bill on Friday to improve broadband competition. The bill just scratches the surface, adding a question on internet access to the Census and charging the FCC to gather data on telecommunication services annually. A similar bill passed the House last year.

Obviously this bill does very little and I’d love if Obama would push this broadband agenda which, along with green energy, are growing markets that would create jobs, capital, and innovation. Plus it’s an issue McCain doesn’t even know exists. Except when he invented that Blackberry Obama loves so much.

Several fiber optic companies in Amsterdam are testing 1 gigabit connections, internet speeds fast enough for four simultaneous HD movies at once.

The U.S. has been crawling behind Europe, Asia, and even Canada in broadband speeds and penetration.  Instead of rolling out fiber optic connections like Japan and Amsterdam, U.S. cable providers are imposing bandwidth caps.  Only Verizon offers high speed fiber optics in the U.S., which only gives speeds of 50 Mb/s, can cost almost $150, and is only available in a few major cities.

The U.S. suffers from a technological disconnect, only one part of our suffering infrastructure.  As more and more business and information moves online, countries with strong broadband infrastructures will have a competitive edge.  The Baller Herbst Law Group wrote a report on how the U.S. needs universal gigabits speeds by 2015 to stay economically competitive. But the U.S. lacks a broadband strategy like the successful seven year rollout in Japan.

In 2001, when the United States ranked 4th in the world, Japan had only a small handful of broadband lines. Spurred by the “broadband miracle” under way in nearby South Korea, Japan’s top government and private-sector leaders decided to make Japan the world’s leading broadband nation. They then developed and executed an all-hands-on-deck action plan to achieve that goal, including aggressive federal subsidies, low-interest and no-interest loans, loan guarantees, tax breaks, grants-in-aid to municipalities, targeted government purchases of services, a concerted national public education campaign, and a wide range of private-sector initiatives driven by a sense of national purpose and long-term thinking.

Today, Japan has the fastest and cheapest broadband in the world. Consumers in Japan can get broadband that is 10 times faster than the speeds available to average Americans, for prices that are less than a quarter of the prices that Americans must pay. Broadband providers currently compete at 1 Gbps, and this is expected to increase to 10 Gbps by 2010. Broadband is now available almost ubiquitously throughout Japan, and the “almost” will be removed by 2010. Today, 85 percent of households have access to fiber connectivity, and more than 35 percent of households have adopted it. Availability of fiber connective it will increase to 90 percent by 2010.

The U.S. ranks 15th in median broadband speeds at 2.35 megabits per second, behind Japan’s 63 mb/s.

To say the U.S. does nothing isn’t true.  Much of U.S. policy has hurt broadband penetration and competition.  The FCC uses proven false methods of tracking cable competition and still pushes a 30 percent limit on cable company subscriber base.

While penalizing cable companies, the FCC lets telecommunication companies consolidate while doing away with common carrier requirements that have been vital to Japan’s success and would help increase competition.

The U.S. needs a broadband strategy that includes federal subsides and low-interest loans to encourage development because it’s better for our economic well being.  It will be expensive to full deploy fiber connections country wide.  Estimates in the U.K. are between $9 and $50 billion. As Japan (and Australia) have shown, results can be seen within a few years to the benefit of companies and citizens.

This is an issue unfortunately being ignored this election year.  When the next generation of Microsofts, Googles, and Apples originate in South Korea and Denmark, then the U.S. may get a clue.  But by then we might be too far behind to play catch up.

Comcast announced 250 gigabyte caps per month on all its customers.  While the cap is much higher than Time Warner’s 5 gig cap and more than 99 percent of its subscribers use, the precedent is scary for all interest users.

Much of internet innovation has unlimited usage to thank.  Web video, VOIP, online video games, and more have enjoyed years of breathing room to enter people’s homes.  With bandwidth caps, however high, every YouTube video comes with a price tag.

Comcast technically has a right to limit its network. The problem is a lack real competition.  I could only get Comcast in my last apartment. In my new apartment, I can choose between content filtering and slower AT&T DSL or Comcast. No other company is allowed in my building. So Comcast gets away with bandwidth caps. Time Warner gets away with it.  And the tiny few remaining cable providers get away with it too.  It’s a competition to taking away value from customers, not adding value.

Further, should Comcast and Time Warner want customers using more bandwidth? That would make us more reliant on their services. Already I’d pay a premium for speed (if I could find a place that offered FIOS) and as more people find use in online video and services, more people will want faster speeds with more bandwidth. Instead, Comcast wants to offer you less, charge you the same, and ignore the future. Never a good business strategy, unless you have no competition.

Republican presidential candidate John McCain has been open about his lack of computer knowledge, saying “I am an illiterate that has to rely on my wife for all of the assistance that I can get.” He adds he’s “learning to get online” and “will have that down fairly soon.” He doesn’t read email and won’t blog. McCain’s aide Mark Soohoo added “you don’t have to use a computer to understand how it shapes the country.”

Is that true? With so many technology issues going unaddressed or made worse with bad legislation, can we support a politician who isn’t fully informed.

Politicians, especially presidential candidates, should have a familiarity with the major technology trends, issues, and debates much like they would any other field from energy to foreign policy. I don’t expect candidates to design their own web pages or develop PHP applications, but using email and and search engines should be second nature.

The United States has no broadband policy, an out-of-date legal system unable to cope with online issues, and a steam of misinformation about security and privacy risks all likely do to a legislative body uneducated on the driving force of the world economy.  Politicians should know more than the average person because they have to make decisions that affect everyone else. Advisors are there to help filter the information, but some knowledge needs to come from the politicians, otherwise how can we trust they’ll make good decisions.

And admitting you don’t know something 73 percent of Americans use regular isn’t a good decision.

John Grapper of the Financial Times points out (registration required) U.S.’s lagging infrastructure from worn out roads to spotty cell coverage and poor broadband penetration.

If anyone doubts the problems of US infrastructure, I suggest he or she take a flight to John F. Kennedy airport (braving the landing delay), ride a taxi on the pot-holed and congested Brooklyn-Queens Expressway and try to make a mobile phone call en route.

That should settle it, particularly for those who have experienced smooth flights, train rides and road travel, and speedy communications networks in, say, Beijing, Paris or Abu Dhabi recently. The gulf in public and private infrastructure is, to put it mildly, alarming for US competitiveness.

Throw this on the pile with healthcare and green technology and it’s scary to think how the richest country in the world can keep calling itself that.  Creative Class Exchange and Economist’s View echo Grapper’s concerns. Thomas Friedman wrote in The World is Flat how he traveled up and down Japan on the bullet train, easily sending emails all along the way.  I compare London’s amazing subways with a new train every 2-3 minutes to Boston’s horrendous 10-20 minute waits, even during peak hours (and don’t get me started on the $20 billion Big Dig).

This faulting infrastructure costs U.S. money and productivity.  We can’t get municipal wireless into major cities and the FCC would rather limit cable companies than let them spread broadband around the country.

Continue reading…