I still find it surprising that often the people who create problems are asked to then fix them. And I’m not talking about the financial crisis. Broadband internet in the U.S. significantly lags behind many countries with slower and more expensive internet connections.  The Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development found the U.S. ranks 19th in the world with advertised rates of 9.6 megabytes per second, far behind Japan’s 92.8 mbps, Korea’s 80.8 mbps, and France’s 51 mbps.

If the U.S. had real competition for internet access, we would likely have faster speeds and more ubiquitous access (a shared infrastructure like we have for telephones and power lines would be an excellent start), but instead of promoting competition, the government continues to listen to and reward the incumbent with free money and laws that only keep our internet slow and expensive.

First, the FCC is listening to ISPs urging the government to define broadband at significantly lower speeds than the lower speeds we already have. Both Verizon and Comcast suggested speeds of than a single mbps. These numbers matter, since the $7.2 billion from the stimulus package is meant for broadband speeds.

Of course, expanding broadband is also important than just increasing speeds, but we lack any real map of what parts of the country have and don’t have broadband access.  The FCC for years used knowingly faulty data to claim there was competition between ISPs. Of course, the ISPs keep these maps secrets, making it more crazy that the government would look to the telecommunication industry’s own organization, Connected Nation, to map the nation broadband infrastructure.  Lots of questions are facing Florida for why it granted its mapping to the new and unproven group, when its bid was more than double that of the highly experienced (in the Florida market even) second highest bidder.

ISPs claim customers don’t want or need these faster speeds, but at the same time, ISPs are arguing that they need to traffic shape or even charge more because users are using so much bandwidth. The truth is 18 other countries are still paying less for much faster service; service that is available in more households and more areas of the country.  These countries will be more competitive at attracting technology companies who want to offer more bandwidth intensive products, like high-def videos and gaming, to other products we can’t yet imagine. How could YouTube have existed before broadband?  Let’s start planning for the future. The U.S. needs to stay technological competitive, and listening to the companies that made us fall behind are not the ones to trust when thinking about how to fix it.

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 provenly 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.  These incentives ensure broadband will reach even the poorest areas and keep the United States competitive with the rest of the world. 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.