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.

Last week I wrote about using bailout money to fund start-ups rather than supporting already failing companies. Leave it to Techdirt’s Michael Masnick to show how short my post fell.

Obama’s bailout plan, as he says, is focused strictly on creating jobs as quickly as possible.  But truly successful start-ups create jobs slowly. And if they’re truly revolutionary, they even destroy the need for other jobs.  Masnick explains this:

So, think about it from a government bureaucrat’s perspective right now. Go back a few decades, and assume someone came to you with a plan to create the internet — and even accurately described how it would allow a great free exchange of information. The reaction, if you were trying to deal with an economic crisis, would be to focus on all of the jobs it upset. People can share music online? Think of all the job losses in the music industry! People can read news for free? Think of all those newspapers shutting down! But they wouldn’t consider all of the economic activity created by the internet — the billions of dollars and millions of new jobs created thanks to it.

The internet makes so many things easier, it makes those jobs obsolete, but doing so, it opens up millions of new jobs over the long-term.  It takes more jobs to make cars than it did to make and sell a horse and buggy.  Bailing out incumbent companies prevents the risk-taking and innovation that will create the next industry. It’s short-term thinking that is, part, of the same problem Wall Street got into. When all you think about it the quarterly job report, sustainable economic growth is always another quarter behind.

Thomas Friedman this weekend wrote a column asking for more stimulus money to go to start-ups rather than bailout failing car companies and banks (again).  Originally I was just go to praise and agree with Friedman until some bloggers came out criticizing his position.  So now I actually have to be persuasive.

Friedman’s argument is we need to stop giving public money to companies that screwed themselves up.  GM and Ford and begging for another $20 billion.  Friedman says let them fail and rightfully so. GM and Ford spent billions lobbying Congress to avoid fuel regulation and letting Toyoda out-innovate them.  After laying of 50,000 employees, these companies want more public money (on top of the $15 billion they already got) for no other reason that avoid economic catastrophe in Michigan.  But why are we rewarding companies that were run so badly?

Silicon Alley Insider says most start-ups are bad and investing them will lead to misallocation of resources.  My question – how much worse than GM and Ford can than these start-ups be?  These massive firms are laying off tens of thousands with little plan on how to fix themselves.  Start-ups, even likely to fail, provide widespread job creation, at least short term,  and creativity and experimentation leading to long term benefits in technology, innovation, and new business models.  Friedman points out, Intel and Google both grew out of recessions – harder economic times make start-ups more grateful for the opportunity and aggressive to succeed.  There’s less a flood of new companies, allowing the cream to truly rise to the top.

Stimulus money shouldn’t hand out money to just anybody.  It should function just like a venture capital firm (with the ability to offer tax credits on top of grants and subsidies).  Money rewards smart business plans that serve the public good – by creating jobs and long term benefits, and even failures can be learned from.  And just like any venture firm, we’re banking on one or two companies actually taking off and paying back the taxpayers with equity.  When do we expect GM, Ford, and all the banks to pay us back?

Risk alone should never be a reason not to do something.  Even failure has benefits; failure is also why we diversify so no loss alone is catastrophic. This means still helping larger companies that provide a tangible plan for how to succeed.  Fixing 10-20 years of bad management can be just as hard as starting a business from scratch – just think about how many start-ups could be built with $20 billion.  This is what risk-benefit analysis is all about.  We are not comparing our risk to benefit.  Rewarding smart and innovative businesses sounds like a good risk to make.

Senator Diane Feinstein added an odd amendment to the stimulus package aimed at forcing ISPs to regulate copyright infringement (and child pornography) on their networks.  The content filtering amendment has been pushed off the stimulus bill, but more for procedural issues than merits making it likely we’ll see it again.

Feinstein’s amendment is a dream for copyright holders with little regard for consumers and service providers (ironic Feinstein’s from California, right?). Her amendment calls “for reasonable network management practices such as deterring unlawful activity, including child pornography and copyright infringement.” These being the most heinous things one can do online.  Congress almost regularly puts up these “stop child pornography” bills that chill free speech and are struck down by the courts, but no members of Congress are likely to vote against protecting our children.

Content filtering, for all the grandstanding done by copyright holders (and attorney generals against child pornography), are wholly ineffective.  No technology has been shown to know what’s copyrighted material or even pornography, legal or otherwise.  So this reasonable network management is pie in the sky meant to put the responsibility of policing everyone on ISPs who are protected under various safe harbor provisions.  The only way they could even attempt this is with deep packet inspections which lead to serious privacy concerns.  Public Knowledge brought great attention to the issue, which is quiet for now, but likely to return again.

As the stimulus package meandering its way through Congress, the good parts seem to get lost on the way.  $2 billion for rural broadband development has been removed showing its not as much of a priority as more tax cuts. This may not be a bad thing.

I have issue with broadband being mashed up in the stimulus (I have problems with the stimulus itself, but that’s another post). President Obama claims the money is meant to create jobs more than expand broadband, but why one and not the other?  Especially when the jobs research he’s basing this on is out-of-date?  The stimulus version of broadband looks more like a payoff to the current telecommunications players who’ve been unmotivated to spread broadband themselves (some even actively preventing it).

The United States is ranked 15th in broadband adoption with significantly slower speeds for more money. We need a real, long term broadband strategy, like Japan, where money is offered to companies who produce results.  I’d say this should apply to all government money (it doesn’t), but one step at a time. The government should offer low-interest loans and grants for broadband rollout proposals. Companies need to compete for this money and know they only get paid with results. We can even use the contractor rules - a third to start, a third in the middle, and a third at the end. This way the money isn’t just given to incumbent players with a history of not doing anything (hence why we’re 15th in broadband).

With government money tied to actual results, companies have to produce results - and those results are likely more jobs and a better standard of living for those with new broadband connections. And because of the government assistance, the price of the broadband will (should) be cheaper. Further, by not relying on tax breaks, like Obama’s proposal, grants and low-interest loans provide capital to encourage new players in the industry.  The lack of competition leads to more problems than obsolete technology.

Promising huge payouts to companies isn’t stimulus and it isn’t strategy. Let’s do broadband strategy better than we’re fixing our banks.