Gosh, it seems like only yesterday the FCC was telling us that broadband competition in the United States was incredibly robust based on completely inaccurate data. But not only has the FCC seen a change in leadership, they've made a promise to actually base policy decisions on science, not just AT&T or Comcast lobbyist flow charts. As such, a new report by the "more sciency!" FCC confirms what most studies have found: that the United States is "a middle-of-the-pack performer" when it comes to broadband speed, penetration and price.

Contrasting with a decade of FCC "hands off" policy that ignored precisely these kinds of studies, the new study (pdf) suggests that open access policies have helped other leading industrialized nations develop more competitive broadband markets by lowering entry barriers. The 232 page study, crafted by the Harvard University's Berkman Center, argues that in countries where "an engaged regulator" enforced open access obligations, robust competition was usually the result.

The lowest prices and highest speeds are almost always offered by firms in markets where, in addition to an incumbent telephone company and a cable company, there are also competitors who entered the market, and built their presence, through use of open access facilities. -FCC study

It's not particularly surprising that a study commissioned by a regulator shows that regulator involvement in broadband policy makes sense. Still, the study makes some salient points as it tries to deconstruct the long-standing industry meme that all regulation is inherently bad, and that companies left alone to their own devices will magically lead the telecom sector to a fruitful, organically competitive consumer utopia.

"Contrary to perceptions in the United States, there is extensive evidence to support the position, adopted almost universally by other advanced economies, that open access policies, where undertaken with serious regulatory engagement, contributed to broadband penetration, capacity, and affordability in the first generation of broadband," says the study.

As we've been exploring, both AT&T and Verizon absolutely despise Google. Why? Because the company represents an Internet future where phone companies are relegated to "dumb pipe" network operators, and more innovative and adaptable companies wind up making a killing in the content and service business.

According to the latest information from the cable industry, just 443,000 American consumers are using CableCARDs, designed to allow users to break free of the obligation of using a rented cable (or phone) industry TV set top box. That fairly pathetic number is up from just 407,000 in June, despite the fact the cable industry says they've shipped more than 16.7 million set-top boxes with CableCARD functionality.

If you've paid attention, you know the modern "network neutrality" debate took off in 2005, when then AT&T CEO Ed Whitacre proudly, though dumbly, proclaimed that Google got a "free ride" on his network. According to Ed, this unfairness could only be rectified by charging companies who already pay for bandwidth money to ensure their traffic reaches AT&T consumers quickly.

The Pittsburgh City Council today voted unanimously (9-0) to give Verizon a FiOS franchise in the city, after the two sides haggled over local TV funding and the installation of a small local support center. The agreement requires that Verizon deploy FiOS to the entire city within six years, though such agreements generally include plenty of wiggle room for Verizon.

AT&T, Comcast and Verizon all came under fire recently for suggesting the baseline definition of broadband should remain low (as in, between 200-768 kbps), given that means they'd have less work to do -- and less government oversight into their affairs. AT&T's comments to the FCC (pdf) went one step further, arguing that video gaming should not be considered an essential component (like e-mail and browsing) when discussing broadband definitions, and is instead an "aspirational" service.

Despite claims to the contrary, most of the major cable and phone companies are pushing for an ultra-low definition of broadband as the country creates a national broadband policy. Why? By leaving the current definition as 768kbps downstream and 200 kbps upstream, that means less work for carriers, and less government involvement in their affairs.

Back in December of 2007, the FCC passed a rule saying that if you're a cable operator, you can't own more than 30% of the pay TV market. According to the FCC, the rule was "designed to ensure that no single cable operator or group of operators, because of its size, can unfairly impede the flow of programming to consumers." Given Comcast sits somewhere around 27%, the operator quickly sued the FCC, noting some degree of FCC hypocrisy in capping Comcast growth, but signing off on every baby bell merger that comes their way.

Part of the continuing problem with the telecom sector (well, most sectors, and not just in the States) is that there's a revolving door between industry lobbyists and regulators, which creates a legion of regulators who simply nod dumbly at corporations as they search for their next paying gig. While that's certainly their individual right, that obviously leaves regular users in the dust, since there's just no money in giving a damn about consumers.

As was expected, the FCC unanimously voted on three notice of inquiries (NOIs) aimed at analyzing the wireless sector for competitive shortcomings. In a statement (pdf), new FCC boss Julius Genachowski said the inquiry was aimed at "developing policies that maximize and accelerate innovation and investment." The inquiry came about, however, only after the agency and Congress showed concern over things like exclusive handset deals, possible SMS price collusion and AT&T/Apple's recent Google Voice blockade.

While the vote on the inquiries were unanimous, the traditional 3-2 partisan divide remained evident with the Commission Republican minority insisting the market was "robustly competitive" and required only a "light regulatory touch." What happens now? Lots of talking, accompanied by lots of lobbyists proclaiming the wireless industry's infallible, followed probably by no substantive action by the FCC.

But that's just a wild guess. It would be nice to be proven wrong.

The nation's larger broadband companies didn't apply for broadband stimulus funds, largely because they don't want government scrutiny into their business practices, don't like the fact they had to use the funds just on under-served rural areas, and frankly, many don't need the cash. That said, there's plenty of smaller operations who do want to do business in rural America; in fact there's 2,200 of them according to the latest statement from the NTIA and the Department of Agriculture's Rural Utilities Service.

If you've been following this sector at all for the last decade, you'll note that the broadband industry has had a hard time even accurately defining what broadband is, much less how we should forge a national policy. The FCC has traditionally defined broadband as anything faster than 200kbps, only recently upgrading that definition to 768kbps downstream and 200kbps upstream.

With the network neutrality circus back in town, the use of bogus grass roots groups (aka "astroturf") is again on the upswing as corporations lobby Uncle Sam to prevent network neutrality legislation. Such misleadingly named groups (grandmothers for network justice?) are used by corporations in every sector to give the illusion of broad consumer support for ideas that are anti-consumer.

In 1915, in order to spur deployment of phone service to under-served areas of the State, Massachusetts lawmakers exempted phone company poles and cables from property taxes when they passed through public property. Nearly a century later, the state is trying to change that and as you can imagine -- it doesn't sit well with Verizon.

The U.S. National Telecommunications and Information Administration, tasked with handing out $4.7 billion in broadband deployment grants, is looking for "expert panelists" to review applications for broadband stimulus funds. According to a document (pdf) posted to the NTIA website, to be considered as a reviewer you need expertise in at least one of the following three areas: 1) the design, funding, construction, and operation of broadband networks or public computer centers; 2) broadband-related outreach, training, or education; and 3) innovative programs to increase the demand for broadband services.

Four major labels (Sony BMG, EMI, Universal Music, Warner Music) recently filed suit against Ireland's largest ISP, Eircom, for their refusal to implement piracy filters -- despite the fact there's no law there requiring they do so. Eircom ultimately settled and agreed to implement a "three strikes" system to boot heavy P2P users from the network, again despite being under no legal obligation.

A new bill aimed at derailing unreasonable efforts at per-byte broadband billing faces a steep uphill climb in DC, where AT&T, Verizon and Comcast lobbyists usually get what they want -- particularly if they're working together. Time Warner Cable's effort to hoist low caps and metered billing upon consumers was a sloppy affair, and the public backlash created a unique instance where genuine consumer activism changed the course of a giant corporation.

Prompted by Time Warner Cable's botched attempt to force low caps and metered billing on its customers, Rep. Eric Massa (D-N.Y.) today unveiled the "Broadband Internet Fairness Act" (HR 2902), legislation aimed at protecting consumers from unreasonable broadband overage charges.

There's not a broadband provider out there who wouldn't instantly begin billing you by the byte if they thought you (the consumer) would sign off on it. Unfortunately for them, Time Warner Cable's recent PR disaster illustrated that consumers aren't sold on low caps and high overages when broadband delivery costs continue to drop.

Because apparently an organization that spent $14.4 million last year on lobbying just doesn't get enough face time, Ars Technica gives cable lobbyist and NCTA boss Kyle McSlarrow a podium to wax poetic about alternative broadband pricing schemes. During the Time Warner Cable debate over metered billing, McSlarrow played blog patty cake with consumer advocates, proclaiming that Time Warner Cable was simply transparently testing alternative billing models.