"Networked Nation: Broadband In America" - thats the name of the report due out Thursday, January 30, 2008. It was prepared by the National Telecommunications and Information Administration, an agency within the Commerce Department that acts as the president's principal adviser on telecommunications and information policy issues. The report claims that President Bush and his administration have 'mostly' succeeded in making Bush's 2004 promise to connect all Americans with broadband by 2007 come true.

The report and claim are so wrong and skewed on so many levels, I can't see how the Administration can release the report with a straight face. To even call it 'upbeat' is seriously ovestating the issue.



The first thing you go to is how the Administration defines 'broadband'. Everyone knows that the FCC defines broadband as 200kbps. Compared to how the rest of the world views what constitutes broadband speeds, this definition is the equivalent of dial-up speeds. Speaking of which, I'm not even sure why dial-up is still allowed. Oh yeah... because not every American has affordable broadband available to them. How stupid of me!

If we were truly the technological powerhouse the Administration seems to think we are, dial-up would have been extinct 3 years ago. But this is not so because of the real issue behind the failure of Bush's broadband promise: penetration. You remember the big to-do when the last ratings came out which revealed that the US had fallen to 15th place in 2006 from number 4 in 2001. Hello? Anyone home? Does that actually mean anything to you there in the administration?

The answer is obviously a resounding "NO". If you want to see what it looks like when a country really wants to do something about lagging behind in the broadband world, go google Australian broadband and Telus. Broadband is a very hot-button issue Down Under, and a key part of recent politics and elections. The debate about what to do about its broadband ranking and how to go about improving it is front page news in that country. When is the last time you saw broadband make national headlines here? I can't remember. You might ask why I'm not going on about Japan and Korea. There's no point. It'll take us 10 years just to get to where those countries are NOW.

Another embarrassing issue with the new report is the well covered and documented fact that the numbers and stats used in the reports are completely bogus. The NTIA will tell you its report drew its conclusions using data from the FCC and other sources. The FCC reported that more than 99% of all U.S. ZIP codes received broadband service from at least one provider by the end of 2006. But get this: a broadband provider has to serve only a single residence in a ZIP code for it to be counted. After getting caught using this ridiculous method of measuring penetration, the agency said it will launch its own inquiry into how it can "develop a more accurate picture" of broadband deployment. I'm sure by investigating itself the agency will take a hard, fair, and objective look at its own processes. Your tax dollars hard at work.

I love this quote in an article from the York Dispatch by Meredith Attwell Baker, the acting chief of the NTIA: "More data is necessary. We support the FCC's current efforts to produce better data."

Is it me, or is that just a little bit of passing the buck? Try this, Meredith: "We used the FCC's data, which is wrong. We knew it, but we went ahead and used it anyway. Those guys need to get their facts straight. We're just using what they told us to." Is that a little closer to home? There is a bill sponsored by Rep. Ed Markey, D-Mass., that would develop an annual inventory of existing broadband services has passed the House and awaits action in the Senate. Thats a baby step in the right direction, but what does it really mean in the long run? Do you think we'll ever really see the true numbers and stats on broadband deployment and penetration? Not likely, no matter what bill passes or who calls for an inquiry.

Derek Turner, research director for Free Press, a nonprofit public interest group that studies media and technology issues, pretty much sums up the case of broadband penetration and deployment in the US (in a nice, diplomatic way): "In rich suburban areas they're getting broadband. But in many poor and many rural areas we're not seeing the same kind of competitive marketplace that President Bush outlined in his speech in 2004."

Like I said, that's stating the situation very diplomatically. The bottom line is that as predicted so many times, the heavily populated areas are getting the competition, the services (EVDO, fiber, etc.), and generally reaping the benefits of the attentions of the big providers while the less populated areas squeak by with whatever they can get. And I'm not just nitpicking the urban vs. rural issue (again). We are truly a country of multiple Digital Divides. We have divides within divides. Divides within quality, affordability as well as availability. Even in a major urban center, you can be on one block and get kick-ass speeds and several options, then proceed to walk a couple blocks down and only have satellite or dial-up available. Now that is just crazy. Or, the providers don't even bother to build or maintain their networks in a poorer area because they know few can afford their services. Even in areas they do maintain they sometimes neglect one kind of service in order to push customers towards new, more expensive services. But the providers and their defenders will say that's just sound business strategy - if they admit such strategies at all.

Go out into rural areas, and you have people with only satellite, which is expensive and has high latency; crazy EVDO setups just to get a taste of broadband using a technology that is considered merely a convenience to be used with a smartphone in other areas; or, you guessed it, dial-up. None of the big guys will go near these areas because its not worth them spending the money to build out such a larger area where people are spread relatively thin. Again, good business practice for the providers, right? Meanwhile the unlucky are left in the lurch.

Our broadband future, at least in the near term, looks bleak as ever. As has been the case for the past few years, we'll watch other countries keep pulling away in broadband deployment and penetration while back here at the farm nothing will get done until something drastic happens.

As far as broadband affordability, availability and penetration becoming an important issue in the upcoming election - don't hold your breath. Oh sure, you might hear a mention or two during the campaign - but that will be just lip service. The truth is that broadband deployment is just not high on the agenda these days in the USA. We have other concerns, like the war in Iraq, the housing issue, etc. that comes in way before the administration and candidates even start thinking about 'a series of tubes', how many Americans are able to play with a fat pipe, and whether they can use those fat pipes to their full advantage.

Speaking of fat pipes, let me briefly touch on the recent controversies surrounding the ISPs and the prioritizing, filtering, and/or throttling of bandwidth. While the practice has been outed (first by members right here on Broadbandreports.com, thank you very much AP and others who took this story as their own), the fact that the providers are doing so is an indication that we really don't have the infrastructure to handle the bandwidth requirements of today.

Filtering, throttling, and prioritizing is a band-aid disguised as business strategy - or, as the providers like to think - caring about the quality of service its customers receive. The providers already realize that they don't have the capacity to handle the bandwidth intensive services available on the Net today, let alone what is going to be available in the near future. But they choose to blame so-called "bandwidth hogs". There are actually very few true bandwidth hogs. Most of the accused "bandwidth hogs" are people just streaming TV or radio, etc. like they're allowed to. Sooner or later the providers are going to have to beef up their networks, whether they like it or not.

Anyways, even if improving broadband was up on the agenda for the US, the telcos and cablecos will make sure the current status quo is maintained by any means necessary as they battle it out amongst them selves for supremacy without outside interference. The fact that the current spectrum auction has reached the reserve and triggered Google's open access stipulation will have little to no effect, regardless of who the high bidder turns out to be. A noble gesture that will go to waste.

I also just read a piece on the Internet saying it would take about $100 billion just fix US broadband as it is. That's not saying improve it... that's just fix it and keep up with everyone else.

This report paints the picture of Broadband America as just peachy with a 'mostly' rosy outlook. Of course it does. That's what happens when you use skewed stats to make your promises look like they have been kept. But hey, at least we make the most of what we have!

I don't know about you, but to me our broadband future, at least in the near term, looks bleak as ever. As has been the case for the past few years, we'll watch other countries keep pulling away in broadband deployment and penetration while back here at the farm nothing will get done until something drastic happens. Hey, maybe even that total Internet crash that everyone makes fun of. Or when some South American native tribe has faster, more reliable broadband than we do. Then we can all sit back and watch the finger pointing begin. And listen to more promises.