Saul Hansell of the New York Times has been writing a series of reports the past few months that all have the same basic theme: U.S. broadband really isn't as bad as many grumpy pundits (and, apparently, the facts) would have you believe. He recently argued that broadband coverage gaps were "hooey," since cable providers would quickly deploy DOCSIS 3.0 technology to almost everyone. His latest piece takes a look at broadband speeds, which he concludes are slightly lagging, but not really a big deal:In other words, if you take away the most impressive broadband countries, then dismiss our still mediocre showing as a product of geography (which doesn't explain our record on poor urban deployment, or the successes of say, Canada), the U.S. looks pretty good. With availability and speed issues solved, that leaves just high US broadband prices left to dismiss, which Hansell apparently can't. "On prices, unlike speeds, those tantalizing reports from overseas are correct," he says.

Like in France, where users can get 100Mbps/50Mbps fiber service, VoIP and IPTV for $40 a month -- in large part because the country took our now-scrapped attempt at local-loop unbundling and made it work. Fiber carriers who were sharing the access lines of local incumbents are now building their own networks, which resulted in strong facilities-based competition and lower prices thanks to -- get ready -- regulation. Which brings us back to our first sentence, and a larger point we'd be interested to see Hansell engage.

While Hansell's reports have been well written, well researched and interesting to read, they continue to carry (albeit subtly) the editorial refrain: problems in the U.S. broadband market are minuscule, and if they aren't already improving, they can be cured by organic market forces. In other words, the need for substantive industry regulation (a growing trend in DC right now) is unnecessary. From a piece last week:From today's piece:From his recent article on broadband coverage:Catching the drift, yet? The word "regulation" is akin to puppy murder the in minds of many technologists (and carriers), with all regulation inevitably resulting in the worst possible outcome. And while that's one opinion, another is that a decade of rabid deregulation, mixed with the complete and total corruption of our political system, is largely to blame for high prices and the lack of competition. Perhaps that discussion is coming in a follow up report. It's one worth having, since it sits at the absolute core of all our broadband successes and failures.