Salon: Why American Broadband is so Bad Compared to Broadband in the Leading Nations. Muniwireless.com, October 18, 2005. http://www.muniwireless.com/article/articleview/4871
This article gives a general introduction to why US broadband service is slower, and less widely available than in leading broadband nations such as Japan, South Korea, Canada, Finland and France. It is a good introduction to the larger context of US policy on broadband, and how this affects local communities. It can help a community show how their broadband projects fills a gap in national policy, and to advocate for state and national policy that supports broadband projects, like theirs, that will make US internet more affordable and more widely available.
According to the article, a key reason for this problem is that the US lacks a national broadband policy, something which can encourage competition among providers, leading to lower prices for consumers and better service. Instead, " the U.S. has a handful of unelected and unaccountable corporate giants that control our vital telecommunications infrastructure."
The article (1) reviews US national broadband policy shortcomings, pulling apart FCC statistics that seem to indicate that the US has good broadband coverage. For example, the FCC has set the definition for high speed very low, at 200 kbps (four times the speed of dial-up) meaning that it can claim "high speed" internet is available to many Americans. In comparison, Canada has set the minimum standard for high speed internet at 1.5 Mbps in both directions (7 times faster than FCC), which does not even come close to standard service speeds in Japan. Most of the countries that are ahead of the US in broadband speed and availability have "open access" rules. These rules require the owner of a network to allow its competitors access to the network at wholesale prices.
The article also argues that (2) Community Internet projects offer hope for achieving universal broadband service in the US. That, (3) Community Internet projects have been opposed through the legal system and information campaigns by major cable companies and DSL providers. Despite these companies claims, municipal networks, in fact, promote competition, and do not get an unfair cost advantage from tax or other subsidies.
And, finally (4) the article introduces the issue of wireless spectrum, and discusses briefly how Congress might reallocate spectrum wisely. The article concludes: "American innovation offers a solution to our broadband problem. It's time for Congress, the FCC and the White House to stop protecting the corporate dinosaurs and start exploring alternatives that will foster a genuine free market in high-speed Internet services."