Agreed, it’s important to consider geography and demographics when making national ranking comparisons — that’s why I’ve mentioned the preference for conducting international peer-to-peer market comparisons in the past. Infrastructure deployment advances in Canada was an insightful comparison that has been used before. That being said, perhaps a more local (city, town or community) peer comparison will raise the bar of expectations in a more convincing way. As an example, comparing the Hong Kong market with a similar city in the U.S. market could uncover some actionable insights.

My point: there are likely examples of progressive policymaking in other parts of the world that can be adopted in the U.S. marketplace, so that perhaps the nation’s ranking will become more attuned with to the global economist expectations. Given the recent history in America, however, the outcome from a decline of government oversight within the financial services industry might lead some economists to conclude that the free market doesn’t always choose the best path for economic development progress.

Granted, this scenario is complex (even for the most informed constituents), but the potential dividends gained from finding a workable solution should make this topic a high-priority on the agenda of any forward-thinking national government — and their savvy commercial sector stakeholders.

   0 likes

Also, the US is a very large country (in square miles) and it is difficult to compare our urban vs rural penetration to many other countries that are a fraction of the size of the US. Our diverse geographic challenges in deploying wired and wireless technologies is something many other nations don’t have to contect with. The US also has many other infrastructure challenges in roads, bridges, water, etc that also require focus in the coming years with significant investment required and not everything can be solved at once as perfectly as we’d wish while still keeping our economy intact.

In this country, some choose to be “rural” because they don’t want to be highly connected and studies like the one that kicked off this conversation likely don’t take that into account.

My mention of government above is in the context of Federal government. It is perfectly reasonable to have local cities working with their business and economic development councils to find ways to drive growth and solve their local infrastructure challenges but as a taxpayer, I am tired of having money taken from me in all these various federal funds to help in ways that are burdened by administrative overhead and bureaucracy. Cities should be trying to compete for businesses and their residents and if NYC for example has overgrown their infrastructure and can’t compete, some will make the decision to move their interests to another location that meets their needs. That kind of competitive pressure is a good thing and keeps us all highly motivated to innovate and continually improve. The FCC should become a very small part of that complex equation.

   0 likes

Private companies defend their investments by insisting on a level playing field, which they feel government competition is not. They claim subsidies abound in this type competitive metric.
These are the current obstacles in front of local some communities getting in the game. Besides Google’s initiative, EPB (https://www.epb.net/) of Chatanooga, TN has been successful in building their own broadband, and
Eutopia (http://http://www.utopianet.org/) is another community based broadband initiative with some success in the mid-west.

There has to be a significant grassroots effort national-wide to change the current competitive environment in the U.S.

   0 likes

I’m hopeful that one day, in the not too distant future, the bar of expectations will be raised and the only vested interests being promoted will be America’s collective role in the Global Networked Economy. Perhaps the example of the U.S. Interstate Highway System is still proof-positive that the national leadership can and will support progressive policies http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/U.S._Interstate_Highway_System

   0 likes

http://www.broadbandconvergent.com/telecom-market/national-infrastructure-crisis-improving-distribution-metrics/

   0 likes

   0 likes

Private broadband wireline companies have no incentive to build ultra-fast networks anywhere, since a lack of competition lets them rest on minimal innovation. The bright spot in broadband is wireless where existing competitive forces spur innovation including speeds, access, etc..

As stated, Google is leading the way to a competitive broadband future without help from government. It is a believer and innovator.

Startups are not limited to large metropolitan areas, they are embedded throughout the broadband landscape, and as pointed out, forcing local governments in that landscape to partner with private enterprise to build infrastructure.

   0 likes

You said “Stop skating to where the puck was and start skating to where it will be.” Most of the leading global broadband markets today (Hong Kong, Singapore, etc.) earned their high ranking with decisive strategic foresight — that was originated more than a decade ago.
Perhaps, using new technology, it’s possible for some of the trailing markets (like the U.S.) to make a quantum leap and thereby catch-up over a shorter period of time. What’s your thoughts – is that a likely outcome?

   0 likes

Increasingly people are consuming much of their broadband via mobile/transient devices/means. Anyone who has gotten a 4G phone and knows where wifi is can speak to this. My own mobile/transient “wireless” consumption relative to fixed wireline has gone from 10/90 to more like 30/70 in just a month since getting my S3/4G. And I am a fairly heavy online user. That’s why Dell and the Wintel ecosystem is under such heavy duress. Stop skating to where the puck was and start skating to where it will be.

Lastly, the comments debating where broadband is (urban, suburban, rural) and who uses it (rich, poor, consumer, enterprise), not only miss the mobile/transient aspect, but they entirely miss, as does 99.9% of broadband discussion/debate/study Metcalfe’s laws. Namely that a) the value of the network grows geometrically as the cost increases linearly, and b) that companies will be subsidizers and buyers of broadband everywhere in the future, as broadband not only lowers their real physical costs (labor, real estate, transport) but also increases their transaction and revenue opportunities. We’ve lost sight of the latter “800″ model because we killed competition over the past 15 years.

Let’s hope Google and others begin to realize and prove this via a “horizontal” approach that is service, device, market and application agnostic. Vertically integrated broadband networks have failed in that broadband costs are 20-150x higher than they should be based on current technological capabilities.

   0 likes

   0 likes