Muddling together a different regulatory framework with different geographic and technological realities paints a picture of despair that will no doubt be used by sound bite opportunists to take cheap shots at America’s broadband deployment. The piece suggests that compelling phone and cable companies to open up their wires to Internet providers would lead to an explosion in broadband. But we’ve already seen an explosion in broadband in the U.S. triggered by government policies based on market-based competition.

In March 2002, the FCC clarified that high-speed cable-modem service is an information service not subject to unbundling and other Title II regulations of the Communications Act. In August 2003, the FCC exempted wireline fiber facilities from the Commission’s unbundling requirements. In September 2005, the FCC clarified that wireline broadband Internet access service is also an information service not subject to unbundling and other Title II regulations of the Communications Act. These actions have accelerated broadband deployment in the United States from just over 4 million broadband lines in 2000 to just under 16 million broadband lines in 2002 to approximately 32 million lines in 2004 to almost 65 million lines in 2006.

This rapid growth shows a direct correlation between the FCC’s market-based policies and the explosion of broadband subscribers in the United States. The lack of regulation on wireless services also has permitted wireless broadband services to explode as well. In June 2005, there were almost 380,000 wireless broadband subscribers and just one year later, in June 2006, there were more than 11 million subscribers. The Commission’s recent video franchise order promises to further increase the demand for broadband service.

The article suggests that a large part of Japan’s success is based on geographic and historical factors noting the razing of Japan’s infrastructure in World War II and the fact the Japanese population is “relatively small, highly urbanized and densely populated.�? Since no one I know is interested moving the entire Midwest to either coast, I think we are going to have to take another path.

The story also discusses how the Japanese government gave NTT, the main service provider in Japan, tax breaks and grants to upgrade its networks to fiber. That might have been the right approach in Japan, but the U.S. Congress has yet to implement a similar plan here to give AT&T, Verizon & Comcast the same tax breaks and grants to deploy fiber across the country’s 3.6 million square miles.

American consumers have plenty of choices for Internet access from DSL, cable modem, wireless, satellite providers — and, increasingly, over power lines and municipal Wi-Fi systems. In fact, there are more than 1,270 broadband service providers in the U.S. today. With North American telecommunications companies projected to spend $70 billion on new infrastructure this year, it’s clear that market-based competition is working but unfortunately, the reporter didn’t talk to any American service providers to understand the full picture before drawing these misguided conclusions.

Rural communities are missing the healthcare, education and economic improvements associated with broadband deployment. Not only is it critical that these opportunities be delivered to rural America, it’s the right thing to do.

Since 2000, when there were just over 4 million broadband lines in the U.S., the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) has made a series of decisions that have guided the communications marketplace to market-based competition rather than a government-managed system. Because of the FCC’s leadership, there were almost 65 million broadband lines by 2006 — an increase of 61 million lines!

To me this demonstrates a pretty direct link between the FCC’s market-based policies and the explosion of broadband subscribers in the U.S. The lack of regulation on wireless services has also permitted wireless broadband services to grow exponentially. In June of 2005, there were almost 380,000 wireless broadband subscribers; in June of 2006, there were more than 11 million. The FCC’s recent video franchise order promises to further increase the demand for broadband service. Against this competitive backdrop, North American telecommunications companies are projected to spend $70 billion on new infrastructure this year alone.

The problem is that the majority of the benefits associated with broadband go to people living in metropolitan areas while those in rural America are left behind. While there are no “magic bullets €? to solving a problem that is largely one of geography and population density, there are steps Congress can take. For example, we must ensure a sustainable future for universal service, to increase access to telecommunications services nationwide, and maintain affordable rates in low-income and rural areas. Broadband is also very price sensitive, so we should also make permanent the Internet tax moratorium.

The Rural Utilities Service (RUS) broadband loan program has achieved some successes in providing access to lesser populated areas. The primary weakness of the current program is that it does too little for communities with no access to broadband. Although the nation is dotted with areas currently not served, the USDA Inspector General concluded the program’s focus has shifted away from rural communities that would not, without government assistance, have access to broadband technology. We made a number of recommendations to improve the program, largely based on its successful telephone program counterpart. In addition, we recommended that Congress take a close look at the success of “Connect Kentucky €? program, a public private partnership that will provide the entire state broadband access by the end of this year.

One of the elements of the Connect Kentucky model was mapping the states existing broadband coverage. As Congress focuses in on the mapping concept, I hope they will keep it simple and get going right away using this model rather than recreating the wheel at the federal level. In fact, Senator Dick Durbin has introduced a bill, S.1190, that would do that very thing.

It is imperative that we take proactive steps to provide rural areas with broadband access. Broadband innovations carry the promise of life-enhancing applications in health care, the environment, education and the economy; principles all Americans are entitled to.