We suck at the Internet too

The Bits Blog at the Times reveals that American “broadband penetration” (That’s what they call it folks. Haha. Paging Dr. Freud!) is sadder than Rick Ross’ rap career. Compared to Europe and East Asia, we are in the Dark Ages on two fronts–cost and speed. Other countries out-Internet us for a couple reasons:

Other countries have lower costs for the same reasons their DSL service is faster. Dense urban areas reduce some of the cost of building networks. In addition, governments in some countries subsidized fiber networks.

But, according to Saul Hansell, there are also significant factors that are self-imposed by American business that have made the country’s broadband situation so “primitive.”

“Now hold on there,” you might say to me. Since I wrote that many countries don’t have cable systems and the bulk of broadband is run by way of DSL through existing phone wires, how can there be competition? Aren’t those owned by monopoly phone companies?

True enough. But most big countries have devised a system to create competition by forcing the phone companies to share their lines and facilities with rival Internet providers.

There’s the rub. Now, the US attempted to do this when laws dictated that companies allow other providers to use their infrastructure, in order to stimulate competition. But this was abandoned in 2003 by the FCC. This forced competition or what is called “line-sharing” may be making a comeback soon.

Restoring some form of line sharing is one of the biggest issues facing the F.C.C. Without it, or some other way to increase competition, the oligopolistic nature of the market in the United States may well keep broadband prices well above the rates for similar service in the rest of the world. At the same time, the commission is looking to expand broadband access to rural areas and speed the deployment of higher speeds, so it may not want to slash telco profits if it will also slow investment.

The issue at hand is how and why will companies invest in infrastructure if they are forced to share the lines (and thus profit). This will most likely in the American case (as it was in Japan) be rectified by a nice tax credit to whichever company actually lays the lines down. Either way, the question of technological justice (which in this instance is bringing broadband to rural areas) is something that the US has not yet really reckoned with. As the popular conception of American poverty shifts from urban centers to rural areas, the question of technological access, along with economic growth and job growth, will have to be addressed. We’ll see if the FCC will be able to stand up to the telcos. If they don’t, then the federal governments should force them, like Britain and Japan have. But that probably won’t happen. I have a feeling that bringing broadband to rural areas will inevitably aid the process of oligopolistic business practices among telcos. Sad but true…