The United States is fifteenth in broadband penetration, thanks largely to our long copper loop lengths stretched along dusty, rural roads (aka geography). But some of it has to do with the fact that our government policy consists of either doing nothing, or allowing telecom lobbyists to write the nation's telecom laws. A new study by the Information Technology and Innovation Foundation examines our penetration failings, and aims to find a middle-ground to a debate that's raged in our forums for as long as this website has existed.

Much of the study is based on already well-discussed OECD data, which is where our fifteenth-ranked status originates. Those who believe in the infallibility of industry (like FCC commissioner Robert McDowell) deny there's a problem with broadband coverage. Others want the government to play a starring role in both financing and overseeing the expansion of broadband networks. The study's primary goal appears to be to strike a middle ground between what they see as two extreme, warring factions:That's probably simplistic, given many people want a middle ground: balanced, fair regulation of industry and something vaguely resembling a reasonable broadband plan. They aren't getting it. Providers (and their various policy vehicles) have deeper pockets and louder bullhorns than the under-funded consumer groups pushing for change. Government apathy isn't due to confusion (as the study insists), it's thanks to industry lobbying aimed at maintaining the status quo (largely uncompetitive duopoly and government's apathy towards it).

As a result, it has taken the better part of a decade just come to the consensus that someone should actually bother to map broadband penetration in this country. The reason there is no comprehensive broadband plan isn't because of bickering, it's because the government has been lobbied to ensure one isn't created. In fact, the currently favored broadband plan in DC (Connected Nation) has every indication of being a dog and pony show cooked up by providers to mask industry failings and pre-empt substantive change.

Still, the ITIF believes that opponents in the debate can see through their differences and strike a reasonable consensus. Their solution is multi-pronged, involving some things that make sense (overdue USF reform), and some things that don't (blind support for Connected Nation). Let us now fight endlessly in the comment section below with the end result being that nothing is actually accomplished!

*The firm's full broadband rankings (including cost paid per MB and average speed) can be found here (pdf), though they seem traffic-swamped at the moment.