A 'Public Option' for Broadband?

[Commentary] When it comes to broadband, Sullivan is a socialist. Why? Because broadband service in the United States is currently provided by a cableco/telco duopoly, and, as such, is slower and more expensive than in most of the developed world, studies show. Because he doesn't believe the Federal Communications Commission can fix that lack of competition within the current regulatory framework, despite the ambitious goals set forth in its National Broadband Plan.

Because a reasonably-priced alternative to cable or telco broadband might be just the thing to bring competition to the industry and spur U.S. broadband cost and quality to world-class levels. Because our connectedness increasingly dictates our economic standing in the world: Broadband is as important to us as the interstate highway system--a public works project--was to Eisenhower-era America. The broadband service itself would be basic. Since the FCC has set a goal for broadband service to be universally available at 4 mbps downstream and 1 mbps upstream by 2020, so why not set the bar there for the minimum speed requirement of the public plan? If people or small businesses wanted faster or fuller-featured broadband service, they could easily pay extra for higher tiers of service from the private ISP of their choice. But the public option would always be there as a safety net. This, of course, would be a massive undertaking on the scale of, say, Medicare. But given the growing importance of broadband access for all, shouldn't it be considered?