Scientific American's Flawed Broadband Analysis

[Commentary] Scientific American's editors declare in its October 2010 issue that broadband prices in the United States are too high and speeds are too low. As a result, the editors implicitly assert, the U.S. has fallen to 40th place in "progressing towards a knowledge-based economy." They conclude that remedying the situation requires unbundling access to local loops, mandating net neutrality, and classifying broadband under Title II of the Telecommunications Act of 1996. Scientific American has the right concerns and objectives: ensuring that the United States remains a technological leader and that its broadband market is competitive. However, a closer look at the facts, as explained, for example, by the National Broadband Plan, reveals a more nuanced story that does not support their confident policy proposals.

Editorials like Scientific American's help to keep us mired in the seemingly endless debate over net neutrality and infrastructure sharing as the broadband world moves on. The best thing policymakers could do to improve U.S. broadband is to move spectrum into the market to make it easier for existing carriers to offer better services, and cheaper for new competitors to enter the market. Eliminating barriers to wireless broadband growth is far more relevant to the future of broadband and national competitiveness than is the availability or price of 100 Mbps residential broadband.

[TPI is an industry-supported think tank.]