A new study released by Save the Internet coalition focuses on “debunking” what it claims is an effort by telcos to “shoot the messenger” when it comes to the much quoted OECD report which ranks broadband penetration rates globally.  The report suggests that international rankings do matter and the OECD study is key in judging how the U. S. is doing when it comes to broadband.   It goes on to say that OECD rankings are “not just a point of pride.”

 

I agree.  The OECD report should not be dismissed.  But I would suggest it is a part of a series of reports and analyses that one must consider in assessing U. S. broadband policy.  What I don’t agree with is that the OECD report is the most important or only measure of U. S. performance with respect to broadband.  That is how it is being treated when it comes to many who cite it repeatedly as evidence of U S. failure regarding broadband deployment.

 

For example, I have noted in past posts that the U. S. has adopted policies that have encouraged platform competition and this has led to robust competition and aggressive investment in new technologies like fiber to the home.  The Free Press report acknowledges that many European countries do not have platform competition but then goes to say that the U. S. has “abandoned intramodal competition in favor of intermodal competition.” 

 

We have been fortunate in this country to have multiple broadband platforms and as a result, we can rely on market forces and competition to encourage deployment.  We are not criticizing the policies in other countries but rather suggesting that where it is possible to rely on platform competition between networks and competition to stimulate investment, that is the best policy.  In fact, the European Union has noted in a recent report that countries with platform competition – such as Denmark and the Netherlands – are among the better performers in the EU with respect to broadband speeds and deployment. It goes on to say that the speeds in the U. S. with respect to broadband are on average higher than in Europe and credits the existence of widely deployed cable networks (one of the major broadband platforms in the U. S.) for this result. 

 

Evidence that U. S. policies are working emerged again yesterday when Clearwire and Sprint announced the deployment of a nationwide broadband network using WiMax technology.  Again, the U. S. is seeing the emergence of still more platform competition and its policies of relying on competition and encouraging investment in physical networks competing head to head is working.  And this is in addition to 3G cellular networks - such as those deployed by Verizon - that are now widely available and operate at near DSL speeds.  Almost no other country can boast of having this many broadband networks.

 

Our point is not that the OECD report is irrelevant. It is one data point but only one.  As I’ve noted before, other metrics are very important too including the amount of platform competition, the evidence that new technologies are being deployed, the amount of investment in broadband platforms, and the progress we are making encouraging deployment and uptake of broadband services. On all of these measures, the U. S. is doing pretty well.  We can do better and we have some issues – such as rural deployment – that need to be addressed more robustly.  We are not “shooting the messenger” but we are saying that there are far more “messengers” that have data we need to consider.   We need to look at results and whether we are making progress on a number of dimensions.  Good broadband policy is too important for us to ignore the wider picture.