We need a national broadband policy

It is high season for policy wonks and political junkies. The leading presidential candidates are hawking their new plans on everything from health care, energy independence, the economy and Iraq.

But if there is a sleeper issue on which any enterprising candidate could capitalize, it is the issue of bringing the Internet's broadband revolution to more and more Americans at affordable prices. Why broadband? Simply put, there is no other business in America that can have such a dramatic effect on our lives, our economy and our security.

In the crudest of terms, the "broadband industry" — from wire-line broadband providers to dot-com boomlets and all of the equipment, devices and software programs in between — is giant, representing more than one-fifth of the gross domestic product, with a combined market cap well into the trillions.

But more important is the yawning benefits broadband can bring to our nation. The Brookings Institution foresees the creation of some 300,000 American jobs each year for every 1 percent increase in broadband adoption. A truly wired nation will make our children smarter, advance our primacy in the creative fields, and help us catch crooks and terrorists while protecting our privacy.

So what's the problem? Simply put, there are far too few Americans who actually use broadband. While it is increasingly available in our neighborhoods, the all-important "adoption" rate is laggard, far below most of our industrial competitors. In countries like South Korea, nearly 90 percent of the public uses broadband and can get it at cheaper prices than here in the U.S.

While policymakers for years have haggled over the right mix of regulation and market-based models, there has developed a near-universal agreement that competition is the elixir that will best usher in the broadband revolution. But competition is often a polite abstraction uttered by politicians, bereft of real meaning.

Right now, the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) could take a few, rudimentary steps that would be a meaningful first step toward the universal broadband goals that both parties share. To do so, the FCC must buck some pretty powerful interests.

For starters, it could stop the phone companies from blocking access to the copper network that is deployed near-universally throughout America. Promoting competition in this "last mile" was a cornerstone of the bipartisan 1996 Telecommunications Act, which sought to give competitors access to these bottleneck pipes. But network operators here in Washington are using a little-known, backdoor procedure known as "forbearance" to kill the rules and, in so doing, shut off the prospect of meaningful competition that gives consumers real choice and savings.

Even more brazenly, as phone companies begin to push new fiber-optic lines to our homes, they are simultaneously ripping up the old wires that can deliver high-speed video, music and data as well as new types of telephone services. These can be leased to competitors to ensure a lower-cost broadband solution remains available to every home in America. Incumbents may fear the prospect of that competition, but consumers deserve it: They paid for the network through decades of subsidies.

Preventing the decay of our national network is not enough. High-capacity pipes (known as "special access" lines) keep American companies connected and globally competitive, allow consumers to make wireless calls and credit-card purchases, and transmit voluminous business transactions and government data across the nation. Estimates show that if there were competition in this segment of the broadband market, businesses would save $5 billion each year, and the resulting competition would likely create as many as 200,000 jobs.

Rejecting the attempt to stamp out existing competition rules is just a simple way in which the FCC could pledge a new, bipartisan politics of universal broadband through greater competition.

Of course, there are other steps the United States can take to ensure that the wonderments of the Internet become more ubiquitously attractive to consumers.

The importance of information technology to virtually every facet of American life has been evident for some time, yet our leadership has done little to promote it. Presidential candidates could make good policy and good politics by speaking up for a national broadband policy that brings meaningful competition to the nation's broadband marketplace.