We Need a National Infrastructure Initiative

The United States, developer of the Internet, inventor of the first PC, the silicon wafer, the pen-based computer etc, is now 12th in the world in using broadband communication, according to the latest report out of the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD), a government think tank in Paris to which almost all developing countries belong.

Although we still have the largest number of users connected to the Internet -- some 49 million according to the report -- we are 12th in terms of broadband penetration. While "broadband" itself is a term not well defined, it is several times faster in most countries like South Korea and Japan than in the US. South Korea, which has been the leader for many years, was topped this year by Iceland. With only 78,000 subscribers, they are number one because of their per capita penetration of broadband which is 26.7 percent versus Korea's 25.4 percent. The U.S. is 16.8 percent.

Quite understandably there is concern across America about the U.S.'s low ranking by the OECD and as a result of similar studies by the United Nations' International Telecommunications Union, where the U.S. is ranked even lower on the totem pole. Having the 21st century infrastructure -- broadband and wireless communications links connected to every home, office and school and through the Web to billions of others -- is considered to be vital to the success of every region's, every nation's, every community's vibrancy in the new economy.

Currently in the U.S., there is perceived to be a nationwide struggle for dominance between the traditional telephone carriers providing both DSL, and in some cases fiber communications to the pedestals -- rarely to the home -- versus cable modems provided by the cable television industry. The electric utilities have been experimenting with broadband over power lines, but other than a handful of experiments across the country, nothing akin to a real alternative additional market competitor is in sight.

Satellite companies are offering an Internet alternative at varying speeds, and pose a possible challenge to the existing cable and Telco monopolies. But this competitive arrangement is not getting us as a nation where we ought to be going.

There is a strong and growing desire on the part of cities and communities across America to help shape their own basic communications infrastructure for the 21st century. Many believe that like waterways, railroads and highways of the past, robust information highways are essential to keep cities from becoming the ghost towns of the 21st century.

While the cable and Telco monopolies in many states have blocked municipal authorities from providing fiber as an alternative, half of the cities -- according to a recent report -- are exploring wireless alternatives. This appears to be a loophole in the fight for broadband, and many cities are taking so-called Wi-Fi technology and deploying it in "hot spots" particularly downtowns, in order to get some advantage.

Companies like Intel, Cisco and even Google have recently expressed strong interest in helping to provide broadband wireless infrastructure directly to the cities and are looking for partnerships at the municipal level. Municipalities meanwhile, representing the largest users in most communities, having no real expertise in these areas, are anxious to have partners who can show them the way.

There is a great deal of doubt about the right technology for such broadband infrastructures be they wired or wireless. How much broadband is enough broadband? And is that upstream or downstream? More importantly, perhaps, what makes economic sense? How best to roll out such a system in a community?

Equally important, should a community pursue a wireless alternative when most of us believe both wired and wireless will be necessary? If we need to use technology as a transforming tool for e-commerce, e-government, e-health -- e-everything