WASHINGTON, Aug. 10 (UPI) -- In July, Sens. John Ensign, R-NV, and John McCain, R-AZ, introduced a bill that would force broadband Internet providers to open their cable and DSL lines up to competing providers at a low charge. This bill, S.1504, came just two weeks after the Federal Communications Commission boasted a 34 percent increase in U.S. broadband Internet usage in 2004.
According to a joint press release from Free Press, Consumers Union and Consumer Federation of America, the FCC is overstating the broadband statistics, and that the U.S. is actually falling far behind other countries in per capita broadband use.
The FCC statement defines high-speed lines as "connections that deliver services at speeds exceeding 200 kilobits per second (kbps) in at least one direction." However, the non-profit groups point out in a press release that 200 kilobits is "barely enough to receive low-quality streaming video and far below what other countries consider to be a high-speed connection."
The FCC had no official comment, but pointed to a similar memorandum dated Nov. 2004 which noted that "modifications are necessary to ensure that we have a full picture of developing broadband deployment trends nationwide" to prove that they were aware of the issue.
The press release states that the FCC made this more expanded definition of high-speed Internet so that its numbers would suggest progress was being made. Which, according to the non-profit groups, is not happening.
"Fudging the facts won't provide high-speed Internet access to those who need it most," said Jeannine Kenney, senior policy analyst for Consumers Union in the press release.
The media contact on the FCC announcement had not returned phone calls at the time of publication.
The problem lies in the current policies of the federal government regarding who controls the broadband lines themselves.
"Competition is essentially cut out, in a sense that (competing companies) can't get access to the wires," Craig Aaron on behalf of Free Press told United Press International.
This, the non-profit groups argue, is one of the reasons why the U.S. remains "16th in the world in broadband penetration per capita," as well as why the U.S. pays "10 to 25 times more than broadband users in Japan."
"It's prohibitively expensive for a lot of Americans to pay for broadband service," said Aaron told UPI.
That expense, they argue, could lead to broadband access becoming available only to wealthier people, thus widening the digital divide. In an effort to build a bridge over this divide, communities are developing their own wired and wireless broadband Internet access and making it more affordable for the public.
However, whether or not communities can provide their own broadband access is an issue that remains to be settled by a number of competing bills currently in both cameras of Congress.
Another hope for the non-profit groups is that Congress and the FCC will set a date for the transition of television signals to transfer to digital-only. This, according to Kenney, would free up a large range of frequencies for wireless Internet signals. Currently, wireless Internet signals occupy the higher end of the spectrum, which Kenney says does not have good range like lower frequencies have. The non-profit groups believe that if these wireless Internet signals remain unlicensed, and their frequency is expanded, that smaller competitor companies would have a better chance of survival.
"If the FCC is content to let cable and phone companies control the broadband market, then consumers need a third option -- wireless broadband that is less expensive and which doesn't depend on DSL or cable modems. It offers the best and perhaps now the only way to close the digital divide," said Kenney in the press release.
"By overstating broadband availability and portraying anti-competitive policies as good for consumers, the FCC is trying to erect a façade of success. But if the president's goal of universal, affordable high-speed Internet access by 2007 is to be achieved, policymakers in Washington must change course," said Ben Scott, policy director of Free Press in the press release.
The non-profit organizations feel that free market competition between providers will ultimately result in lower prices, bringing the U.S. back into broadband contention with other countries.
