Following my recent observation that Ofcom seems overly eager to avoid any bad news about broadband, someone emailed me the recent testimony of FCC Commissioner Jonathan Adelstein before the U.S. Senate. (Click here for a copy). It certainly makes for an interesting comparison to Ofcom’s recent statements about broadband. Adelstein pulls no punches and adopts a highly critical stance that I would like Ofcom to emulate. He writes:

‘There is no doubt about the evidence that citizens of other countries are getting a much greater broadband value in the form of more megabits for less money. A recent OECD report ranked U.S. 12th in broadband value. According to the ITU, the digital opportunity afforded to U.S. citizens is 21st in the world. For small businesses, those in rural areas, and low income consumers, the problems can be even more acute. This is more than a public relations problem. It is a major productivity problem, and our citizens deserve better.’

Adelstein continues:

‘Some have argued that the reason we have fallen so far in the international broadband rankings is that we are a more rural country than many of those ahead of us. If that is the case, and since geography is destiny and we cannot change ours, we should redouble our efforts and get down to the business of addressing and overcoming this challenge.’

But here’s the real kicker, folks — Adelstein recognises the need for meaningful targets and accurate data:

‘A true broadband strategy should incorporate benchmarks, deployment timetables, and measurable thresholds to gauge our progress. We need to set ambitious goals and shoot for affordable, truly high-bandwidth broadband. We should start by updating our current anemic definition of high-speed of just 200 kbps in one direction to something more akin to what consumers receive in countries with which we compete, speeds that are magnitudes higher than our current definitions.’

‘We must take a hard look at our successes and failures. We need much more reliable, specific data than the FCC currently compiles so that we can better ascertain our current problems and develop responsive solutions. The FCC should be able to give Congress and consumers a clear sense of the price per megabit, just as we all look to the price per gallon of gasoline as a key indicator of consumer welfare. Giving consumers reliable information by requiring public reporting of actual broadband speeds by providers would spur better service and enable the free market to function more effectively.’ (emphasis added)

My take: Adelstein sets the right tone: Public regulators should provide policymakers and the public with the unvarnished truth about broadband. Specifically, Adelstein’s points undercut Ofcom’s broadband position in three key respects: (i) his emphasis on how regulators often define broadband in unrealistic terms — Ofcom use 128 kb/s; (ii) Adelstein’s focus on what people are actually experiencing in terms of broadband speeds — Ofcom use industry-inflated data, not actual speeds; and (iii) most importantly, Adelstein’s belief that anything short of an all-out broadband effort will hurt society — Ofcom recently tend to explain away negative outcomes or trends.

Stay tuned…