The handwringing about broadband adoption in the US continues unabated with yet another group calling for either some sort of government intervention or some form of nationalization (though Vint Cerf now claims he was joking – mostly). In trying to clarify his comments, Cerf actually added more confusion.

“Maybe we should treat the Internet more like the road system, look for ways of creating incentives to make the Internet more accessible to everyone, and less likely to be abused by the private sector,” Cerf said. … “It’s not likely you’re going to want to have multiple roads owned by the private sector to get to your house. Generally speaking, that’s true of the power system — you don’t have multiple wires going to your house to carry power.”

It’s good that Cerf cleared this up. He doesn’t want nationalized Internet. He just wants one wire going to your house, no “multiple roads” run by the private sector and something that resembles the road system (which is run by government, right?)

As just one example of why making the Internet like roads is a bad idea, look at the Big Dig in Boston. It was completed five years late for almost five times its original $2.6 billion budget. Just after it opened, a huge chunk fell on a passing cars causing injury and a fatality. It is a perfect example of government inefficiency on large scale building projects. Not exactly a great model when compared to cable’s $130 billion investment in its network and the more than $200 billion the telephone companies are expected to invest in their upgrade.

While I’m still confused about how making the Internet like roads isn’t actually a call for nationalization (to me, it looks like a duck, walks like a duck, and quacks like a duck…), fortunately, in the midst of the confusion comes a voice of reason.

The Pew Internet & American Life Project released its latest report on broadband adoption on Wednesday. Pew isn’t a group you can write off as Astroturf. They’ve done a lot of extraordinary research into how Americans are using the Internet. What did they find?

• The average price of broadband dropped 4% since the last survey (12/2005) to $34.50;
• Prices dropped despite the fact that 29% of respondents reported opting for a premium tier of broadband service – taking cable’s high-value offerings of faster speeds at a higher price;
• Across the board, broadband adoption grew 17% nationwide for the 12 months ending May 2008 – the strongest growth areas were among senior citizens, lower-middle income households and rural areas;
• The number of dial-up users who report disinterest in upgrading to broadband service remains roughly constant at 62% – even though the average price of dial-up actually increased 9% since the 12/05 survey;
• Of respondents who do not use the Internet, only 7% said that price was a deciding factor.

What this clearly demonstrates is what cable has been saying all along – while the goal of connecting every American is certainly a priority, and one we are working towards – the notion that there is a national crisis which requires immediate government intervention is simply overblown.

Contrary to assertions that the price of broadband in the US is prohibitively high, very few respondents in the Pew study agreed. This correlates nicely with the a Parks Associates Study last year that found very few people refused to get connected due to cost considerations. Adoption increased among Americans in households earning between $20-40k per year by 24% – the highest growth rate among any economic group.  Only among household earning less than $20k a year did adoption rates actually fall.  Given the state of the economy and the weakened dollar, this is not surprising. 

It does, however, highlight the need to specifically target the barriers to adoption that low-income families face – ranging from lack of computer ownership in the home to lower education attainment. In stark contrast to the OCED figures touted by groups like Internet for Everyone – figures about which there is considerable debate regarding methods and measurements – Pew finds that when you actually ask America what they’re paying for broadband you get a very reasonable-sounding number.

Further, the 17% growth rate in broadband adoption is astounding given the level of economic uncertainty gripping other sectors of the economy. This speaks to the steady march toward near-universal nationwide adoption. With more than 55% now connected, broadband Internet has passed the 50% barrier faster than any technology in history – faster than cell phones, radio, television, and computers, Will all Americans be online next year?  No, but we’re definitely getting there – and as we do, cable services are improving to keep pace with faster speeds and lower prices.

Last, but not least, note that 24% of dial-up users in rural America report that they would adopt broadband if it became available to them.  The big takeaway here is that the US, working with ISPs on policies such as the changes to the broadband loan program that were included in the Farm Bill, is doing exactly what it should be doing – focusing on the small percentage of Americans who are either unserved or underserved. There is clearly demand in rural America for broadband, and we ought to use the power of the government wisely to provide the right incentives for companies to connect the unconnected.

The cable industry continues to work with Connected Nation to identify areas that are not reached by cable so every effort can be made to focus government resources on those areas that need it most.

Let’s also not overlook voluntary efforts by the private sector. For more than a decade, cable systems through Cable in the Classroom have been offering complimentary broadband service to any school within the cable system’s broadband footprint. That’s an offer that’s been accepted by thousands of schools already, and it continues to stand today.

What we should not be doing, and the Pew study makes this clear, is pursuing heavy-handed regulation (or even worse, the radical nationalization ideas proposed by Vint Cerf and others).

On Friday morning, Tom Tauke took to Verizon’s blog to post thoughts on the rumored FCC decision reversing the bureau’s suggested dismissal of cable’s complaint about the telco’s “retention marketing”.  NCTA President Kyle McSlarrow drafted a response here and on Verizon’s blog.  The back and forth went on late into the night with Kyle posting his final word after 8pm.

Due to the relatively unprecedented nature of this direct, and public, debate between major industry players, a lot of people took notice.

Sidecut Reports called it a tussle that only telecom policy wonks could love.

Maybe it’s a tussle that only telecom policy wonks could love, but if you are at all involved in the regulatory sphere you’ve just got to love that the battle of the corporate titans has now moved, Web 2.0 style, into the blogosphere, with Verizon and the Cable companies now using blogs to take pokes at each other…  If you are really interested in the argument, follow the links and join the conversation. We are going to spend the rest of the day worrying whether or not direct competitor blogging means that pundits are out of a job — again!

From the Technology Liberation Front:

Verizon’s Tom Tauke and NCTA’s Kyle McSlarrow take to fisticuffs in their comments (well worth reading and remarkably… candid) on the Verizon Policy Blog after Tom asked “Will Cable and FCC Thwart Consumer Choice?”

Dave Zatz at Zatz Not Funny writes:

In the talking typing heads policy battle currently raging across the blogosphere, I hereby declare the NCTA as winner. I actually have very little interest or knowledge of the topic at hand, however there can be only one… and Verizon’s lobbyist is still ending sentences with two spaces, while Cable’s lobbyist linked his rival’s blog. (Bonus 1/2 point to Cable for using WordPress, though they haven’t upgraded to 2.5.* yet.)

Perhaps the most salient point, and possibly the briefest, was made by Insight Communications CEO (and NCTA Executive Committee Member) Michael Willner (a blogger himself) after Tom and Kyle suggested taking the debate offline.

NO! Resist going back to the old Washington ways!! Don’t settle this in a beltway gin mill. This is the 21st Century and we all want a front row seat!!

We wouldn’t consider it.  When Kyle launched this blog, he spelled out its purpose clearly.

But we didn’t start this blog just to tell you all that. We launched this blog to talk about telecom policy. Today’s vibrant public policy discussions are driven by conversation and debate taking place online, so we hope this blog will contribute to that dialogue. We’ll be talking about proposed legislation and regulation at the federal, state, and local level. We’ll voice our support for changes that would lead to a better, more competitive technology landscape. When we think legislation is unnecessary or detrimental, we’ll talk about that, too. And, while we will certainly express our views, our goal is to have a dialogue… So, we’ll… invite people with whom we may not agree to engage in debates across their blogs and ours. We’re looking to cross post ongoing exchanges in an effort to provide you with the kind of information that helps you decide for yourself.

This was obviously an example of that, but this is only one salvo in a much broader and ongoing discussion and debate over telecom issues.  Keep your eyes peeled, there’s more to come.

(On two sidenotes, you can find NCTA’s statement on the FCC Decision here.  A sidenote to Dave Zatz: We’re big fans of WordPress, but haven’t upgraded due to a dependency on one plug-in that hasn’t yet upgraded.  Hopefully we’ll find a 2.5 compatible plug-in soon.  I’m working on it.)

NCTA’s CEO Kyle McSlarrow was featured on Ad Age Magazine’s online video series 3 Minute Ad Age earlier this week.  McSlarrow recently addressed the Association of Cable Communicators (ACC) - the industry’s association for public releations practitioners.  In a conversation with cable consultant Steve Effros, McSlarrow raised, among other things, the relative lack of discussion about broadband policy among the Presidential candidates and the status of the DTV transition.

ACC will be posting the full discussion soon.  Until then, Ad Age has the video.

It seems hardly a week goes by without somebody sounding the alarm bell on the “crisis” in US broadband deployment. While we all share the common goal of bringing affordable broadband service to all Americans, it’s unfortunate that the most frequently cited source of broadband deployment – the semi-annual Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) numbers – contains a variety of inaccuracies.

So, to help set the record straight, this week we thought we would take a look at the OECD broadband study and the real state of broadband today.  In our first two installments, we’ll examine flaws in several units of measurement utilized in the OECD study.  We’ll then move on to fact check the “miracle” of Japanese Broadband and finish by analyzing why consumers aren’t connecting to services that are already available.  

It depends on what your definition of a subscription is.

The most significant flaw in OECD’s methodology is their measurement unit of subscriptions per 100 inhabitants.  Average household size plays havoc with the “inhabitants” calculation, creating some serious unintended consequences.  We’ll cover that in tomorrow’s post.

Equally problematic, however, is what they do and do not consider to be a subscription.  In OECD’s definition of what constitutes a “broadband subscription,” there is no distinction drawn between business DSL or cable lines and residential DSL or cable lines, but there is a specific exclusion of direct fiber and T1 lines for businesses.  As a result, some businesses are counted and others are not.

OECD’s data fails to capture the tens of millions of U.S. workers that access the Internet via these special access connections.

The OECD measure also fails to count the approximately 16 million college students in the U.S., most of whom have access to both wired and wireless High-Speed Internet (HSI) service.   Also uncounted are the HSI users that access WiFi connections, and the growing number of mobile wireless and “Hot Spot” customers.

Undercounting these populations negatively impacts the US ranking, but counting them would be problematic as well.  Because so many people have broadband access at home, at work, via their mobile device, at college, or through some other connection, the risk of double or triple counting becomes fairly great.

Some have suggested that a better metric would be to simply measure the number of residential households that are subscribed.  The distinction is really very stark.  For instance, in the US, roughly 57 million households subscribe to cable, DSL, fiber, satellite, or fixed wireless service.  Using a measurement of how many “residences” have access would more accurately reflect the real state of residential broadband consumption, and would vault the U.S. ahead of 9 European countries which were ranked higher in terms of household penetration in the OECD rankings of December 2006.  (Note: Household data is not available for Korea, Canada, and Australia, so it’s unclear where they would rank).

While every customer service industry deserves intense scrutiny, many pundits have chosen cable as an easy target and use naive (and wrong) analyses to declare that consumers are somehow getting ripped off.

In a recent posting touting his new book, Gotcha Capitalism: How Hidden Fees Rip You Off Every Day and What You Can Do About It (accompanied of course by a web ad telling readers where they can buy the book), MSNBC Technology Correspondent Bob Sullivan jumps to a few erroneous conclusions that cry out for a response. While the juicy rhetoric in the column probably achieves Sullivan’s number one goal of selling more books, the juvenile analysis of why consumers are spending more for cable service today than a decade ago certainly fails Economics 101.

The simplest – and in fact true – explanation of why cable customers are spending more today is that they are subscribing to a video service that is dramatically different (and much better) than in 1998. Consider that in 1998, cable was an “analog” only service that offered 75 channels, period, end of story. Today, cable offers hundreds of channels in both analog and digital with high-definition, video on demand, digital video recorders and other interactive features that consumers love. And, besides a video package, millions of consumers now subscribe to cable’s “triple play” bundle which adds broadband Internet and digital phone service to their video package.

A great way to judge the value of a product is a simple “use vs. cost” analysis. That simple analysis for video service is something called Price Per Viewing Hour (PPVH) which measures how many hours a customer watches TV versus how much they pay for it. The good news for consumers is that cable’s PPVH decreased by 15.4% between 2001 and 2006…that is, the actual cost per hour of watching TV has dropped.

One more point — it’s ironic that Sullivan first complains about rising prices then later talks about the “addictive” power of cable. He claims this addictive power is somehow preventing consumers from exercising self control by subscribing to a different video provider. But 35 million consumers have broken through cable’s alleged mind trap because that is the number (steadily growing in fact) that now subscribe to one of the two national satellite video companies or the two telcos (Verizon and AT&T) that now are offering video service.

These facts may not make great headlines or sell many books, but consumers deserve to know the real story.