Canadian Regulators Try to Help, Might Harm

One of the enduring challenges of "regulating" in the public interest is that it is not always possible to foresee all outcomes. The Canadian

Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission has been grappling with rules on wholesale pricing of broadband capacity sold to third parties who use that wholesale capacity to provide retail broadband service.


Metered pricing has been among the issues. Wholesalers, especially Bell Canada, wanted a metered system of rates, where wholesale customers pay based on the volume of data their customers actually use. ISPs oppose that scheme. 


If the goal was to stimulate competition by helping third parties create new retail plans for end users, that goal might be unattainable under the new rules, at least according to independent ISPs. 

“A key component of our costs [under the rate plan for business access] just went up 70 per cent,” said Michael Garbe, president of Accelerated Connections, a Toronto-based ISP that serves business customers. CRTC's broadband pricing rules will lead to price hikes


Whether that will be the case for consumers isn't entirely clear. 

How Much Will Consumers and Business Pay for Really-Fast Broadband?

As the Federal Communications Commission shifts universal service programs to support broadband access rather than voice, the European Commission pushes for ubiquitous 30-Mbps service across the community, with a further objective of 100-Mbps service for roughly  half of potential consumers by 2020, it is fairly clear that there is widespread support for the idea that faster broadband can have important economic and social benefits.

If Federal Communications Commission Chairman Julius Genachowski gets his way, the FCC will set a goal of 100-Mbps service delivered to 100 milliion American homes by 2020. 100 Mbps or faster is the FCC goal

Genachowski says his preferred approach to a national broadband policy would require ISPs to offer minimum home connection speeds by 2020. The “100 Squared” initiative might in fact be too modest a goal, he suggests.

"We should stretch beyond 100 megabits," he adds. But "availability" is only part of the business equation. Demand is the other part. And at least so far, there isn't much evidence that substantial numbers of businesses or consumers are willing to pay for 50 Mbps, 100 Mbps or potentially 1 Gbps service. 

It might be a different story is the cost of such service were no more than what consumers now pay, but it seems highly doubtful investment can be raised, if that were to be the expected outcome.

Few customers now buy 50-Mbps services where such speeds are available, in large part because the cost is in the triple-digits range. Proponents might argue that the goal is 100 Mbps for not much more money than people now pay for 4 Mbps or 7 Mbps service, but it is hard to envision how even "free" opto-electronices could support such a value-price combination.

In other words, even if all the active elements actually were provided for free, could service providers actually build ubiquitous networks offering 100 Mbps or faster speeds, and price in middle-double digits? So far, the answer appears to be negative.

About 60 percent of the cost of building an FTTH network is construction work, ducts and cables, not to mention cabinets, power supplies and other network elements. Still, in some dense areas, it might be possible to do so, since the construction and cable might amount to about $1200 per home passed. Again, keep in mind we assume totally free opto-electronics.

In suburban areas the business case is marginal, at best, since about $2400 might have to be spent on construction and passive elements.

Since the FCC goal only calls for connecting 100 million homes out of possibly 113 million, we can safely assume the cost of most rural networks of such capacity need not be considered.

Of course, opto-electronics are not "free." But the point is that construction costs, were nothing else an issue, would still be a tough proposition, if the goal is very high speed access at prices most consumers would pay.

American consumers will be paying more for broadband in the future, if for no other reason than that most mobile plans will require it, and those charges will be paid for on a "per-device" basis, not "per home."

What seems improbable is that U.S. consumers are willing to increase overall broadband spending by an order of magnitude (10 times) to have 100 Mbps or faster service on a fixed basis.

One can of course argue from history. Prices for lower-speed broadband services have declined over time, while the prices for the faster tiers have remained stable, but speeds have increased. The issue is how much price compression is possible.

"In order to earn a return for investors, you have to be conscious of what consumers will pay. I don't know this is something consumers will pay for," Piper Jaffray analyst Christopher Larsen says. "It's a nice goal, but it's a little on the over ambitious side."

And in a capital-intensive business such as communication networks, being too early, with too much additional capacity, processing or storage, can be ruinous. One might point to the dramatic bubble in capacity investing, competitive local exchange networks or e-commerce sites around the turn of the century.

Equally to the point is the serious gap that developed between 3G mobile networks, especially in Europe, and the promised new applications that proponents expected would develop.

It has been roughly a decade since European mobile operators placed big spectrum bets on "third generation" mobile broadband, and then largely watched as killer apps failed to emerge, customer use of the new networks remained sluggish, and executives ruefully noted they had overpaid for spectrum.

As operators now gear up for a transition to 4G, we will hear similar talk about new applications the network will enable. The difference is that, a decade after launch, the  "killer app" for 3G turns out to be mobile broadband access.

Right now, 4G is mostly “just” faster access. But 4G looks to be a potential replacement for fixed-line broadband, so maybe, early on, a lead application for 4G will be displacement of fixed-line broadband connections, and not any particular new application.

Some might argue that a lead app for 4G is turning out to be personal Wi-Fi hotspots, for example, another “access” function. A decade from now, we are likely to have discovered that some important new applications, enabled specifically by 4G, have arisen. But it will take some time, if 3G is any predictor.

At some point, the gap can be bridged either by “build it and they will come” improvements in processing, storage or communications that outstrip known demand, or “build it and they will come” applications that might be usable by only a fraction of potential consumers.

Some think the logjam can be broken only by moving faster towards faster networks, to create the right environment for application developers. That tends to be an opinion held by people whose core business interests do not require investing the money.

Service providers are quite a bit more circumspect, and “greed” is not the primary reason for such views. In fact, experience teaches service providers that consumers are quite careful about spending their own money on communication services, devices and features.

One case in point is a study of small-business broadband by Columbia Telecommunications Corporation, which conducted a nationwide survey on behalf of the Small Business Administration.

The really significant finding is that respondents won't pay all that much for 100 Mbps or 1 Gbps connections. Businesses Want 100 Mbps, 1 Gbps, but won't pay

And price resistance is stubborn. Even when the price for such a service is just 10 percent to 20 percent higher, businesses are significantly less likely to switch to a 100-Mbps service from what they currently buy.

As you might guess, if small businesses are hesitant to spend 10 percent to 20 percent more to get 100 Mbps, they are even more hesitant to spend more for an extremely fast Internet connection of 1 Gbps. This is especially true for prices that are 40 percent or more higher than their current prices.

If you asssume the average prices now range between $70 a month to $124 a month, then survey respondents show significant resistance to paying much more than $84 to $149 a month for 100 Mbps service, or $98 to $174 for 1-Gbps service.
This graphic might confuse you. The taller the bars, the less likely the respondent is to take the action indicated. The tallest bar, a score of "5" would mean "highly unlikely" to take the action. SMB broadband demand report

A score of "1," shown by a shorter bar, would indicate strong willingness to take the action.

The point is that small business users aren't willing to spend much more to upgrade from their current level of service to 100-Mbps service.

The most surprising finding is that even the same prices, or prices 10 percent 5to 20 percent lower do not cause small business respondents to become certain of switching. Scores around "3" indicate a "maybe, maybe not" attitude.

No matter what these respondents say about wanting higher speeds, they don't appear to be willing to pay much of anything for it.

U.S. Broadband Adoption Up to 68%

Some 68 percent of American households used broadband Internet in 2010, up from 64 percent in 2009. Only three percent of households relied on dial-up access to the Internet in 2010, down from five percent in 2009, according to the National Telecommunications and Information Administration. Another nine percent of households had people who accessed the Internet only outside of the home.

So is that a good thing, or not so good? It depends on how you look at the data. The main reasons respondents cited for not having Internet access at home were a lack of interest or need (47 percent). 


In other words, about half of households that do not buy or use broadband access services do not have interest in using the Internet, or have no need to do so. About 24 percent of respondents who do not buy broadband say it is too expensive. 


And 15 percent of households do not own computers. Individuals without broadband service at home relied on locations such as public libraries (20 percent) or other people’s houses (12 percent) to go online.

All told, approximately 80 percent of American households had at least one Internet user, whether inside or outside the home and regardless of technology type used to access the Internet.

Cable modems and DSL were the leading broadband technologies for home Internet adoption, with 32 percent and 23 percent of households, respectively, using these services. Broadband Adoption Rises

Mobile Broadband Tops Fixed for First Time in Australia

Mobile wireless internet (excluding mobile handset) connections (44 percent) now exceed Digital Subscriber Line (DSL) connections (41 percent) in Australia.

Mobile wireless (excluding mobile handset connections) was the fastest growing internet access technology in actual numbers, increasing from 4.2 million in December 2010 to 4.8 million in June 2011.

That doesn't mean mobile and fixed service are equivalent. People use the connections in different ways. But one does wonder how fixed network demand will be affected as more mobile devices require a broadband connection. At some point, many household will find themselves paying more for mobile broadband than for fixed broadband. For many households, this already is the case.

The point is that demand for more-expensive fixed connections will be dampened as more consumers find they must spend on mobile broadband. There is, after all, only so much any household will be able and willing to spend on broadband, overall. 

Mobile now dominates Australian broadband

Global Internet Speed Study

The average worldwide download speed is 580 Kbps. Average U.S. speeds are about 616 Kbps. South Korea has an average speed of 2.2 Mbps. In the United States, Verizon Internet Services provides the fastest service, averaging 1 Mbps.

In Great Britain, Virgin Media is the fastest choice with average speeds of 612 Kbps while Dacom Corp. takes the top spot in speedy South Korea with an average of 5.2 Mbps.

Over time, such measurements will have to reflect widespread use of wireless broadband, with generally slower speeds, though.

The study was based on 27 million downloads by 20 million computers in 224 countries from January through June 2011.

Global Internet Speed Study

FCC Testing White Spaces Databases

The Federal Communications Commission is testing the ability of white spaces databases to accurately correlate locations where unused TV spectrum can be used by unlicensed devices, while protecting TV broadcasts from interference.

White spaces are unused spectrum between TV stations and are considered prime real estate because signals in this band travel well, making the band ideally suited for mobile wireless devices, says Julie Knapp of the FCC.

Among the applications envisioned for such white spaces are "Super Wi-Fi", wireless broadband networks, support for video devices and services and machine-to-machine communications.

Generally speaking, there will be much more spectrum available in rural areas than in urban areas. That should spark interest by service and application providers who want to build their businesses in rural areas. There will be spectrum available in urban areas as well, but there also are many more bandwidth options in dense, urban areas.

FCC Announces Public Testing of First Television White Spaces Database

Fiber to the Home in Shanghai

"Advertised" U.S. Broadband Speeds and "Experienced" Speeds Quite Closely Related, Ookla Finds

Despite the general carping one often hears about how U.S. broadband access speeds are woefully out of touch with "advertised" speeds, Ookla, the Internet access measurement service considered by many to be the most accurate, finds that "advertised" and "experienced" speeds are very close, especially considering that some amount of signaling overhead (Ookla says 10 percent to 20 percent is typical) is necessary in all cases.

As of October 3, 2010, the Ookla worldwide 'Household Promise Index" shows that globally, providers are delivering 87.25 percent of promised service speeds, with the APEC (Russia, Canada, United States, Australia) at 85.67 percent, the European Union at 84.83 percent, the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development at 83.24 percent and the G8 (France, Germany, Italy, Japan, United Kingdom, United States, Canada and Russia) at 80.28 percent.

In addition, the top five countries are Republic of Moldova (110.26 percent), Lithuania (99.13 percent), Russia (98.86 percent), Slovakia (98.74 percent) and Ukraine (97.80 percent), with the United States at number 11 (93.00 percent).

As of October 3, 2010, Ookla's "House Value Index" shows the global cost of broadband at $4.36 per Mbps, with the top five countries in terms of "Relative Cost of Broadband" being Luxembourg, United Kingdom, Sweden, Norway and Denmark — the United States ranked 12th (out of 26 countries) at 1.21 percent of gross domestic product per capita or $46.75/month.

Comparing several U.S. States shows South Dakota ranks first at $2.91 USD per Mbps, New York ($4.22) ranks 8th, Washington State ($5.44) ranks 15th and California ($5.80) ranks 19th, with Alaska ranked 51st at $16.77 per Mbps.

The United States ranks 20th in cost per Mbps (out of 26 countries total), but ranks 15th when taking into account gross domestic product per capita, Ookla says.

read more here

Global Broadband and Video Revenue to Grow Robustly

Spending on wired and mobile Internet access will rise from $228 billion in 2009 to $351 billion in 2014, PriceWaterhouseCoopers now predicts, representing growth of about 54 percent. Video subscriptions will grow as well.

The global television subscription and license fee market will increase from $185.9 billion in 2009 to $258.1 billion in 2014, a compount annual growth rate of 6.8 per cent. This will outpace TV advertising, which will grow at a CAGR of 5.7 per cent.

The biggest component of this market is subscription spending and this will increase at 7.5 per cent CAGR to $210.8 billion in 2014. Asia Pacific will be the fastest-growing region with a 10 per cent compund annual increase rising to $47.1 billion in 2014 from $29.2 billion in 2009.

Total global spending on consumer magazines fell by 10.6 percent in 2009, PwC says. The firm projects an additional 2.7 per cent decrease in 2010, a flat market in 2011, and modest growth during 2012–14. As a result, spending will total $74 billion in 2014, up 0.7 percent compounded annually from $71.5 billion in 2009.

Electronic educational books will grow at a CAGR of 36.5 per cent globally throughout the forecast period yet will still only account for less than six per cent of global spend on educational books in 2014.

As a whole, the media and entertainment market will grow by five percent compounded annually for the entire forecast period to 2014 reaching $1.7 trillion, up from $1.3 trillion in 2009. The fastest-growing region throughout the forecast period is Latin America growing at 8.8 per cent compound annual rate during the next five years to $77 billion in 2014.

Asia Pacific is next at 6.4 per cent CAR through to 2014 to US$475 billion. Europe, Middle East and Africa (EMEA) follows at 4.6 per cent to US$581 billion in 2014. The largest, but slowest growing market is North America growing at 3.9 per cent CAR taking it from $460 billion in 2009 to $558 billion in 2014.

"Digital Divide" is Closing

Policy advocates and policymakers have worried about a "digital divide" in U.S. Internet usage, as much as global policymakers have worried about the difference between communications use in developed and developing regions.

But a new study by eMarketer suggests that the U.S. digital divide is closing fairly rapidly. By 2014, in four years, Internet usage rates by Americans of black ancestry will just about equal rates of U.S. "whites" today, while Hispanic American use of the Internet will rise to within six percentage points of the current U.S. average usage by "white" Americans.

That is not to say rates will be identical, but the point is that almost nobody thinks "white" Americans generally are victims of a "digital divide" today, though there are more issues in rural or isolated parts of the country. In fact, most of the non-adoption factors now are of a "demand" sort rather than a "supply" sort. In other words, most people who want broadband already buy it.

If by 2015 Americans of "black" or "Hispanic" heritage have those same rates, the significance of the "divide" should be largely moot. That is not to say the issue is completely moot, but closing the last percentage or two of gap in any endeavor always is a matter of effort and reward. And since the primary issue these days is demand, not supply, some circumspection might be in order, in terms of the amount of effort expended, compared to the potential benefits. The markets, and consumers, seem to be doing a relatively good job, unaided, in terms of closing the digital divide.

Suddenlink Launches 107 Mbps Broadband Access Service

Suddenlink, an operator of rural and suburban cable TV systems, says it has started offering residential customers in several, suburban-Austin communities (Georgetown, Pflugerville, and Leander) its new “High Speed Internet MAX 107.0” service, featuring a download speed up to 107 megabits per second (Mbps) and an upload speed up to 5 Mbps.

The MAX 107.0 service is the result of “Project Imagine,” a new Suddenlink program that calls for approximately $350 million of capital investments nationwide through 2012, above and beyond the company’s traditional capital spending levels.

Through “Project Imagine,” the company aims to expand to substantially all Suddenlink communities: video-on-demand service; the capability for up to 200 high-definition (HD) TV channels; and industry-leading DOCSIS 3.0 technology, which enables Internet download speeds of 20, 50, and more than 100 Mbps.

Suddenlink is preparing to launch either MAX 107.0 or MAX 50.0 Internet service in a number of other communities this year, with details to be announced later. MAX 50.0 service will feature a download speed of up to 50 Mbps.

That will give Suddenlink bragging rights in the speed wars. What remains unclear, as has been the case for other providers offering 50 Mbps service, is how many customers actually will buy the fastest speeds, rather than lower-speed and medium-speed services.

So far, no U.S. provider of access at speeds ranging from 50 Mbps to 100 Mbps has been willing to say, in public, what percentage of customers buy such plans, or even the actual number of customers who buy. One suspects that is because relatively few consumers actually think they need such speeds, or that the value-price relationship is better than that of the medium-speed services.

source

Ofcom Wants Better Consumer Information About Broadband Access Speeds

Ofcom, the U.K. communications regulator, is not happy with the accuracy of information provided consumers about their real-world broadband access services, and wants to revise the reporting process so better information is provided.

Mystery shoppers commissioned by Ofcom have found that 15 percent of the time, "potential customers" were not given an estimate of their access line speed, and 42 percent were only given one after prompting the sales agent near the end of the sales process.

The accuracy of the information proved to vary. In some cases, users were given double the line speed of another provider for the same line and technology, and sometimes received different answers over the phone when compared with the website of the same service provider. The majority of line speeds also did not match (within 1Mbps) the speeds given by the BT Wholesale line checker.

There is no question but that "best effort" broadband services are difficult to accurately predict or describe. It is true that users will sometimes experience bursts that correspond with the advertised "up to" speed. Most of the time, actual experienced sustained rates are lower, because of contention ratios and actual end user volume.

So Ofcom proposes that ISP's provide speed estimates based on line length, line capacitance and line attenuation, all measures that will provide a better approximation of typical download speeds.

Ofcom also wants to ensure that shoppers are given this information early in the sale process, particularly before payment information or a request for service is made.

Ofcom also seek to ensure that factors that affect broadband speed are explained. Specifically, Ofcom wants to ensure that shoppers are told how network capacity, congestion on the Internet and traffic management policies could affect performance. Consumers also should be told that actual throughput speeds will be lower than advertised or theoretical line speeds.

U.K. consumers already have the right to be moved to a cheaper, lower speed option when the plan they bought does not measure up. In cases where their is but one tier of service, Ofcom wants to allow consumers to leave their contracts without penalty.

Ofcom apparently will try to get such changes made voluntary. If changes aren't agreed to, or implemented, a regulatory review may occur, which could lead to formal regulation.

Such policies are not unreasonable consumer protection efforts. The problem is that formal guarantees are next to impossible so long as connections operate on a "best effort" basis.

Even on a quality-assured connection, which would have to be based on packet prioritization policies, throughput will vary throughout the day, based on overall contention for network resources, though far less than is the case on a "best effort" connection.

To closely match expected routine performance with an advertised top speed will require packet prioritization.

source

23% of U.S. Business Sites Now are Fiber-Served

What percentage of U.S. business locations would you suggest now have optical fiber connections available to them? According to Vertical Systems Group, just 23 percent of U.S. sites and 15 percent of sites in Europe have optical access.


While most large enterprise locations in the United States and Europe are fiber-connected, small and medium business sites generally are underserved with fiber from any service provider.


"The good news is that overall accessibility to business fiber has more than doubled within the past five years," says Rosemary Cochran, Vertical Systems Group principal.


The challenge ahead is to extend fiber connectivity to remote business locations. Of course, not all smaller business locations need the fiber that typically supports gigabit-per-second bandwidth. Given that 1.544 Mbps connections are the mainstay for most smaller and even many mid-sized businesses, many customers might be quite satisfied with speeds in the tens of megabits per second.

NARUC Calls for Controls on "Unreasonable" Packet Discrimination, Not "All" Packet Discrimination

The National Association of Regulatory Utility Commissioners has called for protecting “the right of all Internet users, including broadband wireline, wireless, cable modem, and application-based users, to have access to and the use of the Internet that is unrestricted as to viewpoint and that is provided without unreasonable discrimination as to lawful choice of content.”

The key language there is "unreasonable" discrimination. NARUC is not calling for network neutrality rules that ban "all" packet discrimination.  The problem is that some traffic types are  "latency sensitive" and can suffer at times unless packet discrimination mechanisms are used. Applications such as video, gaming and VoIP would suffer, at times of peak congestion, without priority mechanisms that users themselves may wish to have in place.

NARUC therefore has asked that policymakers and regulators keep in mind that "unreasonable restrictions or unreasonable discrimination" be areas of protection, not "all" forms of packet discrimination.

NARUC also asks for rules and regulations that will give providers incentive for continual innovation and a fair return on their investment, without jeopardizing consumer access to, and use of, affordable and reliable broadband services.

Discrimination that is solely, or primarily intended,  to protect business advantages, is an area of valid concern for policymarkers. But the Internet has changed. It is a network increasingly used to support isochronous applications (real-time applications) that are highly susceptible to degradation from latency, for example.
NARUC's position will seem to many a well-reasoned and balanced approach.

http://www.digitalsociety.org/2010/02/naruc-resolution-on-net-neutrality/

To Solve the "Broadband Access" Problem, You Have to Know What Causes It

Solving the problem "people who don't use broadband access at home" hinges on the actual barrier to usage. Some people don't use the Internet; some don't use computers; some are unwillingness to pay current subscription prices while others would buy but literally have no physical access at their remote locations.

All too often the problem is viewed uni-dimensionally, as though lack of supply is the key problem. But there is increasingly acknowledgement that there are other barriers to surmount, such as users who would like to use the Internet, and could afford it, but who do not own PCs, and are unlikely to buy one.

The U.K. government believes "lack of PCs" is among the barriers, and now plans to give away
270,000 low-income families with free laptops and broadband access, as part of its £300 million broadband stimulation program.

Since the fall of 2008 U.K. officials have been training "well off" families about the value of broadband for users who can afford to buy broadband, but do not see the value.

The new inititiative aims to address a different problem: people who would use the Internet and see its value, but cannot afford the PC or recurring cost of a connection.

The program is to be included in the Children, Schools and Families Bill for 2009/2010, which is yet to be debated in the House of Commons. The legislation aims to ensure that all families with children aged between seven and 14 will be able to apply for a grant to buy a computer and broadband connection.

A Look at Consumer Satisfaction with Broadband

One can get a good argument about whether consumer satisfaction with any communications or entertainment video service is strongly related to customer loyalty.

The conventional wisdom is that "happy" customers are "loyal" customers, but that always has been tough to demonstrate in the consumer communications market.

Churn rates for "satisfied" customers often do not seem all that different from the behavior of demonstrably "unhappy" customers, though few would argue there is no relationship between "satisfaction" and "loyalty."

Some new analysis by Parks Associates illustrates the issue. As it turns out, "satisfaction" with various broadband access services is relatively comparable across platforms and networks. Fiber to the home fares better, satellite broadband and fixed broadband a bit worse than either cable modem service or digital subscriber line.

But the differences are not quite as pronounced as one might think. With cable modem and DSL service as the benchmark, FTTH does a bit better and wireless a bit worse. But FTTH, while "above average," and wireless "a bit below average," are fairly close to the baseline.

At the margin, FTTH customers are a bit more happy, wireless customers a bit less happy. But the link between satisfaction and churn is not precise, nor linear. Other surveys tend to show that overall consumer satisfaction with most entertainment video, mobile and fixed line services is reasonable, but not typically among the products consumers routinely say they are most happy with.

Grumbling and grousing just comes with the territory, it seems.

EU Approves UK Broadband Deregulation

The European Union Telecoms Commission has approved an Ofcom proposal to deregulate the U.K. broadband market UK broadband market where there are four or more actual or potential providers serving areas with more than 10,000 homes and businesses.

In practice, that means deregulation for areas covering around 65 percent of all homes and businesses.

VoIP, Broadband Growth is Slowing

One of the tentative conclusions we might reach from Comcast's fourth-quarter results is that the broadband access market is approaching a saturation point, with slowing net additions. Comcast added about 331,000 broadband subscribers in the three months ending Dec. 31, 2007, down 26 percent from the 450,000 subscribers it added in the third quarter. That's congruent with net adds from telcos as well, and has perhaps a little to do with the economy and slower housing starts. But mostly it is simply that we are approaching the point where nearly every potential customer for broadband already has become one.

VoIP net adds are slowing as well, again confirming a broader trend seen in the consuemr segment of the VoIP business overall. Basically, significant numbers of people who are persuaded VoIP makes sense for them right now have become customers.

After adding 662,000 new subscribers in the third quarter, Comcast’s total net new voice additions dropped to 604,000 in the fourth quarter. None of this is unexpected.

Broadband Adoption: Under Par for the Course

Since broadband first became widely available to consumers in the late 1990s, adoption has hit the
halfway point faster than most other information and communication technologies.

It took 18 years for the personal computer to be used by 50 percent of Americans at home and 18 years for color TV to reach half of homes.

Mobile phone penetration took 15 years to reach the "half of homes" point. It took 14 years for the video cassette recorder, and 10 and one half years for the compact disc player to reach the same level of penetration.

It has taken about 10 years for broadband to reach 50 percent of homes. We can argue about the price of broadband, the definition of broadband, the quality or terms of service under which broadband can be purchased.

But it continues to surprise me that some observers still think there is some sort of crisis or problem here. Over the last year bandwidths have been leaping, not just incrementally increasing. There's more third generation wireless access, more WiMAX, more Wi-Fi. With a new SpaceWay satellite in orbit, there's much more satellite broadband capacity coming online as well.

And the last time I checked, some 98 percent of U.S. homes had access to at least one wireline broadband provider, and depending on where the location is, one or two satellite providers. Again, depending on location, users have access to one to three broadband mobile networks as well.

Few countries save Japan have prices-per-megabit lower than U.S. consumers do. By all means let us solve problems. But it doesn't do much good to keep trying to "solve" problems that already are in the process of being fixed.

And by any historical standard broadband access is a product being adopted by U.S. consumers at a faster rate than other highly-popular innovations have. In fact, one would be hard pressed to name another popular innovation that has penetrated the market so quickly.

Price Per Megabit: Japan and France Lead

When observers talk about places where broadband access is both fast and affordable, Japan is certain to come up. Maybe they should talk about France. As this chart created by the Wall Street Journal shows, French users can buy broadband at prices per megabit that are quite close to what users in Japan are able to do.

Also, despite all the whining about how far behind the rest of the world the U.S. providers are, it doesn't really appear such sentiments necessarily are based in fact. Over the last year, cable and telephone companies have been boosting capacity while holding prices steady. And that provides a much better "price per megabit" relationship.