We’ve mentioned numerous times about broadband penetration and speed lagging behind countries more rural and less populated – in other words, countries the U.S. has no excuse lagging behind.

Ars Technica recently put out an article detailing what differences in national broadband policy exist that have enabled other nations to surpass the U.S.’s broadband capability. Japan and France have local loop unbundling – that allows for more competition among ISPs.  They also both deploy fiber instead of copper even if it doesn’t show an immediate profit, and competing ISPs are rolling out new fiber infrastructure instead of just leasing lines. 

Japan, France, Sweden, and Canada all treat broadband as a “core infrastructure element” – that is, it is treated as vital to the functioning of the national economy as good roads, bridges, tunnels, and electrical grids.

In all fairness, the U.S. can claim the same thing.  The U.S. may have no broadband policy, may be looking to traffic shaping to solve problems that would be better addressed by more fiber rollouts (oh, and by the way, there’s a new $800,000 deep packet inspection device on the market today to help service providers monitor and shape traffic), and may be relying on increasingly obsolete technologies – but at least we treat it the same as we do our roads, bridges, tunnels, and electrical grids. 

Which is to say, not very well at all.  The American Society of Civil Engineers gave the United States infrastructure a “D” in 2005, down from a score of “D+” in 2003 – and to fix those problems would require $1.6 trillion over five years.  Since then, not much has been done, according to this CBS video reposted on RawStory.com.

Instead, the government is considering plans to lease highways to private companies – using tolls to provide a “free market” solution to the infrastructure problem – but which will ultimately be a government sanctioned private monopoly over certain sections of blacktop. It is difficult to see how this would improve infrastructure, rather than simply allowing private companies to charge the maximum people will pay for the minimum infrastructure service people will put up with.

So, as far as treating broadband infrastructure like the rest of America’s infrastructure, it seems we already do that.  But what needs to be clear is that broadband infrastructure is infrastructure – that is, it is just as important for the rural area to get good broadband as it was for them to get good roads back during the Eisenhower administration. 

In a macabre way, this limited broadband is good for vendors; if broadband was plentiful there wouldn’t be so great a demand for WAN Optimization tools, for example.  Sure, WAN Optimization is a good idea anyway but it is the high cost of bandwidth that spurs demand forward.  It is becoming harder to maintain performance not just because of the various new demands on the network but also because the infrastructure across the country is simply inadequate – thus the demand for network performance monitoring tools.  Increasing bandwidth doesn’t always solve the network problem but insufficient bandwidth always creates one.