I think many readers would agree with you. Through the Baller Herbst e-list I just ran into the frsit report that I have seen that praises the NTIA report:
http://www.precursorblog.com/node/652

…Third, while broadband critics may have made assertions that the U.S. Government did not have an official national broadband strategy, those assertions are now either untrue or moot, because the official U.S. Government “National Broadband Strategy” is in this January 2008 report for anyone to see.

It reminds me of a friend’s business plan. His plan was to make $8,000 a month. He didn’t have a list of products, services or clients but that was his goal.

Thanks! Ann

“Escalating competition among broadband platforms
and service providers has yielded both a
proliferation of new communications and entertainment
services and affordable broadband
pricing for American consumers.”

With at most two providers, there really is no price competition. What we have is an oligopoly–a market that is controlled by a very few providers. With so little competition, the providers are making huge profits and we are paying more than we should for the relatively slow service we in the US call “broadband.”

Aileen – I think you’re right. Broadband is too complex for the government to track easily. I’m trying to think of something equally complex that they do track well. Health care is all I’m coming up with. It’s complex but I don’t know that I want to use that as a model for broadband.

Denise – it’s nice to get a view from the frontline. I wish the news were better but it is super helpful to talk to someone who knows the situation firsthand.

Rick – I couldn’t agree more – I think training is the hidden aspect of access. If you don’t know how to use it, it isn’t accessible. And part of that is providing the training to help people become good consumers so that recognize sometimes it’s not them – the problem is the service. Heck, I used to work for an Internet service provider and there are times I don’t understand the techno-speak.

My father lives in rural MN and after waiting until 2006-7 to get wireless at slow speeds and at a high cost it is still not dependable. I don’t think he is alone and I am not sure what the “strategy” in all this has been.

I am frustrated to hear the administration talk about the bandwidth itself, but not how people are using it. Declaring mission accomplished on the bandwidth front is a specious claim, but let’s not get distracted from the real issues that are bigger than just bandwidth. A true strategy would not only encompass the hardware, software and access but would also take into account training.

I also believe any strategy should also include some discussion of “customer service.” It is a real problem right now and has been, especially for users that are non-technical, don’t speak English as their first language, and those who don’t have personal and/or professional networks to draw on for trusted technical advice.

I am often asked to advise small organizations and occasionally individuals on how much bandwidth is sufficient. I have been a proponent for 56kbps being okay, even for small groups of light-duty users. Upload speeds of any faster than that were a luxury for most users just sending email and the occasional picture. I think the key has been to have broadband that is “always on.” I’ve had some challenges to that view in the last couple weeks, including a WW2 veteran looking to watch videos on his unit and participate online in that community. I’m really beginning to think that for perhaps a majority of users 1.5 MBps may be necessary for them to be able to do what they need to be able to do online, and also that slow upload speeds are no longer acceptable.. Having broadband that is “always on” is still a very big deal, and it can be nearly impossible to work when latency is high. We certainly don’t have that kind of bandwidth in the US and I don’t see it on the near horizon.

They also don’t like comparisons with other countries when the other countries may be doing a better job than the good ol’ USA.

Political soapboxing aside, I think you may have nailed it when you said “Broadband is a different animal.” I think it may be difficult for any government agency as a whole to fully “get it”. I am sure there are individuals that worked on the report that fully comprehend the impact that broadband will have on our society and the world, but it is a difficult animal to wrap your head around.

I am guessing they analyzed it a bit like phone service. Even though folks in rural areas may have had more interference on their lines and paid more for them, especially since many of their calls would be long distance, a phone line is a phone line. When the nation was first being connected by copper, there was really only one question to analyze. A community (or a zip code) either had phone service or they didn’t. If they had to pay a little more for it, that was alright because everyone paid more for long distance back then and it didn’t impact the usefulness of the telephone.

Broadband can be analyzed on so many more levels, upload speed, download speed, latency, cost, competition etc. Then add in the different needs of businesses vs. individuals, the global marketplace, global networking and competition and it gets much harder for a government agency to understand.