DISQUS

I noticed in my comment above that the phrase "High speed access" created a link that I did not put in that is an advertisement for Optimum cable. Personally, I think Fiber to the Home is the way to go. I don't like the way most cable companies treat their workers and keep out Unions.

The thing that makes Speed Matters site different than other speed tests is that it compares your speed with your state, the nation and OTHER countries. It is not just to satisfy our curiousity -- it is to motivate people to join a campaign to encourage public policy that will make sure there is really high speed access that is affordable to all Americans. Its short term and long term proposals are very specific and are already bearing fruit in some states.

You should check out Larry Cohen's comments on this at Senator Markey's subcommittee hearings last wee. The site also has a good speed test that compares your speed to others in your state, the country and the world plus some policy suggestions. Check it out. http://www.speedmatters.org. It also has some info on Verizons attempt to red-line certain "non-profitable areas." Yes, their FIOS product is fast, but they don't want to deploy it everywhere.

The question is how much of the growth you predict will happen without some sort of public policy intervention to require high speed, affordable build out. There are still too many areas of the country that are underserved and will not be served because they are not profitable enough for companies to spend the money putting in fiber or other high speed access. Other countries have surpassed us because they have these policies. See http://www.speedmatters.org for some examples of policy proposals.

I don't know how to say this any differently but the divide itself creates the data you discribe. I would venture that once people are exposed to the internet, they would feel differently about it. If I never tasted chocolate, I wouldn't miss it. The objective fact is that the internet is becoming more indespensible for so many services, for educations, for communication with schools and government agencies, that we need to treat it like any other public utitily and make sure that it is provided to everyone at a reasonable cost. We need public policy to make sure that happens.

Net neutrality legislation would not be necessary if there was the kind of high speed, high capacity build out that there should be. We are fighting over limited capacity. If the capacity was expanded to the extent that it should be in America, the small piece that might be put aside by some companies would not be an issue. We can fight over one lane of a 2 lane highway but would it be an issue if it was a 10 lane superhighway? I believe we do need regulation -- not net neutrality, but legislation that protects consumers, incents build out, develops a broadband map of America that accurately reflects what exists and where we need to build/ We need to make sure that we have affordable, truly high speed internet everywhere. See http://www.speedmatters.org.

As a worker at AT&T; and a member of the Communications Workers of America it is unusual for me to find something I can agree with by AT&T; management. There is no question in my mind that we need a national boradband policy. We need a nationalpolicy (like so many other countries have that calls for faster buildout, higher speeds, affordable and universal access. Right now we don't even have a clear map of what is available and at what speeds. This is crucial for our national security, for healthcare, for democratic participation, for so many things. We ar working on this issue. For more information check out http://www.speedmatters.org.