The electricity that powers our lights
and appliances is provided by utility companies that provide a
national electrical infrastructure to carry the electricity from
place to place.

The phones we use to talk to others is
provided by telecommunications companies that provide a national
telecommunications infrastructure to carry the voices from point to
point.

The televisions and radios we use to
watch and listen to, is provided by telecommunications companies that
provide a national telecommunications infrastructure to carry voice
and video information that travel across our airwaves that we own.

The Internet is a set of protocols that
allows any computer to talk to another computer anywhere in the
world. It uses the telecommunications infrastructure to provide
audio, video, graphics, tv and radio data that is digital
information. This set of protocols can use the phone lines,
electrical lines, broadcast towers, or wireless towers to carry the
information across our airwaves that we own. In other words, we
owners of our airwaves can choose which parts of which
infrastructures we want to access the Internet protocols.

As a nation, we should have discussed
and agreed upon a national telecommunications infrastructure that
would give us what we need to send data in digital format around our
country. We haven't, and until we do, we will not be able to count
on affordable broadband access.

AT&T says they stand ready to
provide the national infrastructure, but they're a company whose
owners want them to convince the FCC to turn over control of our
airwaves to them, and then they will maximize their profits by
charging as much as they can.

The other telecommunications companies
say the same thing. No telecommunications company offers to provide
a telecommunications infrastructure that will carry digital
information to everyone in a reasonable and affordable fashion. A
national broadband infrastructure is inherently incompatible with
maximizing profits.

Local, state, and national government
formation of utilities to establish broadband infrastructures is
resisted by companies who believe the government will compete with
them for business. Of course, the business they refer to, is not
broadband infrastructure. The business they refer to is the services
they will provide, in addition to providing a telecommunications
infrastructure.

Long distance telephone calls cost more
than local calls. Remember that argument? It costs more to provide
a telecommunications infrastructure when users are making calls over
great distances. The Internet is a set of protocols. There is no
greater cost in terms of distance. Hmmmm. Why would users have to
pay differing costs to use the Internet?

San Francisco has demonstrated that the
cost of a broadband network is now running $50 per house, and a
shared monthly payment for Internet access of something less than $20
per month. Speed is a range between 1Mbps and 54Mbps. A national
rollout requires little more than expansion of this network across
the country. Certainly, there will be geographical modifications
needed, but the point is, what the telecommunications companies are
telling us, and what is reasonable, are two different things. It's
time our elected officials told us the truth. Oh, and don't wait for
the news to be reported in our national corporate media.