Broadband-connected businesses report $300,000 more in revenues on average than those without. Children online are two times more likely to go to college than those not connected. As more connections are made, quality broadband becomes simply indispensable.
An essential building block to economic growth lies in expanding broadband access to rural America. Instead of pushing each other over the self-made cliff, why not build a bridge across the digital divide?
Shouldn't we get to choose who offers us Internet or broadband or cable programming services over the wires we've helped to upgrade? And if there's no serious competition, shouldn't the cable companies' prices for cable services be regulated again?
Bundled services also can mean higher prices. The FCC claims that it is concerned with low income families not being able to get broadband. And yet, where's the investigation into the bundling of services or the lack of competition to lower prices?
Author David Cay Johnston won a Pulitzer Prize in 2001 for his reporting on U.S. tax policy. But in his just released book, The Fine Print, Johnston falls woefully short of that standard in his attempt to critique the state of broadband in the U.S.
Predicting the future of this country's fastest growing, most innovative marketplace is a difficult task. But if the FCC chairman is successful in bringing new spectrum to market and opening more channels for commerce and communications, his legacy will be assured.
As consumers increasingly show a preference for mobile voice and broadband services, American innovators -- many based in California -- are bringing an astounding array of new products and services to market that both anticipate and respond to evolving consumer demand.
If the benefits of living in a city are diminished because the Internet brings access to the world to you, then why deal with the high real estate prices, traffic, crime, pollution and difficulty of living alongside millions of other people?
As I stare at the Republican and Democratic party platforms, I wonder -- don't these people have a clue? Haven't they bothered to actually ask their constituents what they think of their phone, wireless, broadband, Internet, and cable bills?
Whether the issue of the day is copyright infringement or open Internet access, censorship or a trade agreement, what the U.S. and the rest of the world could most use is an Internet freedom platform on which to base their daily policy challenges.
Compare the Republican and Democratic Party platforms when it comes to technology and you'll find an open-and-shut case. One is open to creating universal, affordable access; the other is closed to newcomers in a sector where access points are controlled by a few monopoly players.
Congress and the FCC need to confront the looming monopoly environment most consumers now face for broadband service. If they don't reverse course and start dealing with the reality they've created, even the best conditions will be meaningless.
For the connection speeds Americans will need to work, study, build the next great company or just watch the next great movie online, more than 75 percent of us will have just one choice: the local cable monopolist.
Congress and the FCC have put themselves at this juncture where they now have to choose between taking strong steps the biggest companies abhor, in order to enable competition -- or actually regulating a broadband monopoly.