Since we’re partially dependent on Time-Warner Internet access, I’ve had to pay more attention to bandwidth caps / metered broadband issues.   See some recent discussions in GigaOM, and the Washington Post.

Generally, I’m glad to pay extra for using a resource with (a) real scarcity, and (b) in a truly competitive environment.  But neither of these apply in most broadband cases.

First, bandwidth demand is growing quickly, but Moore’s Law is driving network capacity.  Our first Internet connection was a 64K DDS data circuit costing $400/month in 1992 (about $600 in today’s dollars).  Now, 20mbits is $50/month (and for FiOS, that’s artificially limited from much faster underlying speeds).  With price/performance increases in server and switch capacity, it’s difficult for providers to argue bandwidth is limited and costs are growing.

Second, most broadband providers are not operating in a truly competitive environment.  Regulatory and licensing hurdles make it difficult for new competitors to enter many markets, allowing  incumbent providers to exploit their positions for better profit margins.  Stated differently, any broadband provider with true competition wouldn’t be talking about bandwidth caps.

Finally, it’s frustrating this issue has gotten so much mind-share, when we need to be heading in the exact opposite direction.   We need policy and investment that brings the US nearer to the top in worldwide broadband penetration.   History will compare our national network  infrastructure to the Interstate Highway System:  strategic investments enabling fundamental advantages in business, production, defense, innovation, and quality of life.