Gosh, it seems like only yesterday the FCC was telling us that broadband competition in the United States was incredibly robust based on completely inaccurate data. But not only has the FCC seen a change in leadership, they've made a promise to actually base policy decisions on science, not just AT&T or Comcast lobbyist flow charts. As such, a new report by the "more sciency!" FCC confirms what most studies have found: that the United States is "a middle-of-the-pack performer" when it comes to broadband speed, penetration and price.

Contrasting with a decade of FCC "hands off" policy that ignored precisely these kinds of studies, the new study (pdf) suggests that open access policies have helped other leading industrialized nations develop more competitive broadband markets by lowering entry barriers. The 232 page study, crafted by the Harvard University's Berkman Center, argues that in countries where "an engaged regulator" enforced open access obligations, robust competition was usually the result.

The lowest prices and highest speeds are almost always offered by firms in markets where, in addition to an incumbent telephone company and a cable company, there are also competitors who entered the market, and built their presence, through use of open access facilities. -FCC study

It's not particularly surprising that a study commissioned by a regulator shows that regulator involvement in broadband policy makes sense. Still, the study makes some salient points as it tries to deconstruct the long-standing industry meme that all regulation is inherently bad, and that companies left alone to their own devices will magically lead the telecom sector to a fruitful, organically competitive consumer utopia.

"Contrary to perceptions in the United States, there is extensive evidence to support the position, adopted almost universally by other advanced economies, that open access policies, where undertaken with serious regulatory engagement, contributed to broadband penetration, capacity, and affordability in the first generation of broadband," says the study.

That's not deja vu. It's a return to the central idea of the 1996 telecom act, which required incumbent operators to share network access with smaller competitors in order to bolster competition as those upstarts grew into legitimate carriers. A combination of inconsistent regulation and carrier lobbying ultimately resulted in the U.S. scrapping the idea, though interestingly, countries like France took our discarded idea and made it work. In Paris, those small fry upstarts evolved into competitive fiber ISPs, and consumers now benefit from some amazing prices by our American standards (like 100Mbps Cable, VoIP & 120 TV Channels for $38).

"The lowest prices and highest speeds are almost always offered by firms in markets where, in addition to an incumbent telephone company and a cable company, there are also competitors who entered the market, and built their presence, through use of open access facilities," the study concludes. While American ISPs eagerly dispute this, there is endless data supporting the argument that the policies we employed for the last decade have resulted in neither robust competition nor the kind of lower prices seen in countries with open access policies.

The problem in the States hasn't traditionally been the idea of open access, it has been the way the idea is implemented.

As we've been exploring, both AT&T and Verizon absolutely despise Google. Why? Because the company represents an Internet future where phone companies are relegated to "dumb pipe" network operators, and more innovative and adaptable companies wind up making a killing in the content and service business. Given their interest in protecting their positions of power created from generations of government-pampered monopoly, both AT&T and Verizon have taken every opportunity to attack Google.

Google's no saint, but most of these baby bell attacks border on incoherent idiocy.

According to the latest information from the cable industry, just 443,000 American consumers are using CableCARDs, designed to allow users to break free of the obligation of using a rented cable (or phone) industry TV set top box. That fairly pathetic number is up from just 407,000 in June, despite the fact the cable industry says they've shipped more than 16.7 million set-top boxes with CableCARD functionality.

Every time the cable industry releases these stats we see the same story reprinted about how poorly CableCARDs are doing, accompanied by sort of a "golly shucks" shrugging inference that because shipped CableCARD supported devices are so high and CableCARD use is so low, consumers must just must not be interested in the idea. But the difference between shipped units and adoption doesn't automatically mean consumers don't want them.

If you've paid attention, you know the modern "network neutrality" debate took off in 2005, when then AT&T CEO Ed Whitacre proudly, though dumbly, proclaimed that Google got a "free ride" on his network. According to Ed, this unfairness could only be rectified by charging companies who already pay for bandwidth money to ensure their traffic reaches AT&T consumers quickly. Such a bizarre statement obviously resulted in fear that phone companies planned to act as trolls under the metaphorical Internet bridge, grumpily extorting passers by. That created a desire by content companies and consumers for laws that would prevent this from happening.

The Pittsburgh City Council today voted unanimously (9-0) to give Verizon a FiOS franchise in the city, after the two sides haggled over local TV funding and the installation of a small local support center. The agreement requires that Verizon deploy FiOS to the entire city within six years, though such agreements generally include plenty of wiggle room for Verizon. Efforts to include an amendment that would have Verizon funding local public access TV failed, though Verizon will have to provide a local support center.

While Verizon's been busy selling more rural, unprofitable markets, they've been on a bit of a tear lately signing citywide FiOS franchise agreements with major east coast cities, including New York City, Washington DC and Philadelphia.