Om Malik recently wrote up that he didn't feel that the US was lagging behind on broadband deployment [1]. And falls into _exactly_ the fallacies that I pointed out back in March here [2]. Most of the time, I think Om's analyses are right on the mark. But I think he jumped the gun on this one, falling for the rhetoric that "experts agree, everything is fine."

[UPDATE 1] Just in time for the debate, Business Week released an article today titled, "America: Still the High-Speed Laggard [3]"... One of the most salient paragraphs from the article stated:

In 2000, the OECD said the U.S. ranked third in Net users connecting at high-speed among the top-30 world economies. The next year it fell to fourth. Now it's 11th, according to the OECD. And fast connections in the U.S. are slower than in many other countries. A top-of-the-line cable modem in the U.S. carries five megabits per second, while broadband connections in Asian countries like Japan and South Korea are often 20 times faster. South Korea is, in fact, the world leader in broadband. And unlike the U.S., it has multiple companies offering most of the country DSL lines that are also faster than what's available in the U.S., thanks in no small part to government encouragement and sponsorship.

And then there's this tidbit, "If cable companies were forced to open up their lines, over-night 80% of the U.S. would have more than one broadband supplier to choose from. Theoretically at least, that would drive down prices and force companies to offer enticing service packages like phone and TV delivered via the Web."

Of course, that's what the Brand X case currently before the Supreme Court is all about.