If you're a regular around these parts, you've probably watched countless debates between those who believe government should play a core role in improving American broadband infrastructure and those who believe Uncle Sam Should butt out. It usually ends with sore feelings, tags like "socialist" or "corporate shill" being flung about randomly, and the debate failing to move even an inch forward. This debate gridlock is a major reason why the wealthiest country in the world has absolutely no broadband policy to speak of, and ranks fifteenth in broadband penetration and twenty-first in price paid per megabit (OECD).

"Just because you work for a large telecom company doesn't mean you're evil and just because you believe in municipal wireless networks doesn't mean you're a communist." -ITIF

Yet Rob Atkinson, president of the Information Technology and Information Foundation (ITIF), has published a new whitepaper insisting that we can not only all get along, but make progress. "Just because you work for a large telecom company doesn't mean you're evil and just because you believe in municipal wireless networks doesn't mean you're a communist," Atkinson says to PC World. The white paper is an interesting read, and speaks loudly to the arguments and defenses used by partisans on both sides of the debate.

While Atkinson's central suggestion that partisans should be able to compromise is strong, the ceaseless debate over broadband policy isn't really as simple as liberals bickering with conservatives, because beliefs on tech policy frequently cross party lines. At a recent round table to discuss the issue, that was brought up rather quickly:The suggestion that this is simply a case of partisan fisticuffs also ignores the fact that the telecom lobbyists or policy gurus who dominate the discussion are paid to have unwavering opinions, and will never compromise or reach a middle ground on any issue. They aren't paid to compromise. They're paid to win. And, if you've paid attention to FCC decisions, they usually do. Argument gridlock and a lack of a national broadband policy of any kind is a lobbyist victory. It means no progressive policies will be implemented that could hurt incumbent revenue.

A lack of progress on the broadband policy front isn't because people are engaged in healthy debate over our broadband future, it's because incumbent operators have the American government wrapped around their finger. You would think this is something that people on both sides of the aisle could agree needs fixing.