FCC Chair Julius Genachowski recently answered written questions about the new National Broadband Plan that would take until 2020 to roll out.

Octogenarian Senator Daniel Inouye (D-HI) open fired in a recent set of written questions (PDF) to Genachowski from the Senate Commerce Committee.

“The National Broadband Plan (NBP) proposes a goal of having 100 million homes subscribed at 100Mbps by 2020,” he wrote, “while the leading nations already have 100Mbps fiber-based services at costs of $30 to $40 per month and beginning rollout of 1Gbps residential services, which the FCC suggests is required only for a single anchor institution in each community by 2020. This appears to suggest that the US should accept a 10- to 12-year lag behind the leading nations.”

“What is the FCC’s rationale for a vision that appears to be firmly rooted in the second tier of countries?”

Genachowski recently submitted his answers to these questions, and he’s not backing down.

“The Plan’s universalization targets of 4Mbps download and 1Mbps upload [are] aggressive. It is one of the highest universalization targets of any country in the world. Many nations, such as South Korea and Finland, adopted short-term download targets around 1Mbps.

Inouye responds:

And the comparisons to countries like Finland are misleading. Yes, the Finns have set a 1Mbps minimum for universal service, but that goal takes effect this year, not in 2020. Likewise, Spain has adopted a 1Mbps minimum, but it takes effect in 2011.”

Heavy spending on much more aggressive National Broadband expansion is essential.  The FCC’s plan is outdated.  In 10 years, the bulk of Americans will have 4 Mbps Broadband, dragging the US out of international leadership in this arena.

How can the US be satisfied with an ever increasing digital divide around the country, when American urban areas will have broadband and rural areas will receive remedial 4 Mbps service?

Why can’t the FCC and Congress push for faster broadband, sooner?

Because the telecom providers have the biggest voice in this discussion.  And they’re more interested in milking current infrastructure and protecting old revenue streams (cable TV and telephone) than providing world-class Internet service. In light of the drastic changes in world markets, giving Americans access to availability of and speed in handling information is critical.

If one of the oldest members of Congress understands that Americans want fast broadband, and NEED it to compete in the drastically changing world economy, why does the FCC have feet of clay?