Over the past week, proponents of a new federal broadband policy have hailed the results of a United Nations study that finds America is ranked 15th or lower in the world for broadband services. Washington activists make three arguments in support of a new policy:

• America is behind the rest of the world in broadband

• Other countries are ahead because their broadband policies favor competition

• More broadband leads to greater economic activity.

Each of these arguments is wrong. The Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development monitors broadband penetration every six months. Remarkably, rankings of OECD countries vary substantially every few months. Last year, Korea was substantially ahead of the rest of the world in residential broadband penetration. In June 2006 (the most recent information), Korea had fallen to fourth behind Denmark, Netherlands, and Iceland. America ranked 12th, with broadband penetration of 19.2%, ahead of Japan, a countries widely viewed as at the international forefront in broadband deployment.

But all countries, including America, see steady increases in broadband penetration. Eighteen countries are tightly grouped between 15% and 20% penetration in June 2006. Those rates, including that of America, will increase substantially over the coming decade.

Today, however, consumers in some countries — such as Korea, Japan, and France — can receive broadband services at faster rates and lower prices than most consumers in America. These other governments take a more active role in regulating both the prices and availability of broadband services.

In many instances, their governments even have an ownership interest in companies offering broadband services. To enable more extensive commercial regulation and even government ownership, most countries have more restrictive forms of broadband competition. Broadband policy in many other countries is not different because it favors competition, but precisely because it does not.

Recent research by a professor at Columbia Business School and a leading expert on telecommunications services in different countries, Eli Noam, finds that we are well positioned for the future. Unlike most countries, America has over four platforms actively competing to offer broadband services: traditional telephone companies, traditional cable companies, wireless companies, and many new entrants including satellite services, each with slightly different variations of technology.

American companies in each of these various platforms are investing substantially in new high-speed residential technology. As a result, over the coming decade, American consumers are likely to benefit from greater broadband competition and greater technological diversity than consumers in most other countries.

Of course, there are some areas of the United States, particularly rural areas, where the only broadband service today is from satellite services such as Wild Blue. Some critics argue that market-based deployments of broadband services leave rural areas behind.

But rural America is not a vast wasteland devoid of broadband services. Many rural communities have broadband services, and each year more broadband services expand into rural America. New technologies, such as fixed-wireless services developed through current competition for telecommunications services, offer great opportunities for rural America.

The rationale for any broadband policy should not be that it causes economic growth, contrary to populist claims. Broadband penetration does not predict economic growth. Although America ranks only 12th in broadband penetration, we have a higher rate of economic growth than the vast majority of countries ranked ahead of us.

This result is not surprising because broadband services still account for only a small share of economic activity in every country. Economic growth depends on many factors, and broadband deployment is not one of them. Paradoxically, although lower taxes cause economic growth, many of those calling for a broadband policy advocate higher taxes. Moreover, most other countries, with higher taxes and a greater inclination to intervene in markets, grow more slowly.

Little would frighten investors, slow investment, and harm consumers more than adoption of a new federal broadband policy. Our broadband policy should be the same whether we are ranked 1st, 15th, or 115th: Willing investors should be able to offer services to willing customers all under full protection of predictable laws with prices set by supply and demand. That, in a nutshell, is current American broadband policy, and it does not need to be changed.

A former FCC commissioner, Mr. Furchtgott-Roth is president of Furchtgott-Roth Economic Enterprises. He can be reached at hfr@furchtgott-roth.com.