Earlier in April, a reporter from the Boston Globe called me to get my opinion on Boston's so far lackluster efforts to provide ubiquitous Internet access throughout the Hub. As a previous member of the Mayor's Wireless Task Force, I'm in a unique position of being an outside observer who knows a lot of the inside details.

Unfortunately, Boston hasn't gotten much farther than other cities in providing "Municipal WiFi" as it's called in some circles. Municipal WiFi is wireless Internet access that provides the dual benefit of bringing high-speed Internet to those that can't afford the usual monthly fees while also helping to provide city services with essential mobile Internet. Luckily, Boston hasn't wasted the kind of money that other cities have up to this point, and a recent Mass High Tech article points out that Boston's "turtle's role" may end up being the best tactic in the WiFi race.

What Efrain doesn't point out is that in the larger race of broadband, the WiFi race is becoming largely irrelevant. In the race for broadband dominance - regarded as one of the keys for future success in a global economy – the US is the turtle – and there's likely to be no happy ending.

Now, I'm no expert on the politics of technology and competition, but one thing is certain: decades ago, government policy (or a lack thereof) clearly dictated how the cell phone industry in the US was to develop. Today, because of a lack of clearly defined standards, there are multiple cell phone standards in the US; handsets that are tied to the company that sold them to you (which is conveniently your cell phone provider); and strict contracts that make you stick with your company.

"What's wrong with that? Capitalism at work!" you say. Well, in my opinion, the FCC has the ability and the charge to make sure that our government policies make us globally competitive. If the large mobile phone companies are left to their own devices, they'd charge you for the phone, charge you exorbitant amounts for monthly services, and keep you on their service for years at the same high price. Oh wait... they already do that.

Compare this to the global market, where most other countries' populations can use the latest, coolest cell phones on any network. In fact, in Japan, mobile phones are switched out on average of every three to six months.

Here in the UK, I can buy unlocked phones that work on any network - because all of Europe agreed to conform under the GSM standard in 1987. In fact, it's estimated that 82% of the world uses GSM. The 18% - you guessed it – is mostly the US.

Here and in Asia, mobile phones are cheap. Service is reasonably priced. And most importantly, competition is rampant here so mobile phone providers are trying to take customers away from other companies with lower prices, better features, and more customer service!

When I travel from the UK to Norway, I can choose to use my unlocked phone on my UK network and "roam" while keeping my number. But I can also drop into any mobile phone store and pick up a "pay as you go" SIM card, giving me a Norwegian phone number that I can use and pay local rates. That flexibility means that I've got choices.

I can also use my UK SIM on any 3G phone. So what used to be a SIM in an iPhone can now be a modem for my MacBook Pro - transferring at really good speeds (more about that in a minute).

Come to Norway or the UK from the US and you're stuck. Even if your phone works on GSM networks, frequently it will only work roaming. Hell, some US phones don't even have a SIM slot. Even when travelling globally, you're stuck with the US model: no flexibility and you're forced to pay higher prices.

Fact is: the US is behind when it comes to mobile phone technology.

So what does this have to do with WiFi? Everything, because mobile phone networks are about to become the best way to get on the Internet.

One of the reasons that WiFi became popular in the US for public access (like our NewburyOpen.net network) was that there was simply no other way for people to get on the Internet while on the move. So they had to find the nearest WiFi hotspot to get access. That's how the WiFi revolution started in 2002, course that has now landed us at Municipal WiFi.

In Europe and Asia, a new alternative has emerged: mobile broadband. Mobile broadband is the solution to getting access on the move, all thanks to - you guessed it - the GSM standard and it's high speed data cousin HSDPA. In the UK, there are 4 or 5 major providers of HSDPA, with speeds from 1.5 to 7 megabits per second. In the US, there could be two, but at the current moment there are none.

How does it work? Simple. Plug in a USB stick into your laptop and hit "connect". 10 seconds later, you've got 1.5 to 7 megabits per second anywhere that you have decent mobile phone coverage, which in a city like London, is everywhere.

I have one of the slower but cheaper mobile broadband providers, T-Mobile UK. For $30/£15 per month, I have 3GB of downloads at 1.5-2.5 Mbps. In fact, even at that low speed, I was able to use it at a client's yesterday to effectively download updates twice as fast - just look at the download speed - 234 KB/sec - that's around 2 Mbits per second. For $30 per month, a lot of people in the US pay that to get that speed on their broadband at home.

With my T-Mobile USB stick, I can even do remote Managed Macs remote sessions with clients while on sitting on a park bench eating lunch. Simply put, mobile broadband works just as well as WiFi - and it's available a lot more places.

So why don't I just trash WiFi to the Globe and leave it as a "old busted" technology and tout the benefits of mobile broadband in the US? Because in the US, WiFi's all we've got. Mobile broadband doesn't yet exist in the US except for solutions at half the speed and over double the cost. AT&T, for instance, provides a service that goes "up to" 1.5 Mbps for $99.99 per month for a 2 year contract. Other providers are coming up with alternatives (like Sprint's WiMax offering), but the fact remains that those solutions are months if not years away from being as cost-competitive as here in Europe.

So what's left? Well, the US needs to fill the gap that the DSL providers and mobile phone companies don't – low cost, reasonable access for mobile users. Maybe that answer is Municipal WiFi, maybe it's action by the FCC to regulate more competition (although it's too late for them to change everyone to GSM/HSDPA), or maybe it's just the mobile companies lowering their prices. Honestly, it needs be something, because otherwise, the US will simply be left behind in the race for global broadband.