I remember moving to the U.S. in 1993 exactly because it appeared to be a country certain the glass was half full. Fast forward, 17 years later, things seemed to have changed along the way – it is as if a growing lack of self confidence started replacing this country’s long-held trust in the power of risk-taking and go-getter success.

Where am I going with this you ask?

No, I won’t discuss the state of national health care here. Nor is this the place to ponder over where exactly US education stands, or whether immigration reform is getting a fair shake.

But the telco guy in me can’t help but notice — even broadband is getting the evil eye these days.

Yesterday the U.S. Federal Communications Commission presented to Congress its first National Broadband Plan. Designed ” … to ensure that all people of the United States have access to broadband capability”, the $15.5 billion NBP sets out to provide a string of financial incentives mainly for communities and infrastructure providers looking to connect low income and otherwise hard to reach households to the global Internet grid.

So far so good. Scanning through resulting media coverage, however, I am struck how chock-full of doubts and negativity some of these articles are:

• On politics: USA Today writes “FCC’s National Broadband Plan raises divisive issues”, with the Commission kicking off “… a series of potentially bitter debates”
• On public safety: “do you want to pay a ‘National Broadband Fee’?” is the question raised by PC Magazine, adding “… the creation of a truly interoperable system has been talked about in Washington ever since, but nearly nine years later, no such thing exists”.
• On video: ZDnet wonders whether “there is a dark side” to the FCC’s broadband plan, adding ” … when it comes to the [NBP], where will it all spin out of control?”
• On adoption: Business Week asks “who else wants national broadband?” and proclaims ” … you can build all the 100Mbps Web connections you want but it doesn’t necessarily mean that it will lead to universal adoption”.
• Last but not least, on spectrum: “TV broadcasters prepare for spectrum battle” says cnet, adding “… a fight is brewing in Washington, D.C., and … the brawl that is just getting started is much quieter and could drag on for years”.

After learning about the NPB’s alleged “dark side”, its “divisive issues”, potential for “spectrum battles”, “bitter debate” and what not, I was back to wondering what happened to the all-America can-do attitude of no-it-won’t-be-easy-but-yes-we-can-get-thing-done?

In other words, how come a nationwide broadband strategy generates such doubt? With that kind of attitude, clearly, the Panama Canal would have never been built.

More specifically, I believe this Administration’s NBP should be held side-by-side two other major national infrastructure projects: The initial railroad build-out in the late 19th century, and the highway project in the early 20th century.

We know, to make these two historic projects happen, they came neither cheap nor easy, nor were they quickly completed. Beside being monumental in size, both project also shared that people and elected officials at the time understood the necessity of near-term consequences for the benefit of long-term success.

Imagine the claim never will there be enough cars fast and frequent enough to warrant  expensive new roads. Or, a transcontinental railroad system will fail for lack of attracting sufficient customers willing to pay their fair fare.

Two major and long-standing drivers of social and economic achievements in this country would have never come to fruition, or at least would have been significantly delayed if, back then, the band of believers would have lost out to the dull drum beat of the doubters.

Back to broadband and the FCC’s long-term goal: Those doubting that anyone will need 100 Mbs bandwidth or more, that there’s no need for network interoperability, or that spectrum must stay assigned as is - those seem to believe not only that the glass is half empty but also that it should stay that way.

Personally I beg to differ.

Let’s keep that glass half full.