Federal Communications Commission chair Michael Copps said he wanted a "truly inclusive process" for the agency's National Broadband Plan proceeding—a process that collected input from "everyone." Hope he's happy, because the Notice of Inquiry's filings are piling in fast to meet Monday's FCC's deadline for comments.

The great thing about these humongous comment cycles is that you learn about all these groups that you didn't know existed: among them the Center for Individual Freedom (we're for it), Americans for Prosperity (that too), and the 60 Plus Association (I'm getting there). The Government of Japan felt the need to offer some free advice. So did the National Radio Astronomy Observatory.

But let's start with what the big players (here in the USA) have been saying. To recap: the agency is soliciting public feedback for a broadband plan it has to submit to Congress by February 2010. What stands out is substantial disagreement between reform groups and the big ISPs, not only on the future of broadband policy, but on its recent past.

Time to fix mistakes

The reform movement's leader, Free Press, filed a hefty set of comments on Monday that pretty much call for the FCC to review everything it has done since the 1996 Telecommunications Act "to determine whether or not its predictions for market competition and deployment have come true," as the filing explains. "If not, those decisions should be revisited and revised with a new set of assumptions and expectations."

Ars can tell you in advance what the group wants that historical survey to conclude: that the government's abandonment of common carrier principles has resulted in a duopoly broadband system that doesn't serve consumers very well. And the FCC's expectation that other technologies like Broadband Over Power Lines or satellite would fill in the gap hasn't panned out either, they think.

In fact, heck, why bother with predictions? Here's what Free Press says in the next paragraph: "The FCC should reverse the foundational mistake of its broadband policy framework by reclassifying broadband as a telecommunications service," the filing concludes. "This will rationalize broadband policy, reduce arbitrage, and give the Commission the tools required to promote competition through the reinstatement of network sharing rules if a competition analysis indicates this is needed."

But Free Press isn't the only outfit pushing this line. New Jersey's less-known Division of Rate Counsel moves in a similar direction. "The presence of two suppliers, although indisputably preferable to no supplier or a single supplier, should not be confused with effective competition," the agency writes. "The substantial market concentration that has occurred in the past thirteen years underscores the need for regulatory oversight."

Both groups are gung ho on Copps' call for a fifth principle of nondiscrimination to add to the FCC's Internet Policy Statement (also called its Broadband Policy Statement).

It's all good

Needless to say, the big broadband providers see the matter quite differently, Comcast leading the charge in suggesting that the last decade should be measured in terms of success.

"America is really fortunate to have so many broadband networks built by cable companies, phone companies, wireless companies, satellite companies, and other providers offering high-speed Internet services," declared Comcast Vice President David Cohen in his latest blog post. "In fact, thanks to the cable industry, an estimated 92 percent of Americans have at least one broadband Internet service provider running by their front door—all of it built with no subsidies from the government and no government-guaranteed rates of return."

Caution, accountability, and measured goals should accompany future government efforts to assist in broadband expansion, Comcast urges. Ditto says CTIA - The Wireless Association. The group sent us an advance summary of their comments. Almost four-fifths of wireless devices in the United States can tap into mobile broadband, CTIA's filing argues. Over 90 percent of consumers reside in regions with over four 3G mobile services.

And so "the Commission should neither extend application of its Broadband Policy Statement to wireless networks," the trade association warns, "nor should it adopt a nondiscrimination principle that will limit carriers' ability to ensure the innovation and quality consumers have come to expect from wireless service."

The 4G wireless industry seems to be taking a somewhat more circumspect role in this proceeding. Upstart WiMAX provider Clearwire, with Google as a prominent investor, recommends that the FCC apply its Internet Policy Statement to wireless. The FCC should also "separately define and assess the availability of mobile broadband," Clearwire urges, suggesting that the company is less sanguine about its general availability. Big concerns in this filing are about reforming the agency's "special access" rules so that 4G services can create the backhaul systems needed to keep their customers connected to the central broadband networks.

There are another 180 or so filings that Ars could summarize here, and there will be more in the database soon. Quite a few civil rights groups have commented, it should be noted. Gay rights groups say they depend on broadband to mobilize around political causes, and want it to stay affordable. The Media Access Project argues this case in a broad legal vein.

"National broadband access can revolutionize the way that American citizens communicate, work, entertain, and inform themselves," MAP's Andrew Schwartzman writes, "but unless federal action is taken to ensure that such access is truly affordable, competitive and ubiquitous, the digital divide will grow into a gaping chasm."

But what's obvious in this proceeding, at least at the moment, is that, to many participants, the FCC's National Broadband Plan represents a chance to assess the success or failure of the last dozen years of Internet development in the United States. And the divide on this question could not be more stark.

Want to file on this proceeding? Here's the link for uploading a comment. You need the proceeding number for field #1, which is "09-51." You can reply to already filed comments through July 7.