Ever since Federal Communications Commission (FCC) Chairman Julius Genachowski’s Sept. 21 net neutrality webcast at the Brookings Institute, an intense debate on the subject has raged between a number of industry executives, policy makers and other concerned parties.

What everyone seems to agree on, however, is the impression the FCC made by publicly stating its stance. Stephen Collins, head of global regulatory affairs for Skype, one of the loudest voices for net neutrality from within the high-tech industry, said, “This puts the FCC at the forefront of global Internet policy. It was a bold statement that could have ripple effects across the globe.”

It’s difficult to imagine what the exact effect would be across the globe if the U.S. were to implement and enforce a robust net neutrality policy. Other nations have different needs, different broadband infrastructures and considerably diverse government models.

A few nations, such as Norway and Japan, have net neutrality rules in place similar to those proposed by Genachowski. Others have dismissed such policies, including several European nations and emerging nations, because telecommunications companies are either controlled by or closely connected to the government. The government plays an even larger role in nations such as China, Iran and Ethiopia, where content and connection speeds are so heavily censored and restricted that there may as well be no Internet service at all.

However, a large number don’t even have a need to consider policies at all because consumers already enjoy both a greater level of competition and more bandwidth than in the U.S.

Those are important categories to consider – competition and infrastructure. When you strip down many of the arguments made for or against FCC-proposed net neutrality rules, those seem to be two concerns that are most prevalent in the overall debate. Read the Knight Center of Digital Excellence’s four-part series on the FCC’s six net neutrality rules for specific examples on how the relative lack of broadband competition and low levels of available bandwidth in our nation are pitting major industry players against each other.

Looking at nations that considered competition and infrastructure issues from the onset adds an interesting facet to the net neutrality debate: Is it a short-term solution to answer for a lack of long-term planning?

Net neutrality is important, and rules governing it should apply to the Internet no matter where or how it’s accessed to ensure American consumers have fast, open and accessible service. At the same time, we hope they don’t detract attention from big-picture problems – the need for more robust competition in broadband markets and the building of higher speed, best-effort infrastructure.