Recent reports that Google is building a gigabit-a-second broadband network serving between 50,000 and 500,000 people hides the fact that, when it comes to the world of telecommunications, these are baby steps.

The Wall Street Journal has reported that the search giant has “predictably won plaudits from the Federal Communications Commission and public interest groups”, while also warning that Google will have to do a lot more if it really wants to help speed the development of universal high-speed Internet access.

And we all know why – it costs a lot of money, and takes a lot of expertise, to build a fast telecommunications network. Cable can have a real advantage: In Canada Rogers, Cogeco and Videotron are offering faster speeds than just about every American internet provider. Rogers Communications can deliver download speeds of 50 megabits per second. Videotron in Quebec offers speeds up to 50 megabits as does Cogeco Cable.

Shaw Communications and Eastlink, Canada's two other major cable companies, offer speeds in the 25- and 15-megabit range, respectively. Shaw also has low-profile 100-megabit service earlier this year in parts of Saskatchewan. Many of the cable companies are using a network technology known as DOCSIS 3.0, which actually lets them offer speeds higher than 50 megabits.

The cable providers have a significant speed advantage over most of Canada's major phone companies, which provide internet connections over phone lines. But once you go to fibre, the game changes. Montreal-based Bell recently announced that it will deploy fibre-to-the-home connections in Quebec City and new housing developments in Ontario and Quebec with download speeds of 100 megabits per second and uploads of 20 megabits.

South of the border Verizon Communications already is operating a network that runs at 2.5 gigabits a second, offering television, Internet and phone. The maximum Internet speed it offers is 50 megabits per second, but as with the Canadian providers, it can turn that up.

The real problem in Canada is financing the rollout of fibre networks to rural or underpopulated areas, where the cost can range as high as $4,000 per connected home, compared with $1,400 for a home in a suburban area. No surprise, then, that publicly held companies have shied away from spending even more money on rural areas.

In the United States Google, which had $24.5 billion in cash and investments as of Dec. 31, isn't proposing to build a complete network, but wants to get its feet wet with a $70 million to $2 billion investment – amounts that it can justify to its shareholders.

There is a political game behind this, too, because the network could help Google advance its policy objectives in Washington, D.C., particularly its push for open access to networks.

It is possible that the FCC could reclassify internet providers as common carriers. The FCC then could require network operators to open up networks for resale by competing service providers.

The irony might be that Google’s desire for a more vibrant broadband market could pave the way for a more rigorous regulatory regimen in the United States.