The FCC now defines broadband as 100 Mbps at minimum – 25/3 Mbps was simply not...

[Daniel Sims]

Recap: The Federal Communications Commission has faced increasing public pressure to revise its definition of high-speed broadband internet, a need that became more evident as the pandemic heightened society's dependence on home internet. However, the FCC's ambitions extend beyond current advancements. Its long-term objective is to promote widespread adoption of gigabit internet.

This week, the FCC established a new minimum standard to evaluate whether Americans have access to high-speed broadband internet. The update to 100 Mbps for downloads and 20 Mbps for upload speeds marks a significant departure from the previous baseline of 25/3 Mbps set by the Commission in 2015. The new rule allows the FCC to more critically assess the performance of internet service providers (ISPs) and telecommunications companies.

The decision, reached by a 3-2 vote, reveals that many Americans, especially those in rural and tribal areas, lack access to adequately fast internet, with service providers failing to expand their networks swiftly enough.

According to the FCC's report, now sourced from the Broadband Data Collection instead of Form 477, approximately 24 million Americans were without access to broadband in December 2022. This figure includes 28 percent of rural Americans and 23 percent of individuals in tribal areas, excluding satellite services.

Moreover, 36 percent of rural residents and 20 percent of those on tribal lands, accounting for nine percent of the U.S. population, lacked access to mobile 5G service with minimum speeds of 35/3 Mbps. A total of 45 million Americans were unable to access both standards.

This decision follows a bipartisan request from senators three years prior, urging the FCC to raise the benchmark to 100 Mbps for both uploads and downloads. The pandemic, which forced many to work and study from home, underscored the critical importance of high-speed internet access and brought the digital divide into sharper focus.

FCC Chairwoman Jessica Rosenworcel

FCC Chairwoman Jessica Rosenworcel commented on the impact of the pandemic in her statement regarding the new policy. "The pandemic vividly highlighted our digital divide," she observed. Additionally, commissioners Geoffrey Starks and Anna M. Gomez praised the Affordable Connectivity Program, an initiative aimed at reducing broadband costs for low-income Americans, which is anticipated to face funding shortages next month.

Conversely, dissenting opinions from commissioners Brendan Carr and Nathan Simington emphasized the progress telecoms have made independent of the new regulations and questioned the FCC's revised methodology. Carr noted, "By any standard, there has been significant progress in the availability of high-speed broadband."

Looking ahead, the Commission is encouraging ISPs to strive for broader access to internet speeds of 1 Gbps for downloads and 500 Mbps for uploads. As of December 2022, 26 percent of school districts had not achieved this standard.

Permalink to story.

https://www.techspot.com/news/102287-fcc-now-defines-broadband-100-mbps-minimum-ndash.html

 

[Superconductor]

Slow as usual... FCC

 

[godrilla]

I just checked my 5g speeds on Tmobile. I am getting almost 900 mbps download. Not sure if anyone else is experiencing throttling when streaming or using certain apps. What's the point of having all that speed when are they throttle content. VPN fixes the throttling.

 

[passwordistaco]

That explains why Comcast "graciously" bumped my speeds. I was already over 100mbps down, but from 5 to 20mbps up is a big jump. And it was as easy as flipping a switch.

I wonder what effect this will have on Starlink.

 

[Endymio]

The problem isn't the definition, of course, but rather the belief that people have some sort of innate "right" to high speed Internet, and that those who aren't able to upload at 100mpbs are somehow being taken advantage of by society, and require massive government funding to correct the problem.

 

[toooooot]

That explains why Comcast "graciously" bumped my speeds. I was already over 100mbps down, but from 5 to 20mbps up is a big jump. And it was as easy as flipping a switch.

I wonder what effect this will have on Starlink.

I think the main reason is the expansion of other fast internet providers. I find Comcast laughable with any speed while they still cling to their predatory practices such as data caps.
Seriously, why wont FCC not get on that?
Maybe because Comcast has them in their pocket?

 

[Endymio]

I find Comcast laughable with any speed while they still cling to their predatory practices such as data caps.
Seriously, why wont FCC not get on that?

Perhaps because the FCC is still at least paying lip service to respecting the free market and their constitutionally-limited mandates?

Personally, I'd be more worried about the federal government's attempts to harass, hinder, and shut down Starlink, which is the only viable competitor to emerge in competition with terrestrial cabled broadband. And competition, not government legislation, is the only true solution to getting more performance at a lower price.

 

[brucek]

As soon as the government is granting only a limited number of licenses to enter a market, competition is no longer operating with its normal efficiency and it's proper that government take up the slack accordingly.

The network effect of telecoms - where the total value is in part based on the reach - also adds a national interest strategic value. Generations before us figured out it was important to build highways that connected the whole country. We ought to be able to do the same with wires (or waves.)

I agree though I'm not sure what's magic about "100" vs say 75 or 125; and that caps if low enough can easily be more important than those variations; or why "satellite" would be excluded; and that discussions around cost equity could maybe include that rural living also comes with many expenses that are much lower than those found in cities.

 

[brucek]

VPN fixes the throttling.

That's interesting because it implies it's not a capacity problem in the wireless equivalent of the "last mile" leg that all your packets must travel on.

If I had to guess a benign reason it sounds like your provider is trying to use proxies and other similar infrastructure to help deliver common traffic most efficiently, but has overloaded those servers or otherwise bungled the job.

Or maybe it really is intentional targeted throttling and you've found a way to defeat that mechanism, because with the VPN they can no longer see whatever the selection criteria is (I.e. they are trying to throttle Netflix but now they don't know your connection is with Netflix.)

To me the latter ought to be subject to some sort of required disclosure. It makes little sense to allow ISPs to "compete" on published bandwidth offered if they are then allowed to turn right around and ensure you'll never be able to use that advertised bandwidth.

 

[Neatfeatguy]

Oh noes, Comcast! Whatever are you to do with all those "high speed" connections you offer with less than 20Mbps upload speeds?

Only offerings you have over 20Mbps for upload is two tiers - Gigabit and Gigabit Pro and you're looking to pay $80+ for these offerings.

Thankfully I moved away from their crap - hopped on optical that's 500/500 for $50. Speeds are generally around 450/450.

 

[Kotters]

The problem isn't the definition, of course, but rather the belief that people have some sort of innate "right" to high speed Internet, and that those who aren't able to upload at 100mpbs are somehow being taken advantage of by society, and require massive government funding to correct the problem.

Alright Mr. Rockefeller, let's get you back to bed.

 

[Endymio]

That's interesting because it implies it's not a capacity problem...Or maybe it really is intentional targeted throttling and you've found a way to defeat that mechanism

The OP is parroting factoids. By far the most common throttling -- and the only confirmed method in use today -- is a blanket throttling of so-called "heavy users" who exceed certain caps. No VPN will alter this.

Long ago (the 2005 era) major providers throttled P2P apps like BitTorrent to address high-user scenarios -- at one point, it was estimated that under 1% of Internet users were consuming nearly 99% of all available bandwidth -- something that VPN could address, by obfuscating the source of the traffic. But those days are long past.

Some people still claim that Comcast, AT&T or others may throttle streaming apps like Netflix, and purport to prove this by showing bandwidth discrepancies. But these are always within the bounds of normal statistical and geographic variation.

Alright Mr. Rockefeller, let's get you back to bed.

Sure, but straight to your quarters afterwards. The upstairs maids have been complaining about the peeping through their windows.

 

[Theinsanegamer]

The OP is parroting factoids. By far the most common throttling -- and the only confirmed method in use today -- is a blanket throttling of so-called "heavy users" who exceed certain caps. No VPN will alter this.

Long ago (the 2005 era) major providers throttled P2P apps like BitTorrent to address high-user scenarios -- at one point, it was estimated that under 1% of Internet users were consuming nearly 99% of all available bandwidth -- something that VPN could address, by obfuscating the source of the traffic. But those days are long past.

Some people still claim that Comcast, AT&T or others may throttle streaming apps like Netflix, and purport to prove this by showing bandwidth discrepancies. But these are always within the bounds of normal statistical and geographic variation.


Sure, but straight to your quarters afterwards. The upstairs maids have been complaining about the peeping through their windows.

some straight /r/iamverysmart energy right there. Of course other people's evidence isnt good enough for your standards. XD

The problem isn't the definition, of course, but rather the belief that people have some sort of innate "right" to high speed Internet, and that those who aren't able to upload at 100mpbs are somehow being taken advantage of by society, and require massive government funding to correct the problem.

In a world where vital service are dependent on internet access, remote work is a thing, remote learning is a thing, and commerce largely now relies on the internet, Yes I think its perfectly reasonable to call the internet a "right".

And hey, if the private industry didnt take billions in handouts over the last 30 years while sitting on their laurels instead of building out infrastructure, I might feel a little bad for them. But I dont. Greed begets pain. We've already long funded these build-outs, and the execs bought yachts and stocks instead of building fiber or even vDSL to rural and underserved areas.

 

[wiyosaya]

some straight /r/iamverysmart energy right there. Of course other people's evidence isnt good enough for your standards. XD
In a world where vital service are dependent on internet access, remote work is a thing, remote learning is a thing, and commerce largely now relies on the internet, Yes I think its perfectly reasonable to call the internet a "right".

And hey, if the private industry didnt take billions in handouts over the last 30 years while sitting on their laurels instead of building out infrastructure, I might feel a little bad for them. But I dont. Greed begets pain. We've already long funded these build-outs, and the execs bought yachts and stocks instead of building fiber or even vDSL to rural and underserved areas.

Right there with you!

 

[wiyosaya]

In my area, Spectrum only bumped everyone, yes, you read that right, literally Everyone, up to 200mbps down and, I think 30mbps up (though I can not be sure of the downstream speed since I dropped them when FTTH became available to me) when a local provider started offering 500mbps symmetric fiber internet for $50/mo. Now, there's another provider offering similar fiber access - Frontier. It's amazing what competition can do. And with Spectrum, there was no major infrastructure upgrade. I'm reasonably sure that all Spectrum had to do to increase everyone's speed was just flip a switch. I wonder what happened to all the money they got from the government over the years. And now there's 5G T-mobile in the area, too, for everyone that is not lucky enough to have access to one of those fiber providers.

 

[VaRmeNsI]

In America it's quite common apparently for internet providers to lobby local government to keep out competitors by restricting planning permission.

 

[Theinsanegamer]

In my area, Spectrum only bumped everyone, yes, you read that right, literally Everyone, up to 200mbps down and, I think 30mbps up (though I can not be sure of the downstream speed since I dropped them when FTTH became available to me) when a local provider started offering 500mbps symmetric fiber internet for $50/mo. Now, there's another provider offering similar fiber access - Frontier. It's amazing what competition can do. And with Spectrum, there was no major infrastructure upgrade. I'm reasonably sure that all Spectrum had to do to increase everyone's speed was just flip a switch. I wonder what happened to all the money they got from the government over the years. And now there's 5G T-mobile in the area, too, for everyone that is not lucky enough to have access to one of those fiber providers.

The day that ATT opened their fiber, my local cable company suddenly annouced priced cuts of $30 and a dramatic increase in the speed of available plans.

On my block, all but 1 house switched to ATT in a single month.

Force Local Loop Unbundling or remove all restrictions on pole access!

 

[Endymio]

In a world where vital service are dependent on internet access, remote work is a thing, remote learning is a thing, and commerce largely now relies on the internet, Yes I think its perfectly reasonable to call the internet a "right".

Then you'd be wrong. Broadband internet doesn't supply itself. Claiming you have a "right" that others must labor to provide is nothing more than thinly-veiled slavery. These fairy-tale fantasies are the initial justifications for brutally repressive authoritarian regimes, in which most of an individual's life is spent supplying the needs and demands of others. It didn't work well for the former USSR or Maoist China; it's not working well for North Korea or Cuba, and it has no place in civilized society.

If you look at actual rights -- such as those in the US Bill of Rights -- you'll note that none of them require any individual to work for the gratification of another.

 

[GodisanAtheist]

Then you'd be wrong. Broadband internet doesn't supply itself. Claiming you have a "right" that others must labor to provide is nothing more than thinly-veiled slavery. These fairy-tale fantasies are the initial justifications for brutally repressive authoritarian regimes, in which most of an individual's life is spent supplying the needs and demands of others. It didn't work well for the former USSR or Maoist China; it's not working well for North Korea or Cuba, and it has no place in civilized society.

If you look at actual rights -- such as those in the US Bill of Rights -- you'll note that none of them require any individual to work for the gratification of another.

-Ok, no one has a right to broadband internet but everyone should have access or at least the opportunity to access it regardless.

 

[MasterFig]

I'm just happy that Iive in a Google fiber city! I currently have 1Gig up snd down. In my area Google also offers the option for 2 and 5Gig, but I don't personally have any need for that much speed at the moment.

 

[Uncle Al]

Sure took them long enough .... I wonder if they even know the 8088 chip has been surpassed??? LOL

 

[NumberNine]

Rights are fictional inventions of humans.
They were given and can be taken away.

As Carlin once said, what you have are temporary privileges.

If bombs start falling, if food becomes scarce, if there is any type of societal instability, the first thing to go will be your "rights".

Never lose this context and live your life gratefully.

 

[lripplinger]

I have 200/200 fiber, but several miles away, my folks only can get crappy 20/5 DSL from the same (and only telecom in the valley) ISP. The ISP supposedly is bring the fiber to my folk's area by next year or 2026. Only time will tell....

 

[erickmendes]

Rights are fictional inventions of humans.
They were given and can be taken away.
As Carlin once said, what you have are temporary privileges.

If bombs start falling, if food becomes scarce, if there is any type of societal instability, the first thing to go will be your "rights".

Never lose this context and live your life gratefully.

The problem isn't the definition, of course, but rather the belief that people have some sort of innate "right" to high speed Internet, and that those who aren't able to upload at 100mpbs are somehow being taken advantage of by society, and require massive government funding to correct the problem.

Democracy and the concept of a nation are also fictional inventions of humans. ... These also breaks in the situations like wars and so on... But we are talking about a working democracy.

FCC reports is not only about households, it's also about public institutions, like schools and so on.

According to constitution the purpose of the government includes general welfare that are achieved thru public services, these services have goals that are measured thru metrics that are set on regulations. If these regulations define that every public scholl (or whatever public service) must have at least "broadband internet access" that will make your budget for this public service vary if you define "broadband" as 25/3 or 100/20.

So we get to the point where the definition of a concept matters, public policies, industry regulations...
... But if we get into a war sure that won't matter.

If you look at actual rights -- such as those in the US Bill of Rights -- you'll note that none of them require any individual to work for the gratification of another.

Also seems like every right in the US Bill need some form of public service to be preserved. So seems like there's a lot of individuals, governemnt services, working to benefit others.

 

[wiyosaya]

Then you'd be wrong. Broadband internet doesn't supply itself. Claiming you have a "right" that others must labor to provide is nothing more than thinly-veiled slavery. These fairy-tale fantasies are the initial justifications for brutally repressive authoritarian regimes, in which most of an individual's life is spent supplying the needs and demands of others. It didn't work well for the former USSR or Maoist China; it's not working well for North Korea or Cuba, and it has no place in civilized society.

It would not surprise me if, when electricity was a fledgling, there were people who said the same thing about electricity. It would also not surprise me if, when telephony was a fledgling, people said the same thing about telephony.

While no one amended the US constitution to make those things "rights", they were eventually declared public utilities.

It would not surprise me if, some time in the not-too-distant future, internet service is also declared a public service.

I think you missed the point that with so much in the US and the world relying on people having access to internet service, it has for the most part, become necessary to "modern life" to have access to reasonable internet service.

I don't think there's an argument as to whether internet service is a "right" in the US, it is certainly not in the constitution, nor could it be since the bill of rights was created in a time when its creators could never have imagined the internet, which more or less makes the argument moot and not with arguing about.

At this point, however, internet service has become a necessity for modern life much as is happening, and has happened, with cell phones, and has also happened with electricity and telephony.