FCC Finally Updates America’s Pathetic Definition Of ‘Broadband’ To 100 Mbps
from the better-late-than-never dept
For decades, the FCC has maintained an arguably pathetic definition of “broadband,” allowing the telecom industry to under-deliver substandard access. After some industry lobbying to ensure it wasn’t too stringent, the agency is finally getting around to an update, and has announced that they’ll soon classify “broadband” as anything faster than 100 Mbps downstream, 20 Mbps upstream.
According to FCC boss Jessica Rosenworcel, the agency’s ultimate goal is to define broadband as 1 Gbps down, 500 Mbps up, though that part is largely aspirational:
“This fix is overdue. It aligns us with pandemic legislation like the Bipartisan Infrastructure Law and the work of our colleagues at other agencies. It also helps us better identify the extent to which low-income neighborhoods and rural communities are underserved. And because doing big things is in our DNA, we also adopt a long-term goal of 1 Gigabit down and 500 Megabits up.”
As an aside, as somebody who has covered this agency professionally for more than twenty years, “doing big things” is most assuredly not in the FCC’s DNA.
Broadband was originally defined as any 200 kbps connection, a pathetic metric from the very start. In 2010, that pathetic definition was changed to a slightly less pathetic definition: 4 Mbps downstream, 1 Mbps upstream. In 2015, it was changed again to a slightly more reasonable but still pathetic 25 Mbps downstream, 3 Mbps upstream, where it stayed for almost a decade.
For that entire decade everybody from consumer groups to the GAO told the FCC that the sluggish 25/3 definition didn’t reflect modern standards, and let the telecom industry get away with providing substandard service. The Trump FCC’s response: to propose lowering the definition even further.
Even the FCC’s new 100 Mbps down, 20 Mbps up threshold was watered down by cable and wireless lobbyists, who knew they’d struggle providing consistent 100 Mbps upstream. And it’s still relatively tepid given some municipal broadband networks have been offering 10 Gbps connections since 2015. And it came long after other agencies (like the NTIA) had adopted the standard for federal subsidies.
So yes, hooray that the FCC has decided twenty years fucking late to raise the bar somewhere around ankle height for America’s giant telecoms to try and avoid tripping over. This at least puts a little more pressure on ISPs that are still overcharging consumers for 2003-era Digital Subscriber Line (DSL).
But the agency’s apathy up until this point did untold damage in terms of letting telecom giants like Comcast and AT&T obscure the competitive impact of mindless consolidation and regional monopolization. And the agency “with big things in its DNA” still doesn’t collect and share broadband pricing data, lest the press, public, and lawmakers realize the full scope of that competition problem.
Filed Under: 100 Mbps, 20 mbps, broadband, cable, competition, dsl, fcc, fiber, high speed internet


Comments on “FCC Finally Updates America’s Pathetic Definition Of ‘Broadband’ To 100 Mbps”
So let me guess how this will play out.
Entities will continue to under serve the poor, will continue to take tax breaks and refunds ostensibly to develop rural networks but will be used for stock buybacks and bonuses with zero repercussions, and now, we all get to pay a higher price for connections.
Sweet!
Re:
Why do rural areas even need broadband? It’s not like Pepe memes and incoherent conspiracy theories require a lot of bandwidth.
Re: Re: There is something
That Follows the Fiber lines.
Cellphone Antenna’s. Its a replacement (If they get their HEADS OUT OF ASS’s) for the Old PHONE SYSTEM.
Then we can Add the Cable TV system and the Internet system, ALL in 1 package with room to spare.
Also its Part of the Emergency Phone system, created back in WW2.
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
Re: Re: Re:
All that’s wasted on rural populations though. They want to be backwards and stupid. They want their kids and backwards and stupid and hungry. That way, they can make sure their communities remain backwards and stupid long after their deaths.
All faster broadband will do is let them spread and reinforce their stupidity faster. Might as well be taking my tax money to roll out fiber for the Taliban’s Afghanistan. The functional difference between rural America and the Taliban is a matter of external constraints placed on the former.
Re: Re: Re:2
And they are fighting like hell to remove those constraints.
Re: Re: Re:2
TBH, I thought true broadband in rural areas may actually lead to enhanced education, and going by your comment, that supposition appears to be correct.
Re: Re: Re:3
Have you not paid attention to what conservatives have used the internet to do over the past decade?
Re: Re: Re:4
Have you not paid attention to the comment you read?
Re: Re:
When Chattanooga bucked off Marsha Blackburn’s corruption and made their own municipal broadband, they saw strong economic growth thanks to their moving into the 21st century.
Re: Re: Re:
Chattanooga is hardly rural.
Re: Re: Re:2
It’s actually one of the few redeemable parts of Tennessee.
Re: Re: Re:
They “bucked off her corruption” by electing her to congress.
Well done?
Re: Re: Re:2
Phil Bredesen got 62.7% of Chattanooga’s votes. Marsha Blackburn only got 36.3%.
So no, the majority of voters in Chattanooga did not vote for Marsha Blackburn.
Re: Re:
As it turns out, the Internet allows farmers to communicate with their customers and promote their businesses.
Not to mention for those with enough money to live there and own farms, they want to watch funny animal videos and play games too.
Re: Re: Re:
If they want to make money, they’ve got bootstraps. Helping them with anything just just gives them firmer footing from which they can attack. I see no reason my tax dollars should be going to help the Taliban make money.
Re: Re: Re:2
The time for concentration camps and genocide are long gone, asshole.
You’re asking for those to come back, along with a helping of domestic nuclear war.
You sure you want that to happen?
Re: Re: Re:3
No, that’s literally the rural conservatives voting for that like clockwork.
Re: Re: Re:4
Not just rural Conservatives, dickhead.
Re: Re: Re:3
And yeah. If you’re going to do a genocide, you’re damn right we’re going to make sure you suffer too.
Re: Re: Re:3
Rural conservatives have already declared war. You can tell by the way they’ve been the primary driver of domestic terrorism for the past half-century.
Re: Re: Re:4
I’ve seen these CHUDs try to claim that Timothy McVeigh was left-wing, despite his many documented connections with right-wing militias and affinity for Christian child-rape cults like the Branch Davidians.
Re: Re:
I do IT work for a healthcare organization in a rural state. Many of our clients absolutely rely on telehealth for their physical and mental wellbeing. And most of our clients are good people who deserve better.
But keep making asinine assumptions about people you don’t know, you ignorant douchebag.
Re: Re: Re:
Their voting patterns suggest otherwise.
Re: Re: Re:2
s/suggest/indicate/
Re: Re: Re:
If we were talking about the civil rights era, and they were supporting the overt reactionary response of the time, would you be leaping to their defense as such? Or is it just because they’ve set their sights on the queers these days that you’re willing to give them a pass?
Re: Re: Re:2
I mean, the racism is still there too. It’s just more subtle than firehoses.
Re: Re: Re:3
They’re still using German Shepherds though!
Re: Re: Re:
Such great people heading to the polls every other year to vote for genocide!
Re: Re: Re:
Lol. I spent the first 18 years of my life growing up queer in Illitucky. I know all too well what these people are.
Re: This will have
A 5+ year time frame and at the end, extend another 5, Before ENOUGH persons get bothered to compare the USA with INDIA/PAKISTAN/Israel/Afghanistan and other places.
(AGAIN)
THEN, someplace around 15 years, the Gov. will figure out that THEY built the backbone YEARS ago, and SHOULD do the work at 10 times the current wage prices.
Which STILL wont do anything for the ‘Last Mile’, or the Rural areas.
yada yada yada..
I no longer have broadband
The FCC took away my broadband!
Re:
Damn big gub’ment!
Competition/no competition
I recently moved from somewhere that Comcast/Xfinity has an effective monopoly to somewhere that has a choice of 3 broadband (even under the new definition) services.
From Comcast, I got about 300 down, but only 5 (yes, 5!) up. In the new location, I have 1Gb symmetrical, with an even faster option. It’s cheaper than the 300/5 from Comcast.
Re:
I get to choose between Comcast’s 300 down or AT&T’s 6 down.
Let’s download like it’s 2012!
Re:
I think you mean 1992.
For years, the DSL at my house had been a pair of phone lines at 40 down, 6 up each (total: 80 down, 12 up). A few months ago, each line “mysteriously” increased to 53.xxx down, and 7.xxx up (total 106.xxx down and 15.xxx up). Just in time for this new update to broadband internet, my ISP snuck in under the wire for the down pipe.
There was no other reason to increase the down speed, so I suspect it was to be able to boast that it is broadband. If that is the case, though, I expect my upload will also sneak up a few mbps within the coming months.
Note: Rosenworcel had been pushing against this specific facet of Telco/Republican corruption since at least 2018 when telco lobbyist Ajit Pai refused to let the FCC adopt anything approaching modern broadband standards.
Comcast: Wait a minute, 100 Mbps down, 20 Mbps up?… Okay, but limited to 5Gb/month for 99$, right?
Re:
I think the ISPs have mostly backed off from the ridiculously low limits on wired connections, but the FCC should definitely be making “unlimited” a requirement. An unlimited 100 Mbit/s connection allows about 30 terabytes per month, and I’d prefer it to a faster connection with a lower limit.
And then there are the wireless carriers, who need to be reined in by the FCC probably more than the wired ones.
Anything less than 1Gbps up AND down at $20USD a month without caps should not be considered broadband, and that’s by standards a decade ago. Asian countries have had these standards since then. By the time anything happens, if it does at all, the world leaders will be at 10Gbps for the same price.
US Telecoms have stolen nearly $1 trillion from taxpayers and 30 years later there’s nothing to show for it. Read the book “The Book of Broken Promises: $400 Billion Broadband Scandal & Free the Net” which was written nearly a decade ago.
Every American should have had low cost fiber to the premises by now. Saying that’s not feasible for any reason completely ignores the massive corruption and theft that’s taken place under your nose.