Social FCC Voted 3-2 Along Party Lines To Raise The U.S' Minimum Broadband Speed From 25Mbps to 100Mbps

[Arkain2K]

FCC scraps old speed benchmark, says broadband should be at least 100Mbps​

Standard of 100Mbps down and 20Mbps up replaces old 25Mbps/3Mbps benchmark after 3-2 vote.​

By Jon Brodkin

The Federal Communications Commission today voted to raise its Internet speed benchmark for the first time since January 2015, concluding that modern broadband service should provide at least 100Mbps download speeds and 20Mbps upload speeds.

An FCC press release after today's 3-2 vote said the 100Mbps/20Mbps benchmark "is based on the standards now used in multiple federal and state programs," such as those used to distribute funding to expand networks. The new benchmark also reflects "consumer usage patterns, and what is actually available from and marketed by Internet service providers," the FCC said.

The previous standard of 25Mbps downstream and 3Mbps upstream lasted through the entire Trump era and most of President Biden's term. There has been a clear partisan divide on the speed standard, with Democrats pushing for a higher benchmark and Republicans arguing that it shouldn't be raised.

The standard is partly symbolic but can indirectly impact potential FCC regulations. The FCC is required under US law to regularly evaluate whether "advanced telecommunications capability is being deployed to all Americans in a reasonable and timely fashion" and to "take immediate action to accelerate deployment" and promote competition if current deployment is not "reasonable and timely."

With a higher speed standard, the FCC is more likely to conclude that broadband providers aren't moving toward universal deployment fast enough and to take regulatory actions in response. During the Trump era, FCC Chairman Ajit Pai's Republican majority ruled that 25Mbps download and 3Mbps upload speeds should still count as "advanced telecommunications capability," and concluded that the telecom industry was doing enough to extend advanced telecom service to all Americans.

2-2 deadlock delayed benchmark increase​

Democrat Jessica Rosenworcel has been the FCC chairwoman since 2021 and was calling for a speed increase even before being promoted to the commission's top spot. Rosenworcel formally proposed the 100Mbps/20Mbps standard in July 2022, but the FCC had a 2-2 partisan deadlock at the time and the 25Mbps/3Mbps standard stayed in place a while longer.

Biden's first nominee to fill an empty FCC seat was stonewalled by the Senate, but Democrats finally got a 3-2 majority when Biden's second pick was confirmed in September 2023. Today's 3-2 party-line vote approved the 100Mbps/20Mbps standard and a report concluding "that advanced telecommunications capability is not being deployed in a reasonable and timely fashion," the FCC said in its press release.

That conclusion is "based on the total number of Americans, Americans in rural areas, and people living on Tribal lands who lack access to such capability, and the fact that these gaps in deployment are not closing rapidly enough," the press release said. Based on data from December 2022, the FCC said that fixed broadband service (excluding satellite) "has not been physically deployed to approximately 24 million Americans, including almost 28 percent of Americans in rural areas, and more than 23 percent of people living on Tribal lands."

A draft of the FCC report was released before the meeting. "Based on our evaluation of available data, we can no longer conclude that broadband at speeds of 25/3Mbps—the fixed benchmark established in 2015 and relied on in the last seven reports—supports 'advanced' functions," the report said. "We find that having 'advanced telecommunications capability' for fixed broadband service requires access to download speeds of at least 100Mbps and upload speeds of at least 20Mbps. The record overwhelmingly supports increasing the fixed speed benchmark in this manner."

The report also sets a "long-term speed goal" of 1Gbps download speeds paired with 500Mbps upload speeds. The FCC said it intends to use this speed goal "as a guidepost for evaluating our efforts to encourage deployment."

FCC scraps old speed benchmark, says broadband should be at least 100Mbps

Standard of 100Mbps down and 20Mbps up replaces old 25Mbps/3Mbps benchmark.

arstechnica.com

 

[Arkain2K]

FCC Officially Raises Minimum Broadband Metric From 25Mbps to 100Mbps​

The commission also sets a long-term goal of raising the broadband metric to 1Gbps for downloads and 500Mbps for uploads.
By Michael Kan | March 14, 2024

After years of talk, the Federal Communications Commission has officially raised its definition for minimum broadband speeds from 25Mbps to 100Mbps.

On Thursday, the commission voted 3-2 to raise its broadband metric from 25Mbps for downloads and 3Mbps for uploads. Going forward, the FCC will define high-speed broadband as 100Mbps for downloads and 20Mbps for uploads.

“This fix is overdue,” said FCC Chair Jessica Rosenworcel, who added: “It also helps us better identify the extent to which low-income neighborhoods and rural communities are underserved.”

Raising the speed metric is important because it helps the commission determine which areas in the country are receiving adequate internet speeds, and if more government funding is necessary. In 2015, the FCC raised the metric from 4Mbps/1Mbps to 25Mbps/3Mbps. But since then, US senators, government watchdogs, and FCC officials have urged the commission to raise the metric even higher, citing the US’s growing reliance on internet services and apps.

According to FCC data from December 2022, an estimated 45 million Americans “lack access to both 100/20Mbps fixed service and 35/3Mbps mobile 5G-NR service.”

As part of Thursday’s vote, the FCC also adopted a long-term goal of raising its broadband metric to 1,000Mbps for downloads and 500Mbps for uploads. Rosenworcel added: “Millions of people in rural, urban and Tribal communities still do not have the broadband they need to fully participate in modern life. We are working on it."

However, the two Republican Commissioners dissented in Thursday’s vote. Commissioner Brendan Carr noted that satellite internet services, such as SpaceX’s Starlink, don’t qualify for the speed benchmarks, which only considers ground-based internet.

Commissioner Nathan Simington added that it makes sense to disregard older satellite internet services, but not Starlink, which already provides high-speed internet across the country.

“SpaceX’s LEO-based [low-Earth orbiting] service Starlink has completely changed the game,” he said. “Starlink is in fact available at this moment in almost every corner of all 50 states, and offers low latency and speed near or exceeding 100/20Mbps, especially in rural areas."

According to Simington, the FCC is concerned that satellite internet services such as Starlink face capacity constraints. But he expects the company’s technology to improve over time, and urged the FCC to allow SpaceX to compete for federal subsidies on an “equal footing” with other broadband providers. In December, SpaceX lost an appeal to receive $886 million in federal funding to expand Starlink in rural areas.

Loading…

www.pcmag.com

 

[panamaican]

In what I'm sure is unrelated news, Comcast just randomly decided to increase my upload and download speeds. Literally overnight.

smh

 

[Arkain2K]

In what I'm sure is unrelated news, Comcast just randomly decided to increase my upload and download speeds. Literally overnight.

smh

Damn, talk about coincident. Just like traditional cable companies randomly lower their price and boost their speed wherever Google Fiber comes to town, eventhough they treated those same customers like shit just the month before when they still had their monopoly.

 

[Sinister]

Don't project your shortcomings onto others.

Nothing about learning at one's own pace at home prevents kids from having full socially enriched lives when they're not studying.

Ita funny to see them rail against public education in some threads, then suggest kids would be worse off without it in other threads.

Parents not socializing their kids is a conscious decision.

 

[ShadowRun]

The cost of upgrading the infrastructure to support this probably will be passed on to the customers.

 

[Legumes]

The cost of upgrading the infrastructure to support this probably will be passed on to the customers.

Most customers would gladly pay more if they could get something better in rural areas. In a lot of cases, their bills will stay the same or even go down with better service. I know people that live where shitty 3Mbps DSL service is roughly $50/month. In recent months, fiber has been laid in their area and they will soon be able to get 300Mbps service for $50/month.

 

[panamaican]

Ita funny to see them rail against public education in some threads, then suggest kids would be worse off without it in other threads.

Parents not socializing their kids is a conscious decision.

They rail against anything that's not about attacking others. It has to be exhausting to view every topic through the lens of "Here's why it's wrong." They never advance to "Here's what's good."

 

[panamaican]

The cost of upgrading the infrastructure to support this probably will be passed on to the customers.

It probably won't. I got a text from Comcast literally the day before this was announced stating that they were doubling my speeds. All I had to do was reset my router. My monthly bill would not be affected.

The infrastructure is already there in most places. Comcast just restricts speeds to create different pricing tiers.

No different than how Netflix was paying Comcast a premium to prevent streaming lag vs. Amazon who wasn't.

https://www.wsj.com/articles/SB10001424052702304834704579401071892041790

Comcast mafia is undefeated, lol.

 

[Natural Order]

@Siver!

Why is it a horrible idea?

Modern schooling is barely 200 years old (might actually be less). It was invented as a means to prepare kids for entry into factory work and later the military. It was never designed to maximize learning.

The original gold standard of education was individualized instruction, primarily through tutors. Unfortunately, this was only really possible for the rich. In this modern era, we've screwed the pooch on tutor based education. Instead of providing kids with tutors to help them excel, we primarily assign tutors to kids who are struggling with a curriculum that is too advanced for them.

Right now, we live in a world where we have access to unlimited digital tutors. Not just for kids who are falling behind academically but for everyone. I cannot understand why people would object to an education system where we teach kids according to their current level of ability and engage them intellectually. So I ask -- why is it a horrible idea?

They should still be sent to school for socializing and face to face communication with their peers (and for things like sports, music, etc. imo). But instruction at school can most certainly be replaced to individual tutors in the digital space. This is one of the very few aspects of modern AI technology that I see as a huge potential for education.

 

[cincymma79]

I won't pretend to know what the minimum should be but the pandemic made it clear to me how important high speed broadband access is in the modern world.

Personally, I look forward to a world where we don't send kids to school but instead allow them to learn at their own pace from home. That requires widely available high speed internet access.

I would never discovered any of my new fetishes without broadband

 

[Two Crows]

It's about damn time!
AT&T has been milking the low speed/high cost market for decades.
Their internet connection still goes through a phone line.

AT&T offers fiber internet and is the fastest available connection in most US locations.

I'm surprised they still have a dial-up service ... are you sure they do? In the US?

 

[Ladder Master]

25/3 is terrible

Might as well be on dial up

I remember years ago when we got bumped from 5 to 15 down
and I thought that shit was awesome.

I just checked mine now we are on a lower tier and it's 265 Mbps.

 

[Two Crows]

Also, for any of you paying for coax ("Cable"), check your download speeds on-site.

Anything from old cabling to too many splitters in your home can max your speed under 100 Mbps, no matter what you are paying them for or what "free upgrade" they offer. Also keep in mind your bandwidth is reliant upon how much usage all the other connections in your circuit are using (IOW, your neighbors).

Lastly, no matter what those articles say regarding the median, the states with the highest costs at the extremes are Alaska, Hawaii, & Colorado/New Mexico. Some of our clients are so remote they actually receive their internet connection over the freaking power lines, via microwaves, or only satellite. No joke.

 

[tenniswhiz]

@Siver!

Why is it a horrible idea?

Modern schooling is barely 200 years old (might actually be less). It was invented as a means to prepare kids for entry into factory work and later the military. It was never designed to maximize learning.

The original gold standard of education was individualized instruction, primarily through tutors. Unfortunately, this was only really possible for the rich. In this modern era, we've screwed the pooch on tutor based education. Instead of providing kids with tutors to help them excel, we primarily assign tutors to kids who are struggling with a curriculum that is too advanced for them.

Right now, we live in a world where we have access to unlimited digital tutors. Not just for kids who are falling behind academically but for everyone. I cannot understand why people would object to an education system where we teach kids according to their current level of ability and engage them intellectually. So I ask -- why is it a horrible idea?

How many home schooled kids do you know?
How many adults do you know that were home schooled?

Based on what I’ve observed about them, I’d have to disagree. Just a general observation, not a scientific one. I’ve encountered quite a few.

 

[Arkain2K]

AT&T offers fiber internet and is the fastest available connection in most US locations.

I'm surprised they still have a dial-up service ... are you sure they do? In the US?

It's not dial-up. Back when we had T&T fiber, they use a weird dual set-up where their fiber optic line runs to your phone box, then the data is fed to your modem through your phone line.

How will I be connected to the fiber optic line? | AT&T Community Forums

I have my network router that I am assuming will connect to the uverse modem. What's the connection between the modem and the fiber optic line? Am I getting it through the existing phone line or ...

forums.att.com

 

[Stump]

@Siver!

Why is it a horrible idea?

Modern schooling is barely 200 years old (might actually be less). It was invented as a means to prepare kids for entry into factory work and later the military. It was never designed to maximize learning.

The original gold standard of education was individualized instruction, primarily through tutors. Unfortunately, this was only really possible for the rich. In this modern era, we've screwed the pooch on tutor based education. Instead of providing kids with tutors to help them excel, we primarily assign tutors to kids who are struggling with a curriculum that is too advanced for them.

Right now, we live in a world where we have access to unlimited digital tutors. Not just for kids who are falling behind academically but for everyone. I cannot understand why people would object to an education system where we teach kids according to their current level of ability and engage them intellectually. So I ask -- why is it a horrible idea?

Not sure what Siver's objections are, but I can see a couple of big problems with it, both of them sociological/structural in nature - First off, how many families are structured such that they can support a stay-at-home child student? I'd reckon not too many at all. To embrace a system in which children are brought individualized learning services through the internet to them at home would be to embrace a massive revolution in the way the average family's day is structured necessarily threatening the ability the parents have to go to work. I don't see how this could work, unless we are willing to entertain some pretty novel ideas about children entertaining, regulating and keeping themselves safe on their own.

Secondly, school functions not only - and maybe not even primarily - as a means of educating youth. Forced socialization with a wide suite of kids a given child wouldn't ordinarily choose to keep company with, is one of the main purposes of school, to my mind. I just don't see a way to replace this - even if we were to massively restructure society and improve and increase access to extracurricular activities outside the home to make up for this lack of social immersion, I don't think we can easily replace this subtler aspect of the social requirements of school - it isn't JUST that kids spend time with other kids, its the fact these kids arent selecting their peers. Joining a tennis club might get you social interaction as a kid, but it doesn't give you the opportuntiy to have long term shared experiences with kids from different income brackets and cultural backgroudns than your family's, which I believe is a crucial element of schooling. Further to this, and related to the first point - who is going to facilitate all of this extracurricular activity? we'd have to have municipalities totally restructure and hire millions of coaches and facilitators, and who's going to drive the kids to these activities and pick them up? Many of the extracurricular sports and activities kids do today are based in and located at the schools they attend.

I think the general idea of using internet access to match kids with specific materials approaches and even teachers/tutors that best fit them is a good idea, but I think extending this to a comprehensive at-home educational system is a truly massive undertaking and would require the fundamental restructuring of our society to a degree comparative to switching everything over to renewables.

 

[panamaican]

How many home schooled kids do you know?
How many adults do you know that were home schooled?

Based on what I’ve observed about them, I’d have to disagree. Just a general observation, not a scientific one. I’ve encountered quite a few.

Homeschooled kids are homeschooled while everyone else is in physical school. So, they are separate from the majority population's socialization process.

What I'm saying is that everyone does their education at home at their own pace. So, kids can study at home at the pace that makes sense for them, which all of their friends are also doing. Their "school day" all end at the same time and they can outside and play or game or whatever because everyone will be done around the same time.

What you're alluding to is the socializing process that takes place in school buildings. But there's nothing that requires kids to socialize exclusively in schools. Before formal schools, kids socialized in the real world and studied in isolation. Frankly, they'd have more time for social dynamics if they're studying at home and don't have to wake up and travel to and from school. And we'd have more resources for that stuff since we wouldn't need to finance as many school buildings or school buses.

 

[panamaican]

Not sure what Siver's objections are, but I can see a couple of big problems with it, both of them sociological/structural in nature - First off, how many families are structured such that they can support a stay-at-home child student? I'd reckon not too many at all. To embrace a system in which children are brought individualized learning services through the internet to them at home would be to embrace a massive revolution in the way the average family's day is structured necessarily threatening the ability the parents have to go to work. I don't see how this could work, unless we are willing to entertain some pretty novel ideas about children entertaining, regulating and keeping themselves safe on their own.

Secondly, school functions not only - and maybe not even primarily - as a means of educating youth. Forced socialization with a wide suite of kids a given child wouldn't ordinarily choose to keep company with, is one of the main purposes of school, to my mind. I just don't see a way to replace this - even if we were to massively restructure society and improve and increase access to extracurricular activities outside the home to make up for this lack of social immersion, I don't think we can easily replace this subtler aspect of the social requirements of school - it isn't JUST that kids spend time with other kids, its the fact these kids arent selecting their peers. Joining a tennis club might get you social interaction as a kid, but it doesn't give you the opportuntiy to have long term shared experiences with kids from different income brackets and cultural backgroudns than your family's, which I believe is a crucial element of schooling. Further to this, and related to the first point - who is going to facilitate all of this extracurricular activity? we'd have to have municipalities totally restructure and hire millions of coaches and facilitators, and who's going to drive the kids to these activities and pick them up? Many of the extracurricular sports and activities kids do today are based in and located at the schools they attend.

I think the general idea of using internet access to match kids with specific materials approaches and even teachers/tutors that best fit them is a good idea, but I think extending this to a comprehensive at-home educational system is a truly massive undertaking and would require the fundamental restructuring of our society to a degree comparative to switching everything over to renewables.

Those are fair points. My position absolutely requires a massive restructuring of how society handles this. But that's because I think society handles this wrong. I don't think it's a tweak situation, it's an overhaul. And the overhaul is necessary. You can only patch the problem so many times before you should consider if it might make sense to build a new system.

As for your 2 points -- I'll address the second one 1st.

Our current school models separates kids by their parents economic success. Whether it's neighborhood schools or paying for private schools, we're already undercutting the idea of putting kids with other children they wouldn't ordinarily keep company with. If they're studying at home, when they go outside, they're going to be engaging the same neighborhood of kids that already attend their local school.

The parental work situation is, without question, the more difficult. I think it's a situation that the formal schooling dynamic created. Quick economic points that we already know. People with kids want to live near good schools. This applies upward pressure on housing prices, not just for parents with kids but also for adults without kids who want to maximize the return on their home investment. This upward pressure on housing prices requires parents to make more money in order to afford those houses. It, along with many other things, helps drive the need for 2 income households.

If parents didn't have to pick their houses based on proximity to schools, they would have more flexibility in housing choice. Additionally, adults without kids stop consuming housing stock in the very areas that parents need for their kids. Instead, housing choice for parents diverges from that of non-parents. Parents would want to be near parks and playgrounds. Non-parents wouldn't, they might prefer housing near restaurants and bars.

I think this would reduce housing prices and allow parents to pursue single income households or one full time, one part-time income. This is educated speculation on my part, so I don't have research to support it at the moment.

But, yes, a fundamental restructuring of society is required for this but a fundamental restructuring of society is probably necessary anyway.

 

[Rob Battisti]

Those are fair points. My position absolutely requires a massive restructuring of how society handles this. But that's because I think society handles this wrong. I don't think it's a tweak situation, it's an overhaul. And the overhaul is necessary. You can only patch the problem so many times before you should consider if it might make sense to build a new system.

As for your 2 points -- I'll address the second one 1st.

Our current school models separates kids by their parents economic success. Whether it's neighborhood schools or paying for private schools, we're already undercutting the idea of putting kids with other children they wouldn't ordinarily keep company with. If they're studying at home, when they go outside, they're going to be engaging the same neighborhood of kids that already attend their local school.

The parental work situation is, without question, the more difficult. I think it's a situation that the formal schooling dynamic created. Quick economic points that we already know. People with kids want to live near good schools. This applies upward pressure on housing prices, not just for parents with kids but also for adults without kids who want to maximize the return on their home investment. This upward pressure on housing prices requires parents to make more money in order to afford those houses. It, along with many other things, helps drive the need for 2 income households.

If parents didn't have to pick their houses based on proximity to schools, they would have more flexibility in housing choice. Additionally, adults without kids stop consuming housing stock in the very areas that parents need for their kids. Instead, housing choice for parents diverges from that of non-parents. Parents would want to be near parks and playgrounds. Non-parents wouldn't, they might prefer housing near restaurants and bars.

I think this would reduce housing prices and allow parents to pursue single income households or one full time, one part-time income. This is educated speculation on my part, so I don't have research to support it at the moment.

But, yes, a fundamental restructuring of society is required for this but a fundamental restructuring of society is probably necessary anyway.

It’s hard to follow this whole thread, but on a whole, it sounds like you’re in favor for more home schooling and an education restructuring?