FCC Officially Raises Minimum Broadband Metric from 25Mbps to 100Mbps

Purpose of the new broadband definition (100/20 Mbps)

• New benchmark mainly affects government classification and funding, not what ISPs may sell.
• Used to decide which areas are “served” and where federal money goes.
• FCC report finds deployment still not “reasonable and timely,” especially in rural and Tribal areas.
• Long‑term goal set at 1 Gbps down / 500 Mbps up; some compare this to already-available speeds in other countries.

Do households really need 100/20?

• Skeptical view: many households stream fine on much less; 25–50 Mbps can be enough for basic streaming and typical remote work.
• Supportive view: 25/3 is now inadequate; 4K streaming, multiple users, video calls, backups and cloud workflows easily saturate 25/3.
• Some argue speed targets should look ahead a decade, not just today’s needs.

Uploads, latency, and reliability (“number of 9s”)

• Many see raising upload from 3 to 20 Mbps as the most important change; current 3–10 Mbps upload makes backups, large file sharing, and WFH painful.
• Others argue 20–25 Mbps up is still low relative to download and want symmetric fiber.
• Latency and latency-under-load (bufferbloat) are repeatedly cited as more critical than raw bandwidth.
• Long debate over availability: some think 99.9% (≈9 hours/year down) is fine for home use; others call it unacceptable, especially when outages cluster or internet substitutes landline 911 reliability.

Infrastructure, technology, and rural access

• Cable/DOCSIS can technically support 100/20+ and even multi‑gigabit, but deployment and configuration vary.
• Fiber co‑ops and electric utilities are highlighted as effective rural builders; some report gigabit fiber in very sparse areas.
• Starlink: experiences range from ~40 to 150+ Mbps; some see it as ideal rural stopgap, others say it can’t scale and is worse/less future‑proof than fiber.
• Wireless ISPs may struggle to meet 100/20 reliably, risking loss of subsidies.

Regulation, subsidies, and market effects

• Supporters: tying federal funds to higher minimums forces incumbents to improve instead of collecting subsidies for outdated service.
• Critics: redefining “broadband” inflates the apparent “unserved” population, channeling more money to large ISPs for marginal upgrades, and may crowd out cheaper low‑tier plans.
• Some worry policy steers money away from satellite solutions; others argue fiber on existing poles is the better long‑term investment.

Observed ISP behavior and user experiences

• Multiple people report ISPs (especially cable) quietly bumping speeds, often matching the new 20 Mbps upload floor, while marketing it as a free “thank you.”
• Others see no change or are stuck on legacy DSL or poor 4G, even near cities.
• Complaints about U.S. prices and performance compared to European fiber and Asian/European urban service recur.