FCC to eliminate gigabit speed goal and scrap analysis of broadband prices

Perceived US Regression and Authoritarian Drift

• Several commenters frame the FCC move as part of a broader pattern: rolling back science, data collection, infrastructure, and clean tech, undermining US global leadership.
• Anti-science and anti-expert attitudes are described as hallmarks of authoritarian politics; targeting independent data (like broadband metrics) is seen as an early warning sign.
• Some link this to a sense that US institutions (courts, agencies) are captured or failing, with dark speculation about “soft” internal decay versus external adversaries.

Starlink, Satellite, and Rural Broadband

• Many see the new rules as structurally favoring Starlink and cable over fiber, especially in rural areas, by lowering performance targets and dropping price analysis.
• Specific user anecdotes show Starlink beating local fiber on cost and availability in some places, but being far worse and more expensive in others; heavy price discrimination by location is suspected.
• Some argue satellite and 5G are the fastest way to expand coverage; others counter that public money should prioritize fiber as the long‑term, lower‑latency, future‑proof option.

100/20 vs Gigabit: What Should the Goal Be?

• One camp: 100/20 Mbps is “perfectly fine” for the vast majority of households; gigabit goals mainly serve fiber builders and marketing.
• Opposing camp: 100/20 is already marginal for multi-user households and will age badly; a “leader” country should aim at gigabit as a baseline.
• Side debate: some emphasize latency and symmetry over raw throughput; others note that in practice higher‑speed fiber tiers often come with the best latency too.

Prices, Monopolies, and Municipal Broadband

• Many comments blame local monopolies/duopolies and regulatory capture for high US prices and slow upgrades, not technical constraints.
• Municipal or cooperative fiber (Chattanooga, rural co-ops, local ISPs) is repeatedly cited as providing far cheaper, faster service than national incumbents.
• The new FCC stance on dropping affordability analysis is criticized as deliberately ignoring what “reasonable and timely” must mean for consumers.

Law, Politics, and Blame

• Discussion of the Chevron/Loper Supreme Court decisions: some argue courts rolling back deference to agencies is enabling politicized reinterpretations; others say agencies were overstepping.
• Both parties are criticized: Democrats for slow or mismanaged broadband programs; Republicans for openly pro‑industry moves and anti-regulatory ideology.
• Overall sentiment: move is viewed as a major win for large telcos and a likely step toward slower, more expensive, and less accountable broadband.