FCC abandons efforts to make U.S. broadband fast and affordable

Rural broadband economics & infrastructure

• Multiple anecdotes of 6 Mbps DSL persisting for 15+ years before fiber finally arrives; some quote five‑figure to six‑figure buildout costs even over short distances.
• Others push back that per‑premise fiber costs are overstated and amortizable over years of service and broader economic benefits, but ISPs optimize for short‑term ROI, not long‑term welfare.
• Easements, pole replacements, trenching, and local permitting are described as major practical blockers, especially for buried lines and “back‑lot” poles.

Satellite, cellular, and “good enough” connectivity

• Starlink is widely praised as transformative for truly rural areas; several users report high speeds and acceptable latency where DSL/WISP were unusable.
• Skeptics note hard capacity limits of RF and LEO constellations, oversubscription, and shared-air interference; argue satellite can’t replace fiber at scale.
• Some claim “everyone has access via cell,” others strongly refute this with examples from mountainous and rural U.S. regions where mobile coverage is weak or nonexistent.

Definition and value of “fast” broadband

• Debate over whether 100/20 Mbps is already sufficient versus pushing for 1 Gbps and symmetric service.
• One camp argues most people only need streaming and basic work apps; big upgrades mainly benefit entertainment and edge cases.
• Others counter that new applications (telemedicine, telework, large media and scientific files, agtech, backups, future innovations) require headroom; slowing speeds freezes innovation.
• Detailed back‑and‑forth over whether 20 Mbps upload is adequate for households and professional uses.

Municipal broadband, regulation, and corporate welfare

• Strong consensus that past federal broadband subsidies largely enriched incumbents without meaningful buildout; rural mandates described as “corporate welfare.”
• Many advocate municipal or coop fiber as a utility baseline, citing places where service is “night and day” better; others note such projects are banned or heavily constrained in many states.
• U.S. model of multiple, duplicated private last‑mile networks is criticized; some advocate public ownership of passive infrastructure with open access for ISPs.

International and domestic comparisons

• Numerous examples from EU, UK, Japan, Brazil, and rural U.S. co‑ops show gigabit‑class fiber (often cheap) where regulation encourages competition or public build.
• U.S. is portrayed as technologically capable but blocked by corruption, local monopolies, NIMBYism, and red tape rather than geography alone.

FCC policy and partisan politics

• Some argue the FCC was ineffective anyway; others see abandoning higher standards and pricing data collection as lowering ambitions and masking gaps.
• Disagreement over which party is more at fault: one side emphasizes Democratic over‑complexity and failed rollout of funds; the other emphasizes Republican hostility to regulation and sabotage of programs.
• Underlying sentiment: broadband is effectively a utility, but U.S. law and politics treat it as a lightly regulated corporate fiefdom.