It's a good start, but networks can have all sorts of pathologies rendering them less useful (or nearly useless), and the current oligopoly is financially incen

It's a good start, but networks can have all sorts of pathologies rendering them less useful (or nearly useless), and the current oligopoly is financially incentivized to minimally meet these definitions regardless of how usable the network is: (1) We provide speeds "up to 100mbps" (actual max throughput in any 24h period being 10-60mbps) (2) We provide mean speeds of 200mbps, easily beating the definition (mean is measured over time, not from the customer's perspective, so if most people get on at the same time then most browsing sessions see throughput of 10mbps or less due to poorly handled congestion) (3) We provide mean speeds of 100mbps (upload is 0.01mbps) (4) We provide mean speeds of 100mbps, over 99% of the time (every 3 months an 8h maintenance block drops speeds to 10kbps, rendering the network totally unusable that workday) (5) Mean throughput is 100mbps, mean latency is 2000ms (totally unusuable for real-time _anything_) (6) Mean throughput is 200mbps, mean latency is 20ms, every 5min a few packets will have up to 10s of latency (still totally unusable for most real-time purposes, but naive metrics make it sound good) (7) You're allowed "unlimited" "100mbps" (but if you use that for more than a contiguous day, or a few long evenings in a row, then 100mbps is redefined to mean 100kbps) And on and on and on. More useful metrics might measure actual consumer impact: (a) Can you rely on this every workday to shuffle documents back and forth? (b) Can you rely on this every workday to have low-resolution video calls? (c) Can you usually play a quasi-realtime game for 30min without lag killing your character? (d) During peak hours, can you reasonably expect to be able to stream buffered 720p video? A raw 100mbps floor doesn't guarantee your network suffices for any of those use cases.