> The 1000/500Mbps definition that Carr's FCC is trying to eliminate was a long term goal, something that the US should strive for eventually, and therefore fed

> The 1000/500Mbps definition that Carr's FCC is trying to eliminate was a long term goal, something that the US should strive for eventually, and therefore federal funding should preferentially go to solutions that can or could eventually provide those speeds. Yes, that’s true. But don’t ignore their justification: the laws as passed by Congress say nothing of long term goals other than bringing everyone up to some minimum threshold. The FCC gets to define that threshold, but making up new goals on top of that is not actually supported by the law. Plus, with so much of the country installing fiber it’s already just happening automatically. > He wants a stricter reading of the statute that requires a report on the deployment of broadband, reading "whether advanced telecommunications capability is being deployed to all Americans in a reasonable and timely fashion" as strictly referring to anyone making "incremental progress" on deployment, so the reports will shift from reporting coverage where broadband has actually been deployed to calling areas covered if anywhere in an area is working on deploying broadband there You almost have it right. They want to actually measure improvements in access rather than just the number of people with access. Sure, if the number of people with access goes up then the situation is getting better. But what if all of the improvement is because people are moving to denser areas to get better internet access? It makes complete sense to measure the actual geography of access in addition to just the number of people who can access broadband. The report states clearly that they intend to base their analysis on the FCC’s Broadband Data Collection <https://www.fcc.gov/BroadbandData https://www.fcc.gov/BroadbandData>, aka the National Broadband Map. They just want the report to measure improvements to the number of addresses served not just the number of people served. They also point out that while the National Broadband Map has addresses of every household, it doesn’t actually have any information about the population living at those addresses. It still uses Census Districts to estimate that, assuming that every address in a district houses the same number of people. They’re going to keep using that same estimation method, probably for the foreseeable future. > Incidentally, even the 100/20Mbps definition seems at least potentially in danger, as the proposal is requesting comment on whether that's actually the definition they should be using in the future. As I’ve demonstrated, there is significant headroom in the current definition. Would someone with 40×10Mbps DSL (provided using two phone lines) be significantly disadvantaged over someone with 100×20Mbps cable? They’ll still be able to stream 4K television and send HD video. Few ISPs offer this service, but I used to get it from Sonic.net more than a decade ago. I had to jump through some ridiculous hoops to get two actual real functioning telephone lines wired into the same apartment, but it was great. Even 25×3Mbps enables you to stream 4K television and participate in video conferences. The constraints on the quality of that video conference are real, but are they enough to handicap people? Yea, I think so, but it’s clearly a judgement call. Furthermore there’s no indication that they actually want to change that definition immediately. Agencies are more or less required to invite comment from the public on all of their regulatory decisions: > IV. A. 18. Broadband Speeds on Which to Report. The discussion in the 2024 Report focused on the availability of fixed broadband at speeds of 100/20 Mbps.⁴³ We propose to again focus our service availability discussion on fixed broadband at speeds of 100/20 Mbps and seek comment on this proposal.