FCC Boss Wants To Define Broadband As 100 Mbps, But May Not Have The Votes

The US has always had a fairly pathetic definition of broadband."

Originally defined as anything over 200 kbps in either direction, the definition was updated in 2010 to a pathetic 4 Mbps down, 1 Mbps up. It was updated again in 2015 by the FCC to a better, but still arguably pathetic 25 Mbps downstream, 3 Mbps upstream. As we noted then, the broadband industry whined incessantly about having any higher standards, as it would only further highlight industry failure, the harm of monopolization, and a lack of competition.

Unfortunately for them, pressure has only grown to push the US definition of broadband even higher.

In 2021, a coalition of Senators wrote the Biden administration to recommend that 100 Mbps in both directions become the new baseline. After some lobbying by cable and wireless companies (whose upstream speeds couldn't match that standard), FCC boss Jessica Rosenworcel last week proposed a new standard: 100 Mbps downstream 20 Mbps up.

The 25/3 metric isn't just behind the times, it's a harmful one because it masks the extent to which low-income neighborhoods and rural communities are being left behind and left offline. That's why we need to raise the standard for minimum broadband speeds now and while also aiming even higher for the future, because we need to set big goals if we want everyone everywhere to have a fair shot at 21st century success."

It's worth noting that the $42+ billion in broadband subsidies coming as part of the Infrastructure Bill already had affixed this higher 100/20 standard. But this shift would still be helpful in further determining which parts of the country remain stuck on dated DSL and cable technologies, applying some pressure on fiber-investment phobic companies ill-prepared for the Zoom era.

The problem: it's not clear the FCC has the votes to actually make this happen. The telecom industry has intentionally gridlocked the agency at 2-2 commissioners with its protracted lobbying assault on the appointment of Gigi Sohn.

They don't want the FCC to implement widely popular reforms like the restoration of net neutrality and media consolidation rules. And they sure as hell don't want anything that further amplifies the negative impact of letting regional monopolies run amok for thirty straight years.

Commissioners Simington and Carr, both Trump appointments, generally vote in lockstep with the telecom industry, which, again, strictly opposes any policy reforms that might highlight market failure, substandard speeds and deployments, or the pretty obvious impact of monopolization.

If we're lucky, companies like AT&T and Comcast think the higher standard is inevitable, have given up on fighting the higher standard, and won't push Carr and Simington to oppose it. But the very fact that it's ultimately up to telecom monopolies to determine what policy reform occurs in a purported democracy pretty much speaks for itself.