The definition appears to be more for the government than marketing.

> Raising the speed metric is important because it helps the commission determine which areas in the country are receiving adequate internet speeds, and if more government funding is necessary. In 2015, the FCC raised the metric from 4Mbps/1Mbps to 25Mbps/3Mbps. But since then, US senators, government watchdogs, and FCC officials have urged the commission to raise the metric even higher, citing the US’s growing reliance on internet services and apps.

Most people don't need 100mbps. Netflix recommends 5mbps for HD and 25mpbs for UHD. As a country, let's make sure that everyone has the ability to watch netflix in HD on 5 TVs simultaneously in one home. Or to watch UHD on a single TV. But if there's a home out there that currently gets 50mbps but the infrastructure for 100mbps isn't in place, do we really want the government throwing money to solve that (non) problem?

The goal shouldn't be to have just enough internet. 25mbit/3 is incredibly slow for 2024. A single 4K stream saturates a 25mbit connection. 3mbit upload is super low too since a 1080p zoom call is around 3mbit/s upload. When you get close to using that upload your ping and download are going to tank. The average household size in the US is 2.5 people so 25/3 is easily saturated by 2 people just going about their day. There is no reasonable justification for 25/3 at this point in time.

> do we really want the government throwing money to solve that (non) problem?

The FCC isn't saying you can't sell internet under this requirement. Plenty of places have still offer ADSL even though it is under the old 25/3 requirement for broadband. They just can't call it broadband and receive the federal money that goes along with providing broadband. The new rule requires ISPs that offer broadband and receive federal funds to meet the new rules. The new rule forces ISPs to provide a better service to millions of Americans or lose the money they have been receiving for years. Without the new rule ISPs get to collect the money anyways while providing an objectively worse service.

>but if there's a home out there that currently gets 50mbps but the infrastructure for 100mbps isn't in place,

What situation would that be? ADSL don't meet the old requirements anyways so its not relevant, cable based systems like DOCSIS have supported well over 100/25 for 2 decades (DOCSIS 3 can do 1gbit/200mbit and that came out in 2006 lol), and any fiber based system can obviously do more than 100/25. Even if there was some situation were 50mbit was possible but 100/20 wasn't it doesn't mean they lose internet or anything. The ISP is just forced to upgrade their system or not receive federal funds.

One of the reasons the big tech companies are so big is because it is so hard to roll your own NAS backup and syncing solution.

With sufficient upload connectivity and ipv6, it could be possible to make “cloud” connectivity an appliance you can buy and put in your home, so that you can be freed from having to use an external cloud provider.

Consumers don't. Monopolistic corporations filing paperwork to get their hands on tax dollars probably do. Thankfully for them, the FCC is about as toothless and captured as you can get, so it probably even only barely matters to them.

There’s a reasonable practical difference between 25Mbit/sec and 100; in particular, 25 isn’t _really_ good enough for 4K streaming.

_Today_, most consumers aren’t going to be that bothered between the difference between 100 and 1000. But that’s today; the sensible telecoms regulator thinks on a longer scale, because otherwise they just have to revisit the whole thing in a decade.

In Ireland we’re on our third try; the first saw a lot of subsidised satellite and fixed wireless in rural areas, the second, better fixed wireless (a minimum latency requirement killed off the satellite option), and FTTC; in the third, they do seem to have finally decided to stop screwing about, and are rolling out FTTH in otherwise-poorly-served rural areas.

(From a practical point of view, I do get that a state rural fibre wholesaler probably would not fly politically in the US, but this approach of repeatedly easing the minimum standard up is ultimately kinda wasteful.)

Personally, I can't remember the last piece of marketing that tried to sell me "broadband" internet. They all say "high speed" internet.

Anyway, the 15/3mbps down/up I get in the Oregon countryside is indeed high speed compared to the 5/1mbps down/up I had smack in the middle of the Los Angeles suburbs.

Broadband was usually differentiated against dial-up. Today it may be compared to cellphone service, but 4G and 5G nowadays are plenty fast enough.