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.
> 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.