[just2n]

The title seems a little clickbaity. It seems all that's being said is the FCC is recommending a reasonable minimum, not a maximum. I don't think it makes sense to run gig fiber connections to rural homes unless someone is footing the bill, but they definitely should have some internet capability, and 10/1 mobile and 25/3 direct seems at least minimally viable.

This title makes it sound like the FCC is advocating that speeds above those are unnecessary for anyone, as if they're coming for your network speed. I don't get the sensationalism here, this hardly even seems newsworthy.

[qubitcoder]

While not exactly rural, I certainly enjoy having rock-solid gigabit fiber here in Rome, Georgia (via AT&T Fiber). And while mobile networks are improving, I can't envision mobile as an adequate replacement to dedicated fiber, at least currently. Especially given the variability in signal strength and speed. Not to mention data caps and throttling are also pre

And just because a cell provider purports to offer LTE within a geographic area, that doesn't translate to LTE being available and reliable within and throughout your residence. In the past, I frequently experienced downgrades to 3G and Edge, with only intermittent LTE availability.

I don't think we're in disagreement; I just wanted to share my perspective.

[rahkiin]

Except telcos in the USA only do the bare minimum. Anything above that will have a huge pricetag or just not be available in many areas.

So people with internet at current minimum will see their speeds lowered.

[phd514]

Precisely. They're just saying that the current situation doesn't warrant regulatory intervention. In most metro areas, 100Mbps is pretty readily available due to market forces rather than regulation and competition among fiber providers is pushing speeds into the 1Gbps range in many areas.