Editorial

Calls for symmetrical broadband speeds (the same speeds for uploads as downloads) have circulated in telecom policy circles for over a decade. Early support for broadband symmetry was largely ideological in nature, based on the belief that individuals could play a bigger role in generating content, and symmetry was necessary to put production on equal footing with consumption of content. Recent efforts to promote symmetrical networks, however, appear aimed at shaping a potential infrastructure subsidy program.

Recently, Deb Socia posted a brilliant suggestion online: “[Internet service providers] need to identify the floor instead of the potential ceiling. Instead of ‘up to’ speeds, how about we say ‘at least’”. ISPs must report the slowest speed they are likely to deliver. I want to be fair to ISPs and I suggest they report both the minimum “at least” speed and the maximum “up to” speed. Those two numbers will tell the right story to the public because together they provide the range of speeds being delivered in a given Census.

The National Urban League’s Lewis Latimer Plan for Digital Equity and Inclusion wants to ensure that everyone can fully participate in the world the Web has created — from their education as children to their employment as adults to their health all along the way.

California’s net neutrality law, which a federal district court upheld in February, is already wading into the regulatory morass that brought down past regulatory regimes charged with maintaining neutrality in rail transport and energy.

Since 2014, the Federal Communications Commission has collected detailed price data on nearly 24,000 broadband plans through its “Urban Rate Survey.” The FCC uses the survey data to “determine the reasonable comparability benchmarks for fixed voice and broadband rates for universal service purposes.” The presence of this data and analysis of it yield three conclusions:

Though an entire year has passed since the beginning of the pandemic, many of the broadband access problems that were present last March have only worsened with the passage of time.

The pandemic has caused the U.S. to take seriously the question of how to make sure all residents have broadband access for remote learning, telehealth, government services, work, job training, and other activities necessary to participate fully in society. Unfortunately, the calls to define broadband as a connection offering symmetric, 100 Mbps download and 100 Mbps upload bandwidth (100/100) are arbitrary, with no evidence supporting these numbers. Every application commonly used for key services, as well as popular entertainment streaming services, rely on far less than 100 Mbps.

Congress is going big on broadband. It has appropriated more than $20 billion to spend on broadband in just the last several months. That is a huge amount compared to past efforts, equating to almost 25% of the annual revenues of the entire fixed broadband industry. And, in the wings is an infrastructure bill that could deliver another whopping $100 billion in spending. As legislators begin to sign more broadband stimulus checks, it is imperative that they establish critical safeguards and avoid classic traps that have undermined past programs.

In our 2017 article, titled “Creating Caring Institutions for Community Informatics,” Dr.

A group of Senators recently sent a letter to the Federal Communications Commission asking to raise the definition of broadband to 100/100 Mbps. This speed has been discussed for several years as the logical step forward from the current 25/3 Mbps speed set by the FCC in 2015. It’s clear to everyone in the industry that homes are using a lot more broadband than they did in 2015 – with the biggest change being simultaneous uses of multiple broadband streams in the typical home. The change in broadband definition would trigger the following: