FCC abolishes gigabit speed goal, suggesting it is unfair to slower technologies

“We disagree with commenters arguing that our concern about technological neutrality merely serves to accommodate technologies that may currently offer slower speeds,” the FCC said. “At present, we do not know the nature of future consumer preferences and, considering that the goal is not required by the statute and does not serve any positive purpose (as discussed herein), we believe it prudent to abolish it.” Democratic FCC Commissioner Anna Gomez was not convinced. “Lowering standards to ensure certain technologies can meet a benchmark is the opposite of technological neutrality,” Gomez said. “Technological neutrality requires that we evaluate all technologies against the same standard and support the ones that perform best. We need not lower the standards or get rid of them entirely to allow certain technologies to flourish despite their shortfalls.” The change does not affect grant programs that require ISPs to deploy certain speeds in exchange for government funding. Most of the network deployments paid for by the FCC’s Rural Digital Opportunity Fund are required to have gigabit speeds. “If this is the standard that funding awardees are held to, other providers should be working towards providing service at the same speeds,” Gomez said. The FCC said that as of mid-2025, “approximately 94 percent of Americans had access to fixed wireline service at our speed benchmark of 100/20 Mbps,” and that the percentage was 97 percent when including fixed wireless service. Including satellite service would bump it to 99.7 percent, the FCC said. Many Americans had only one choice for modern wireline service. In addition to the 5.7 percent of US households without any 100/20 Mbps providers, 40.6 percent of households had just one wired broadband provider offering those speeds. When including fixed wireless service, 3 percent of households had zero options and 20 percent had just one option. In addition to availability, the Biden-era FCC’s 2024 report considered the price of broadband. The Trump-era FCC called that a mistake, saying that “the 2024 Report strayed from the statute’s plain language, which requires consideration of ‘availability’—not adoption, affordability, or equitable access.” While the Carr FCC chose not to measure affordability itself, it concluded that “evidence shows broadband prices are going down.” The FCC report cited evidence from third parties including a price analysis and comments written by broadband industry lobby groups, but didn’t cite advocacy group research suggesting that prices have risen. “Today’s Section 706 Report shows that President Trump’s policies and the Commission’s Build America agenda are delivering real results for the American people,” Carr said. “More Americans than ever have access to affordable, next-gen services. The digital divide is rapidly closing. And a range of data sets show that speeds are up, prices are down, and competition is intensifying.” Gomez objected to the decision to drop affordability from the analysis. “The report at hand covers only infrastructure deployment and consequently does not address other important pieces of the puzzle, affordability and usability, which tie directly into the purpose of broadband deployment: ensuring that everyone is connected. Omitting affordability and usability from the analysis was a policy decision with which I disagree,” Gomez said. She also called the 99.7 percent deployment figure misleading, because satellite “is limited by physical obstructions to the line of sight, capacity constraints in areas with high demand, and network congestion that can result in slower speeds.” As Gomez noted, Starlink satellite broadband suffers from congestion that varies by region, and Starlink has imposed “demand surcharges” of up to $1,500 in areas with many users.