Lon, Thanks for posting this video.

The hybrid approach to regulation makes sense: in areas where there is no choice, greedy monopolies like Comcast/Xfinity have a long track record of not giving a damn about being price competitive or offering decent speeds, and according to ArsTechnica coverage, Comcast wastes millions of dollars in federal taxdollars and *doesn't* expand to underserved areas. The 1.2 TB/month data cap is a slap in the face. But in areas where there is choice and something closer to free market competition, it makes sense to scale government regulation back to let market forces compete for customer loyalty. Internet access in America frustrates me. We're one of the driving forces in the creation of DARPANET/NSFNET/Internet, yet I see European countries with $10/month fiber gigabit Internet and $10/month cell phone packages.

I pay around $39 USD ($660 MXN) for 250 Mbit Down / 75 Mbit Up Fiber in Mexico.

We only have 2 major options att or spectrum and just a few years ago speeds were slow or bad service, you had to choose, but now with fiber att it got better. I hope they regulate gateways or cable modem boxes to help with fees.

I'm in southern NH, the local Telco Consolidated Communication Fidium aggressively rolled out fiber PON (passive optical network) and the lowest speed tier is 100/100 Mbps, with higher tier to 2Gig/Gig.

Comcast for me in northern NeW Mexico is 500/25 for $60 a month. Just recently got to the 25 up and Comcast made a big deal about it, even sending an email. Relatives in the southern more rural section of the state are 60/10 for $70 a month. The FCC has been working on this since 1996 and this is the best they can do?

Great video Lon. I live in an apartment community in a small town in Mid TN, and our choice for cabled Internet service is AT&T xDSL 13/1 and Comcast Xfinity. T-Mobile and Verizon have not rolled out their 5G wireless home Internet service in our town yet, only saying it will be deployed "soon" and they have been saying that for two years.

Are you sure? I reported my isp to the FCC for not complying to the fcc mandated minimum upload speed requirement.

I live in Oklahoma and the town I live in has one ISP. I waited over a year for Starlink but they kept saying they were full in my area and can't take new customers. So basically Starkink is a band aid

The Feds should be looking at their advertising and the ease of finding out ALL the cost ISP includes. The ISP doesn't make all the information readily available for an educated estimate as to the cost. They advertise the monthly cost without listing the other mandatory cost the ISP tacks on to the service. For example requiring their own "technology service fee" on top of the advertised cost which increases the actual cost of the service. If it's a added cost I can't avoid then the advertised amount is false. Things like this are hidden deep in the website. Even knowing what to look for I usually can't easily find them, if at all. I'm not in any way talking about the state and local fees and taxes. Those vary and have nothing to do with what the ISP is charging so I understand those not being shown in detail.

I have FIOS in my area and get 300/300 Mbps for $40 a month. I'm quite happy with my service and don't have any issues even when multiple people are using streaming services. If the FCC redefines broadband as 1 Gbps will give Verizon the excuse to jack up my rates?

Where I live in southern New Jersey there’s a lot of areas where there is no access to broadband. I was looking at a house and declined to bid because it was too far away from a Verizon DSL or FIOS hub, and when I asked Comcast they wanted $20K+ to pull a line to the house. This was before Starlink existed; but from what I understand most of that street still doesn’t get any high speed internet. Where I live now I have a decent Comcast connection, but there isn’t a cell company that seems to have heard of our town.

The problem with satellite is that historically, it has been consistently horrendously unreliable. So one comes along that perhaps isn't unreliable just charges rates that are out of reach for the people who tend to need it the most. Furthermore, buildouts in rural areas marries you to providing service in that area. The infrastructure is there even if the provider leaves the market. Satellites do nothing of the sort.

The emailed newsletter from the FCC's broadband availability entity, they said that 25 mbps download speed is their goal to provide to those with low or no broadband availability.

When I first read this story, I realized I suddenly no longer have broadband because I'm on a 75/75 plan. I'll live! My speeds are usually a bit over 100 in reality, but that's just a bonus. For those wondering why my numbers are so low relatively speaking is because I've been on this plan for ages and never had any reason to think about it or that my speed was deficient for my use case. It's still broad enough for me. I'll have to look into it. I've been more preoccupied with boosting my internal network speed as I stream locally. I don't do anything 4K so that keeps my bandwidth needs low.

Thank Lon. Great presentation of the information.

I was kind of surprised when I saw this at first and thought it had to be a mistake. I have never had 100mbps on internet service except for a month when I briefly tried out the T-Mobile home internet 5g service. It's available just never needed it.

Starlink is great for "no connection" situations but will never replace fiber as Hughesnet or any of the like... We have Starlink, T-Mobile Home internet and soon to have fiber from the electric company... I would rank personally Fiber T-Mobile Home internet Startlink

I think to be considered the ISP must be able to provide customers with particular latency to key servers... likely government in order to receive subsidy. That would class LEO and high orvit satellites differently and likley the reason for difference

One choice is no choice.

A bigger problem in my opinion is the lack of competition in many parts of this country outside the big cities. I live about 30 miles from Chicago, and my only choice for internet other than satellite is Comcast/Xfinity. No fiber planned for this area, no 5G, spotty satellite with much lower speeds. Since Xfinity has a monopoly in this area, prices for TV and Internet are high, and their customer service is the typical Comcast abysmal joke. They can't even keep their customer web site functional.

Your def lucky to have ALL those options. Better then my Comcast or AT&T. At least I get Fiber with AT&T for my 1GB plan. Good video as always.

Good, it is sometimes slow and expensive in many rural areas with limited choices.

When does this go into effect? I would love to call my internet company up and ask them why i'm paying broadband prices for non-broadband internet

Where I live I have 4 choices of ISPs however my landlords contect with Cox Cable TV cuts me off form the one I what and love. What i find relay bad is popole in this apment complex have satellite tv so I see no resaeon why I can't dump Cox for LUS Fiber.

This is the frustrating thing as we progress in the future. We rely too much on the Internet for the simplest of tasks, yet a good chunk of the country is in the dark. Frustrating aspect of the video games sector pushing so aggressively with always online and server based games like Helldivers 2 or the Division. Not to say middle America would play Amazon Luna or Game Pass, but it's not even an option for them. We have 1Gbps speed here and it bottlenecks at times, I can't imagine sharing that with a dorm.

You are out of date on Starlink cost. Last I looked it was $600 down and $150 per month. That is prohibitive for many folks, making Starlink not in the available mix.

You need to make a distinction between choice and affordability. They are not the same thing.

Sad the original speed being pushed was 100mbps up and down was lobbied and didn't make it. The other thing no ISP has called their service Broadband for years. The term is now usually High Speed internet, which by ISP is not Broadband so it doesn't fall under Broadband rules. Wordings is everything when it comes to laws.

The FCC needs to promote frontier. I'm getting 1GPS/1GPS all of the time. They must know what they're doing at$29/mo. They offer above that but my equipment at this time can't utilize it.

The Carr guy who thinks we've made progress must live in a different world than I do. The only choice is Comcast, it's $80/mo, and it's only 5 Mbps up. These guys have had an unregulated monopoly forever, and they should be regulated until they have real competition. And, Starlink is not competition, because it's flaky, expensive, and you need a good unobstructed site for your antenna.

Comcast did randomly send me an email last week saying they would be increasing my internet speeds because I'm a valued customer. Maybe this was because of pressure from the FCC?

Internet regulations should have been going on since its inception . In many foreign countries , Internet and speed is cheaper and faster than in America .

Screw the speed. DATA CAPS are the issues! FU xfinity!

We pay $90/month for cable internet at 500 down and 50 up with a monthly data cap set to 1,280. We’re in SoCal.

To me the down speed was always more important. I usually browse and occasionally download files. I would rather that be faster than if I was to send that same file. Even better would be the same speed both ways.

I do not want to cause a controversy but Starlink is being excluded for political reasons. Just my opinion but I think it is a valid one. My 300 Xfinity went from 300 to close to 370 and my upload went from 12 to about 24. I do not think Comcast is being benevolent here. The upload speed is atrocious.

Lon i completely disagree with you that they should consider Star link or any other satellite internet-based service. The reason being is because satellite can be jammed. in times of war the enemy could try to jam the US internet satellite service providers to prevent people from communicating. plus, with Satellite internet it has a higher latency then earth-based services.

I only get 15MB. I'd be happy with 25.

My Spectrum here is 300/12. Maybe I will get a upload speed boost.

My home internet no longer qualifies as "broadband". 130Mbps down and 12Mbps up.

20Mb up is still abysmal and should at least be raised to 50Mb

Where I live in KY we get 1 Mbps over DSL and and 3 Mbps on LTE. About as far from the standard as you can get.

100/20 is too much to be considered the minimum for broadband. It leaves out Starlink and WISP providers from funding. Now it only goes to the monopolies like Verizon and Comcast. I used Starlink out in the middle of nowhere with no cell service or landline internet. It was amazing.

Satellite's problems, to me, are the price tag for the service and its especilally significantly variable latency (aka jitter): for Starlink, you're paying $500 for the dish + $120 / month for the cheapest entry point. Latency is often more important than raw bandwidth for most consumers at a certain point, where satellite latency can be quite unstable. The FCC (in their order, reviewing and rejecting the near-$900m prize) specifically noted Starlink's jitter had exceeded the FCC's rather meager requirements already some three years **early**, before most of its 600k+ locations had even received service.

The 2 Republicans opposed it because they're owned by Big Telecom?

Actually I think the marketplace and competition has done more to increase speeds than the FCC.

20MBit upload? Hah! My lovely ISP Cox Communications lowered the base package from 10MBit to 5MBit upload with 100MBit download... ..for $50/month... google drive is useless except for the smallest of files..

Satellite still remains too dependent on weather conditions to be counted as a dependent means of connection.

Interesting a on satellite. Does anyone think it may have to do with how easily it is knocked out in the event of a storm, war, natural disaster, or act of God?

How much you wanna bet Brenden Carr is tight with the telcos? Do the FCC's business, not Verizon's.

Regulation are good until they start wanting to invade your privacy or regulate what you can and can't do.

Internet access is a fairly healthy industry. I do think the Republican members have some points but we need to remember that the internet providers connect to their customers along public roads and public easements. This situation gives government regulators every right to use that access to ensure that the public is protected.

more regulation means higher prices for the customer without fail

0:07 YES THEY ARE THE GOVERNMENT IS ORDERING EVERYONE INTERNET 🛜 TO BE FASTER 😂😂😂😂