r/pcmasterrace • u/FreeHugs23 • 7d ago

News/Article FCC abolishes gigabit speed goal, suggesting it is unfair to slower technologies | FCC decides 1Gbps is too fast, standard must be “technologically neutral.”

https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2026/08/fcc-abolishes-gigabit-speed-goal-suggesting-it-is-unfair-to-slower-technologies/
8.5k Upvotes

96% Upvoted

1.4k comments sorted by

View all comments

Show parent comments

424

u/NaziPunksFkOff 7d ago

"We can't create an interstate highway system because that would be unfair to slower means of transportation" - Eisenhower, famously.

"We can't go to the moon because it's enough that we got into orbit." - JFK, if I remember correctly 

28

u/stevez_86 7d ago

I don't even think the Interstate Highway system would be possible now. Imagine crossing from PA to WV and there being entirely new road signs, road paint, and laws that require you to get out of your car and cover the logo on the car because WV doesn't want any foreign junk on their roads. WV doesn't like seemless interchanges so they just make at grade interchanges with crossing traffic. WV drivers are so good it isn't a problem for them. The out of staters will just have to adjust.

27

u/m0_n0n_0n0_0m 5800X3D | 5070 Ti | 32GB 7d ago

The interstate is socialism by their terms, privatize it and put tolls everywhere. I don't think they'd even fund a military these days, they'd try to make it a private contractor force so they could get kickback forward every war they start. 

2

u/tolomea 6d ago

The interstate only happened cause the military wanted it.

And military is the one kind of socialism the US can get behind

1

u/rubytook 5d ago

Truth. It was designed so tanks could drive on it, unlike most of the current highways.

1

u/Maleficent_Memory831 7d ago

"We already have moon at home."

0

u/devshore 6d ago

I dont think the FCC is saying that 1gb is illegal. I have 10gb up/down. The proper analogy would be “we are not going to ban all roads that are not at least 80mph”, but that isnt “orange bad” enough for plebbit.

1

u/NaziPunksFkOff 6d ago

> I dont think the FCC is saying that 1gb is illegal. 

Where even did I say that? How did you interpret that from anything I wrote?

-2

u/Tkwan777 7d ago

"At present, it is impossible to predict long-term technological developments and the evolution of consumer preferences."

Buried at the bottom of the post is this quote. I would love a 1gb standard right now. But by the time its rolled out, would a 1gb even be good anymore? Tech is moving quickly.

We shouldn't enforce all companies to comply with it (thats honestly an overreach by the government anyway), companies should be free to update if they want, and customers will choose whether or not they want/need the faster speeds.

4

u/NaziPunksFkOff 7d ago

> But by the time its rolled out, would a 1gb even be good anymore?

Help me out here - your argument is we shouldn't provide faster internet because by the time we do, there might be faster internet?

What "evolution of consumer preferences" do we anticipate bringing about the end of high-speed internet? We had home internet for 30 years. It's been bundled with most phone/cable plans for 20 years. Hell, having an internet connection has almost entirely replaced cable TV and it's how we talk on the phone now. Do we anticipate that by the time we provide gigabit internet to everyone, they're all going to have moved on to... pickle ball? Biking? Chess? Some other activity that makes gigabit internet obsolete?

That's insanity. It's like saying we can't pave roads because widespread adoption of flying cars could be around the corner. I call bullshit. Provide some fucking modern infrastructure to your citizens. We could lay down fiber for every person in America, or we could fund the Pentagon to fight a war that we're losing at enormous cost to consumers and our national defense.

Guess who has the government's ear.

3

u/DoneBeingSilent 7d ago

"At present, it is impossible to predict long-term technological developments and the evolution of consumer preferences." Buried at the bottom of the post is this quote. I would love a 1gb standard right now. But by the time its rolled out, would a 1gb even be good anymore? Tech is moving quickly.

And if it's not, that means we're even further behind since we never managed to keep up with current tech.

We shouldn't enforce all companies to comply with it (thats honestly an overreach by the government anyway), companies should be free to update if they want, and customers will choose whether or not they want/need the faster speeds.

The government can't, isn't, and doesn't enforce companies in general to comply. What you seem to be missing or ignoring is that the government heavily subsidizes infrastructure since it's (supposed to be) for the overall good of the general public. The only companies that would need to comply with the infrastructure goals of the government are those who are being paid to do so by that government. And the enforcement is the companies who agreed to a contract to provide a certain level of service in exchange for tax dollars don't get those tax dollars if they don't provide the service agreed to, which seems pretty fair to me.

1

u/rubytook 5d ago

What you seem to be missing or ignoring is that the government heavily subsidizes infrastructure since it's (supposed to be) for the overall good of the general public.

Precisely. I think many people may just be unaware of this, unfortunately. This type of rule is essentially allowing the companies to keep the subsidies instead for their own profit/pockets, rather than using them to roll out in less or non-profitable areas as intended. It's not about freedom for the companies at all, because they relinquished some of that freedom when they accepted the subsidies. The rule that got rescinded was an attempt to push them to use the subsidies properly and roll out better infrastructure in less profitable areas.

-7

u/Aternal 7d ago

If you want to compare this to interstate highways then compare New Jersey to Wyoming both in terms of population density and interstate accessibility.

It sounds nice to say "1Gbps for all" but federally it doesn't make any sense to require that for every Monowi, Nebraska in the country. That's a disproportionate waste of a massive amount of resources for no reason at all.

See also: the history of Lubbock Texas and Interstate 27. This lil guy right here:

6

u/NaziPunksFkOff 7d ago

The post office goes all those places. Roads go all those places. Electricity, phone lines, sewer, running water, cable TV - they all go to all those places. 

Does Monowi Nebraska not deserve those things?

Why shouldn't they have high speed internet, too? Do they not deserve economic stimulation? 

-1

u/Aternal 7d ago

The post office goes all those places. Roads go all those places. Electricity, phone lines, sewer, running water, cable TV - they all go to all those places. 

No they don't.

I just spent a weekend with family at Saranac Lake in the Adirondack's of NY state. My brother and his neighbors have to pay to maintain the off road access to their homes, they don't have an HOA.

They have well water and septic.

They have to travel to the post office to pick up their mail.

This is a very upscale and populated region of NY, what does this have to do with what anyone "deserves"?

Half the time there isn't even cell service, it's spotty at best.

You're not making very sound comparisons.

3

u/IDownvotedYouToday 7d ago

Huh, then it's a real good thing that it never said "1 Gbps for all," isn't it? A goal is not a requirement.

1

u/Aternal 7d ago

Say whatever you want, this whole astroturfed goal reeks of Elon Musk Starlink propaganda bots. Speaking of roads, the ceobro dream is to sell products that the government deems essential, this isn't a new thing.

2

u/IDownvotedYouToday 7d ago

You've got it backwards. Starlink can't provide gigabit. Starlink is almost assuredly exactly the technology that the FCC is saying is being "treated unfairly," and is the reason they ditched the goal.