There’s a reasonable practical difference between 25Mbit/sec and 100; in particular, 25 isn’t _really_ good enough for 4K streaming.
_Today_, most consumers aren’t going to be that bothered between the difference between 100 and 1000. But that’s today; the sensible telecoms regulator thinks on a longer scale, because otherwise they just have to revisit the whole thing in a decade.
In Ireland we’re on our third try; the first saw a lot of subsidised satellite and fixed wireless in rural areas, the second, better fixed wireless (a minimum latency requirement killed off the satellite option), and FTTC; in the third, they do seem to have finally decided to stop screwing about, and are rolling out FTTH in otherwise-poorly-served rural areas.
(From a practical point of view, I do get that a state rural fibre wholesaler probably would not fly politically in the US, but this approach of repeatedly easing the minimum standard up is ultimately kinda wasteful.)
_Today_, most consumers aren’t going to be that bothered between the difference between 100 and 1000. But that’s today; the sensible telecoms regulator thinks on a longer scale, because otherwise they just have to revisit the whole thing in a decade.
In Ireland we’re on our third try; the first saw a lot of subsidised satellite and fixed wireless in rural areas, the second, better fixed wireless (a minimum latency requirement killed off the satellite option), and FTTC; in the third, they do seem to have finally decided to stop screwing about, and are rolling out FTTH in otherwise-poorly-served rural areas.
(From a practical point of view, I do get that a state rural fibre wholesaler probably would not fly politically in the US, but this approach of repeatedly easing the minimum standard up is ultimately kinda wasteful.)