Social FCC Voted 3-2 Along Party Lines To Raise The U.S' Minimum Broadband Speed From 25Mbps to 100Mbps

As a parent I can't stress enough how important social interactions are for kids. Having a young kid really makes you realize how social we are naturally as human beings. The way kids instantly look for social interactions when outside is like a reality check that what most adults are doing nowadays, being stuck to their screens, isn't natural at all. I could give hundreds of small examples, whether it's instantly looking for other kids on the playground or just randomly greeting people on the street when they're learning to say "hello".

While I think a lot of @panamaican 's criticism on current education systems is valid. The solution definitely isn't to do more home schooling and go digital. Teaching people based on their current level of ability and engaging with them on their level is a great idea, just don't do it from a distance.
I don't know why everyone seems to think that social interaction can't happen without schools? I looked at this issue first hand when my kid was very young. We took him out of formal environments and the first question we asked ourselves was "How do we make sure he gets enough socialization." Turns out, it's not that hard. There were lots of kids and parents doing the same thing.

If people weren't sending their kids to school for education, there would be a lot more kids out and about to engage with. Homeschooling, for lack of a better term, doesn't require the same 7-9 hour days that modern schools require. That leaves a lot more time for other types of engagement with their peers.
 
I'll start with social interaction first since it's the one that I assumed you'd start with. Kids don't need school to socialize. If that's what we're relying on, that should tell you that we're already at cross purposes on the role of the classroom.

A wee bit of re-writing:
School is not a great place for many kids to learn. <-- dangerous environments, toxic water and paint, etc.
It's not a great place for many kids, full stop. The thought they they're forced to go there is frightening in some cases. <-- see above.
Schools are not always nice places and the people in them can be the most destructive in a kid's life. <-- Anecdotally, my cousin did her PhD on bullying, school can definitely be a more destructive place than home for some kids.
Schools don't always even feed kids a good meal.

I'm not dismissing your points but they don't have anything to do with education. They're primarily focused on the socio-emotional health of kids. And if that's the argument for schools, we should simply acknowledge then that we've moved the mission of schools from educating kids to providing safe spaces for emotional development. And while noble, it doesn't make educating kids at home a horrible idea. Instead it highlights exactly why school based education is failing.

No man can serve 2 masters, as they say, and school can't be a one stop shop for all things children. It can't be where there's a major focus on education and also be the place tasked with providing the socio-emotional ballast for those kids. Your concerns would be better addressed getting rid of schools for education and replacing them with institutions focused on providing kids with safe places to grow up and socialize since their parents are at work or their neighborhoods are dangerous.

I agree with some of your points and even more of your sentiment, I'm not believer in schools as a fix-all band aid, but they're extremely important to so many kids that we simply can't lose them.

But here's the thing, kids can't learn properly if their basic needs aren't met.

We simply don't have a society that is advanced enough for any proposals that kids should learn from home en masse - even if we should, and even if we considered it a noble goal, it's a bit of a fantasy at this point. The number of kids that are already left behind because they don't access education in their early years is frightening. Having an online tutor isn't going to do much for a kid that comes from a home that doesn't prioritize - or can't prioritize - education at any stage of a child's life.

You're right I'm coming at this from a socio-emotional perspective, that's because the Mrs is a social worker and it's been an eye opening experience to live alongside to say the least.
 
I don't know why everyone seems to think that social interaction can't happen without schools? I looked at this issue first hand when my kid was very young. We took him out of formal environments and the first question we asked ourselves was "How do we make sure he gets enough socialization." Turns out, it's not that hard. There were lots of kids and parents doing the same thing.

If people weren't sending their kids to school for education, there would be a lot more kids out and about to engage with. Homeschooling, for lack of a better term, doesn't require the same 7-9 hour days that modern schools require. That leaves a lot more time for other types of engagement with their peers.

Maybe I'm too caught up in definitions. Maybe it also depends on your area, in the Netherlands it's been made so difficult for parents to homeschool that it's borderline illegal.

If it works for you and your kids that's great. I don't think I could make it work at all in my current location. At least we agree on the importance of social interaction.
 
Maybe I'm too caught up in definitions. Maybe it also depends on your area, in the Netherlands it's been made so difficult for parents to homeschool that it's borderline illegal.

If it works for you and your kids that's great. I don't think I could make it work at all in my current location. At least we agree on the importance of social interaction.
Oh, I don't homeschool. But I primarily send my kid to school for socialization, not for education. In order to keep his education moving appropriately, I have to do it myself. But since all of the kids are in school, he has to be there if he's going to make friends.
 
I agree with some of your points and even more of your sentiment, I'm not believer in schools as a fix-all band aid, but they're extremely important to so many kids that we simply can't lose them.

But here's the thing, kids can't learn properly if their basic needs aren't met.

We simply don't have a society that is advanced enough for any proposals that kids should learn from home en masse - even if we should, and even if we considered it a noble goal, it's a bit of a fantasy at this point. The number of kids that are already left behind because they don't access education in their early years is frightening. Having an online tutor isn't going to do much for a kid that comes from a home that doesn't prioritize - or can't prioritize - education at any stage of a child's life.

You're right I'm coming at this from a socio-emotional perspective, that's because the Mrs is a social worker and it's been an eye opening experience to live alongside to say the least.
My wife is a marriage therapist so I'm not dismissing the importance of quality environments for kids to grow up in. And my original post doesn't claim that we're at the point where we don't need schools to educate kids. Rather, it is where we should be moving and the sooner we implement the tools, the better.

The modern school system fails a lot of kids because so much of its mission is not about education. What I propose isn't a fantasy. It's within reach for many kids, although certainly not all.

Frankly many kids who are failing in the modern education system would be better served with the online tutor. Allow me to explain why. Let's take the kid whose home can't prioritize education in those crucial 0-5 years of age. He's still mandated to attend school by 1st grade. So, that child walks into the modern classroom significantly under-prepared compared to the other kids in the room. The curriculum that he will encounter assumes that he knows certain things that he doesn't.

Anecdotal aside - my child is profoundly gifted. When we first got his testing done, he got things wrong because the tests assumed certain information that is normally passed through a formal education system. He simply didn't know them because he hadn't been in that system. Not a failing on the child's part or the parent's part, just a matter of exposure. Now, my kid is smart enough that he could quickly learn that information once placed back in the formal education system but not every kid can. They will need someone to take the time to instruct them in the things that they missed.

Back to our hypothetical kid -- That curriculum that assumes the child knows things that he doesn't know will not slow down long enough for that child to learn that missed information. Instead the curriculum continues to move forward and the teacher doesn't have the time to fill in the gaps either (I have an anecdote here as well but we'll skip it). We've already established that the home environment isn't going to prioritize the education gaps, that's why they exist in the first place. That means the kid falls behind in the presented curriculum and without that foundation will not be prepared for the next year's curriculum either. That problem compounds itself over the years and by 4th grade some of these kids are so far behind the curriculum that they'll never catch up without a tutor.

If that same kid was learning via an online tutor or education system, the system would teach them where they were at, regardless of what other similarly aged kids were learning. This would ensure that the kid got the proper foundation and could move forward at an appropriate rate. It would offset indifferent home environment and the inappropriately paced school environment. This is particularly important for young kids first entering school where the individual starting points can be years apart but the teacher has no means to address it.

People frequently say "If we reduced class sizes we could address these problems." But reducing class sizes is just moving closer to 1-on-1 education. We know it's the solution but, because of the unavailability of teachers, we also know that we can't really implement it either.

I get that people are attached to the existing system and so think in terms of tweaks but the existing system is itself a modern novelty. Most really great education system relied on subject matter experts instructing individual students. In sports, athletes get individual coaches for their skill development. In karate, the McDojo arose as teachers started taking on more students than they could provide individual attention to, abandoning the 1 teacher, 1-2 student model. Lawyers used to apprentice under a single attorney who would teach them the law in a practical fashion, compared to law schools where most of the teaching is about theory, not practical application. Socrates, Plato, etc.

Individualized instruction is paramount to education and technology can make that possible. It's certainly better than 1 teacher and 25+ kids all begging for 3-5 minutes of attention for their specific needs.
 
@Siver!

Why is it a horrible idea?

Modern schooling is barely 200 years old (might actually be less). It was invented as a means to prepare kids for entry into factory work and later the military. It was never designed to maximize learning.

The original gold standard of education was individualized instruction, primarily through tutors. Unfortunately, this was only really possible for the rich. In this modern era, we've screwed the pooch on tutor based education. Instead of providing kids with tutors to help them excel, we primarily assign tutors to kids who are struggling with a curriculum that is too advanced for them.

Right now, we live in a world where we have access to unlimited digital tutors. Not just for kids who are falling behind academically but for everyone. I cannot understand why people would object to an education system where we teach kids according to their current level of ability and engage them intellectually. So I ask -- why is it a horrible idea?

The social aspect is the biggest thing. My son absolutely loves school he can't get enough of it. When I tell him on the weekends that he doesn't have school tomorrow he hates it. He hates when they take days off.

Plus I love seeing him interact with other kids now and all the teachers taking photos. It's just great to see that. I saw my son holding this girls hand on a field while they were riding the bus and it was so great. Then taking a screen shot and sending it to my wife (who I know didn't notice because she would have called me immediately) was even better watching her freak out.
 
The social aspect is the biggest thing. My son absolutely loves school he can't get enough of it. When I tell him on the weekends that he doesn't have school tomorrow he hates it. He hates when they take days off.

Plus I love seeing him interact with other kids now and all the teachers taking photos. It's just great to see that. I saw my son holding this girls hand on a field while they were riding the bus and it was so great. Then taking a screen shot and sending it to my wife (who I know didn't notice because she would have called me immediately) was even better watching her freak out.
I won't repeat my other posts, I addressed this issue there. I'll simplify it to:

Kids don't need school to socialize and if we're sending our kids to school for socialization then we're also acknowledging that education is no longer the primary driver. A simple response is that learning at home requires less time than packing them off to school for 7-9 hours a day and if more kids were not in the school, they would be able to socialize in other environments. Kids socialize at school because there isn't anywhere else to run into kids. But it's problem that was created by the very environment that you're relying on to fix the problem.
 
25/3 is terrible

Might as well be on dial up
it's not terrible, dialup really was terrible.

my issue with broadband speeds is that it can drop way lower than claimed speeds depending on location and time of day. Already paying $80 bucks, are we going to pay even more after these rollouts? <34>
 
Waiting for that one good :) picture to load... and someone calls :(

Seeing prime Pamela Anderson - when she just went from being Lisa the toolgirl on Home Improvement to CJ Parker on Baywatch - slowly loading on your 15" CRT monitor screen one horizontal line at a time is like its own show.
 
  • Like
Reactions: MT7
Seriously, should my speed make me sad? I have no idea.

Your speeds are more than adequate for 1-2 people doing most stuff. What speed do you pay for? If you're testing from an older device, you may not be picking up all of your connection. Same deal depending on the distance you are from the router and what objects are between it and your device(s). Your speeds are symmetrical, so I'm wondering if you just have some lower speed fiber package(?). Being in Montreal, you you most likely have faster options available should you need them. The median speed there is listed at 110Mbps for home internet and 92Mbps for mobile.

https://www.speedtest.net/performance/canada/quebec/montreal

100mbps seems like a lot for a minimum. Hard to imagine most people use/need that much.

I'm assuming that minimum is to account for average family size with some overhead speed calculated in.
 
Last edited:
considering? No it should be standard because we are so damn fucking far behind. FCC is useless

The word "considering", when it comes to regulatory commissions, is a dog whistle for lobbyists.
 
Nothing can replace proximity, certainly not screens, when it comes to maintaining attention and focus during learning in my opinion.

Children also need, need, need social interaction. Not all of it, but a decent amount of it, with a variety of people, some whom they will react more positively to.

Home is not a great place for many kids to learn.
Home is not a great place for many kids full stop, and the thought they basically wouldn't leave is frightening in some cases.
Homes are not always nice places, and the people in them can be the most destructive in a kid's life.
Homes also don't always even feed kids a good meal.

I'm sure it might work for some, but it's a nightmare for many others, and the idea it could happen carte blanche that kids are educated online at home is positively dystopian.
Sorry you had a bad home life.
 
You wanted to post that? For humour?
Not humor.
From the post, it sounded like you had a bad experience. I am sorry and wish that wasn't the case.

But not everyone does. Home can be a great place for some kids.

It wasn't for me, but is for my kids.
 
Not humor.
From the post, it sounded like you had a bad experience. I am sorry and wish that wasn't the case.

But not everyone does. Home can be a great place for some kids.

It wasn't for me, but is for my kids.

Oh, well, it wasn't for me either, but I work with children specifically from desperate backgrounds.
 
IST.png
Wtf, what internet speed test site considers that fast? These days (at least IMO) fast is 500Mbps+. 100Mbps should have been the minimum to be considered broadband 5 years ago.
 

Report: 3 in 4 School Districts Meet FCC Internet Speed Standards​


High-speed Internet access was extended to an additional 5 million students in the past year, and nearly three-quarters of K-12 school districts (9,573) in the United States are now providing bandwidth at a minimum rate of 1 megabit per second. But while the federal E-rate program continues to lower Internet service costs for schools, there’s a long way to go in reaching the Federal Communications Commission’s (FCC) universal goal: 3,330 districts (more than 25 million students) still don’t have adequate high-speed service, and the cost of broadband service in remote areas of Alaska, Texas and Michigan are sky high, according to the Connect K-12 2023 Report on School Connectivity from the broadband nonprofit Connected Nation.

The 13-page report, released Monday, is the nonprofit's fourth and final annual update on the nation’s progress toward meeting the FCC’s standard of 1 Mbps for each student. So far, the report said, 27.1 million students have that level of connectivity at school, but Connected Nation's Connect K-12 program (CK12) has resources available to help districts reach more.

“A critical finding is that school districts that are meeting the 1 Mbps-per-student goal are also getting access at a much lower rate than those districts not meeting that benchmark,” Emily Jordan, Connected Nation's vice president of education initiatives, said in a public statement. “In fact, the cost is substantially higher for those school districts not meeting that level of connectivity. The good news is school and state leaders can leverage CK12's free and easy-to-understand data to better navigate the market when negotiating new Internet contracts — giving them the information they need to obtain better rates for their budgets and better connectivity for their classrooms.”

The lowest rate in the nation is in Utah (29 cents), while the highest, in Alaska, is $203.39. All told, the 2023 median cost per Mbps for districts was $1.01, a 16 percent decrease from last year and more than 30 percent less than in 2018, according to the report. The high costs are attributed to the lack of competition for contractors who can install fiber-optic cables, and to the effects of terrain, distance and low population density.

The report also notes:
  • In 16 states, at least 80 percent of school districts are meeting the FCC standard of 1 Mbps. That’s up from nine states in 2022.
  • Kentucky, which now has 97 percent of its districts meeting the standard, jumped from No. 49 in the country in 2022 to No. 5 this year. South Carolina, Maryland, Georgia and Rhode Island also saw significant improvement in high-speed connectivity rates in the 12-month period.
The report noted that the federal Broadband Equity, Access and Deployment (BEAD) program, part of the Bipartisan Infrastructure Law passed in 2021, will spend another $42.45 billion on enhancing broadband infrastructure in every state and five U.S. territories.


“While BEAD will focus primarily on ‘last mile’ deployments to unserved and underserved locations, the broader telecom ecosystem (including transport and non-mass market services) will necessarily be enhanced as well,” the report says. “This is important because we know that bandwidth demand will continue to grow alongside technology adoption.”

 

Cable Companies Object to the FCC Increasing Minimum Broadband Internet Speeds Requirements​


Right now, to be considered broadband Internet you need to offer 25 Mbps down and 3 Mbps up. When that rule was made those speeds made sense. As 4K video, video gaming, and other activities requiring more speed have become popular, those speeds don’t meet the needs of customers in 2023.

Recently Google, Ting, and others asked the FCC to require a minimum of 100 Mbps down and 100 Mbps up as the minimum speeds to be considered broadband Internet. Cable TV companies strongly object to this possible rule change.

This rule is important because those minimum speeds are used to determine who can receive subsidies from the federal government to roll out Internet services.

These new rules will strongly favor fiber companies over cable TV and satellite. At issue here are the upload speeds. Increasingly speeds for download have jumped to 1 Gbps in many areas. Sadly, upload speeds are still often well under 50 Mbps down.

To fight this, the cable lobbying group NCTA is asking the FCC to reject changes to the rules. In a letter to the FCC, NCTA states that these rules are not needed.

Several cable TV companies are already working to offer speeds that would meet these upload requirements—most noticeably Spectrum. Sadly, that is still likely years away for many customers.

 
Back
Top