The FCC proposed narrowing how it assesses U.S. broadband deployment: keep a 100/20 Mbps fixed-broadband benchmark, drop the 2024 report’s 1,000/500 Mbps long-term goal, and remove affordability and adoption from the Section 706 analysis. That is a change to the government’s measurement framework—not a ban on gigabit plans or a rule making broadband prices impossible to study. The proposal was circulated on July 17, 2025; the available record here does not establish what the FCC ultimately did after its scheduled August 7, 2025 vote.
What the FCC proposed
FCC Chairman Brendan Carr circulated a proposal on July 17, 2025, to revise the agency’s annual inquiry under Section 706 of the Telecommunications Act. It would make three related changes:
- Center the test on deployment. The FCC would ask whether advanced telecommunications capability “is being deployed” to Americans in a reasonable and timely fashion, rather than treating any shortfall from universal availability as a failure. The proposal’s text is available in the FCC’s July 17, 2025 proposal.
- Keep 100/20 Mbps as the proposed fixed-broadband benchmark. The proposal would retain the 2024 benchmark of 100 Mbps download and 20 Mbps upload for the immediate inquiry, subject to comment.
- Remove the long-term gigabit goal and broader measures. It would eliminate the 2024 goal of 1,000 Mbps download and 500 Mbps upload without replacing it, and remove affordability, adoption, and related universal-service considerations from this Section 706 analysis.
The distinction between the two speed figures matters: 100/20 Mbps was the benchmark for the current inquiry; 1,000/500 Mbps was a longer-term goal. Neither is a guarantee that a particular household can buy service at that speed or receive it consistently.
What Section 706 does—and does not do
Section 706, codified at 47 U.S.C. § 1302, directs the FCC to determine whether advanced telecommunications capability is being deployed to all Americans in a reasonable and timely fashion. If the agency finds deployment is not proceeding on that basis, the statute directs it to take action to accelerate deployment by removing barriers to infrastructure investment and promoting competition. The proposal describes the FCC’s view of that duty in its July 2025 document.
The Tool Desk
Outbyte Driver Updater FREEScan for outdated or missing drivers - takes under a minuteDriver Scan →Outbyte PC Repair FREERepair Windows errors before they cause bigger problemsFix Now →#1 Best Overall
- DUAL-BAND WIFI 6 ROUTER: Wi-Fi 6(802.11ax) technology achieves faster speeds, greater capacity and reduced network congestion compared to the previous gen. All WiFi routers require a separate modem. Dual-Band WiFi routers do not support the 6 GHz band.
- AX1800: Enjoy smoother and more stable streaming, gaming, downloading with 1.8 Gbps total bandwidth (up to 1200 Mbps on 5 GHz and up to 574 Mbps on 2.4 GHz). Performance varies by conditions, distance to devices, and obstacles such as walls.
- CONNECT MORE DEVICES: Wi-Fi 6 technology communicates more data to more devices simultaneously using revolutionary OFDMA technology
- EXTENSIVE COVERAGE: Achieve the strong, reliable WiFi coverage with Archer AX1800 as it focuses signal strength to your devices far away using Beamforming technology, 4 high-gain antennas and an advanced front-end module (FEM) chipset
- OUR CYBERSECURITY COMMITMENT: TP-Link is a signatory of the U.S. Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency’s (CISA) Secure-by-Design pledge. This device is designed, built, and maintained, with advanced security as a core requirement.
The annual report is a regulatory assessment and policy signal. It is not itself a broadband grant program, a consumer price cap, or a direct order requiring every provider to offer gigabit service. Changing its criteria could affect how the FCC describes progress and shapes later policy debates, but the report alone does not rewrite every federal funding program.
How the 2024 framework differed
The FCC’s 2024 Section 706 report raised the fixed-broadband benchmark from the 25/3 Mbps level used since 2015 to 100/20 Mbps, and adopted a 1,000/500 Mbps long-term goal. It also considered deployment alongside adoption, affordability, availability, and equitable access. The speed changes appear in the 2024 Section 706 Report; the broader set of considerations is described in the 2024 Section 706 inquiry notice.
Rank #2
- 𝐅𝐮𝐭𝐮𝐫𝐞-𝐏𝐫𝐨𝐨𝐟 𝐘𝐨𝐮𝐫 𝐇𝐨𝐦𝐞 𝐖𝐢𝐭𝐡 𝐖𝐢-𝐅𝐢 𝟕: Powered by Wi-Fi 7 technology, enjoy faster speeds with Multi-Link Operation, increased reliability with Multi-RUs, and more data capacity with 4K-QAM, delivering enhanced performance for all your devices.
- 𝐁𝐄𝟑𝟔𝟎𝟎 𝐃𝐮𝐚𝐥-𝐁𝐚𝐧𝐝 𝐖𝐢-𝐅𝐢 𝟕 𝐑𝐨𝐮𝐭𝐞𝐫: Delivers up to 2882 Mbps (5 GHz), and 688 Mbps (2.4 GHz) speeds for 4K/8K streaming, AR/VR gaming & more. Dual-band routers do not support 6 GHz. Performance varies by conditions, distance, and obstacles like walls.
- 𝐔𝐧𝐥𝐞𝐚𝐬𝐡 𝐌𝐮𝐥𝐭𝐢-𝐆𝐢𝐠 𝐒𝐩𝐞𝐞𝐝𝐬 𝐰𝐢𝐭𝐡 𝐃𝐮𝐚𝐥 𝟐.𝟓 𝐆𝐛𝐩𝐬 𝐏𝐨𝐫𝐭𝐬 𝐚𝐧𝐝 𝟑×𝟏𝐆𝐛𝐩𝐬 𝐋𝐀𝐍 𝐏𝐨𝐫𝐭𝐬: Maximize Gigabitplus internet with one 2.5G WAN/LAN port, one 2.5 Gbps LAN port, plus three additional 1 Gbps LAN ports. Break the 1G barrier for seamless, high-speed connectivity from the internet to multiple LAN devices for enhanced performance.
- 𝐍𝐞𝐱𝐭-𝐆𝐞𝐧 𝟐.𝟎 𝐆𝐇𝐳 𝐐𝐮𝐚𝐝-𝐂𝐨𝐫𝐞 𝐏𝐫𝐨𝐜𝐞𝐬𝐬𝐨𝐫: Experience power and precision with a state-of-the-art processor that effortlessly manages high throughput. Eliminate lag and enjoy fast connections with minimal latency, even during heavy data transmissions.
- 𝐂𝐨𝐯𝐞𝐫𝐚𝐠𝐞 𝐟𝐨𝐫 𝐄𝐯𝐞𝐫𝐲 𝐂𝐨𝐫𝐧𝐞𝐫 - Covers up to 2,000 sq. ft. for up to 60 devices at a time. 4 internal antennas and beamforming technology focus Wi-Fi signals toward hard-to-reach areas. Seamlessly connect phones, TVs, and gaming consoles.
| Measure | Meaning | 2024 framework | July 2025 proposal |
|---|---|---|---|
| Current fixed-broadband benchmark | Threshold used in the immediate deployment inquiry | 100 Mbps download / 20 Mbps upload | Proposed to remain 100/20 Mbps |
| Long-term fixed-broadband goal | Future-oriented target, not the immediate benchmark | 1,000 Mbps download / 500 Mbps upload | Proposed to be eliminated without replacement |
| Scope of analysis | Factors considered when judging broadband progress | Deployment, adoption, affordability, availability, and equitable access | Proposed to narrow the Section 706 inquiry to deployment |
These figures describe policy criteria, not measured household performance. An advertised speed is also not the same as a speed a customer consistently experiences, particularly during busy periods.
Why the FCC proposed dropping the gigabit goal
The proposal argues that a 1,000/500 Mbps goal could favor fiber, which is well positioned to deliver gigabit-class service, over satellite and fixed wireless systems that may not reliably meet that target. It characterizes the goal as a risk of “picking technological winners and losers.” That is the FCC majority’s rationale, not an uncontested technical conclusion.
Quick wins for a faster PC:
Clear out junk files and repair common Windows errorsFree Scan →Fix the driver behind crashes, sound loss and screen glitchesFind Drivers →Repair Windows errors before they cause bigger problemsFix Now →Rank #3
- Dual band router upgrades to 1200 Mbps high speed internet (300mbps for 2.4GHz plus 900Mbps for 5GHz), reducing buffering and ideal for 4K stream
- Full Gigabit Ports - Gigabit Router with 4 Gigabit LAN ports, ideal for any internet plan and allow you to directly connect your wired devices
- Boosted Coverage - Four external antennas equipped with Beamforming technology extend and concentrate the Wi-Fi signals
- MU-MIMO technology - (5GHz band) allows high speeds for multiple devices simultaneously
- Access Point Mode - Supports AP Mode to transform your wired connection into wireless network, an ideal wireless router for home
The policy choice is whether technology neutrality means using a lower shared benchmark, or whether the government should set a more ambitious target that encourages networks capable of handling future demand. Those technologies are not interchangeable just because they can all connect a location:
| Technology | Potential strengths | Relevant trade-offs |
|---|---|---|
| Fiber | High capacity, strong upload performance, low latency, and upgradeability | Construction can be costly and slow in difficult terrain |
| Cable | Broad existing footprint and high download speeds in many areas | Upload performance and network architecture vary |
| Fixed wireless | Can be quicker to deploy than buried infrastructure in some locations | Capacity depends on factors such as terrain, line of sight, and congestion |
| Satellite | Can serve remote locations without local wired construction | Capacity, latency, weather, equipment, and data policies can matter |
| Mobile broadband | Provides mobility and has rapidly improving performance | May not substitute for a fixed home connection |
A location may be listed as covered while performance, installation feasibility, or capacity falls short of what a household needs. A nominal speed also says little about competition or the cost of the available plan.
Rank #4
- Tri-Band WiFi 6E Router - Up to 5400 Mbps WiFi for faster browsing, streaming, gaming and downloading, all at the same time(6 GHz: 2402 Mbps;5 GHz: 2402 Mbps;2.4 GHz: 574 Mbps)
- WiFi 6E Unleashed – The 6 GHz band brings more bandwidth, faster speeds, and near-zero latency; Enables more responsive gaming and video chatting
- Connect More Devices—True Tri-Band and OFDMA technology increase capacity by 4 times to enable simultaneous transmission to more devices
- Unique Design, More RAM, Better Processing - A unique housing design provides optimal heat dissipation, combined with a 1.0 GHz dual-core CPU and 512 MB High-Speed Memory, the AXE75 is designed for long-term reliability and performance.
- EasyMesh-compatible - Extend network range even more by adding EasyMesh-compatible routers, extenders, or wireless powerline adapters for a seamless, whole-home connection. Eliminate dead zones, drops, and lag as you move across your home.
What removing affordability from the review would mean
The proposal would remove affordability and adoption from the criteria used in the Section 706 inquiry. It would not prohibit the FCC, Congress, states, researchers, or consumers from examining broadband prices, nor does it establish that a pricing database was deleted. The narrower and more accurate point is that affordability would no longer be part of this particular statutory assessment under the proposed framework.
That distinction matters because a network can reach an address without providing a usable option for the household there. A monthly bill, installation charge, equipment fee, contract terms, or the price of a faster tier can all affect whether service is realistically accessible. A household might technically have 100/20 service available but be unable to afford it; another might face an advertised plan whose actual performance falls short at peak hours.
Best Value
- Next-Gen Gigabit Wi-Fi 6 Speeds: 2402 Mbps on 5 GHz and 574 Mbps on 2.4 GHz bands ensure smoother streaming and faster downloads; support VPN server and VPN client¹
- A More Responsive Experience: Enjoy smooth gaming, video streaming, and live feeds simultaneously. OFDMA makes your Wi-Fi stronger by allowing multiple clients to share one band at the same time, cutting latency and jitter.²
- Expanded Wi-Fi Coverage: 4 high-gain external antennas and Beamforming technology combine to extend strong, reliable, Wi-Fi throughout your home.
- Improved Battery Life: Target Wake Time helps your devices to communicate efficiently while consuming less power.
- Improved Cooling Design: No heat ups, no throttles. A larger heat sink and redefined case design cools the WiFi 6 system and enables your network to stay at top speeds in more versatile environments.
The 2024 FCC acknowledged that its report lacked sufficiently granular price information, especially for rural areas, and largely captured broad affordability patterns. Contemporary coverage of that limitation and the proposal is available from Ars Technica, July 21, 2025. Removing affordability from the report’s framework is therefore different from proving that broadband is affordable or from ending all price research.
Possible effects on consumers, providers, and funding
If adopted, a narrower deployment test could make it easier for the FCC to report progress when networks are still being built, even if some locations remain unserved. Removing the gigabit goal could also reduce the role of future capacity in federal broadband discussions and make lower-cost-to-deploy technologies more acceptable in some policy contexts.
- Satellite and fixed-wireless providers could face less pressure to meet a target their systems may not consistently support.
- Fiber builders and communities seeking higher-capacity networks could see less federal emphasis on gigabit-capable infrastructure as a long-term benchmark.
- Households whose primary barrier is price could receive less attention in this specific FCC assessment, even if service is technically available.
- Grant applicants and administrators could see a changed policy signal about which technologies count as adequate, but the proposal alone does not automatically reallocate BEAD funds or alter every grant’s requirements.
These are potential policy effects, not guaranteed consumer outcomes. A change in the report does not by itself dictate what providers charge, require a household to switch technologies, or prove that any particular community will gain or lose funding.
What the proposal would not do
- It would not make gigabit service disappear or require ISPs to stop selling gigabit plans.
- It would not automatically cause providers to downgrade existing service.
- It would not make broadband prices impossible to study or erase all price data.
- It would not by itself rewrite every federal broadband grant program.
- It would not prove universal access, affordability, reliable performance, or meaningful competition.
Procedural status: proposal, not a confirmed final outcome
The proposal was circulated on July 17, 2025, with a vote scheduled for August 7, 2025. The source record available for this article confirms the proposal and scheduled vote but does not establish the vote’s result, the terms of any final order, or its effective date. It is therefore accurate to say the FCC proposed to drop the goal and narrow the affordability analysis; it is not established here that the FCC completed those changes. Any later FCC order would determine whether the benchmark, treatment of technologies, and scope of the inquiry changed in practice.
Recommended Free Tools
Quick Recap
Product prices and availability are accurate as of the date/time indicated and are subject to change. Any price and availability information displayed on Amazon at the time of purchase will apply.
