Why The BTOP/BIP NOFA Definition of Broadband Is Inadequate

[Commentary] Daily doesn't like that the National Telecommunications and Information Administration and the Rural Utilities Service picked 768Kbps down and 200Kbps up as the minimum speeds for broadband. As Vint Cerf has said: "The definition of broadband sucks so badly it should be used to sequester carbon dioxide." RUS and NTIA favor this broadband speed threshold because it leverages the FCC's expertise, utilizes an established standard, facilitates the use of many currently common broadband applications (e.g., web browsing, VOIP, and one-way video), allows for consideration of cost-effective solutions for difficult-to-serve areas, and is the most technology-neutral option (because it encompasses all major wired and wireless technologies). Daily reads this to mean that they don't want stick their necks out. He writes, "The biggest reason I find this definition inadequate is because of how unbelievably short-sighted it is. Any investment in broadband infrastructure needs to be considered with a horizon of at least five to ten years, and preferably longer. We don't want to have to subsidize the expensive and time-consuming process of deploying broadband again in a couple of years because we invested in inadequate technology today."