What is "technological neutrality" and should it be a goal of broadband deployment?

I’ve long been confused by the term “technological neutrality” in broadband deployment conversations. Advocates would say that if a provider can hit certain performance benchmarks, it doesn’t matter what technology is used. But all these technologies are not created equal. Using provider-reported performance benchmarks alone ignores valuable data on the access technology. For example, there are 210,000 housing units where the best available technology is DSL yet they are still considered served by 100/20 broadband and thus ineligible for any funding under the IIJA. Even if the provider-claimed “maximum advertised speed” of 100Mbps download and 20 Mbps upload is true, that is not an Internet connection I’d rely on in my home. It is painful to think that even after the investments the IIJA will make, we could still have rural Americans reliant on DSL to reach the Internet. Looking at it from the other side, cable networks provide good home broadband. In Census blocks covering 97% of the housing units where cable is the best available option, those housing units are “served” by broadband, meaning speeds better than 100/20. Generally, plans are available up to ~900/35. DOCSIS 4.0 and its promise of symmetrical bandwidth, fiber that runs deep through the middle mile, and investments in better queue management to reduce latency means some of these copper cable networks have a lot of life left. Do we really want federal funds going to the 3% of these networks that are “underserving” their subscribers with worse than 100/20 Internet?

[Mike Conlow writes about technology, policy, politics, and economics in various combinations in 'Mike's Newsletter'.]