Symmetrical gigabit is a bit much for a baseline. Should it be widely available for all, and for a good price? Absolutely. But plenty of people (probably a majority even) could be adequately served by something like 300 down/100 up as a baseline tier.

IMO the focus should be on lowering the prices. A lot of people in my country still rely on spotty mobile data as their primary internet. Imagine 100 mbps fiber for $10 a month, that would be awesome.

I don't disagree, but I think even just setting it to 500M symmetrical would be a MASSIVE improvement and a more achievable goal. Few regions right now are equipped for fiber and even fewer homes.

Most homes in the US have a coax connection, and with current tech coax connections can do a little over a gig bandwidth total (up+down). That said, we should be quickly ratcheting up to 500/500 while the fiber rollout hopefully accelerates.

25/3 is perfectly usable for a single user, provided you don't need to upload stuff. Watching 1080p60 on YouTube only needs slightly over 12 mbps.

I'm not defending the current state of the internet services, just saying it's not that bad.

Honestly I am really happy when I get such high speeds. 25Mbps feels blazing fast for me. Everything loading/downloading so quickly. An average song in the FLAC 16/44 format would download in just 10 seconds instead of up to 5 minutes.

And there's already even 10Gbps available. I can't even imagine that. You could download a whole 4K movie in a matter of seconds!

Anyway, this is what I have:
Image link for compatibility

I can only dream.

My whole family house is on 25/5 in Australia. Most of laptops in the house are 1366x768 (so 720p youtube video) and we use adblockers.

The key is setting up proper queue control on your router (Openwrt + SQM) so that one person downloading or uploading doesn't ruin the latency for everyone else browsing the web; before I did that a single person downloading a steam game or uploading something to Google drive made the web unbrowsable for everyone. Sadly this only works if your internet connection link speed is stable and reliable.

I’m not entirely facetious: with trackers and ads and “web 2.0” nonsense and way over provisioning , I’ve seen “simple” web sites bog down on much faster connections.

A lot of web 2.0 nonsense slowness is caused by executing megabytes of javascript. Fetching the few MB itself isn't the bottleneck for us :)

Best connection available in my town is a super overpriced 25/3, but what you actually get is more like 10/0.5. No fiber lines, no other providers around other than satellite, and no demand for more means it's just stagnant here

Yep, typical. Spectrum in my area (like 5-7 years ago) suddenly over doubled everyone’s speeds almost overnight once competition came in. I loved telling them to pound sand as I got symmetrical gigabit installed.

To clear up confusion, 6MBps (MegaByte) down would be equal to 48Mbps (Megabit). So you would be above the mentioned standard.

Or you made typo, then you're indeed below standard ^^"

Honestly, it's highly variable. Generally speaking, more populated areas tend to have much better options for internet and in some large markets even have a degree of competition.

In my case, I live in a town of only 180k or so people. At my home, I am able to get 1.2 gbps download from Comcast. They are the only option in my direct vicinity with this much bandwidth. The alernative is AT&T with only DSL as an option. I don't remember the top tier. But, it's considerably slower at maybe 100 mbps or something like that.

The issue is mostly that it’s highly variable, hard to change without moving, and hard to predict before you actually live somewhere.

The comcast rep will happily take your money to put you on a 200mb plan, but it won’t do shit if the infrastructure in your area is bad, and Comcast (or whoever the isp is) has absolutely zero responsibility to actually provide the promised services. Now you add in that 95% of the population including most of the phone reps working for the ISPs don’t even know the difference between a bit and a byte and it becomes a total crap shoot.

It's widely variable, even in big cities the available ISPs can change depending on what side of a street you're on. A lot of people are stuck with cable (DOCSIS) providers that run over legacy TV infrastructure and provide wildly asymmetric speeds. This is an excerpt from Xfinity (Comcast):

Xfinity Gigabit Internet service has advanced, next generation technology, with WiFi download speeds of up to 1000 Mbps (up to 1200 Mbps in some areas) and upload speeds of up to 35 Mbps.

I live in the mountain area, and my friend lives 30m from a multi-million population city, in an area with over 100,000 residents. His best option for internet to this day is hotspotting from his cell. Before that was viable, he only had access to satellite internet. Even semi-rural people here get fucked.

Not so much a standard as in "everyone should actually use the internet at this speed" but more as in "the bare minimum level, everyone should have at least this speed available (and we'll help pay to upgrade people stuck at slower speeds)", I believe.

It was still a low speed for that of course. It apparently hadn't been raised since the Obama administration (2015).

Rural internet speeds are often... not comparable to more densely populated areas, shall we say. My (European) perspective: I had about ~3 Mbit down (over ADSL) until I moved about a decade ago (on a good day, while paying for "up to 40 Mbit" (IIRC) that the line apparently just could not physically deliver to my house). Meanwhile, 1 km along the road people in town had cable internet (~100 Mbit down).

Luckily, both populations have since benefited from a fiber rollout by a smaller telco, but people in town still got that upgrade about 5 years sooner and without paying a ~€2k connection fee. AFAIK there are still areas in my country where ADSL is the best available...