AT&T, Comcast and Verizon all came under fire recently for suggesting the baseline definition of broadband should remain low (as in, between 200-768 kbps), given that means they'd have less work to do -- and less government oversight into their affairs. AT&T's comments to the FCC (pdf) went one step further, arguing that video gaming should not be considered an essential component (like e-mail and browsing) when discussing broadband definitions, and is instead an "aspirational" service. Says AT&T:The gaming industry subsequently got offended, issuing their own filing with the FCC that of course argued that gaming was not only the highest of art forms, but a necessary educational tool:Ars Technica thinks this is quite the issue, though the resulting discussion over whether gaming is a necessity or a luxury seems simultaneously overblown while missing the point: whether to include low latency as part of a broadband definition. Any decent definition of broadband is going to include enough throughput and and low enough latency to handle most modern games. So really, there's bigger issues at play here than your frag count.

AT&T resells poorly reviewed and heavily capped WildBlue satellite broadband service, which allows them to claim they offer 100% national broadband coverage. They used this trick to promise regulators they'd offer 100% national coverage if they were allowed to acquire BellSouth. If the definition of broadband is suddenly latency-dependent, AT&T's claims to "broad coverage" suddenly don't look quite so hot, and they have to start doing actual work.

It's simply part of a push by major carriers to establish definition baselines that are as wimpy as technologically possible. Why? The lower the bar, the less government scrutiny into their network, their network management, and their deployment shortcomings. So for AT&T, broadband ideally should be defined as something slightly above carrier pigeon. Ever tried to frag someone by carrier pigeon? Yeah, not fun. VoIP's not so hot, either.

AT&T's snubbing of gaming is somewhat ironic, given modern broadband ISP empires were largely built on the back of two things: people looking for free music, and gamers (once dubbed "low ping bastards" or LPBs) looking for a leg up in competition. But this discussion really isn't about gaming, and the discussion over what are or aren't essential uses of a connection is a red herring by AT&T. The bigger question is whether expensive, sluggish and capped satellite broadband is good enough for rural America, and if we should set our national sights higher.