I got maybe halfway through and got bored.

I wondered if there was any actual regulatory consequence to whether service was called broadband or not. I suspect there is be, even if the article never got around to it.

This is a general peeve of mine about political articles. There's a lot of who is presumed to be on whose side, and what people feel about what, but precious little about the relevant law.

It's likely that the definition of the term has regulatory consequences, or at least would be used for regulatory consequences, whether or not there is actual statutory authority for it.

EDIT: I got around to reading the rest. Rather infuriating discussion that always seems on the edge of identifying an actual consequence, but never quite getting there.