Who needs a Gig?

The incumbent telephone and cable companies must be really scared of competition from new fiber networks, because they are still peddling the old, tired "Who needs a Gig?" baloney to elected officials and regulators.

It is really a red herring argument, for two reasons:

If you are building a modern fiber network, Gig service as the standard or base offering is the cheapest way to go. I'm not even sure you could buy slower gear, like 100 Meg equipment, because I have not bothered to look in many years. The way the question is framed, it pre-supposes that there is a less expensive alternative out there. But again, Gig fiber equipment is the least expensive way to go.

Second, the only other reason to float this question is because you can't compete with symmetric Gig/Gig networks, so you try to argue that "nobody needs it." The idea they are trying to plant is that their ancient, wheezing copper networks, much slower and highly asymmetric, are just fine.

It would be laughable if they were not so successful in convincing decisionmakers that they are right and everyone else is wrong.