Shouldn't you at least look around you and see what is available when evaluating whether something is fast?
You should factor in what actual customers are using it for, whether they are satisfied with it, and also consider trending applications/scenarios.
Many people here mention games. The number of people who play online games that require a fast Internet is disputable. (Industry likes to say there are a lot, but they are biased and I am skeptical of their numbers.) Personally, because of my business I am in regular personal contact with hundreds of people. None of them play video games. Ever. They also only very rarely do videoconferencing and none of them watching streaming. (They do a small amount of watching YouTube though.) They do listen to music. The few that Zoom are working from home but they're only doing that a little (preferring low-bandwidth things like email, texting, and mainly using the telephone). They are mix of "ordinary people" and high-end professionals (corporate managers, Government lawyers, software developers, consultants, engineers) and everyone I'm talking about lives in the suburbs of Washington D.C., Boston, MA, or San Francisco. Not the rural sticks. Not technologically challenged people. Youngest age is 25. They all have iPhones but don't watch videos or game on them, either, and don't do video calls. The younger ones do Instagram. Okay, a tiny few of the youngest ones play some video games. Their usage patterns are nothing like mine and nothing like the average Slashdot reader.
My service actually clocks in at 250/250/7ms, but I recently only had 100 Mbps. With 100Mbps I can do everything I want, which includes: video streaming services, Zoom, and the easy stuff like music. I don't play videogames, either, but I know I can get 70fps over the 100 Mbps, and can download Linux distros and various analytical data sets I'm interested in, and manage my cloud-based servers (that's just ssh). I'm online at my desk usually 14-17 hours every day of the week.
So a baseline of 100 Mbps seems reasonable to me.
The old numbers sound ridiculously slow. (DSL ?!?)
I've had every broadband medium/service since 1985, except satellite. How fast is that, anyway? And should that count? I would want rural people to have service that's as good as mine (100 Mbps), so how does that play into these statistics of public policy?