It's parroting the Washington Post's attack which is missing the point and talking around the actual facts. I'd be interested to hear some of the computer engineers on this site's thoughts because they have more experience than I do on the technical details.
But... (my analysis - which is speculation, though I feel with quite a bit of weight to it... and I'm typing on the run so apologies in advance:)
This isn't about connection speeds, it's about download speeds while hacking. Which the VIPs report makes clear and this report (and the WP) completely ignore. It's a linguistic trick designed to confuse the reader. Whether or not the DNC or even FSB have high speed internet is immaterial to the evidence being presented by the VIPs report because, per the DNI itself, the "hackers" made every effort to hide their origin. That means they weren't directly accessing the network, they're masking IPs and doing other various things that prevents them from downloading files at that high of speed, regardless of how fast the DNC or FSB internet speeds are.
The best technical actors in the world would not be able to come close to the speed at which the metadata says the files were copied, regardless of how fast their own internet moves. That's why the VIPs' experience, as counter/cyber officers for NSA/FBI/CIA, is relevant. They know the fastest ways to "hack" because they did or prevented it for decades while in service. The metadata proves, to the VIPs, that it was impossible to have "hacked" that fast into the system. How fast the FSB's/DNC's internet is from point A to point B is irrelevant...
... Unless the NSA is going to come out and concede the "hackers" didn't do everything they could to mask their location during the hack. Which, if they did would make it easy for them to present the world with direct, incontrovertible (and easily unclassified/de-classified) evidence. It wouldn't require revealing any sources or methods at all if the hackers just went right through the front door...
So it's double-talk meant to confuse the evidence.
The truth is, the speeds that it was downloaded at, per the metadata which again is Open Source (anyone can verify this) prove that the files were copied at a very high speed - far higher than it's possible to have hacked. That proves, with open source evidence anyone can verify (I repeat it because it's important, don't take my word, go look for yourself), the DNC wasn't hacked by Guciffer 2.0 as the DNI claims. That alone is damning because the Guciffer hack is the only actual evidence presented in the report itself - the rest is admittedly speculation on the parts of the authors.
Let's also not lose sight of the fact that the FBI still has never examined the DNC servers. The entirety of the physical evidence presented in this DNI was down by CrowdStrike - a third party organization with a dubious record. The VIPs report does a wonderful job summarizing why that's problematic, why the timeline of the "hacks" were important, and it's a big part of the story that makes the rest of their evidence so compelling.
This article does nothing to address that key issue either.