Bernie Sanders unveils plan to break up telecom companies and launch universal broadband access

[Uncle Joe]

(snip)

“It is outrageous that across the country millions of Americans and so many of our communities do not have access to affordable high-speed internet,” Sanders said in a statement. “Access to the internet is a necessity in today's economy, and it should be available for all.

"We are going to take on the greedy internet, telecom and cable monopolies and put an end to their absurd prices gouging. Just as President Roosevelt fundamentally made America more equal by bringing electricity to every farm and rural community over 80 years ago, as president, I will do the same with high-speed internet.”

The plan would use $150 billion in grants through his "Green New Deal" plan — his $16.3 trillion plan to remake the country's economy around averting climate change and economic equality — to encourage city and state government to build publicly owned broadband internet networks.

(snip)

"The internet as we know it was developed by taxpayer-funded research, using taxpayer-funded grants in taxpayer-funded labs," his plan reads. "Our tax dollars built the internet and access to it should be a public good for all, not another price gouging profit machine for Comcast, AT&T and Verizon."


https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/elections/2019/12/06/election-2020-bernie-sanders-calls-break-up-telecom-companies/4353458002/

[guillaumeb]

1. Recommended.

And many of these areas with bad access are red state, rural areas.

[Peacetrain]

2. Not a chance in hell...

[Uncle Joe]

3. Is it right to do so?

[Voltaire2]

6. so you are against this proposal?

[JoeOtterbein]

4. K n R ! Thanks for posting!

[George II]

5. So this new "plan" is dependent upon grants from another one of his "plans"....

.....that probably won't be enacted?

[Voltaire2]

7. you know everything substantial, any real proposal to do anything significant

requires legislation that may or may not be enacted, right?

So let me guess: your candidate is not proposing doing anything that would actually require legislation?

[George II]

9. But other candidates don't build one proposal that has to be passed upon another proposal....

....that has to be passed.

By the way, much of this plan for universal broadband access has already been part of the platform of the Democratic Party. It's not a revolutionary idea, Democrats have already decided its significant.

But the Democratic Party's idea is one that stands on its own, not one that can only be implemented if something much larger gets implemented.

[Voltaire2]

11. This is just being rolled into the GND.

Are you against expanding affordable high speed broadband access? If so why?

[George II]

14. Irrelevant question, kind of like asking me "when did you stop beating your wife?"

[thesquanderer]

15. An "are you" question is nothing like a question that presumes other facts ("have you stopped")

but the bigger point is, plans are often wrapped inside other plans (in this case, making expanding internet part of green new deal). In the end, it doesn't mean you must pass one to get the other. Everything in a "green new deal" could be a package, or elements can be passed (or not) separately. Things can be combined, things can be separated... His purpose of linking it here is to show a way to pay for it. Of course, if you think no new green deal is going to get passed by the next administration, then it would either have to be dropped, or some other way to pay for this alone would have to be found. But I see no problem in proposing it. This seems like a real "grasping at straws" criticism to me.

[Voltaire2]

27. that's ridiculous. But whatever.

It is a simple question, if you are opposed to expanding affordable broadband access just say so.

[George II]

29. The issue isn't expanding affordable broadband access, it's the way it will be done....

That's why your question seemed irrelevant, you essentially narrowed down the answer to "yes" or "no", phrasing it as though if I don't agree with this proposal (which I don't oppose) then I have to be opposed to expanding it at all. Not a reasonable way to pose the question and with this response of yours you reveal just that.

[Voltaire2]

30. I didn't mention the proposal at all.

I simply asked if you are in favor or opposed to expanding access to affordable modern broadband.

[PatrickforO]

16. Yes, but if we elevate the conversation, if we talk about it, if it is on the table,

those debating the issue and then forming legislation that reflects the will of those representing us in Congress, we have a chance to move in the right direction.

It is interesting, reading this thread. I see that many of the Biden supporters seem to be...doubtful. To put it charitably. One even remarks, "Not a chance in hell."

But, you know, the Square Deal didn't really have a chance in hell. Not until Teddy Roosevelt started talking about reform and people started reading things like The Jungle. Then we had some regulation around food manufacturing.

The New Deal didn't have a chance in hell, either. Not a chance. Until the people had suffered to the point where they were about to overthrow the government and champions arose in the Democratic party.

The Civil Rights Act didn't have a chance in hell, either. But LBJ strongarmed it through, because he was the one guy that could have done it.

Let's not forget Medicare. DEFINITELY not a chance in hell. It was maligned by health insurance companies, pharmaceutical companies, the AMA and others as being SOSH-A-LIZED medicine. Yet it passed and I've yet to meet a senior who was not grateful for it.

So, you know, I see Warren's statement that we need a big, bold agenda as being true. Because a party that knows what it wants and forcefully advocates that will draw FAR more followers (and independent voters) than a party that chooses a bland centrist agenda.

AND NOTE: I'm not saying that the idea of fixing ACA from all the Republican sabotage over the last decade would be that bad. I myself am for M4All, but whatever it is we are touting, we need a compelling slogan, a compelling case.

Concerning the power of slogans, here's a kind of funny/sad story about the difference between a compelling case and milquetoast: My state representative is a right wing-nut. A holy roller evangelical who is ultra conservative on most issues. In other words, she doesn't represent me by a long shot.

So, in the 2018 election, I was delighted when a candidate stepped up to oppose her. I gave the candidate data, reports, money, etc. Like you do when you're trying to support someone grass roots.

As the election crept closer, I went to a neighborhood gathering of supporters for her in my legislative district, and paid for a yard sign. When I saw what it said, I sighed:

It said, &quot candidate's name) Make politics boring again."

Seriously.

I sighed and went ahead and put the sign up in my yard. The result of the election was no surprise. The wing-nut still represents me and the candidate we all had such high hopes for has returned to being a private citizen.

This is why I say that WHATEVER WE MOVE FORWARD WITH, WE NEED TO BE AGGRESSIVE AND COMPELLING ABOUT HOW WE COMMUNICATE IT.

[PatrickforO]

8. I'll go with that!

Bernie's policies are generally quite sound, and are supported by majorities of the American people.

[bucolic_frolic]

10. The Feds broke up Ma Bell in the early 1980s, now they've combined again

[Voltaire2]

12. Before the deregulation we had the best telecoms in the world

now we have shitty expensive second rate systems.

[TexasTowelie]

22. Really?

I can almost anywhere and get a phone plan for about $50/month that not only provides unlimited long distance calling in the US, but also unlimited texts and 2 GB of free high-speed data. Furthermore, I can take that phone almost everywhere so that I can stay in contact while I'm travelling and keep the battery charged while I'm on the bus or anywhere that has an electrical outlet.

About 30 years ago after I graduated from college, I was stuck with a land line, paid for each long distance call, had no text messaging and could not receive any data. The only thing that you could do with a phone was call people--there was no streaming video or Internet connection. My phone bill was usually about $75/month and represented about 7% of my income. If my vehicle broke down on the side of the road I was pretty much screwed and I would have to walk miles to get to a pay phone where I could call for assistance. By almost any metric, I think that I'm getting a far better deal now than I did 30 years ago.

So what is this shitty expensive second rate system that you are grumbling about? The phone bill accounts for about 2% of my budget instead of 7% and the services have improved significantly. The only complaint that I had in reference to my cell phone service was when Hurricane Harvey came through and the local government took control of the cell phone towers for somewhere between 24 and 36 hours because of the emergency conditions. I still had Internet service on my desktop computer other than for about 45 minutes between 4:30 a.m. and 5:30 a.m. when the hurricane came through the area.

When I consider those factors, the fact that I could choose the equipment that I desired, the phone company I desired, and the calling plan I desired, I think that I came out ahead after deregulation.

[karynnj]

20. Without the altruism and huge gains from the basic research done by Bell Labs nt

[MineralMan]

13. Once again, a plan without a real, plausible plan.

The telecom companies were broken up decades ago, only to remerge later. The cable companies have monopolies based on contracts with cities all across the country. They're providing the internet connectivity, too, along with entertainment via TV. A few cities have set up broadband systems, as well, but not mine, so I don't know how those are doing, really.

Wireless broadband will have to be how broadband is provided really. Systems that rely on wire or fiber optic cables already exist, but are owned by the cable companies, for the most part. Taking those by the government would cause a huge uproar and probably would not pass muster in the courts.

Telecom is now all cellular. 5G service is being set up now, in major metro areas, and by whom? Verizon, AT&T and other corporate interests. How will the federal government take over those networks? Again, the process in court will be long and difficult if it is tried.

Duplicating what corporations have already put in place isn't in the cards. Truly, it isn't.

So, Bernie Sanders can propose whatever he wants. Making it happen, on the other hand, isn't so simple and involves legal challenges that will tie it all up for at least a decade. It's a good campaign promise, but i'm not sure it will garner him enough votes to succeed.

[karynnj]

19. Sanders knows it failed in Burlington Vermont - trashing the town's credit rating for years

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Burlington_Telecom

[MineralMan]

23. He doesn't care. It's just a campaign promise, after all.

I know people are going to jump on me for that, but Bernie knows it won't happen. But, he can promise it and get some votes.

[karynnj]

24. This bothers me because there have been serious efforts to get universal broadband

going back at least to the early 2000s - and has been in every Democratic platform. Normally, the path used is similar to the way that telecos contributed to a high cost fund to subsidize connecting people who lived in remote places that otherwise would be uneconomic to connect. The argument was that there was a societal good. The same justification exists for creating hot spots in all populated areas. One problem with using this approach is that the FCC has not consistently backed treating internet like telephony.

I have not followed this for years, so don't know if there are any efforts to create legislation to make this happen. I do know that there were (at least in the Obama years) some funding for it.

[MineralMan]

25. I know it's in the platform, but it hasn't happened. Any of it will require legislation

and we're not doing so well with that these days. Once we have solid majorities in the House and Senate and a Democrat in the White House, some progress might be made. It will still be a tough pull, though, to get funding for such a thing.

The one think I know is that a President can't just speak and make it happen. Legislation will be required, and may well be difficult to get through Congress.

Bernie's making promises he may not be able to keep, even with a Democratic Congress.

[Voltaire2]

32. So none of our candidates should make any proposals that involve this 'legislation' thing?

Or just Sanders?

Curious.

[MineralMan]

34. They should all be careful not to make proposals that

are exceedingly unlikely to succeed in the Congress. That's my opinion.

[Voltaire2]

35. Which according to your previous post appears to be all legislation.

"Any of it will require legislation and we're not doing so well with that these days."

I guess your position has evolved.

[George II]

17. By the way, the internet as we know it was NOT developed by taxpayer-funded research....

...did NOT use taxpayer-funded grants and NOT in taxpayer-funded labs. Our tax dollars did NOT build the internet.

In fact, the origins of the internet "as we know it" began in part in the UK.

[Voltaire2]

28. DARPA: ARPANET 1969

These were the core technologies that became the internet, all developed at BBN under DARPA contracts in Cambridge.*


*Our Cambridge, not theirs.


https://www.darpa.mil/attachments/(2O15)%20Global%20Nav%20-%20About%20Us%20-%20History%20-%20Resources%20-%2050th%20-%20Internet%20(Approved).pdf

[George II]

33. That wasn't "the internet", that was what "became the internet". These are his exact words:

"The internet as we know it was developed by taxpayer-funded research, using taxpayer-funded grants in taxpayer-funded labs"

In fact "the internet as we know it" was developed by many scientists, programmers, and engineers. Tim Berners-Lee actually invented "the World Wide Web", which enabled users to access the backbone of "the internet". He did so while working for Image Computer Systems, Ltd., a computer/communications company in the UK. It's doubtful that they received American taxpayer funds.

This is just an exaggeration that the average voter would take as fact.

[Voltaire2]

36. ARPANET was in fact the prototype for the internet.

The core network protocols used: TCP, UDP, IP, remain the core protocols for the internet. Take it up with Al Gore.

[karynnj]

18. His home town, Burlington Vermont did precisely this -- and it nearly destroyed the city financially

Burlington Telecom, now owned by a larger telecom, started out as a city owned utility. It has great internet - better than Comcast, which we switched from when BT extended their coverage to the New North End. It ended up creating a huge amount of debt that lowered the town's credit rating to near junk bond status.

The current mayor succeeded in digging the town out and one part of it was selling Burlington Telecom.

Overall - in a very liberal town -- the idea had a lot of problems. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Burlington_Telecom

[SaschaHM]

21. Bernie is my 4th to last choice (with the introduction of Bloomberg).

However, I'm glad that he's talking about this regardless of the feasibility of his plans. I'd love to see what the other candidates have to say about Telecom companies and what they plan to do with the mess Ajit Pai is going to leave behind.

[comradebillyboy]

26. Does this plan involve waving a magic wand? nt

[Voltaire2]

31. Amazing responses here. Everyone in america hates their forking cable company, and rightly so.

But heck Bernie proposed actually doing something about it so MUST OPPOSE.

[booley]

37. Thats impossible! Until it isn't

Fact is all the democratic accomplishments over the last 100 years were impossible until we worked on doing them.
"No you can't so don't try." isn't a winning position for a campaign.

[Duppers]

38. A big K & R - Chattanooga Has Its Own Broadband

Chattanooga Has Its Own Broadband—Why Doesn’t Every City?
https://www.thedailybeast.com/chattanooga-has-its-own-broadbandwhy-doesnt-every-city



"But Bernie isn't a Democrat." Bullcrap!! I despise that hatred spewed here - they want to negate anything Bernie advocates.


(Note: The ONLY reason Biden is my choice is because, according to all long-standing polls, Biden has the best chance of defeating this worst president in history. That's my priority.)

[JudyM]

39. This would be great. Exciting concept and based on civic justice.

[myohmy2]

40. +1

...it's people empowering ideas like this that have people loving Bernie...

"Our tax dollars built the internet and access to it should be a public good for all, not another price gouging profit machine for Comcast, AT&T and Verizon."

...where else would we get a capable candidate like Bernie to go to bat for us?

...Bernie is change...

[Uncle Joe]

41. "Bernie Sanders unveils plan to boost broadband access, break up internet and cable titans"

In his sprawling “High-Speed Internet for All” proposal, the Vermont senator and Democratic presidential candidate calls to treat internet like a public utility. His campaign argues that the internet should not be a “price gouging profit machine” for companies such as Comcast, AT&T and Verizon.

Sanders’ plan would create $150 billion in grants and aid for local and state governments to build publicly owned broadband networks as part of the Green New Deal infrastructure initiative. The total would mark a massive increase over current funding for broadband development initiatives. The proposal would also break up what the campaign calls “internet service provider and cable monopolies,” stop service providers from offering content and end what it calls “anticompetitive mergers.”

Sanders and his rivals for the 2020 Democratic presidential nomination have pushed to boost high-speed internet access for rural and low-income Americans, saying it has become a necessity to succeed in school and business. The self-proclaimed democratic socialist has unveiled numerous plans to root out corporate influence as he runs near the top of a jammed primary field.

(snip)

Several of Sanders’ top Democratic competitors have called to pile more money into high-speed internet development. Sen. Elizabeth Warren, D-Mass., and South Bend, Indiana, Mayor Pete Buttigieg released plans to invest at least $80 billion into rural broadband, while former Vice President Joe Biden has proposed putting $20 billion into expanding rural internet access.

(snip)

https://www.cnbc.com/2019/12/06/bernie-sanders-releases-broadband-plan-targets-comcast-att-verizon.html