15 ms·
Sanders unveils plan to boost broadband access, break internet and cable titans
- jandrese 7y agoIt's like he's trying to get no airtime at all on the networks owned by said cable titans.
- kevingadd 7y agoGiven how the media historically treats left-leaning candidates and politicians, it's not necessarily a good idea to try and avoid ideas they dislike
- chadmeister 7y agoFinally! Why is he the only candidate willing to talk about this? Bring back net neutrality while you're at it!
- czinck 7y agohttps://elizabethwarren.com/plans/invest-rural https://elizabethwarren.com/plans/invest-rural "A Public Option for Broadband", from August. I feel like this could be a meme. Maybe Warren should release a plan for rewriting all C/C++ code in Rust.
- blg9 7y ago"bring back"? honest question: where are you seeing that net neutrality is missing today?
- deleted 7y ago[deleted]
- shkkmo 7y agoLegally protected status? The current removal of that legal protection is currently being fought in courts, once that gets cleared expect the minor violations that we have now to be expanded rapidly.
- uptown 7y ago"Bring back net neutrality while you're at it!" Washington State did: https://www.fastcompany.com/40537222/washington-just-passed-the-countrys-toughest-net-neutrality-legislation https://www.fastcompany.com/40537222/washington-just-passed-...
- noelsusman 7y agoMost of this is standard Democratic boilerplate. It's how they have been trying to appeal to rural voters for at least the last decade. Obama ran on roughly the same plan in 2008. So did Hillary in 2016. Obama even brought it up during his debates with McCain. Without Congress on board there's only so much you can do. Obama made some regulatory changes and shuffled some money around to get at this problem, but without a big pile of new money from Congress it's not going to do much.
- pg_is_a_butt 7y agoSo I can call him to fix the lines after a storm?
- deweller 7y agoI don't know much about Bernie Sanders. Where does he propose to get the funding for projects like this?
- akhilcacharya 7y agoRealistically it would be deficit spending, something I don't have an issue with.
- black_puppydog 7y agocough progressive income tax cough seriously though. over the last few decades, economies around the globe have taken tax load off the bigger shoulders, and now the argument against any progressive agenda is "how would you ever finance this?" Not that it's a generally bad question to ask, but I find it quite remarkable how deeply ingrained the notion is that you can't simply raise funds as a government, and how much that limits the (perceived, and by extension practical) agency of a government and "the people".
- JasonFruit 7y agoI find it quite remarkable how deeply ingrained the notion is that limiting the agency of government limits "the people". Government isn't the only way people can get things done, and I think we should be resentful (and suspicious) of the argument that to fund and accomplish large tasks, we need to hold a gun to the heads of the people. Are we really so incapable of cooperation that we need tax men, followed by armed police, to ensure that businesses serve the customers who pay them? Just like Sears & Roebuck and Wells Fargo worked to bring good things from the cities to rural America, this situation could be resolved by private enterprise. I believe we would be farther along without government attempts to regulate the industry that have impeded its progress.
- tracer4201 7y agoThe problem with government is accountability. The government apparatus can make all kinds of promises, meanwhile, the citizens are too busy blaming each other - getting into partisan games - while the incompetent people just keep getting re elected without making progress. Exhibit A: Congress. A lot of folks who prefer this seem to believe that the government will make progress on its promises that it won’t just waste away tax payer money. The problem with private enterprise is accountability too - they generally are accountable to someone, but that someone typically happens to be shareholders who truthfully don’t give a damn about much other than maximizing their returns. A lot of folks who blindly prefer this route are either the ones who have the most to gain (because they already have capital) or folks who just don’t understand the incentive structure. Saying one side is always inherently better than the other is short sighted and more of a tribal belief in my opinion. I don’t want FB to have my data and would prefer the government break up internet monopolies. I’m also not saying I want to live under Hugo Chavez. Unfortunately, at least in America, we love to go towards extremes. The civic discourse is lacking.
- rayiner 7y agohttps://www.snl.com/articles/398790780.png https://www.snl.com/articles/398790780.png (showing US at 15, ahead of Canada, Germany, France, Italy, and the UK). Our subway and water systems are “public utilities” supporting “good paying union jobs.” How many of them would rank in the top 10-15 in the world? (Note that no country in the top 10 treats broadband like a publicly owned utility.) Moreover, the median age of municipal election voters is 57. What trade offs are they going to want to make in balancing rates versus maintenance and upgrades? (There is a reason that our water infrastructure, for example, is facing a one trillion investment shortfall.) Sanders proposes to spend $150 billion on broadband. Over what time frame? If it’s the typical 10-year time frame candidates have been using for budget proposals, that’s just about 1/5 of what the private sector is investing in broadband annually. Public broadband is going to be an $80 billion a year commitment just for capital expenditures. If you demand those be tied to “good paying union jobs” be ready to make it $120 billion or more. Add in operational expenditures, be ready to triple that. Telecom is a huge sector. Even if you subtract the profits, you’re talking several hundred billion of dollars annually. That’s half the size of the military budget.
- thatfrenchguy 7y agoYour first link is misleading, as it just indicates that part of the US is using cable where most european countries use DSL + fiber. > How many of them would rank in the top 10-15 in the world? Anything would be better than Comcast, seriously.
- rayiner 7y agoIt’s not misleading. The US broadly adopted cable because the market was mostly deregulated. Europe tends to lag on these measures because it’s more top-down regulated markets tried to evolve the existing phone network with DSL. So the few places that have fiber have great speeds, while everyone else is stuck with DSL. The US has an entire additional infrastructure that offers much faster speeds than DSL. Countries like France and Spain are now rolling out fiber, but the US has enjoyed a huge advantage in speeds for most of the 21st century because of cable.
- DanTheManPR 7y agoThe inequality in access to service around the US is stark. I'm currently living in a suburb of a large city, and have some of the most awesome internet I've ever had (I can finally host my minecraft server from home!). My parents living an hour away in a small town pay more for service that can't reliably stream video... but pay slightly more than I do. It's one of the thousands of small cuts that are killing rural areas.
- luma 7y agoI hear this argument framed so many ways, but to me it always comes down to the simple fact: if you put distance between yourself and the rest of civilization, don’t be surprised when you don’t reap the same benefits from that civilization.
- Miner49er 7y agoSomeone has to do it. The people in "civilization" (as you put it) need food, minerals, etc. The people in rural areas are the one's supplying it. They're the farmers, ranchers, miners, etc.
- vinay427 7y agoTo be fair, they already get significant subsidies and various preferential tax arrangements to compensate for this, at least in the US and many other western countries.
- toomuchtodo 7y agoThis is not how one should look at utilities to be delivered to all citizens. It's cheaper to run internet infra in the suburbs and rural areas due to lower per mile buildout costs (have you ever been in a vault under a major downtown core roadway pulling fiber during the day?), this is just a matter of having the fortitude to put good public policy to work (monetary policy, construction jobs). Clean water, sewer, electric, internet, and USPS logistics service are table stakes (in the US). It's silly to make this out to be "Live in the suburbs or rural areas? Mad Max for you!". Counterpoint: How's that cheap, high speed Gb FTTH internet working out for you in downtown NYC or SF? /s
- mrosett 7y agoIf there's anything we can all get behind, it's the idea of the government controlling everyone's access to the internet.
- falcolas 7y agoYes, a company like Google should do it instead, so they can also kick you off your internet when your account with them is terminated for some opaque reason. /s
- TheRealSteel 7y agoThey will already censor or intercept anything they can if they want to, whether it's public or private infrastructure. Why not treat internet like other utilities and install fibre everywhere, with your choice of ISP? This was working well in Australia, until the Coalition ruined it. I'd still rather it in the hands of government than a monopoly corporation.
- koboll 7y agoIf multiple companies are competing, I'd much rather get services from the market rather than the government, because I can vote with my wallet, and companies respond to that. But if I must use a single monopoly company that provides a service, I'd much rather get services from the government, because at least I have some semblance of a vote in the form of my actual vote. With a single corporate provider of a utility, I have no say at all.
- apacheCamel 7y ago> With a single corporate provider of a utility, I have no say at all. Which is honestly the case in couple instances in my life. I have moved around the US NE quite a bit and multiple places I have lived only offer Verizon or Comcast but only one or the other. The current place I am in is Verizon which is fantastic because dealing with Comcast has always been a massive time sink and emotional/mental strain but I still have no choice in who provides me service.
- buckminster 7y ago
- datashow 7y ago> The plan would also require service providers to offer a “basic” broadband plan at an “affordable price.” This really connects to socialism. China used to have "Price Bureau" (物价局). It sounds like Sanders is calling for one in the U.S. Also, if "affordable price" policy is needed for internet, why not needed for more basic stuff like food and medicine? Maybe food is too expensive for the poor because there is no Price Examination Department (物价检查所) to check price in grocery stores?
- minikites 7y ago>Also, if "affordable price" policy is needed for internet, why not needed for more basic stuff like food and medicine? It is and Medicare for All is a popular policy proposal.
- cannonedhamster 7y agoFood in the US is regularly subsidized, especially meat. It's how we compete unfairly with the rest of the world. ISPs already receive massive subsidies to have laid fiber they decided not to lay. They kept the money though. The US pays more for healthcare and receives poorer results on average than anywhere else in the world. Pretty sure you're unfamiliar with the differences between socialism and communism. The US is a heavily socialist state with massive corporate welfare plans. Instead of spending our money on taking care of our people we take care of the wealthy.
- datashow 7y agoSubsidy is not price control.
- exabrial 7y agoNo thank you, Mr Sanders. We don't need you or your policies that have failed hundreds of times elsewhere.
- defterGoose 7y agoneeds citation
- thetruthwillout 7y ago* crylaughs in Russian, Chinese, Venezuelan Spanish, Cuban Spanish, North Korean, and Cambodian
- exabrial 7y agohttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mass_killings_under_communist_regimes https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mass_killings_under_communist_...
- mrep 7y agoFor rural areas, with all of the low earth orbit internet constellations being proposed, I'd rather wait to see how they end up doing rather than massively investing in laying down a ton of fiber at enormous costs especially when spacex has already demonstrated speeds of 610 megabits per-second to a flying airplane [0] and their expected cost is $10 billion [1] which is 1/15th of the $150 billion dollar plan Bernie is proposing. [0]: https://www.reuters.com/article/us-spacex-starlink-airforce/musks-satellite-project-testing-encrypted-internet-with-military-planes-idUSKBN1X12KM https://www.reuters.com/article/us-spacex-starlink-airforce/... [1]: https://www.nasaspaceflight.com/2018/05/block-5-spacex-increase-launch-cadence-lower-prices/ https://www.nasaspaceflight.com/2018/05/block-5-spacex-incre...
- qaq 7y agoWhy wait for market to solve when you can give that job to the government?
- archie2 7y agoBecause the government is absolutely terrible at everything it does except for dropping bombs on civilians in the middle east...
- hwillis 7y agoThe USPS is fantastically more efficient than private mail. The entire insurance industry relies on Medicare to even begin negotiating prices. Even Amtrak, for all its faults, is far better at providing service than private trains. In other countries, where foolish attempts to involve predatory private industry or outright hamstring government programs, state-owned enterprise is even better. Healthcare, trains, power- all drastically outcompete private industry. Not to mention the fact that in-house military hardware is years ahead of industry stuff. There is nothing that makes governments less efficient than private industry. At every level, people are getting paid based on the job they do. People are fired if they are a waste. The only argument of perverse incentives that makes any sense is that the things governments do are not necessarily needed, not that they aren't done well. The idea that the government doesn't operate well is a complete myth.
- ecolonsmak 7y agoUse the same guiding spirit as the rural electrification project of the 1930's to get this done. Bringing symmetrical broadband service to every address in the US is just as important as electrifying the countryside was back then.
- deleted 7y ago[deleted]
- derg 7y agoCorrect. The internet is a requirement for modern life and should be treated as an important utility.
- 3fe9a03ccd14ca5 7y agoBroadband rollout costs suffer horribly with 80/20 rule, with rolling out broadband to the last 5% being extremely expensive. I’d like to see something like fiber to 80% of the country, and then alternatives (like low-attitude satellite internet) for the last 20%. Give companies huge tax breaks if they’re doing this work.
- iron0013 7y agoWe tried tax breaks--hell, we even tried simply giving companies like comcast billions to do the job. Instead they just took the money and didn't do anything. If we the people want something done, we have to do it ourselves.
- 3fe9a03ccd14ca5 7y agoGiving contracts and giving tax breaks are very different things.
- pwinnski 7y agoWe've done this once or twice already, with electricity and telephone service, and that followed the same economic pattern. No need to reinvent a process that worked well the first time around.
- partiallypro 7y agoMy parents have no access to high speed internet, except over 4G. Which I find unacceptable. Even DSL would be fine...but ISPs have discontinued that and are expanding fiber. So that basically adds maybe 5-10 more years before they'd ever get it? I generally don't agree with Bernie's whole premise here, but I do think he has the right idea. We should up high speed requirements, but also OTA should not count. The reason wireless (5G, 4G, Satellite) shouldn't count is...well the data caps are so limiting that you can't possibly do anything with the service. Or the equipment and setup is so expensive you'd have to be a company to afford it. I don't agree that high speed is a "human right," I really think such statements add nothing of value and make such proposals easy to mock. The argument should simply be to treat high speed land lines as a public utility and requirement, like electricity.
- cortesoft 7y agoInstead of saying OTA doesn't count, why don't you just set the requirements as both speed and data cap requirements? So that an OTA solution that has high enough speed and high enough data caps would count. I don't think encoding a current limitation into law is a good idea. If they can provide a wireless internet that meets the requirements, that is good enough for me.
- lotsofpulp 7y agoI’d add a latency maximum too, which would be low enough to disqualify wireless connections. A fiber circuit to each home is the minimum I would accept.
- jakemal 7y agoWhile I agree access to the wealth of information on the internet should be a right, I don't think it's necessary to require every household to have gaming level latency. OTA latency is generally good enough for doing what really matters on the internet.
- lotsofpulp 7y ago
- jacquesm 7y agoMusk will do this, Sanders can talk about it but will still need years to implement it. Free for him to suggest he will be able to do this but the problem has more chance of being solved at the technical level than the political one. 2020 will be the year for Starlink, if it really works as advertised by the time Sanders could be elected this will be a reality (or a dud). https://www.space.com/spacex-starlink-satellite-internet-service-2020.html https://www.space.com/spacex-starlink-satellite-internet-ser...
- zrail 7y agoStarlink or TMobile ISP is a prerequiste for building a house where we want to build. Hopefully nobody buys the lot before we do!
- criley2 7y agoEvery business or municipality which has tried to go against the corrupt titans and their legion of lobbyists and bought-and-paid for congresspeople have failed at this. Musk may have the technical ability here, but he does not possess the political ability. Inversely, Bernie wants to get the political ability, but will not have the technical ability. Just because Musk has starlink doesn't mean Congress won't pass a law that cleverly neuters his project in the United States to ensure that established monopolies and duopolies aren't hurt. It doesn't mean that former employees of broadband companies who fully control the regulators won't intervene on behalf of their former (and future) employer. It's not as simple as flick a switch and turn it on, these services are heavily regulated and as we see with the current american government, it's very easy for corporations like Comcast to get former high level employees like Ajit Pai put into charge of the entire regulatory scheme, with vast power to protect established corporate interests and destroy all competition be it business or local government. I would go so far as to say that if Donald Trump is re-elected and the regulatory capture of the FCC continues, Musk is doomed to failure. Comcast, Verizon et al has pwned the FCC, and currently the federal broadband regulators exist as a tool to protect corporate interests.
- jon_richards 7y agoWhere are you seeing 500ms latency? The whole point of starlink is to be in low earth orbit, where latency is in the low tens.
- sol_remmy2 7y agoThis is going to create a public internet free for everyone to use. But will hate speech be banned from this public-option internet? Sanders is going to spend 150b on this...I don't want Russian hackers and Neo Nazis benefit from the public's money
- archie2 7y agoThe constitution does not give the government the power to appropriate funds for infrastructure. But hey, that never stopped power hungry megalonmaniacs from wasting tax payer dollars.
- youdontknowtho 7y agoSpecifically mentions the post office. I've always thought that they (the USPS) have a constitutional mandate to handle interstate communication.
- archie2 7y agoNo. The Supreme Court has ruled that the postal clause applies narrowly only to the post office.
- LarryDarrell 7y agoThe Constitution literally has a Postal Clause for the expressed purpose of creating interstate communication through "Postal Roads". Despite their small-government bona-fides, a reliable communication network was something so important they thought fit to put it right in there from the very beginning.
- archie2 7y agoThe Supreme Court has ruled that the postal clause is applies only to the post office.
- LarryDarrell 7y agoSo we'll just have the Post Office run a national ISP then.
- archie2 7y agoThe constitution ONLY enumerates the power to the federal government to establish post offices and post roads. Period. Thomas Jefferson didn't even want a postal clause in the constitution to begin with because he thought it would be a massive waste of money. Spoiler: he was right. If Bernie Sanders wants to make such a vast proposal he should do it the legal way and propose a constitutional amendment. Of course, he knows that will never happen so he'll just unconstitutionally let congress force it through if he wants. Of course, it's all talk now because he's not the president. If people want government high speed internet so bad they should be lobbying their STATE government because that is where the power in the constitution lies.
- tribeofone 7y agoSanders can't even get good internet or phone connectivity in his own State. He's accomplished little to nothing in Vermont and has pretty much been MIA for the last 6 years. Thinking that he can get anything done at a National scale (let alone International scale) is a joke.
- hwillis 7y agoHe's a senator, not a governor or state congressperson. Literally his job is to accomplish things at the national level, not the state level.
- archie2 7y agoName one substantive piece of legislation that passed that was written by him during his entire time in the senate. I'll wait.
- multibit 7y agoAre you implying another candidate has written major legislation that passed?? Or are you just singling out Sanders?
- archie2 7y agoYou'd think someone that has been in the senate for 30 years would have SOME kind of accomplishment...?
- hwillis 7y agoMajor bills are dictated by party leaders and administrations, very rarely by normal senators and congresspeople. He's been in the senate since 2007, 13 years. Before that he was a congressman for 16 years. He was an independent except for 2015-2016. Surprise surprise, that makes it hard to get things passed in a two party system. His votes matter. And he still has authored almost twice as many enacted bills as Obama.
- LarryDarrell 7y agoI would think the Postal Clause in the Constitution would provide enough authority to the Post Office to create and run an ISP.
- deleted 7y ago[deleted]
- _davebennett 7y agoWow so interesting comparing the comments in this thread vs Reddit. I guess since the HN audience is generally older, they tend to have a more conservative take on this than myself and my peers.
- EpicEng 7y agoBeing older doesn't make you right, but it does tend to impart some wisdom. Most importantly, an appreciation of nuance. I can't take part in reddit threads because the overwhelming majority sees every issue as black and white, right or wrong. There's little room for real debate. Currently, these are the top five comments: https://www.reddit.com/r/politics/comments/e710oj/sanders_calls_to_break_up_comcast_verizon/ https://www.reddit.com/r/politics/comments/e710oj/sanders_ca... >Break up comcast? Clearly bernie is a man for and of the people. >Finally! It's long overdue. These monopolies need to end so people can have affordable internet access. >Every day there’s more great news from him. >And now you know why MSNBC hates Bernie. I really enjoy the network but even I'll admit their Comcast connections get in the way of their ability to actually cover politics in a fair light. >Fuccckkk comcast And it continues like that for quite a few more. No substance, just empty rage against 'The Man'. Disagree on any bit of it and prepare to be personally attacked and downvoted into obscurity.
- joshypants 7y agoThe discourse on the orange website, as it's known in other places on the internet, can be similarly bad. It depends on the topic.
- lotsofpulp 7y agoWhy do you think removing the monopoly of private companies such as Comcast is not “substance”? Search an address anywhere in America, go to the ISPs website, and see what the options are. I’d bet money that the vast majority are restricted to one ISP, one will be via coax which is limited to 5mbps upload for the whole neighborhood. The other is the phone company offering DSL (doesn’t count as broadband internet). The only solution to providing high bandwidth, low latency, symmetric internet is by running fiber wires everywhere. The private company owning the monopoly (Comcast for most) has no reason to do that, and can simply charge whatever they want (as long as it’s not too much to cause sufficient outrage to cause political change). They don’t need to improve their product, which the only way would be to run fiber wires to all the houses, but they can just collect rent from everyone who has no option.
- KoftaBob 7y agoBetween the entry of the big mobile carriers into home internet with 4g/5g, and new lower latency satellite internet providers like Starlink, the landscape is about to become dramatically more competitive. 4G coverage in rural areas varies widely, but satellite internet is everywhere, and the existing ISPs will have to improve if they want to keep those customers. You'll theoretically have a smaller town go from having 1 traditional ISP to having that plus Verizon, ATT, Tmobile/Sprint, Starlink, and any other sat providers. That's a 5x increase of options.
- arminiusreturns 7y agoI wish the candidates would stop talking about legislative agendas as much as they do and focus on the things actually in the purview of the office they seek. I know almost all of them are in the legislative branch, but I'm tired of hearing about legislative promises they won't be able to deliver on! The reality is that K-street and the oligarchs write the laws, congresspeople don't even read the bills, maybe key staffer or two who the K-street firm promised a job later who did the actual legwork on the bill has read some of it, and then the congressperson votes along all kinds of machiavellian and other power lines that have nothing to do with "is the bill good or not". Until America fixes congress, plans like this will get railroaded via riders and rewrites regardless of the merit of the original proposed bill. At least it mentions the glut of monopolistic mergers and aquisitions, but I want more than "we will fight it". Tell us how you intend to actually use the DOJ to go after white-collar and anti-trust crimes! Bernie couldn't and doesn't even stand up to his own party as is evidenced by it's corruption in the 2016 election. What makes anyone think he can stand up against the oligarchs?
- bluecalm 7y agoI think this is what left/social leaning politicians should focus on. "Rich people bad" rhetoric of which Sanders is guilty as well gets old fast. Instead why not say: it shouldn't be possible to get rich by exploiting a monopoly or a resource that belongs to everyone (like natural resources). Focus on regulating away ways to get wealth by what many people from all sides of political spectrum consider unfair and your will get traction. Focus on "tax the guy 70% because he makes a lot of money" and you will be forever economically illiterate old man raging at the sky.
- randyrand 7y agoIsn't broadband effectively defined as above the slowest 10% of internet users? Or rather, it gets redefined every few years so that it is effectively that.
- vzidex 7y agoOK boomer
- RickJWagner 7y agoI live in a rural area, so I'm all for it. But if I lived in a metro area, I wouldn't like the idea of paying taxes so somebody out in the sticks gets high-speed internet. I'll feel a little guilty if something like this comes to pass. But I bet it'll pass quickly. :)
- mrandish 7y agoRegulation can be necessary for some industries and contexts but, generally speaking, broadband is one market that will benefit consumers more with less government restriction. The issues we currently have with so many areas having only one or two providers are a legacy hangover from earlier federal regulation of phone companies and broadcasters along with municipal intervention where cities granted an exclusive franchise to only one cable co. With disruptive new delivery systems from balloons and drones to LEO satellite constellations about to come online, now is not the time to be mandating pricing or offerings.