Slashdot is powered by your submissions, so send in your scoop

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Communications The Internet United States

Bernie Sanders Unveils $150 Billion Plan To Expand High-Speed Internet Access (theverge.com) 275

Posted by msmash from the how-about-that dept.
On Friday, Sen. Bernie Sanders (D-VT) announced a new plan aimed at expanding broadband internet access across the country and dismantling what he referred to as "internet and cable monopolies." From a report: In his sweeping "High-Speed Internet for All" proposal, Sanders calls for broadband to be considered a public utility, much like electricity, and calls access "a basic human right." The plan would provide $150 billion in grants and technical assistance to states and communities for the purpose of building out their own "democratically controlled, co-operative, or open access broadband networks." As part of the new plan, Sanders defines "broadband" as 100 Mbps down and 10 Mbps up, which is significantly higher than the Federal Communications Commission standard of 25 Mbps down and 3 Mbps up. If elected president, Sanders said he would also work to restore net neutrality and ban internet and cable companies from instituting data caps and throttling consumer access to the internet.
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Bernie Sanders Unveils $150 Billion Plan To Expand High-Speed Internet Access More

Bernie Sanders Unveils $150 Billion Plan To Expand High-Speed Internet Access

Comments Filter:

  • We've already given the telcos billions (Score:5, Insightful)

    by drinkypoo ( 153816 ) <drink@hyperlogos.org> on Friday December 06, 2019 @11:55AM (#59491624) Homepage Journal

    And they have spent it on bonuses.

    Unless his plan includes prison time for telecom CEOs who misspend the money, it's a bad plan.

    • Re:We've already given the telcos billions (Score:5, Insightful)

      by mspohr ( 589790 ) on Friday December 06, 2019 @11:58AM (#59491634)

      This money is to go to "states and communities". It will be harder for the telcos to get their hands on it. Not that the scumbags won't try.

      • Re: (Score:2, Interesting)

        by Moblaster ( 521614 )

        Reminds me of the problem with high speed rail. Like high speed rail would have been a great plan 30 years ago. Which was already 30 years behind Japan's high speed rail.

        Nowadays... this broadband-for-all plan is going to be about 7 years behind Elon Musk's Starlink satellite internet buildout.

        Like the next-gen high speed rail is going to be about 15 years behind Elon Musk's Hyperloop by the time it's delivered.

        Some of these ideas are just too much, too late.

        The best thing Bernie could fight Congress to tea

        • Re:We've already given the telcos billions (Score:5, Insightful)

          by cayenne8 ( 626475 ) on Friday December 06, 2019 @12:55PM (#59491916) Homepage Journal
          I'm a bit torn on this.

          I mean, I can see the argument for making internet connectivity akin to a public utility. Although, currently even with those, there are private companies that own and operate utilities (ie Entergy for power in many states), but they are regulated and answerable to local governments.

          However my fear here is unintended consequences and possible govt intervention down the road.

          My thoughts are, if government both federal and local are in charge of the internet, then later down the road, what is to stop them from passing laws that mandate licenses to get on the internet, token authorization access only and no more anonymity at all??

          Sure it is getting more and more restrictive on free speech today with many gatekeepers of main parts of the internet targeting speech they don't agree with and shuttering it, but wait till it has governmental force of LAW behind it.

          If the government owns and runs it, they can surely introduce all sorts of new laws and regulations to "save the children", fight terrorists and otherwise keep the populace safe.

          The internet snuck in under the politicians' collective eyes and the genie got out of the bottle before they could stopper it, it would be a wet dream for governments to be able to get control back, no longer is everyone a "peer" on the internet, but you are only given permission to play and say what they say is acceptable.

          And again, while I can see the argument for making internet access a type of utility...I can NOT see it being called "A Basic Human Right".

          Seriously?

          Sure being hooked up to the internet is very helpful, but a basic "right"? A basic "need"?

          You don't need FB connectivity (or even an account) to live. Food, water and shelter....those are true NEEDS.

          He's making it sounds like this is a RIGHT that the government GIVES it's citizens.

          In the US, at least, this is bass-ackwards.

          In the US, rights do NOT come from the government, you are born with them....it is suppose to be WE the people that give the government entities the limited rights and responsibilities to serve us, not the other way around.

          And finally, let's say all my concerns above are addressed.

          Where is the world is Bernie going to get all this $$$$ to roll this out, in addition to medicare for all, and free college and free.....and free...and free.....all the other stuff he is proposing the US government gives you.

          It has to come from somewhere and even if he were to confiscate 100% all existing wealth of the top 1%....it won't come close to what he's proposing now before this latest addition.

          For God's sake Bernie, please tell us all where this magic money tree is.

          • it is suppose to be WE the people that give the government entities the limited rights and responsibilities to serve us

            A minor quibble - the government has POWERS, which we give them. Only people have RIGHTS.

            • A minor quibble - the government has POWERS, which we give them. Only people have RIGHTS.

              I stand corrected....typing and choking food down on lunch break, I miss things some times.

              ;)

        • "The best thing Bernie could fight Congress to tear down the legal restrictions that cable and telcos are putting up to stop municipalities from doing this stuff anyway."

          But that's what his plan does. Did you not read the link? The plan will:

          Provide $150 billion through the Green New Deal in infrastructure grants and technical assistance for municipalities and/or states to build publicly owned and democratically controlled, co-operative, or open access broadband networks.

          Condition grants on strong labor, wage and sourcing standards to ensure that federal funding goes toward creating good-paying union jobs.

          Ensure all funded projects cannot subcontract work to evade labor law through the Workplace Democracy Plan.

          • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

            by liquid_schwartz ( 530085 )

            Provide $150 billion through the Green New Deal in infrastructure grants and technical assistance for municipalities and/or states to build publicly owned and democratically controlled, co-operative, or open access broadband networks.

            Condition grants on strong labor, wage and sourcing standards to ensure that federal funding goes toward creating good-paying union jobs.

            Ensure all funded projects cannot subcontract work to evade labor law through the Workplace Democracy Plan.

            The problem with all of this is that the $150 billion will have strings attached so that I'm not eligible not being a protected class but my next door neighbor is by virtue of modern day discrimination. The conditional grants will undoubtedly be filled with these carve outs for the favored classes while leaving me out in the cold. The government made a serious mistake getting into the discrimination business and I'll start supporting these policies only when the discrimination stops.

    • Re:We've already given the telcos billions (Score:5, Informative)

      by The_mad_linguist ( 1019680 ) on Friday December 06, 2019 @12:00PM (#59491648)

      From TFA, the plan is to build publically-owned networks, rather than going through the telecoms

      >Provide $150 billion through the Green New Deal in infrastructure grants and technical assistance for municipalities and/or states to build publicly owned and democratically controlled, co-operative, or open access broadband networks.

      > Condition grants on strong labor, wage and sourcing standards to ensure that federal funding goes toward creating good-paying union jobs.

      > Ensure all funded projects cannot subcontract work to evade labor law through the Workplace Democracy Plan.

      > Condition grants on universal service, provisioning minimum speeds, privacy standards and affordability

    • The main part of the plan is simply to take their monopoly away from them and implement municipal broad band. No new money would be going to the telecoms, instead, we'd be eating their lunch.

      • However if we use the Electrical Grid as an example. These Telco will still be getting billions, as they would be outsourced to provide services to these communities. What would be different is that they will be required to reach all the households that want it, and must make sure they are working for the general public interest.
        Power Companies are private institutions. My Area power is actually ran by a British Based company.

        • Re: (Score:2)

          by spun ( 1352 )

          Nah, he has a "no outsourcing to shitty companies" requirement built in. Read the actual plan before commenting, it's not that long.

      • As long as we don't end up with Internet doing things like PG&E in the Bay area, shutting down for a few days at a time because of wind...

    • Re:We've already given the telcos billions (Score:5, Interesting)

      by alvinrod ( 889928 ) on Friday December 06, 2019 @12:16PM (#59491728)
      According to the summary his plan is to replace cable companies with cooperatives. Not that anything prevents the CEO of a cooperative from misspending money or otherwise being a dink, but cooperatives tend to be a lot smaller which would limit the scope of any malfeasance to a few counties.

      Personally I don't mind the idea of municipal networks, but it's something that each municipality should decide on and pay for themselves instead of making tax payers across the rest of the country foot the bill for it all. Further, there's not a lot of difference between a cable company that has a monopoly and a municipal network that has a monopoly outside of the CEO of the cooperative having an office that's a lot easier to pound on the door of if you're unhappy.

      I suspect that the best solution would be for cities or a local cooperative to own the physical network (and there's nothing stopping them from privately contracting to have it built or maintained before people go off complaining about socialism) and then opening it up to competition to as many different service providers as possible. A market without competition is one that tends to produce worse results for consumers. It might even be wise for cities to build the infrastructure to make it easy to add additional cable without needing to do a lot of digging and even offer the ability for private companies to run their own fiber (for a fee of course) if they don't want to use the municipal network.

      • Re: (Score:3)

        by Kjella ( 173770 )

        Personally I don't mind the idea of municipal networks, but it's something that each municipality should decide on and pay for themselves (...) I suspect that the best solution would be for cities or a local cooperative to own the physical network (and there's nothing stopping them from privately contracting to have it built or maintained before people go off complaining about socialism)

        Actually the latter is why I think a larger entity is preferable, by far most of the work should be outsourced and a few counties is often not enough business to get professional contract management. That doesn't mean they should cross-subsidize each other, but maybe the contract to pull fiber should be the same. Bulk purchases of communication equipment. Properly staffed 24/7 network surveillance. Billing routines. Customer support systems. I guess you'll have some very practical differences in the terrain

    • Better, give them the money, make them do it under supervision, and then say "Oi, what about those previous billions?" and then jail them.
  • Way to pick a fight with everybody - billionaires, the medical-industrial complex, big school loan and now cable companies. How's he planning to attack lawyers to get the hat trick?

    You're supposed to hide the club behind your back so the dog isn't alerted that you're going to bash its brains out.

    • Way to pick a fight with everybody - billionaires, the medical-industrial complex, big school loan and now cable companies. How's he planning to attack lawyers to get the hat trick? You're supposed to hide the club behind your back so the dog isn't alerted that you're going to bash its brains out.

      The club behind his back is the voters.

    • Simple you tax them so much money, that the rich don't have enough money to pay for so many lawyers. They will have to advocate their point of view like other citizens do.

    • when you're trying to raise your fist to start a revolution. Bernie's trying to get people under 40 disgusted with the political process, the "Don't Vote" crowd like YouTuber "The Amazing Atheist", to come out and vote. If he succeeds then he wins in a landslide. If he fails he's at least shifted the Overton window. It's win-win.

  • $150 billion, how much is that per mile of fiber ?

    • It costs $7/foot in labor to install the conduits underground in a rural area. add another 50c-$2/foot for permitting and engineering and $1/ft for conduit and fiber and then multiply by road miles in the US and you have your answer on how much is needed.

      (Citation: I own a Competitive Access Provider and do this type of work)

  • Rural electrification act. (Score:5, Insightful)

    by 0100010001010011 ( 652467 ) on Friday December 06, 2019 @12:13PM (#59491710)

    Rural electrification acts 'built' the country that won WWII. Without a federal mandate from the top I doubt that corporations would have found it in their hearts (or profitability) to do it: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org]

    Rural Electric Membership Corporation (REMC)s still exist in a lot of areas and have kept prices down, some have even rolled out fiber as part of their cooperative [jacksonremc.com].

    My grandparents live just outside of Duke Energy's reach in Florida. Their prices have remained near constant for years while Duke's prices have shot up. They even get a check back at the end of the year since they're also 'owners' of the company.

    I wonder how much better California would be right now if there was no profit motive to not maintain lines. Then again, won't someone think of the CEOs making millions.

    Amid Pacific Gas & Electric Co.’s bankruptcy and wildfire safety woes, the utility’s incoming chief executive officer Bill Johnson will receive an annual base salary of $2.5 million for a three-year contract, the company said in a U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission filing on Tuesday.

    Johnson — who’s finishing up a six-year stint as president and CEO of the Knoxville, Tenn.-based public utility Tennessee Valley Authority — will also get a one-time transition payment of $3 million on his first day on the job, as well as an annual equity award of about $3.5 million, the filing said. He’ll start May 1, replacing interim CEO John Simon.

  • Internet is THE thing where competition works best (Score:5, Interesting)

    by Z80a ( 971949 ) on Friday December 06, 2019 @12:13PM (#59491714)

    Here in Brazil, when the whole "broadband" thing started, we only had the telephone operator offering DSL, such as telefonica with Speedy.
    256-512Kbps down (up i think was 128Kbps), and a pretty awful data cap of 100MB for 50 reais or so, with 10 reais being charged for every extra 100MB (and no way to track it), which led many people to have absurd 400+ BRL bills by the end of the month.
    Then a cable TV operator decided to jump in, and offered 512Kbps, no caps for the same price, and not much later telefonica had to drop their data cap to stay competitive.
    And things went on and on and on and now i have a 200Mbps fiber connection with no data caps for 70 reais.
    So i guess the US just need to remove the literal monopoly laws enforced on the cities etc... to have good internet.

    • So i guess the US just need to remove the literal monopoly laws enforced on the cities etc... to have good internet.

      What "literal monopoly laws" are those? Where I live, we have four ISPs we can pick from.

      • That's some pretty anecdotal evidence. I have one service provider in my area that is broadband. My sister has none, though the closest ISP has offered to run her service... For $30k.

      • It's actually illegal for a city to require a monopoly.

        What stops cities from having more than one carrier is the fact that they'd have to build out their own infrastructure. It's simply not profitable in all but the largest cities.

  • I wonder.

    Does classifying broadband as a utility like that have any risk of it being more likely to be charged by usage rather than unlimited?

    As a high data user myself I don't think I would want a charge per usage type of internet service.

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by Sloppy ( 14984 )

      As a high data user myself I don't think I would want a charge per usage type of internet service.

      Why not? Lots of people are "high" data users (thanks, uncacheable streaming video). Do you think your bill would go up, or down? And if it did either one of those two things, are you sure it would be inappropriate or unfair?

      • I think mine would go up as I use about 10TB a month.

        I'm not saying anything about fairness, but for personal preference I would prefer not to go that route.

        Most people vote for or support the things that matter to and affect themselves, not for things that are necessarily the most "fair" to everyone.

    • utility certified meter at your home is really need for that. No more billing for data they tried to send to you

  • .... to be advocating a lot more socialism than what one would otherwise think Americans might be comfortable with?

  • Basic Human Right? (Score:2, Insightful)

    by SeaDuck79 ( 851025 )

    Anything that can be granted by another person can't be a right, because rights by definition are things that cannot (legally) be revoked by man.

    And a service (like internet access) cannot be a right, because it compels other people to supply that "right" to others, against their will. We call that slavery. Thought that one through at all, Bernie?

    • Anything I want can be a right, friend.

      It's a social contract, not some property of the universe.

  • Public utilities are a great way to build out a service, but they become a pain in the long run. They don't have a driving force to keep maintenance and improvements going. Like the issue in Flint Michigan, where the water lines were put in following the standards of the day, but became a major problem when changes were made. 100 Mbps might be good now, but may still be at 100 Mbps 20 years from now, when the need is for 100 Gbps or higher. Monopolies aren't the solution, either. That is the problem we have

  • Look, I'm literally in a building with two 100 Gbps pipes and four 40 Gbps pipes.

    100 Mbps won't cut it.

  • No, Bernie, it's NOT A RIGHT (Score:3, Insightful)

    by ScentCone ( 795499 ) on Friday December 06, 2019 @01:50PM (#59492244)
    Freedom of speech. That's a right. Freedom of assembly. That's a right. Freedom to defend yourself. That's a right. You know, all of those things the constitution protects. "Getting stuff" isn't a right. It's, at best, an entitlement. You don't have a right to make somebody run cable down your country road to your house any more than you have a right to force somebody else to pay a podiatrist to look at your stubbed toe. Can we write laws that say we will tax people and provide those services? Sure. But they're not a right. Why should we consider voting for a guy who's been a freakin' SENATOR for years and can't even manage the most basic vocabulary of Civics 101?

    • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

      by ObliviousGnat ( 6346278 )

      Contrary to the clumsy wording in the synopsis above, Sanders isn't calling Internet access a basic human right. His website [berniesanders.com] says:

      High-speed internet service must be treated as...a basic human right.

      He knows that broadband isn't a basic human right, and that's what he wants to change.

    • "Getting stuff" isn't a right. It's, at best, an entitlement. You don't have a right to make somebody run cable down your country road to your house any more than you have a right to force somebody else to pay a podiatrist to look at your stubbed toe. Can we write laws that say we will tax people and provide those services? Sure. But they're not a right

      Except that the services of a judge, jury, lawyer, and every other service needed for a trial are a Right. And the founders of the nation used the phrase "Right".

      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org]

  • Comment removed (Score:4, Insightful)

    by account_deleted ( 4530225 ) on Friday December 06, 2019 @02:37PM (#59492506)
    Comment removed based on user account deletion

  • How to Fix the Internet (Score:3, Insightful)

    by Jodka ( 520060 ) on Friday December 06, 2019 @02:50PM (#59492574)

    The U.S. has ludicrously high fiber bandwidth at insanely low prices. So why are home internet prices high and speeds low? Because the last mile, that segment of cable between the rest of the internet and your house, is an overpriced small pipe. And why is that? Because states and municipalities are permitted to grant ISP franchises. That is, they create monopolies or duopolies. Even in cases where a region is served by multiple providers, services providers overlap on only a percentage of total area because local governments enable collusion between service providers.

    Let's review: The only part of the internet in the U.S which is overpriced and underserved is the part which government regulates. Regulates by granting monopolies.

    Two simple steps to fixing internet access:

    - Enact a national prohibition on municipal ISP franchising. Mandate that whatever terms a municipality grants to one ISP must be offered to all others.

    - If you think the poor or rural residents need a helping hand, give them vouchers for purchasing internet service. This conditions payment to corporations on providing the most satisfactory service. Do not give the money directly to corporations, because that conditions payments to corporations on paying off congress.

    By the way, Sanders does not give a damn about helping people, he is only indulging his compulsion for power and control. The same way some fat guy walks into McDonalds and can't stop stuffing his face full of Big Macs, Bernie steps into Congress and endlessly votes more powers to himself. Like taking over the internet.

    Why do leftists endlessly expand the jurisdiction of government when that is unnecessary to improve governance? If Sanders were capable of improving management and service using government, he then he would repair any of the numerous existing massive government failures without expanding the jurisdiction of government into new domains.

    - U.S. Post office: $1.3 billion loss [qz.com] first quarter of last year, projected continuous decline.

    - VA: Massive fail [city-journal.org], 307,000 veterans died while waiting for the agency to process their enrollment requests.

    - Federal Debt: $230.00 trillion [forbes.com]. The $20 trillion figure is a lie. The real one is too big to repay. National economic collapse is inevitable.

    Let's have the same federal government which created those disasters take over internet service. What could possibly go wrong?

     

Slashdot Top Deals

Real Programmers think better when playing Adventure or Rogue.

Close