Hillary Clinton Wants Every American To Have Broadband Cable By 2020: Report

[brooklynite]

Newsweek:

Presumptive Democratic presidential nominee Hillary Clinton plans to bring high-speed broadband cable internet to every American household by 2020, according to a leaked campaign document.

Clinton’s "technology and innovation" agenda also involves re-examining encryption and strongly supporting the Federal Communication Commission’s recent decision on net neutrality, according to a leaked 14-page memo obtained by Politico on Monday . The agenda reportedly wades into important issues within Silicon Valley, such as surveillance, patent reform and treatment of Uber drivers.

Clinton has received lukewarm support from SIlicon Valley throughout her campaign. The tech sector has donated a total of $2.7 million to Clinton so far, a paltry amount compared to the $13 million-plus given to Obama during his re-election campaign in 2012.

Clinton’s support for net neutrality, which ensures internet providers allow all websites to be accessed equally, will be welcome news in Silicon Valley. The Democrat-leaning FCC set in 2015 a set of net neutrality rules to treat the internet as a public utility like water or electricity. Over a year later in June 2016, a federal appeals court upheld the FCC regulations , delivering its latest victory for net neutrality advocates.

[Orsino]

1. Sounds kinda good?

I'm not seeing anything about municipal broadband, but mandating more competition is a start.

[SpareribSP]

43. +1

However it's nice to see that she is supporting net neutrality.

[My Good Babushka]

2. Municipally owned broadband! Faster, cheaper. nt.

[Hortensis]

12. This is what I want. Congress legislates and

holds the pocketbook, so I'm not sure what she could do about those states that have passed laws making it illegal for local governments to provide municipal high-speed internet services as a matter of course, but I'm hoping that little trend is dead, dead, dead soon. We really need another liberal or genuine moderate on SCOTUS.

[seabeckind]

33. Supremacy clause.

[Hortensis]

36. Has that been already determined legally to rule in

this case? Ouch if so. So many ways have been found around it when states abuse their citizens. I just assumed that so far the cons and business have been colluding without defniitive opposition from Washington.

[obamanut2012]

51. It's interesting how now some smaller towns have much better/faster/cheaper broadband

Than larger towns and cities, because they run it. Morganton, NC, as an example. Small town near the mountains in quite rural Burke County. A friend lives there, and her broadband cable and internet is so much better and faster than my Xfinity, and soooooo much cheaper. The town owns and runs the cable and internet utilities.

[MyNameGoesHere]

3. Never happen and this is maybe the third

broadband initiative since 2000. The only solution is to wrestle control from greedy providers and have the government treat it like the interstate highways project. Corporations should not be trusted to run or build utilities and critical infrastructure. And yes I consider broadband critical infrastructure.

[Hortensis]

13. Don't understand why "they" can do all this

stuff and we "never" can. Of course we can, and Hillary has a plan.

[seabeckind]

48. I believe there was an attempt a while back

The President’s Executive Order establishing US Ignite came out two-plus years after the FCC introduced the National Broadband Plan (NBP). The goal of the plan is ambitious:

“The United States must lead the world in the number of homes and people with access to affordable, world-class broadband connections. As such, 100 million U.S. homes should have affordable access to actual download speeds of at least 100 Mbps and actual upload speeds of at least 50 Mbps by 2020. This will create the world’s most attractive market for broadband applications, devices and infrastructure.”

...

US Ignite points in the right direction, an effort to build-out the nation’s wireline infrastructure. But his well-intentioned and farsighted effort confronts, head-on, the nation’s telecom giants, the telephone and cable companies led by AT&T, Verizon, throw in Comcast and the other cable companies, who have a very different and self-serving agenda. Working together they are a ‘Communications Trust’, a cartel of companies who have taken control of communications so that they can get rid of regulations, raise rates and block competition.

But the real story is the massive skunkworks campaigns on both the state level, such as what happening in state legislatures, and at the federal level, including the FCC and Congress, to close down all wired services, including the Public Switched Telephone Networks, (PSTN) or DSL service, (which relies on the copper wiring) or even the obligation to provide wireline services in rural areas or where ever they don’t want to serve. At the same time, Verizon and AT&T have been privatizing other parts of the PSTN, such as the advanced services like FiOS or U-Verse, or the profitable business or data services, which use the PSTN wires and plant —- which have been directly funded by phone customers, many times through rate increases for ‘infrastructure’ building.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/bruce-kushnick/broadband-communications-att-verizon_b_1621871.html

[MyNameGoesHere]

55. The US was supposed to be

at least 80% covered in 2000 and and IPv6 was supposed to be implemented in 2003ish. The mandates didnt fund the mandates. And businesses don't care as long as the get their stipend every month from the ignorant public.

[cyberpunk]

4. Maybe I'm not seeing a correllation,

but how can someone who supported a "Manhattan-like project to break encrypted communications" be lauded for supporting Net Neutrality? It's no wonder Silicon Valley's support for her could only be described as "lukewarm"-- they can't see a Clinton administration that doesn't involve more of the FBI demanding that companies break their own encryption for a barely-visible, most of the time not there greater good.

The best thing Clinton could do on this issue is walk back her encryption comments, and show a willingness to respect the tech companies that have understandably pushed back against what could loosely be considered domestic spying; because were I in Apple's position, hell no, I wouldn't be supporting her-- and Tom Wheeler's abrupt obeisance to the will of the customers only happens once in a generation.

[Hortensis]

17. See the black box? See the white box? Imagine

breaking out of the perfectly "them" black box and the perfectly "us" white box to examine thousands of combinations in that wide space between. Many of them are possible doable solutions to get us what we want, with various sets of costs and benefits.

That area in between is actually where everyone who gets anything done in this imperfect world operate. And that's where Hillary operates.

[Vinca]

5. That's nice. Maybe, by 2020, we could also arrange for every American to have food.

[pangaia]

8. Winner Winner Winner

[Squinch]

10. Funny, you never said that in threads about BS's plan for free tuition. Innnnteresting...

[JoePhilly]

15. Bernie's plan included free meals!!!!

Hillary proposes something positive, and the perpetually disgruntled will complain anyway.

[Squinch]

19. Ah! Of course. My mistake.

[Chasstev365]

26. Hillary Offers Free Speechs to Goldman Sacks!

NOT! If you dish out snotty digs at Bernie, just be prepared to take it.

[Her Sister]

53. oooohh you sure gave it back good!

wowzer!

[drray23]

28. one does not exclude the other.nt.

[bluedigger]

6. Four years? That's not even remotely realistic.

About as likely as Mexico building Drumpf a wall. Promise me ponies, not unicorns.

[JoePhilly]

16. You could make lots of progress on this in 4 years.

Trumps stupid wall is not even remotely comparable.

[Maru Kitteh]

20. Too bold you say? Now all of the sudden "incrementalism" is called for?

[Squinch]

29. This is kind of fascinating, isn't it?

[Maru Kitteh]

30. It's a real puzzler, Squinch :-)

[Her Sister]

54. "Can't do"

[pangaia]

7. Great idea, but it will never happen.

[Hortensis]

18. It can and will. Most American households

are already connected. It's a matter of finishing the job.

[pangaia]

21. There is broadband and then there is broadband.

And at what cost? Monopolies make it excessively expensive.

I live in a town of about 15,000 about 30 minutes from a metro area of maybe 500,000.
My download speed is a blazing 5.8 Mb !! And that was after I called and complained 25 times and they 'upgraded' my speed. WHY? No competition.
That's even slower that the average download speed in St Petersburg, Russian when I was there in December !

I was in Korea in May. Average internet speeds -- AVERAGE- is 27Mb.. fastest is about 97 Mb.

In Japan, three years ago 2Gbps was happening. Rar,e but does exist..
When I was there in October, my Wi-fi connections were a gazillion times faster than DSL here.

Same experience in Norway in February.

[Hortensis]

23. I understand. We're in the same boat. One

house has okay broadband service, the other is absolutely terrible. The providers are the kind of mean little people who screw their customers just because they can--they are the only provider to our little sliver of geography. The day we have an alternative (some of my clients can't do satellite for security reasons) we change, even if it costs more.

But Hillary's promise isn't pie in the sky for everyone. For that one needs to find a politician who'll offer that. This promise is that all the households that have no broadband at all now, mostly because private industry didn't see enough profit in it, will be connected. Prosaic, but it's an important, worthy goal for advancing the wellbeing of all Americans, and providing for more genuine equality of opportunity, just that much, and I really like it.

[pangaia]

31. How will she carry through on her promise?

[Hortensis]

37. The usual, I imagine. We don't think private power

companies electrified rural areas out of the goodness of their hearts, do we?

[Backwoodsrider]

9. Obama said same thing 8 years ago

And I still only got dialup or satellite internet to choose from

[Maru Kitteh]

22. Same bucket here, even though a nice fat pipe runs right in front of my house.

It sucks.

I really hope she can get it done.

[Human101948]

11. This is how Internet speed and price in the U.S. compares to the rest of the world

So why are Americans paying more for slower service? The answer: There’s limited competition in the broadband market.

In fact, half of American homes have only two options for Internet service providers for basic broadband, according to the Federal Communications Commission. And for faster speeds, a majority of households have only one choice.

That’s why a handful of cities have chosen to create their own municipal broadband services to compete with private broadband providers: Chattanooga, Tennessee, Bristol, Virginia, Lafayette, Louisiana, Cedar Falls, Iowa, and Wilson, North Carolina.

The municipal broadband services in these cities often provide faster speeds using fiber instead of traditional telephone or cable lines, though not necessarily for cheaper. Other cities have even partnered with Google to roll out high-speed internet.

http://www.pbs.org/newshour/updates/internet-u-s-compare-globally-hint-slower-expensive/

[synergie]

14. I sincerely hope they can make this a priority. Native American areas have been particularly

affected by the lack of such access, as I believe Bill had noted, and it requires attention and a will to actually address these concerns.

In 2016 the lack of internet access is a major issue.

[DemFromPittsburgh]

24. Also too. FREE OVERWATCH.

[NurseJackie]

25. Leaked? (Intentionally?)

[George Eliot]

27. What about competition? Net Neutrality yes.

I'm glad she is making this a priority but at what cost. Currently we have slow monopolized internet service compared to other first world countries. What's she going to do about that?

[pangaia]

32. Comcast/TWC and Verizon are NOT going to give up their guns without a bloody fight.

[seabeckind]

34. Corporations are a piece of paper filed in a gov't office.

It's called eminent domain and can be applied to more than just real property.

The easiest way to start it would be thru anti-trust. Bust them up.

Separate the infrastructure layers from the application layer.

Imagine a true ala carte cable.

[pangaia]

35. You sure know more about it than I do.

If it were up to me, I would just start going out late at night and cutting their cables and wires and tubes and stuff.

[George Eliot]

41. I'm for that. Some times a little personal attention is all you have.

[George Eliot]

39. Pieces of Paper! Yes. Why don't people get that?

We give corporations too much power as if we have no choices. But we do. And reinforcing Sherman Anti-Trust would remake America. But not politician has the courage to do it.

[Urchin]

38. The more high speed internet spreads

The faster all kinds of jobs will disappear.

[George Eliot]

40. There are always new jobs in technology.

If not there, try alternative power. If not there, try rebuilding our infrastructure. If not there, add more teachers and schools. If not there, add more doctors so prices will fall and everyone gets to see a doc.

[Urchin]

56. Who says?

Why should there be?

Please explain why technology always creates more new jobs than it destroys and never destroys more jobs than it creates.

There must be some law of economics that says so. Show me so I'll know you're not just mindlessly parroting what the technocrats have repeated over and over to you for your entire life.

[redixdoragon]

44. Priorities

It's true that the interenet is a thing that modern people do need to help remain mobile in modern society, but there's a heirarchy of needs here.

Food, shelter, health care.

But instead of those things, we'll all have internet by 2020, so, we can get online and complain about being hungry, sick, homeless.

[BainsBane]

45. I agree with your priorities

but broadband is one way in which we lag behind Europe, for example. I would think better internet infrastructure would have widespread benefits.

[cherokeeprogressive]

46. I'd rather they had an affordable education and healthcare first.

[Locrian]

47. specifics and stronger words

Lesson learned from Obama and others: parse their words and make sure there are specific actions and not just "like", "support", "encourage", etc.

[seabeckind]

49. The question isn't "should we" but "how will we"

Of course we should. Anyone who disagrees doesn't know the history of electricity in this country and what it did for our economy and way of life.

But, as I posted above and in a different thread, the devil is in the details. In order to accomplish this vision, we must break the stranglehold corporations have over our infrastructure (yes, broadband is infrastructure). Those corporations make all their profit on the current system. When they look at all of us using something other than their velvet chains, they will fight it.

President Obama promised this same thing and then bumped up against the corporations. Those same corporations that were handed the keys to the gov't by Reagan. Ironic that Reagan broke up AT&T.

Repeated from above:

The President’s Executive Order establishing US Ignite came out two-plus years after the FCC introduced the National Broadband Plan (NBP). The goal of the plan is ambitious:

“The United States must lead the world in the number of homes and people with access to affordable, world-class broadband connections. As such, 100 million U.S. homes should have affordable access to actual download speeds of at least 100 Mbps and actual upload speeds of at least 50 Mbps by 2020. This will create the world’s most attractive market for broadband applications, devices and infrastructure.”

...

US Ignite points in the right direction, an effort to build-out the nation’s wireline infrastructure. But his well-intentioned and farsighted effort confronts, head-on, the nation’s telecom giants, the telephone and cable companies led by AT&T, Verizon, throw in Comcast and the other cable companies, who have a very different and self-serving agenda. Working together they are a ‘Communications Trust’, a cartel of companies who have taken control of communications so that they can get rid of regulations, raise rates and block competition.

But the real story is the massive skunkworks campaigns on both the state level, such as what happening in state legislatures, and at the federal level, including the FCC and Congress, to close down all wired services, including the Public Switched Telephone Networks, (PSTN) or DSL service, (which relies on the copper wiring) or even the obligation to provide wireline services in rural areas or where ever they don’t want to serve. At the same time, Verizon and AT&T have been privatizing other parts of the PSTN, such as the advanced services like FiOS or U-Verse, or the profitable business or data services, which use the PSTN wires and plant —- which have been directly funded by phone customers, many times through rate increases for ‘infrastructure’ building.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/bruce-kushnick/broadband-communications-att-verizon_b_1621871.html

[seabeckind]

50. Addendum. Comcast is bigger now.

They gobbled a couple other companies.

[cosmicone]

52. A promise that is realistic and deliverable

k&r