Warren: Here's how we get broadband Internet to rural America

[bluewater]

By Elizabeth Warren August 27 at 1:06 PM

The Federal Communications Commission reports that a staggering 21.3 million Americans don’t have access to high-speed broadband — no doubt an underestimate given the notorious loopholes in FCC reporting requirements. This is despite more than a decade of efforts by policymakers at the state and federal level to end the “digital divide” and deliver universal access to high-speed Internet.
This isn’t an accident. Blame Internet service providers (ISPs), such as Verizon, Comcast, AT&T and Charter, which have maximized their profits at the expense of rural towns, cities, low-income communities and communities of color across the country.

These companies have deliberately restricted competition, kept prices high and used their armies of lobbyists to persuade state legislatures to ban towns and cities from building their own public networks. Meanwhile, the federal government has shoveled more than a billion in taxpayer dollars per year to private ISPs to expand broadband to remote areas, but these providers have done the bare minimum with these resources.

ISPs have been able to get away with fostering pseudo-monopolies because they spend a lot of money to keep the regulatory environment and the conversation surrounding it murky. FCC Chairman Ajit Pai, a former Verizon lawyer, has been an effective agent for ISPs. He led the charge to dismantle net neutrality last year, and he has done everything in his power to stop municipalities from building their own broadband infrastructure. He also attempted to gut the FCC’s Lifeline program, one of the few tools the federal government has to provide Internet to low-income consumers. While the profit motives of ISPs have disproportionately harmed rural and low-income communities, urban and higher-income consumers have been adversely impacted, too.
[snip]

Enough is enough. As president, I would work to ensure every home in the United States has an affordable, broadband connection. I have a plan for a new public option for broadband Internet, carried out by a new Office of Broadband Access that would manage an $85 billion federal grant program. Only electricity and telephone cooperatives, nonprofit organizations, tribes, cities, counties and other state subdivisions would be eligible for grants.


https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/elizabeth-warren-heres-how-we-get-broadband-internet-to-rural-america/2019/08/27/adc63c4e-c5c8-11e9-9986-1fb3e4397be4_story.html

[procon]

1. This is long overdue.

Rural towns like mine pay high prices for dismal service. It's almost impossible to watch a movie because it stops and buffers every few minutes, or the internet connection just drop off.

Many smaller and more remote communities, isolated ranches have no access to the internet

[riverine]

2. Dropping expensive wires/fiber into 50 million isolated homes isn't the answer.

4G LTE provides 30-50 Mbps right now - no buffering.

Wireless is the solution.

[madville]

8. Yep

I just use my Verizon Unlimited phone hotspot at the house, $67 a month for the whole package.

[Hoyt]

3. Add that to healthcare, childcare, free colleges, etc., that her wealth tax

is going to cover, at the same time she shuns global trade in her “Economic Patriotism” program.

BTW: Decent internet, healthcare, etc., are all things we need. Just be honest how it gets paid for. Personally, I’m fine with higher taxes, just don’t promise me stuff that can’t be delivered without paying more.

[Blue_true]

4. The internet would be a one-time allocation, unlike childcare and the others.

So, it seems doable with the income stream she envisions.

Economic patriotism is a decent idea, if she promotes local startups and businesses and don't allow big business to hijack the program.

[Hoyt]

7. Economic Patriotism is what got us trump. She, like Sanders, is for tariffs, reneging on trade

agreements to detriment of poor foreign countries, screw Mexico and South America if it helps Americans, etc. In fact, a lot of what got us trump is because of her criticism of Obama's trade policies.

Her wealth tax won't even cover healthcare, childcare, jobs training, college debt relief, free college, deficit reduction, debt reduction, infrastructure, etc., much less the internet in rural areas.

Sorry, she's promising all this great stuff with no pain, just gains (for everyone in America, but the hell with other people living on this planet). Not my thing.

[Blue_true]

9. We are already spending $1 billion per year on broadband for rural and poor areas.

and not much is coming from those expenditures. Just getting accountability will go a long way without spending one more cent. So I believe that she can do a lot with current spending and ethical focus. The money is already being spent, so it seems little extra would be needed.

My guess is this. A good politician is going to over-promise, that comes with the territory. Senator Warren is smart and well versed in arcane financial matters, she likely can count the cost of her proposals a lot better than you or I can. I have faith that she knows what she is doing and has a reasonable endgame that ties up the loose ends. You don't have that faith, so be it, different people often view the same set of data differently, so be it.

[Hoyt]

12. I lost faith with her fundamental misunderstanding of the importance of trade agreements and

her unjustified criticism of Obama that helped give us trump. “Economic Patriotism” is the same junk that some call Nationalism or America First, perhaps with a little less xenophobia, but same result.

[Blue_true]

13. Maybe I missed something. But I have not heard Senator Warren say that

some of what President Obama did gave us Trump. Trump was elected due to religious zealotry, racial hatred and vague promises that he made about his business acumen. The fact that the Russians interfered, along with a absolute stupidity by some on the left fringe helped Trump.

Senator Warren was a critic of how the TPP was being negotiated (behind closed doors with no input from Congress), but not the agreement itself because she stated that she did not know what was in it. I favored the TPP, but wish that Labor had been involved in negotiations and that senior members of Congress be given periodic updates on the progress of negotiations.

You and I have markedly different views on what Senator Warren means by economic nationalism.

On my view economic nationalism doesn't involve tariffs at all. Let's say that you own a large business that sells shirts and you are doing well. Say that I own a small shirt making company here in the USA. Say that you like my shirt designs and would like to offer them, but my unit prices are too high for you to make the profit you desire. You have two choices. You can just copy my designs as best possible and then outsource shirtmaking to a low wage country. Or you can say "that little company is employing all Americans and need a little money to get it's production up and it's unit prices down. My company is doing well and has plenty of free cash, I will take a small amount of that and invest in that guy's little company, with constraints that protect my company and helps his company become a sound supplier". The first choice is what is routinely happening now, the second choice is making an economic decision that helps a small USA company, with the assurance that your own company will be helped and grow. The second example is how I view Senators Warren's talk of economic nationalism, it is when a business that has the excess resources, looks at helping smaller USA companies that need more resources instead of grabbing for every penny of immediate profit. The second example does not involve one second of tariffs.

[theaocp]

14. Thanks! n/t

[Hoyt]

15. You don't negotiate that kind of agreement in public. Europe doesn't do it, nor Japan,

nor anyone else.

Plus, Warren kept saying the agreement would be kept secret. I’ll assume that was her misunderstanding of the law requiring release and months of public discussion, rather than lying about it.

In any event, that gave trump cover when he ran on reneging on agreements, treating Hispanics as scabs, tariffs, criticizing Obama and Clinton, etc.

I’ll vote for her if she’s nominee, but I hope voters don’t fall for her brand of America First.

[Blue_true]

16. She did not call for the negotiations to be public.

Having Labor at the table as a negotiator can be kept out of the public eye, same with briefing senior members of Congress, like Pelosi, Harry Reed.

[Hoyt]

17. She said the agreement would not become public until 5 years after approval. Wrong and

shows her fundamental misunderstanding of the TPP and darn near every other agreement for 40 years. I want someone with more experience than that, or at least willing to have experts set her straight.

She hurt Obama and Clinton by spouting that junk. Sanders and his supporters did too.

[Blue_true]

18. I really hate to ask for links because I see that request misused.

I don't remember her making the statement about five years, do you have a link where she said it?

[Hoyt]

19. Here she is saying people will not be able to read the agreement before approval. Wrong.

That’s either a gross misunderstanding, or a lie that helped elect trump.

I’ll find more links tomorrow when I’m not on the phone. Just finding that, ticks me off right before going to sleep. She, like Comey and Sanders supporters, helped beat Clinton.

“Warren once again said that even though Obama claims people would be able to read the agreement, that’s not true.

“It’s classified,” Warren told the Plum Line’s Greg Sargent. Warren told Sargent that Obama has really “committed only to letting the public see this deal after Congress votes to authorize fast track” at which point “it will be impossible for us to amend the agreement or to block any part of it without tanking the whole TPP.””

https://talkingpointsmemo.com/fivepoints/president-obama-elizabeth-warren-feud-tpp

That’s an outright untruthful statement. And, as required by law, the agreement was released months prior to a a possible ratification vote.

[Blue_true]

20. I will let other people read your link and come to their conclusions.

Approval of Fast Track would have left Congress with a single up or down vote on the whole deal, nothing could be amended, that was the point Warren seemed to have made. So she was being truthful as opposed to lying.

She and Senator Brown did call for making the text public, so your point on that issue is valid. But President Obama has the option of just having ranking members of Congress review the text and give input.

Overall I see no reason to back down from what I have posted. Also, I saw nothing that supported the 5 year claim you posted that Senator Warren made, I am not saying that you were trying to pull a switch, you could have read that somewhere and could not find the exact link.

I respect your determination on this issue, I just come to different conclusions when reviewing all information.

[crazytown]

21. Senator Warren was talking about Fast Track Authority

Warren told Sargent that Obama has really “committed only to letting the public see this deal after Congress votes to authorize fast track” at which point “it will be impossible for us to amend the agreement or to block any part of it without tanking the whole TPP.”

She was absolutely correct. Fast Track authority was sought in May 2015, before the provisions of the TPP were made public. Harry Reid, blocked the authority for this very reason.

[Hekate]

5. If FDR could do the Tennessee Valley Authority/Rural Electrification Project...

...we can certainly do this. If electrification had been left up to utility companies, rural Americans would still be using kerosene lamps.

[Blue_true]

10. Exactly and would be driving on rutted dirt roads.

I don't like how they vote on average, but they are still my countrypeople and deserve services other Americans have.

[Hekate]

11. Yes, they are our countrypeople

[BeckyDem]

6. kick