Bernie's new plan for ISPs

General discussions and other topics.
3 posts Page 1 of 1
by sergneri » Mon Dec 09, 2019 12:13 pm
ARS TECHNICA https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/201 ... nd-prices/ posted an essay on Bernie's proposal for ISP regulation. Looks pretty good from my view, I'm wondering what SONIC thinks about it? Did you help write it? (/joke) The article points out the hurdles this plan will face with the different agencies needed to implement it, DOJ, FCC, etc, but at least there is someone thinking correctly about this monopoly.
Sergneri - Petaluma
by dane » Wed Dec 11, 2019 9:01 am
As you might guess, I see a few issues with the idea.

My comments relate to his position document at: https://berniesanders.com/issues/high-s ... ernet-all/

First, in regards to the assertion that "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." This is a misstatement of the facts. Tax dollars did not "build the internet". While the development of the TCP/IP protocol and routing protocols like BGP occurred in an academic and defense environment, "the internet" was not "built" by tax dollars, but by investment by private and public companies in last-mile infrastructure. So, the idea of nationalizing that infrastructure would be a "taking", and not likely to be viable.

That said, in a true monopoly environment, antitrust would be a viable tool. And this may have some potential, because it could be argued that broadband at a decent speed is critical, and that for many locations there is only one provider who can deliver that speed. That entity (typically the local cable company) should be regulated in some way to check their monopoly power and any rent-seeking behavior.

But in urban and suburban America, there are often two or more carriers. And in the future it's likely that mobile carriers will make a meaningful impact in fixed residential services. So, whether similar remedies exist in what may be at worst an oligopoly environment is less clear.

The other interesting portion of this is enabling communities to build their own networks. It has never made sense to me to disallow this, as some states do today. If carriers have neglected your community, you shouldn't be stuck begging them to deploy, without the potential to do so yourself. (Of course, I would like to see publicly funded networks be open-access dark-fiber, which I think would be both practical due to lower barriers to entry for communities, and useful for the public due to the innovation and competitive choice that would flourish.)

It'd make just one final comment regarding the impracticality of the suggestion that "When Bernie is president, every American household will have affordable, high-speed internet by the end of his first term." I think that Bernie may be unaware of some of the practical challenges that exist in building networks to reach every far-flung rural home within just four years, let alone the legal wranglings around nationalization or the breakup or rate regulation of existing carriers.

I will agree that we have a failed market for internet access in most locations. Sonic is part of that solution, and we will continue to work hard to expand our fiber optic deployment to bring disruptive competitive choices to the community.
Dane Jasper
Sonic
by sergneri » Fri Dec 13, 2019 1:58 pm
Thanks for the insights!
I think we consumers want to see the big companies regulated to our advantage, not seeking something for nothing, but seeking fair costs to product performance and accountability. I'm not sure where corporations lose the virtues needed to be thought of as fair in either pricing or performance, but it is somewhere in their growth curve. I don't think you can legislate virtuous performance, that is a societal failure on our part.

I also think that companies who built the interstate data infrastructure did it with money generated off the wallets of consumers, who ultimately pay for everything, via taxes or fees, banks and funds don't generate money, we do. Our demand drives the expansion of the internet, be it at the University, our workspace, or home. So, regulating them is also in both the national and consumer interests because they, like our beloved PG&E, will neglect maintenance in the long haul, deliver shoddy, overpriced products and we need to insure they are working towards the benefit of all.

One of the points that Warren/Sanders make in their monopoly view is breaking apart content from delivery, the companies who charge us for one shouldn't also be in control of the other, as throttling will be a tool to achieve dominance in the content market. We consumers will never know if it occurs which is why some kind of oversight is needed. This administration has such a biased opinion of the market, the FCC and FTC are both useless consumer advocates, they are staffed by industry lobbyists.

I'm OK with both candidates plans. Initiatives like this will do more for consumers just trying to get through the sausage grinder in D.C., that's all one can ask for, leadership and not another corptocracy.

“Fascism should more appropriately be called Corporatism because it is a merger of state and corporate power” ― Benito Mussolini
3 posts Page 1 of 1

Who is online

In total there are 25 users online :: 0 registered, 0 hidden and 25 guests (based on users active over the past 5 minutes)
Most users ever online was 999 on Mon May 10, 2021 1:02 am

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 25 guests