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.