YES: Elizabeth Warren’s “Public Option” for the Internet

YES: Elizabeth Warren’s “Public Option” for the Internet

if we want to have a conversation about things
that could not be for profit. [inaudible] here is obviously on this list and we’ve been
talking about that for years and that seems to often be the one that is the most obvious
to the largest number of people. Although there’s still some debate about that
in some political circles. We can talk about whether education should
be for-profit. We could talk about whether student lending
should be for profit or certain types of housing or whatever else. But increasingly we should be talking about
the Internet, which at this point is really just a utility which underlies almost everything
we do at this point. And I’m going to probably end up repeating
this again, but to be a full participant in 2019 society and economy, you effectively
need access to the Internet and probably high speed Internet at that. And there are individual towns that have done
what’s called municipal broadband, but the reason that they’ve done this is that usually
those towns are too small for the big Internet service providers to want to come in and set
up shop and be the monopoly provider in those municipalities. And so I was thrilled to see that 2020 Democratic
presidential candidate and Massachusetts Senator Elizabeth Warren put out our plan yesterday
for an Internet public option along with her plan. By the way, to bring back net neutrality,
and as we’ve talked about with Medicare for all a public option is better than nothing. It may not be the ideal. And with Internet, it’s probably similar,
but I still want to deal with this in detail today because it could be a really big improvement
over what we have. And here is Elizabeth Warren’s idea. You pass a federal law to prevent states from
restricting towns that want to do public broadband. That’s number one. Number two, you do a federal grant for $85
billion, which will be set up to cover 90% of the costs for utility co-ops, nonprofits,
cities and counties that want to lay fiber for their own broadband networks. The federal government will subsidize 90%
of it. So the city town co-op, whatever, only has
to pay for 10% of it for profit entities would not be eligible for that grant, which will
push a lot of internet service over to nonprofits and Co ops and municipalities, which would
be great to qualify for the money. Uh, the organization that is looking to do
this is going to have to agree to provide at least one affordable plan for low income
people, a special low price to increase access to internet, particularly for low income people. And Meanwhile, yeah, Elizabeth Warren would
also restore net neutrality. She would appoint commissioners, which would
regulate the internet as a common carrier. That’s a huge, huge thing. So the breaking news here, which is not breaking
news to lots of people in my audience, is that both sides aren’t the same on many issues
when they are. I tell you, I’ve been crystal clear that too
many issues have Republicans and Democrats basically working together to maintain the
status quo and to reinforce that status quo. When Democrats require criticism, I’m their
criticizing them, but on lots of important issues, the two parties are not the same. One issue we’ve talked about already, and
could it ever be more clear than now under Donald Trump rather than Hillary Clinton choosing
judges in the United States Supreme Court justices and lower level judges. As we talked about on the bonus show this
week, Donald Trump’s power to do that has had such a significant impact that will be
long lasting. Donald Trump’s judicial choices, more sort
of a celebrated in the Supreme Court, but also in lower level courts as we’ve talked
about. We’ll have an effect on the judiciary of the
United States for decades to come. Hillary Clinton would have been very different
on that. You might not like her position on whatever,
but Democrats and Republicans drastically different on that. It’s very similar with the Internet regulation
and net neutrality. In 2018 all democrats and three Republicans
voted to restore net neutrality. Okay. In the house a few months ago, 231 democrats
and one Republican in the House voted to restore net neutrality and then Mitch McConnell, Republican
Senate majority leader blocked it from even coming up in the Senate at all. So we need to support candidates with the
right views on this issue. I love that Elizabeth Warren, I’ve made no
secret. I think it’s great that she’s been running
one of the most substantive campaigns of 2020 so far, slowly but surely creeping up in the
polls. And she did it again in a couple of recent
polls, which I don’t have time to talk about today, but maybe we’ll deal with on Monday. She has been doing that with substantive policy
proposals. No cheap shots, no, you know, debate, kill,
shot attempts the way some other candidates have been doing just policy, detailed policy,
which she’s increasingly good at explaining in clear and direct terms. And that’s a really good thing. So bottom line in 2019, you essentially need
Internet and, and I would argue not just internet but high speed Internet to fully participate
in society and in the economy period flat-out. Thus it should be a public utility. Anything short of that falls short of the
goal. But these public option, uh, programs like
what Elizabeth Warren is suggesting here are absolutely great ideas. I think that legally they are quite simple. So when Warren talks about, oh, I want to
pass a wealth tax, uh, okay, you could like the idea, not like the idea, think it’s the
right way or the wrong way to reduce inequality, think that inequality is an issue, but legally
it will be very complex to get a wealth tax pass. That’s just the reality. This public option Internet plan and the re
and statement of net neutrality would not be legally complicated. It can be complicated in the terms of lobbyists,
in terms of lobbyist opposition and massive ad dollars lobbying, just average people to
be against it and massive lobbying dollars lobbying politicians to be against it. That will be complicated, but when it comes
to the legality of doing it, there are not constitutional issues that are not commerce
issues or any other issues that I am aware of. It’s merely the political will and that’s
why this is absolutely fantastic. Let me know what you think about these and
other net neutrality and Internet utility ideas. I’m on Twitter at d pacman. The show is on [email protected]
slash David Pakman. Hope you’ll follow us there and subscribe twitch prime if you have an Amazon [email protected]

Danny Hutson

100 thoughts on “YES: Elizabeth Warren’s “Public Option” for the Internet

  1. I love hearing how the service of internet is now a right but freedom of speech online (an actual U.S. law) is not. You should start most videos with the phrase “point of personal privilege” ??

  2. I love this idea. Im tired of being screwed by big internet providers. They need to be broken up. There needs to be more competition. And yes im very open to the idea of having local governments maybe even state governments pay for the infrastructure and even run/maintain the infrastructure.

  3. Stop, now that you are affected, you are all about the internet. You never said a word before, did you say anything when Alex Jones was censured? What about al those people who lost their channel "? Now they are coming for you. To bad so sad.

  4. US healthcare and racism is national, the internet is worldwide. I don't think you'll hit on a solution which covers both. I have, and am certain of it. It is so unbelievably simple but difficult, I doubt any society will achieve it.

  5. Honestly as much as I'm on the left, I'm pretty much mixed in terms of having a public option as I worried of a potential government overreach in terms of price control, price regulation and stifling competition as I'm favour that ISP should remain a free market (This coming from a country that only have one service provider until just recently) however I'm very much in favour of net neutrality (or the internet's bill of rights that would protect consumers against unfair actions taken at ISP like throttling, banning of content etc.) as well as setting up an agency where customers who not happy with the increase in their bill can go to the agency and investigate requesting the need for the increase and determined if it justified or not as they're may be some cases that a bill increase may be justified like upgrade infrastructure, repairs etc.

    The government can also support ISP startup who want to run as either a non-profit, a co-operative or a community run ISP that managed by their neighborhood, cities, counties, state. In other terms, I'll say I got what Warren wanted to do but I'll have to politely disagree to an extent.

  6. I think this has been tried before and the services were never extended as promised. If it is done, it cannot be done through providers, it has to be done straight by government to contractors, not by for profit providers because of the problem below.

  7. The ISPs and other companies make more than enough money on the internet, there is no need for them to make more beyond pure greed

  8. A public option may get rid of the despised ISP's but reducing costs? Chattanooga EPB, a municipally owned electrical utility that provides high speed internet, charges at least $58 a month for service. That's a decent price for 300 Mbit but not earthshaking and certainly out of reach for many people.

  9. Tax the big companies like amazon and Netflix to pay for our Internet/broadband. So Amazon prime and a Netflix subscription would go towards our broadband payment.

  10. I agree with the internet-for-all sentiment. Also:
    1. Federal ID. Never expires, keeps track of primary residence, and basic info we now put on drivers license. Can be expanded to include anyone, even from a different country, replacing passports for visitors.
    2. No more voter registration. What's the point? Federal ID database would have all information needed.
    3. Consider giving up some anonymity on social media. It can work like this:
    a) Each person receives a few social media IDs from the government, to be used when signing up for any social media site. It would have enough redundancy to be impossible to forge one. So you either submit the ID, or do not use the site. At the highest level of anonymity, the site operators do not know your information (real name, home address, etc), and other users do not either. You will use a custom pseudonym for each of these sites. The only difference with how it works now is that the FBI can determine your true identity just by looking at your ID.
    b) At a lower level of anonymity, you will create a pseudonym that will be the same for all sites operating at this level. So, for example, your name on Facebook could be the same as your name on YouTube or Google. That will make it difficult to play games with multiple accounts, pretending to be a different person on each one. You will still not be required to show your real name to other users or moderators. So, for example, you identify a mass shooter's post on a 4chan site. Instantly, the Feds can get the posting history of this person on every site.

  11. David is right, you have control over positive change with how you spend your money, but you need to spend a little time researching. Yang wants to reward companies with incentives to practice more ethical options, that will help people rather than harm them. People can do even more (to a greater extent) by rewarding more ethical companies and automatically punishing companies with bad ethics, by where they choose to spend their money. It's very difficult to force change, but with purposeful actions by enough people, positive change will happen. Corrupt companies can't survive without the support of buyers or people seeking services, so they have to either get on board with people's standards of ethics, or go out of business. The only problem is that greed affects the buyers as well, so they might have to (consciously) make a few concessions (for the greater good) and maybe sometimes pay a few dollars more.

  12. 5G internet is not an evil killing machine or a way to track people or any of the other things conspiracy nuts say. It's just going to give you much faster downloads. Why on earth would cell phone companies on I.S.Ps want to kill their customers huh.

  13. Those cheap shots from Tulsi to Kamala are warranted. This is a team sport now. Didn't you see on the first debate that Bernie and Warren had a truce so that they can take out the other candidates. Tulsi most likely will not make it to the third/fourth debate, but what she did will add to the progressive cause especially if Kamala's base starts capitulating to Warren or Bernie. Of course they can also fall into Biden, but recent polls have shown Biden+Kamala dropping.

  14. One thing to look into: the telecoms were given large amounts of money by the US government to bring national internet to the level of Japan at the time. Not surprisingly, they took the money and never did the work. Later when the government brought the subject up, the telecoms said they would need to be paid again to accomplish the work.

    I wish I could remember the time period, I want to say it started in the late 90s, but I’m not sure. Happy hunting.

  15. Please excuse my ignorance, but how is it that one person, like Mitch McConnell, can have the power to eradicate options that are brought up by hundreds of other Representatives? This makes no sense to me.

  16. They are going to censor the internet. Democrats will win and true free speech (not right wing bigotry and conspiracies) will be done. Screencap this comrades.

  17. I suppose it's moot, but I wonder what McConnell would've done about SC judges if Hillary had won the electoral college. Would he have still tried to hold the seats open? I wouldn't put it past him, honestly.

  18. Picking at details.. the topic and your comments should say "Internet Access". The "Internet" is global, Warren isn't affecting anything globally. Even Net Neutrality is local in this case.

  19. Besides affordable high-speed internet for everyone, a utility, I would love to see broadband (high-speed) internet-only plans, cut the cable. I don't want cable, but can't get either of the giant providers (Comcast, AT&T) to admit they have this option. — And I'd love to see Sanders and Warren for 2020.

  20. Less stop worrying about ''us'' paying for things. Let's make billionaires pay for things. Let's end all the wars they profit from while our taxes pay for them. With the trillions of dollars we'd save we could solarize the entire country, create free internet, free Medicare, free college and job training, etc. Let's raise taxes on the rich and end their inherited wealth which creates dynasties. A person is entitled to what he/she creates but not their children who would, in time, become pampered, selfish elites using their unearned wealth to enslave the masses — as they have done.

  21. Not a bad idea, but then it may be easier for the government to get access to see what I'm looking at online (uh… not that I'm looking at illegal material or anything…) My local internet provider is pretty decent with not letting officials violate others' privacy without a warrant. I at least haven't been arrested yet… not that I would be.

  22. Net neutrality is a band aid. Sounds like this proposal is moving further in the right direction.

  23. Several years ago I worked at a convenient store in Columbus Ohio and shortly after my hiring they switched to an entire online system for applications. If anyone came in and asked I was to hand them this brochure card thing with the companies website on it. While this streamlined things considerably it also made it difficult for a lot of people in need of employment to apply. If not having internet prevents you from gaining employment at a chain of gas stations/convenient stores…the internet is not a luxury.

  24. i think before ANYTHING else we have to be very watchful about the control and censorship of information through monopolies or the government

  25. The first place I ever had internet (2000) was a city with it's own internet. Super cheap, super fast, customer service was local people in an office just blocks away from me, who I could call with 7 digits and not wait on hold. Oh and the city had it's own electricity too, so electric, internet, water, sewer and trash were all one bill. I was so spoiled, I had no idea what the reality of internet was for most people. But I sure know now. Just the other day I had to call Comcast for some b.s. on my bill, and agreed to answer the survey after the call. The bot asked if I would recommend Comcast to others and of course I gave that a 1 out of 10 likelihood. It asked me to say why such a low number, and I was like, "Why do you even ask about recommendations? It's not like most people even have other options where they live. It's a monopoly and you fucking know it."

  26. Several great policies from Warren, but how does she get them done? Is she going to use Bernie's "political revolution" activism model, or is she going to try and do inside the beltway compromises that achieve next to nothing? She already said she'll take m/billionaire PAC money in the general…

  27. This is an absolutely wonderful idea. This is exactly why I think a Sanders-Warren ticket would absolutely dominate the election, they're a brilliant team.

  28. Warren has great ideas but she needs a movement of millions of people to create the public pressure to push things through. You think Amazon and Disney wanted to pay 15 dollars an hour? No. They were pressured.

  29. This video is not visible in my liked playlist. Youtube has been
    shadow-banning some videos. I have witnessed this kind of censorship on

    Youtube since before 2016. But it has gotten way worse.

  30. To the best of my knowledge, the internet was invented in the public sector. Now all of a sudden, these private companies take over and start charging us for something that should have been free.

  31. Why would a wealth tax be legally difficult? A government setting tax rates is not unconstitutional, and you already have a progressive tax system in the US.

  32. If you take the profit motive away yo will end up with crap, the Lada of Internets.

    Net neutrality: if a doctor performs rote surgery over the Internet his data cannot be given precedence over someone jerking up with 4K porn. I am all for common sense regulation but net neutrality is just idiotic. It is like mandating that everyone has to earn same amount.

  33. It's long overdue that this country understands the importance of the Internet as a public utility, but as usual we have a damn elephant holding us back

  34. i guess i need wifi to go to church, the water park, fishing, definitely need wifi for that. hilarious…. shit i probably need internet to donate to charity according to these guys.

  35. So yet another "plan" that taxes the blue states to pay for services targeted at red states. And yet those red states will still vote for the "Make America Hate Again" party.

  36. warren has good ideas. i'm on board with that BUT she comes across as a wonky schoolmarm. trumpers would consider her a weakling simply because of that.
    whatever anyone thinks, we need a brawler with crossover appeal. someone unafraid to walk into the lion's den and get respect from the lions. so far only
    Bernie and Tulsi have done that, i.e. fox and joe rogan. both have massive crossover appeal and could actually erode trump's base.
    even trump fears them.
    sticking with my preference of a Sanders/Gabbard ticket. I see it as a strategic alliance and have heard it mentioned as a possible end strategy.
    the orange one will probably win, with the help of the DNC (both my picks are absolutely hated by the DNC).
    Sanders/Gabbard 2020

  37. I live in a city that has a city owned internet service and it is fantastic. Its far cheaper then the other internet companies in the area, the speed is much better and it almost never goes out and there is no data cap. On a side note, the city internet competes against the big corporations and beats them and you still have libertarians complaining that its government overreach and the government shouldn't be in this business. For some reason the lunatic who wrote that article seems to think Comcast et al are cheaper and better then the city internet.

  38. Sanders / Warren 20/20 a breath of fresh and honest air! Bernie Sanders takes no corporate money! Unfortunately if Warren wins she will take corporate money! But together with Bernie Sanders as our president we just may have a chance to clean this horrific mess Donald Trump has created!

  39. That's it, I'm hardcore supporting Elizabeth Warren for president. I want Warren/Inslee running for top office!

  40. The communication companies formed little fiefdoms so that they didn't have to directly compete, which allows them to charge extreme prices and offer little to no genuine benefits. Meanwhile, in genuinely capitalist nations (not corporatist nations like we are), these sorts of companies must compete with each other, driving down costs and forcing companies to offer incentives such as larger bandwidth, higher data caps, that sort of thing. Which nation has the fastest internet? South Korea. Should we really be just allowing South Korea be able to have that much competitive power in the world market without challenging it here?

  41. The really sick part is that in those markets that they never had any interest in competing it they'll suddenly start just to drive municipal internet out of business (or lobby to have them made illegal for no good reason).

  42. Has people really forgotten the time when television was free? Not on;y do we have to pay a ridiculous amount for internet service but they have a million ads all over! Greed has turned people insane.

  43. COME ON. Nationalize the Internet. Make it a publc utility. and don't forget OIL. Bernie would support this too. FUCK POCAHONTAS. She can't win. Look at her polling numbers with non-white non-college educated. Terrible. Bernie has the diversity to build a coalition. We need to beat Biden and WARREN is fucking us over AGAIN. She just wants to push this to a 2nd round where the SUPERS vote for BUttigigigigig and Warren gets to be VP. That's what she really wants! AWFUL POCAHONTAS.

  44. As much as I dont trust Warren's judgement (I do basically trust her intentions) enough to vote for her for President, at least not in 2020 , I do think her campaigning on the idea of having detailed
    plans to make many positive changes Progressives want is both smart on her campaign's part and an overall benefit to this Democratic Primary race, I do think she can help bring the party together (bring into the fold the mainly older, wealthier, more moderate Dem voters) under a Bernie Sanders presidency as Veep. And I think she will be an energetic, optimistic, awesome first woman VP… and perhaps President after Bernie, to continue his important work (tho I honestly believe that despite Bernie's rather advanced age that should he win 2020, then go on to win a 2nd term, he will still be alive and kicking at the end of those 8 years, and just as mentally sharp as he is now- he is just THAT type of vibrant senior)!

  45. Elon Musk is placing 1,500 low-orbit satellites around the globe which will provide global internet. That's the reason the ISP's have been working so hard to set up their "speed lanes" to capture more $$$ (than ever before). The last thing the ultra-rich who have monopoly ownership of these ISP's want is "net neutrality".

  46. Gotta admit I was losing confidence in Warren since she's cozied up to big donors but this reminds me she's still a good candidate

  47. Why is everyone just assuming that this is a good idea? What is it about the internet that makes you think that distribution can be more intelligently producer by an agency than by markets? We already know that it's not a good idea to produce and distribute food by government fiat; we let markets produce prices there, so why is internet different?

    Just declaring something a human right or a basic utility or whatever, doesn't automatically make it immune to the laws of supply and demand.

  48. I use a public internet option, Comcast completes with them… And the speed and the up time is without comparison. We just wanted good internet and good speeds. 49.95 a month and the profits go-to trying to make the speeds faster over time!
    We have a 20$ plan for 50mbps. 100% neutral 100% private and no man in the middles

  49. That would be awesome! My internet costs $100 plus a bit more for 100 mbps and that's the CHEAPEST I can get for that speed. It's ridiculous. I live in BFE, so they got you where they want you.

  50. I live on a 130 acre farm in super rural Oklahoma, 12 miles from the nearest town which has a population of 550. I have fiber internet from a local co-op for $60 a month.

  51. Warren is the best candidate by far. She knows what it's like below (no pun), she is super smart, she's been a professor of law and economics at the most prestigious universities, she's got energy, courage, principles and plans. Bernie, my apologies to his fans, is past his Prime. Uncle Joe is a disaster, Peter is too green and sold out to big money donors. Tulsi is a great future prospect but too green for now. Kamala or Booker…give me a break!!!
    Who else is there?
    Go Betsy!!!

  52. The Internet should be a right to every citizen in the US, like it is in Finland. I would propose the Post Office take point though. It is the only communication Institution guaranteed under the Constitution. They are good with logistics. It would even better if you get rid of Hastert da Basterd rule. The people running this Internet should be union workers. Public libraries should be used as well. I wouldn’t mind making ATT&T and Verizon helping out since they are represented by the CWA.

  53. What a bunch of stupid progressive losers to think that businesses should not operate for profit?
    What do you think you go to work for, solving world hunger crises?

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *