# "Public option" for internet. **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [August 11, 2019, 10:58am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/public-option-for-internet/838499 "2019-08-11T10:58:01Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 1
**Author:** ![Barack\_Obama](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/dc4da7/32.png) [@Barack\_Obama](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Barack_Obama)\ **Post date:** [August 11, 2019, 10:58am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/public-option-for-internet/838499/1 "2019-08-11T10:58:01Z")
[![](https://img.youtube.com/vi/wLSmsYWu-Co/hqdefault.jpg "YES: Elizabeth Warren's "Public Option" for the Internet") ](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wLSmsYWu-Co) ( [https://www.huffpost.com/entry/elizabeth-warren-public-internet-option-rural-broadband-2020-democratic-presidential-primary\_n\_5d49f24fe4b0d291ed0829d](https://www.huffpost.com/entry/elizabeth-warren-public-internet-option-rural-broadband-2020-democratic-presidential-primary_n_5d49f24fe4b0d291ed0829d) ) Since access to the internet allows everyone to learn or to be informed should the government step in and guarantee internet access? ---
**Author:** ![Unreconstructed\_Man](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/u/76d3ee/32.png) [@Unreconstructed\_Man](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Unreconstructed_Man)\ **Post date:** [August 11, 2019, 11:21am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/public-option-for-internet/838499/2 "2019-08-11T11:21:13Z")
America’s internet system is strange. In the UK, I can switch my internet provider to one of half a dozen alternatives with a couple of phone calls. However, in the US, the cable companies have divvied up the country like a cartel, so most people are basically at the mercy of whichever cable company “owns” their area. These companies therefore have zero incentive to provide decent service, which is presumably why ComCast is America’s least popular company. Since the free market has proven woefully inadequate to the task of providing decent internet, and since decent internet access is becoming a more and more crucial part of people’s everyday lives, from banking to finding work, I think it makes sense for the government to provide an alternative. ---
**Author:** ![Ruken](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/f475e1/32.png) [@Ruken](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ruken)\ **Post date:** [August 11, 2019, 1:05pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/public-option-for-internet/838499/3 "2019-08-11T13:05:24Z")
We did have some sort of subsidized phone access for rural areas. Maybe still so. Anyone know the details on that? ---
**Author:** ![Ravenman](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/ravenman/32/2929_2.png) [@Ravenman](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ravenman)\ **Post date:** [August 11, 2019, 2:14pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/public-option-for-internet/838499/4 "2019-08-11T14:14:38Z")
I think it’s reasonable to think that the advent of proliferated commercial low earth orbit communications satellites in the next several years could render this debate totally moot. These satellites could provide high speed, affordable, worldwide coverage, and just totally change the game. ---
**Author:** ![Kobal2](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/kobal2/32/20_2.png) [@Kobal2](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Kobal2)\ **Post date:** [August 11, 2019, 2:21pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/public-option-for-internet/838499/5 "2019-08-11T14:21:29Z")
Some countries do do it that way - Estonia I think was the first, more followed suit. It does make sense to treat broadband internet as a basic necessity like running water/sewage or electricity. ---
**Author:** ![Lord\_Feldon](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/lord_feldon/32/341_2.png) [@Lord\_Feldon](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Lord_Feldon)\ **Post date:** [August 11, 2019, 2:23pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/public-option-for-internet/838499/6 "2019-08-11T14:23:44Z")
Municipal broadband is a great idea but I don’t understand how this would be anywhere close to constitutional: > [@](#): > > To enact her plan, Warren hopes to first pass a federal law preventing state-level restrictions that have hampered municipalities that want to pursue a public internet system. How can the federal government directly compel states to allow their own subordinate agencies (municipalities in this case) to build and operate a particular form of infrastructure? Municipalities are part of the state, not a separate thing with their own separate rights (other than granted by state laws); if the state chooses not to offer a particular service (even if it’s a good idea), what power does Congress have to change that? This isn’t like a normal pre-emption, where a state is prevented from positively doing something, this would be an attempt to pre-empt the internal structure of the state itself. The feds could build their own public broadband system in areas they judge to be underserved, similar to how they built a power grid in the Tennessee Valley. Or they could offer truckloads of money to the states so that they allow it, like they did with the Interstate Highway System. But I really don’t understand how Congress could just compel states to restructure themselves on demand. ---
**Author:** ![leahcim](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/b4bc9f/32.png) [@leahcim](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/leahcim)\ **Post date:** [August 11, 2019, 2:40pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/public-option-for-internet/838499/7 "2019-08-11T14:40:27Z")
> [@Huffington Post](#): > > To enact her plan, Warren hopes to first pass a federal law preventing state-level restrictions that have hampered municipalities that want to pursue a public internet system. > [@Lord\_Feldon](#): > > How can the federal government directly compel states to allow their own subordinate agencies (municipalities in this case) to build and operate a particular form of infrastructure? That’s not what the quote says. The federal government would not be compelling the states or municipalities to provide broadband or any other infrastructure, but it would invalidate current state laws (usually passed after lobbying from the cable lobby) that prohibit municipalities from setting up their own broadband (which is a [thing](https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2014/02/isp-lobby-has-already-won-limits-on-public-broadband-in-20-states/)). ---
**Author:** ![Lord\_Feldon](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/lord_feldon/32/341_2.png) [@Lord\_Feldon](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Lord_Feldon)\ **Post date:** [August 11, 2019, 2:43pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/public-option-for-internet/838499/8 "2019-08-11T14:43:27Z")
> [@leahcim](#): > > That’s not what the quote says. The federal government would not be compelling the states or municipalities to provide broadband or any other infrastructure, but it would invalidate current state laws (usually passed after lobbying from the cable lobby) that prohibit municipalities from setting up their own broadband (which is a [thing](https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2014/02/isp-lobby-has-already-won-limits-on-public-broadband-in-20-states/)). I know what it says. The big flaw is that municipalities are not separate from their states. They have no existence other than what state law, and **only** state law, says they do. Where would Congress get the authority to say that when a state creates a municipality, it must endow it with the powers to operate a broadband internet utility? ---
**Author:** ![Lord\_Feldon](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/lord_feldon/32/341_2.png) [@Lord\_Feldon](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Lord_Feldon)\ **Post date:** [August 11, 2019, 2:49pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/public-option-for-internet/838499/9 "2019-08-11T14:49:39Z")
As far as I know, this portion of [Hunter v City of Pittsburgh](https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/207/161/) is still good law: > [@](#): > > Municipal corporations are political subdivisions of the state, created as convenient agencies for exercising such of the governmental powers of the state as may be entrusted to them. For the purpose of executing these powers properly and efficiently, they usually are given the power to acquire, hold, and manage personal and real property. The number, nature, and duration of the powers conferred upon these corporations and the territory over which they shall be exercised rests in the absolute discretion of the state. […] **The state, therefore, at its pleasure, may modify or withdraw all such powers** , may take without compensation such property, hold it itself, or vest it in other agencies, expand or contract the territorial area, unite the whole or a part of it with another municipality, repeal the charter and destroy the corporation. All this may be done, conditionally or unconditionally, with or without the consent of the citizens, or even against their protest. **In all these respects, the state is supreme, and its legislative body, conforming its action to the state constitution, may do as it will, unrestrained by any provision of the Constitution of the United States.** I don’t think there’s ever been an “unless Congress doesn’t want them to” inserted into this. ---
**Author:** ![OttoDaFe](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/ottodafe/32/356_2.png) [@OttoDaFe](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/OttoDaFe)\ **Post date:** [August 11, 2019, 4:19pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/public-option-for-internet/838499/10 "2019-08-11T16:19:31Z")
I’m using municipal internet right now. It came about when energy deregulation (remember that?) was all the rage, prompting the city utility to implement direct meter reading by installing a fiber-optic drop to every building in its service area. This created a lot of unused bandwidth which they offered to the cable company — a local company which was later assimilated by Comcast — which turned it down. So they created a cable TV subsidiary and franchised out ISP services. I pay about 20% less than comparable service from Comcast. (Interestingly, last time I looked Comcast was charging its customers in the utility’s service area quite a bit less than customers outside the service area. I wonder why?) ---
**Author:** ![Lord\_Feldon](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/lord_feldon/32/341_2.png) [@Lord\_Feldon](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Lord_Feldon)\ **Post date:** [August 11, 2019, 4:26pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/public-option-for-internet/838499/11 "2019-08-11T16:26:12Z")
> [@Unreconstructed\_Man](#): > > America’s internet system is strange. In the UK, I can switch my internet provider to one of half a dozen alternatives with a couple of phone calls. How does that work? I assume you don’t have half a dozen different cables going past your house, so does one cable carry different providers’ signals? Or does it all fundamentally come from one place, but the different providers buy and sell the right to send amounts of data through the common (or separately-owned) infrastructure. ---
**Author:** ![Left\_Hand\_of\_Dorkness](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/left_hand_of_dorkness/32/7156_2.png) [@Left\_Hand\_of\_Dorkness](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Left_Hand_of_Dorkness)\ **Post date:** [August 12, 2019, 11:25am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/public-option-for-internet/838499/12 "2019-08-12T11:25:14Z")
> [@Lord\_Feldon](#): > > I know what it says. The big flaw is that municipalities are not separate from their states. They have no existence other than what state law, and **only** state law, says they do. > > Where would Congress get the authority to say that when a state creates a municipality, it must endow it with the powers to operate a broadband internet utility? Could they use purse power? “Sure, North Carolina government, you can continue to be massive douches in the pocket of Spectrum Cable, and forbid towns from setting up public Internet. Here’s a list of federal grants and funds your state will be able to access again once you change your mind.” ---
**Author:** ![Cheesesteak](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/cheesesteak/32/3694_2.png) [@Cheesesteak](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Cheesesteak)\ **Post date:** [August 12, 2019, 12:19pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/public-option-for-internet/838499/13 "2019-08-12T12:19:25Z")
> [@Lord\_Feldon](#): > > How can the federal government directly compel states to allow their own subordinate agencies (municipalities in this case) to build and operate a particular form of infrastructure? Because that infrastructure allows Americans to conduct interstate “Commerce”. If the Americans living in these municipalities need improved access to the internet, the Feds have a place at the table to ensure these Americans aren’t denied access to an important avenue of commerce with other States. ---
**Author:** ![asahi](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/asahi/32/8693_2.png) [@asahi](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/asahi)\ **Post date:** [August 12, 2019, 12:21pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/public-option-for-internet/838499/14 "2019-08-12T12:21:08Z")
> [@Ravenman](#): > > I think it’s reasonable to think that the advent of proliferated commercial low earth orbit communications satellites in the next several years could render this debate totally moot. These satellites could provide high speed, affordable, worldwide coverage, and just totally change the game. Not to mention, they’ll create a pile of space junk. ---
**Author:** ![SenorBeef](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/senorbeef/32/2220_2.png) [@SenorBeef](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/SenorBeef)\ **Post date:** [August 12, 2019, 12:33pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/public-option-for-internet/838499/15 "2019-08-12T12:33:46Z")
Internet access is very similar to other utilities like water and power. You’re best off having “pure” internet - any sort of customization of your internet access by your ISP, by restricting or fast-laning any content, worsens the experience. ISPs basically cannot value-add to internet access because anything they do is simply worse than having free, open, unmodified internet access. So just like you’d want clean, pure water and clean, pure power, you’re best off with clean, pure internet access. As such, what do we need ISPs, with their conflicts of interests due to also being content providers, for at all? They’re only useful because of their existing infrastructure, but that can simply be spun off and managed separately as a utility. Wired internet providers basically engage in monopolistic behaviors for a captive audience because there’s no real competition in most places in the US. They provide a basic service that pretty much everyone needs these days - access to the internet is not a luxury, it’s pretty much a necessity for modern life. The best form of internet access is standardized, unmodified, “clean” internet access. All of the value that the internet providers actually provide is in the infrastructure, not the product or service. As such, they are pretty much exactly the definition of what constitutes a utility, and there’s no good reason not to treat them that way. A “public option” run like a utility would basically amount to the same thing. The current system does not serve any real purpose and is basically the result of corruption. Telecoms are, IIRC, the biggest lobbying industry in the country. ---
**Author:** ![Ruken](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/f475e1/32.png) [@Ruken](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ruken)\ **Post date:** [August 12, 2019, 9:18pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/public-option-for-internet/838499/16 "2019-08-12T21:18:51Z")
Relevant to the OP: [https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/all-americans-should-be-able-to-use-the-internet-how-do-we-get-there/2019/08/11/7d98a4d2-bad6-11e9-b3b4-2bb69e8c4e39\_story.html](https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/all-americans-should-be-able-to-use-the-internet-how-do-we-get-there/2019/08/11/7d98a4d2-bad6-11e9-b3b4-2bb69e8c4e39_story.html) Possibly paywalled, but that shouldn’t stop anyone who knows how to internet. ---
**Author:** ![Ravenman](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/ravenman/32/2929_2.png) [@Ravenman](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ravenman)\ **Post date:** [August 12, 2019, 9:33pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/public-option-for-internet/838499/17 "2019-08-12T21:33:38Z")
> [@SenorBeef](#): > > As such, what do we need ISPs, with their conflicts of interests due to also being content providers, for at all? I just lowered my ISP bill and got faster service by noting that a competing ISP wanted me as a customer. I’ve also done the same with my electricity provider, several times since consumer choice came to DC. Why should I assume that a public monopoly on those services would give me better service and prices? ---
**Author:** ![etasyde](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/9f8e36/32.png) [@etasyde](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/etasyde)\ **Post date:** [August 12, 2019, 9:35pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/public-option-for-internet/838499/18 "2019-08-12T21:35:29Z")
I’m probably the odd man out, but I’m personally for nationalizing (or preferably building parallel, state sponsored) industries that rely on natural monopolies and subsequent anti-competitive practices (like lobbying for the banning of Google Fiber). I _am_ worried about state controlled telecomunications networks because I don’t want the state to have the _option_ of turning off the communications of anyone they have cause to dislike, but that doesn’t seem to be the immediate concern here… and it’s not like they couldn’t just order Comcast or AT&T to do it for them. ---
**Author:** ![Omar\_Little](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/omar_little/32/269_2.png) [@Omar\_Little](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Omar_Little)\ **Post date:** [August 12, 2019, 9:45pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/public-option-for-internet/838499/19 "2019-08-12T21:45:24Z")
You do not want the government being your sole ISP. There will not be advancement of technology. You want 7G? Forget about it. There would be no incentive for the government to build out new technologies. If the government had taken over two decades ago, we’d still all be on dial-up. ---
**Author:** ![begbert2](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/begbert2/32/3357_2.png) [@begbert2](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/begbert2)\ **Post date:** [August 12, 2019, 10:08pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/public-option-for-internet/838499/20 "2019-08-12T22:08:34Z")
> [@Omar\_Little](#): > > You do not want the government being your sole ISP. There will not be advancement of technology. You want 7G? Forget about it. There would be no incentive for the government to build out new technologies. If the government had taken over two decades ago, we’d still all be on dial-up. And by an identical argument cell phones don’t exist because land lines prevented their invention. [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/public-option-for-internet/838499.md?page=2)