Tag: election 2020

Posted on

House Reps ask FCC to ‘stop work on all partisan, controversial items’ during transition

Two U.S. Representatives who oversee the FCC have asked the agency to respect the results of the election by abandoning any “partisan, controversial items under consideration.” This likely includes the FCC’s effort to reinterpret Section 230, an important protection for internet platforms, at the Trump administration’s request.

In the letter sent to FCC Chairman Ajit Pai today (a similar letter was sent to FTC Chairman Joseph Simons), Representatives Frank Pallone (D-NJ) writes:

With the results of the 2020 presidential election now apparent, leadership of the FCC will undoubtedly be changing. As a traditional part of the peaceful transfer of power — and as part of our oversight responsibilities — we strongly urge the agency to only pursue consensus and administrative matters for the remainder of your tenure.

And his colleague at the House Commerce Committee, Mike Doyle (D-PA) adds:

We note that that you have previously welcomed calls from congressional leaders for the FCC to “halt further action on controversial items during the transition period.” We hope you will respect this time-honored tradition now.

For a receipt, the letter references Pai’s own call for this exact thing to happen almost exactly four years ago, referring in his turn to the same practice occurring eight years prior under the previous chairman. “I hope Chairman Wheeler follows his [2008 Chairman Kevin Martin’s] example and honors the wishes of our congressional leaders, including by withdrawing the four major items on the November meeting agenda,” Pai wrote in 2016 (PDF).

The matters scheduled for consideration during the upcoming November FCC meeting are not particularly partisan, though they could be considered major — there is, for instance, a new rule being looked at that would simplify satellite licenses.

The letter, then, almost certainly refers to the “absurd” announcement that the agency would revisit Section 230 only weeks before an election and seemingly at the express request of Trump himself (the FCC is an independent agency and cannot be forced to consider any rule changes).

With ‘absurd’ timing, FCC announces intention to revisit Section 230

This is most certainly a partisan matter, as there are not only dueling bills attempting to reform the law, which limits the liability of internet platforms for the content posted on them, but Trump has loudly and publicly blamed Section 230 for what he perceives as censorship of certain viewpoints on those platforms.

Even if the FCC had dropped everything and started working full time on its proposed review of Section 230, it could not have even issued a draft of any new rules or changes before the election, making the announcement seem nakedly political: an embrace of the Executive’s displeasure with the way the FCC currently interprets the law. Even in the best case scenario and unanimous support it would be many months before such a rulemaking could be accomplished.

Section 230 will be on the chopping block at the next big tech hearing

I’ve asked the Chairman’s office if he intends to do as the letter asks, and will update this post if I hear back. Of course, to do so would tacitly acknowledge the victory of President-Elect Joe Biden over Trump in last week’s election, which few Republican leaders in the government seem willing to do.

While Pai considers, his colleagues, Commissioners Jessica Rosenworcel and Geoffrey Starks, have issued statements that they are eager to comply with the request from Congress.

“Historically, the FCC has honored the transfer of power from one Administration to the next by pausing any controversial activity. I urge FCC Chairman Ajit Pai to follow this past practice in order to ensure an orderly transition of agency affairs,” said Rosenworcel in her statement.

“As two of my Republican colleagues observed in 2016, it is long-standing Commission practice that, upon a presidential transition, the agency suspends its consideration of any partisan, controversial items until the transition period is complete. Our congressional leaders have called for Chairman Pai to respect this precedent, and I expect that he will abide by their request,” said Starks.

If the FCC accedes to the request, this and other items will be held until the new administration announces its plan for the FCC. Traditionally the previous Chairman resigns when a new administration is incoming, as Tom Wheeler did in late 2016, and a new leader is announced and confirmed the next year.

PACT Act takes on internet platform content rules with ‘a scalpel rather than a jackhammer’

Posted on

House Reps ask FCC to ‘stop work on all partisan, controversial items’ during transition

Two U.S. Representatives who oversee the FCC have asked the agency to respect the results of the election by abandoning any “partisan, controversial items under consideration.” This likely includes the FCC’s effort to reinterpret Section 230, an important protection for internet platforms, at the Trump administration’s request.

In the letter sent to FCC Chairman Ajit Pai today (a similar letter was sent to FTC Chairman Joseph Simons), Representatives Frank Pallone (D-NJ) writes:

With the results of the 2020 presidential election now apparent, leadership of the FCC will undoubtedly be changing. As a traditional part of the peaceful transfer of power — and as part of our oversight responsibilities — we strongly urge the agency to only pursue consensus and administrative matters for the remainder of your tenure.

And his colleague at the House Commerce Committee, Mike Doyle (D-PA) adds:

We note that that you have previously welcomed calls from congressional leaders for the FCC to “halt further action on controversial items during the transition period.” We hope you will respect this time-honored tradition now.

For a receipt, the letter references Pai’s own call for this exact thing to happen almost exactly four years ago, referring in his turn to the same practice occurring eight years prior under the previous chairman. “I hope Chairman Wheeler follows his [2008 Chairman Kevin Martin’s] example and honors the wishes of our congressional leaders, including by withdrawing the four major items on the November meeting agenda,” Pai wrote in 2016 (PDF).

The matters scheduled for consideration during the upcoming November FCC meeting are not particularly partisan, though they could be considered major — there is, for instance, a new rule being looked at that would simplify satellite licenses.

The letter, then, almost certainly refers to the “absurd” announcement that the agency would revisit Section 230 only weeks before an election and seemingly at the express request of Trump himself (the FCC is an independent agency and cannot be forced to consider any rule changes).

With ‘absurd’ timing, FCC announces intention to revisit Section 230

This is most certainly a partisan matter, as there are not only dueling bills attempting to reform the law, which limits the liability of internet platforms for the content posted on them, but Trump has loudly and publicly blamed Section 230 for what he perceives as censorship of certain viewpoints on those platforms.

Even if the FCC had dropped everything and started working full time on its proposed review of Section 230, it could not have even issued a draft of any new rules or changes before the election, making the announcement seem nakedly political: an embrace of the Executive’s displeasure with the way the FCC currently interprets the law. Even in the best case scenario and unanimous support it would be many months before such a rulemaking could be accomplished.

Section 230 will be on the chopping block at the next big tech hearing

I’ve asked the Chairman’s office if he intends to do as the letter asks, and will update this post if I hear back. Of course, to do so would tacitly acknowledge the victory of President-Elect Joe Biden over Trump in last week’s election, which few Republican leaders in the government seem willing to do.

While Pai considers, his colleagues, Commissioners Jessica Rosenworcel and Geoffrey Starks, have issued statements that they are eager to comply with the request from Congress.

“Historically, the FCC has honored the transfer of power from one Administration to the next by pausing any controversial activity. I urge FCC Chairman Ajit Pai to follow this past practice in order to ensure an orderly transition of agency affairs,” said Rosenworcel in her statement.

“As two of my Republican colleagues observed in 2016, it is long-standing Commission practice that, upon a presidential transition, the agency suspends its consideration of any partisan, controversial items until the transition period is complete. Our congressional leaders have called for Chairman Pai to respect this precedent, and I expect that he will abide by their request,” said Starks.

If the FCC accedes to the request, this and other items will be held until the new administration announces its plan for the FCC. Traditionally the previous Chairman resigns when a new administration is incoming, as Tom Wheeler did in late 2016, and a new leader is announced and confirmed the next year.

PACT Act takes on internet platform content rules with ‘a scalpel rather than a jackhammer’

Posted on

Ten questions for 2020 presidential candidate Tom Steyer

In November 2020, America will go to the polls to vote in perhaps the most consequential election in a generation. The winner will lead the country amid great social, economic and ecological unrest. The 2020 election will be a referendum on both the current White House and the direction of the country at large.

Nearly 20 years into the young century, technology has become a pervasive element in all of our lives, and will continue to only grow more important. Whoever takes the oath of office in January 2021 will have to answer some difficult questions, ranging from an impending climate disaster to concerns about job loss at the hands of robotics and automation.

Many of these questions are overlooked in day to day coverage of candidates and during debates. To better address the issues, TechCrunch staff has compiled a 10-part questionnaire across a wide range of tech-centric topics. The questions have been sent to national candidates, regardless of party. We will be publishing the answers as we receive them. Candidates are not required to answer all 10 in order for us to publish, but we will be noting which answers have been left blank.

Previously: John Delaney

This time out, we’re speaking to Tom Steyer. The California-based billionaire hedge fund manager spent time at Morgan Stanley and Goldman Sachs before founding and heading up Farallon Capital Management. The investment firm managed $21 billion in investments with Steyer at the helm. In recent years, he has become an outspoken opponent of climate change, giving a speech at the 2012 Democratic National Convention. In 2017, he rose to national political prominence starring in a self-funded $10 million TV ad campaign calling for the Donald Trump’s impeachment.

1. Which initiatives will you prioritize to limit humankind’s impact on climate and avoid potential climate catastrophe?

Climate change is a crisis as big and urgent as any other that this country and our planet has faced. It demands our immediate attention on all levels of government and society. Our country needs a strong president who will make this a top priority. On my first day in office, I will declare the climate crisis a national emergency and use the emergency powers of the presidency to implement a plan to build a safer, more sustainable world, with or without Congress. This is truly a global crisis, and it is long past time for the United States to take the lead in solving it. I have been on the ground working with local groups to take on polluters and save the planet. One campaign I successfully led was the No on Prop 23: a coalition that defeated a ballot initiative sponsored by out of state oil interests that would have rolled back California’s nation-leading climate laws.

2. What is your plan to increase black and Latinx startup founders’ access to funding?

Finance and banking were built around a pretty basic idea — some people have money, while others need it to buy homes, build a business and improve their lives. Moving that money around efficiently was the key to success. The free flow of capital fuels the private sector. But not everyone has equal access to that capital, particularly for the innovative new products that could redefine society. In particular, we know that women, black and Latinx founders have been held back by racists and misogynists and do not have the same access to funding that their white, male counterparts enjoy.

So here’s what I have done: my wife and I created Beneficial State Bank as an alternative to the big financial institutions that have treated customers, communities and the planet so badly and that have left so many Americans out of shared prosperity. The profits from the bank don’t go to line our pockets, but are reinvested into the community and used to promote the public good. We now have 17 local branches throughout California, Oregon and Washington, which have been used to build affordable homes for low-income families; create clean, renewable energy; provide spaces for art; educate our youth; help nonprofit organizations and support minority businesses and businesses owned by workers. As president, I will apply this approach to government programs supporting entrepreneurship to ensure that the best ideas have the chance to succeed, no matter the sex, race or creed of the founder. I will also restore the integrity of the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau to ensure that financial institutions and others are putting the interests of consumers and borrowers first.

3. Why do you think low-income students are underrepresented in STEM fields and how do you think the government can help fix that problem?

Science, technology, engineering and math — and I would add the arts, STEAM — are the fields at the core of our innovation economy. Yet so far, low-income students have been left out. We have to tackle this from cradle to career, but there are a few simple things we can do to get started. Our campaign has proposed The 5 Rights, and one of these is the right to education. This includes a strong math foundation, a fundamental need for kids wanting to progress in STEM/STEAM fields. It also includes resourcing schools in all ZIP codes to offer hands-on learning, like place-based environmental education, and to teach new life skills like coding. For kids who are already starting out behind, we are going to have to devote the necessary resources to get them up to speed. Once they graduate, we also want the door to college to be open for any student who dreams of building a better future for themselves. That’s why I have been working to reduce student debt, ensure that kids are properly nourished at school and have other social services available to them, making it possible for students from all family backgrounds to afford quality higher education.

4. Do you plan on backing and rolling out paper-only ballots or paper-verified election machines? With many stakeholders in the private sector and the government, how do you aim to coordinate and achieve that?

One person, one vote is the principle underpinning our system of government. As we have seen, the very machines where we cast our votes are under attack, and states need help to secure the integrity of our elections. My administration will work closely with all 50 states to implement paper ballots and risk-based auditing to secure our election systems from fraud and malicious attack.

5. What, if any, federal regulation should be enacted for autonomous vehicles?

My hometown is where these cars are first hitting the roads and from that experience, we know that autonomous vehicles are well on their way, but aren’t quite ready for mainstream. As this new technology develops, we will need to update our federal regulations to ensure the safety of the American people.

6. How do you plan to achieve and maintain U.S. superiority in space, both in government programs and private industry?

Space has captured our imaginations as the next frontier, a place of striving, exploration and excellence, and is also the sphere where the infrastructure of our future is being built in the satellites that now connect people around the planet almost seamlessly. Space, like any domain in which we compete with adversaries and collaborate with allies, demands our attention and a commitment to research and development so we stay a step ahead. Our security interests are always a top priority — but the best way to ensure our safety is to make sure the American people are writing the rules for the defense industry, not lobbyists and corporate interests. I’d ensure that the U.S. Air Force is equipped to handle the risks while making sure every branch and entity involved in space has a centralized hub for communication and action. And we should continue to look at American-led international cooperation — including public and private sector collaboration — in space as a perfect example of soft power, which we should work to maintain and expand. Finally, we should ensure that America’s space program, NASA, is properly resourced.

7. Increased capital in startups founded by American entrepreneurs is a net positive, but should the U.S. allow its businesses to be part-owned by foreign governments, particularly the government of Saudi Arabia?

As president, I will commit to protecting and fostering American interests, both at home and abroad. And that is why I will support investments in our businesses from sources outside of the U.S. as long as the ownership does not risk our national security and those countries — and companies from those countries — obey and respect our laws from intellectual property to labor and environmental standards. We can only advance our interests if our values are respected.

8. Will U.S.-China technology decoupling harm or benefit U.S. innovation and why?

Like it or not, we are going to have to engage with China both economically and politically. It’s impossible for us to completely divorce these relationships. The real challenge facing our country is how we promote and protect American economic and national security interests. I believe we should stand up strongly to protect the interests of American intellectual property and punish those that don’t obey the laws. We are also going to have to protect American consumers and workers, ensure our cybersecurity and work with China to address pressing global issues like the climate crisis and regional security. The devil is in the details of how we compete with China, and when we engage with them as a strategic partner.

9. How large a threat does automation represent to American jobs? Do you have a plan to help train low-skilled workers and otherwise offset job loss?

From the impacts of Climate Change to the threat of automation, working people have gotten the short end of the stick for the past 40 years. As an investor, I know that if we invest in our people and the technologies needed to save our planet, we can give workers the skills they need for the new economy. These investments need to be done now, not when a million truck drivers lose their jobs. My Justice Centered Climate Plan includes investments in Civilian Climate Corps, which will create one million jobs over 10 years.

10. What steps will you take to restore net neutrality and assure internet users that their traffic and data are safe from manipulation by broadband providers?

The Trump administration’s decision to rescind federal net neutrality rules put the internet into the hands of powerful corporations without protecting consumers. Internet service providers should not be able to charge websites to reach their subscribers. I would reinstate the net neutrality rules written during the Obama administration. In California, I was proud to help pass SB 822, the net neutrality bill that was signed into law — it not only restored the Obama-era standards but went steps further to advance the ball in this policy area.

Posted on

Ten questions for 2020 presidential candidate John Delaney

In November 2020, America will go to the polls to vote in perhaps the most consequential election in a generation. The winner will lead the country amid great social, economic and ecological unrest. The 2020 election will be a referendum on both the current White House and the direction of the country at large.

Nearly 20 years into the young century, technology has become a pervasive element in all of our lives, and will continue to only grow more important. Whoever takes the oath of office in January 2021 will have to answer some difficult questions, raging from an impending climate disaster to concerns about job loss at the hands of robotics and automation.

Many of these questions are overlooked in day to day coverage of candidates and during debates. In order to better address the issues, TechCrunch staff has compiled a 10-part questionnaire across a wide range of tech-centric topics. The questions have been sent to national candidates, regardless of party. We will be publishing the answers as we receive them. Candidates are not required to answer all 10 in order for us to publish, but we will be noting which answers have been left blank.

First up is former Congressman John Delaney. Prior to being elected to Maryland’s 6th Congressional District, Delaney co-founded and led healthcare loan service Health Care Financial Partners (HCFP) and  commercial lender CapitalSource. He was elected to Congress in 2013, beating out a 10-term Republican incumbent. Rumored to be running against Maryland governor Larry Hogan for a 2018 bid, Delaney instead announced plans to run for president in 2020.

1. Which initiatives will you prioritize to limit humankind’s impact on climate and avoid potential climate catastrophe?

My $4 trillion Climate Plan will enable us to reach the goal of net zero emissions by 2050, which the IPCC says is the necessary target to avoid the worst effects of climate change. The centerpiece of my plan is a carbon-fee-and-dividend that will put a price on carbon emissions and return the money to the American people through a dividend. My plan also includes increased federal funding for renewable energy research, advanced nuclear technologies, direct air capture, a new Climate Corps program, and the construction of the Carbon Throughway, which would transport captured carbon from all over the country to the Permian Basin for reuse and permanent sequestration.

2. What is your plan to increase black and Latinx startup founders’ access to funding?

As a former entrepreneur who started two companies that went on to be publicly traded, I am a firm believer in the importance of entrepreneurship. To ensure people from all backgrounds have the support they need to start a new business, I will create nonprofit banks to serve economically distressed communities, launch a new SBIC program to help provide access to capital to minority entrepreneurs, and create a grant program to fund business incubators and accelerators at HBCUs. Additionally, I pledge to appoint an Entrepreneurship Czar who will be responsible for promoting entrepreneurship-friendly policies at all levels of government and encouraging entrepreneurship in rural and urban communities that have been left behind by venture capital investment.

3. Why do you think low-income students are underrepresented in STEM fields and how do you think the government can help fix that problem?

I think a major part of the problem is that schools serving low-income communities don’t have the resources they need to provide a quality STEM education to every student. To fix that, I have an education plan that will increase investment in STEM education and use Title I funding to eliminate the $23 billion annual funding gap between predominantly white and predominantly black school districts. To encourage students to continue their education after they graduate from high school and ensure every student learns the skills they need, my plan also provides two years of free in-state tuition and fees at a public university, community college, or technical school to everyone who completes one year of my mandatory national service program.

4. Do you plan on backing and rolling out paper-only ballots or paper-verified election machines? With many stakeholders in the private sector and the government, how do you aim to coordinate and achieve that?

Making sure that our elections are secure is vital, and I think using voting machines that create a voter-verified paper record could improve security and increase voters’ confidence in the integrity of our elections. To address other facets of the election security issue, I have proposed creating a Department of Cybersecurity to help protect our election systems, and while in Congress I introduced election security legislation to ensure that election vendors are solely owned and controlled by American citizens.

5. What, if any, federal regulation should be enacted for autonomous vehicles?

I was proud to be the founder of the Congressional Artificial Intelligence Caucus, a bipartisan group of lawmakers dedicated to understanding the impacts of advances in AI technology and educating other legislators so they have the knowledge they need to enact policies that ensure these innovations benefit Americans. We need to use the legislative process to have a real conversation involving experts and other stakeholders in order to develop a comprehensive set of regulations regarding autonomous vehicles, which should include standards that address data collection practices and other privacy issues as well as more fundamental questions about public safety.

6. How do you plan to achieve and maintain U.S. superiority in space, both in government programs and private industry?

Space exploration is tremendously important to me as a former Congressman from Maryland, the home of NASA’s Goddard Space Flight Center, major space research centers at the University of Maryland, and many companies that develop crucial aerospace technologies. As president, I will support the NASA budget and will continue to encourage innovation in the private sector.

7. Increased capital in startups founded by American entrepreneurs is a net positive, but should the U.S. allow its businesses to be part-owned by foreign governments, particularly the government of Saudi Arabia?

I am concerned that joint ventures between U.S. businesses and foreign governments, including state-owned enterprises, could facilitate the theft of intellectual property, potentially allowing foreign governments to benefit from taxpayer-funded research. We need to put in place greater protections that defend American innovation from theft.

8. Will U.S.-China technology decoupling harm or benefit U.S. innovation and why?

In general, I am in favor of international technology cooperation but in the case of China, it engages in predatory economic behavior and disregards international rules. Intellectual property theft has become a big problem for American businesses as China allows its companies to steal IP through joint ventures. In theory, U.S.-China collaboration could advance technology and innovation but without proper IP and economic protections, U.S.-China joint ventures and partnerships can be detrimental to the U.S.

9. How large a threat does automation represent to American jobs? Do you have a plan to help train low-skilled workers and otherwise offset job loss?

Automation could lead to the disruption of up to 54 million American jobs if we aren’t prepared and we don’t have the right policies. To help American workers transition to the high-tech, high-skill future economy, I am calling for a national AI strategy that will support public/private AI partnerships, develop a social contract with the communities that are negatively impacted by technology and globalization, and create updated education and job training programs that will help students and those currently in the workforce learn the skills they need.

To help provide jobs to displaced workers and drive economic growth in communities that suffer negative effects from automation, I have proposed a $2 trillion infrastructure plan that would create an infrastructure bank to facilitate state and local government investment, increase the Highway Trust Fund, create a Climate Infrastructure Fund, and create five new matching funds to support water infrastructure, school infrastructure, deferred maintenance projects, rural broadband, and infrastructure projects in disadvantaged communities in urban and rural areas. In addition, my proposed national service program will create new opportunities that allow young adults to learn new skills and gain valuable work experience. For example, my proposal includes a new national infrastructure apprenticeship program that will award a professional certificate proving mastery of particular skill sets for those who complete the program.

10. What steps will you take to restore net neutrality and assure internet users that their traffic and data are safe from manipulation by broadband providers?

I support the Save Net Neutrality Act to restore net neutrality, and I will appoint FCC commissioners who are committed to maintaining a fair and open internet. Additionally, I would work with Congress to update our digital privacy laws and regulations to protect consumers, especially children, from their data being collected without consent.

Posted on

Pete Buttigieg echoes Warren with $80B rural broadband plan

Democratic presidential hopeful Pete Buttigieg has unveiled his plan to address the broadband gap in this country: an $80 billion “Internet For All” initiative and set of related reforms. It echoes Senator Elizabeth Warren’s (D-MA) announcement last week, which is generally speaking a good thing.

It’s detailed in a document entitled “Investing in an American Asset: Unleashing the Potential of Rural America,” which feels like it may rub people the wrong way. It seems to imply that rural America is an “asset” to the rest of America, and that its potential has not yet been unleashed. But that’s just a tone thing.

There are a number of programs in there worth looking at if you’re interested in the economy of rural areas and how it might be spurred or revitalized (for instance paying teachers better), but the internet access portion is the most relevant for tech.

Buttigieg’s main promise is to “expand access to all currently unserved and underserved communities,” including a “public option” where private companies have failed to provide coverage.

That gets broken down into a few sub-goals. First is to revamp the way we measure and track broadband access, since the current system “is inaccurate and perpetuates inequity.” It’s important this isn’t overlooked in anyone’s plan, since this is how we officially make decisions like where to spend federal dollars on connectivity.

Like Warren, Buttigieg wants to remove the impediments to public and municipal broadband options that have been put in place over the years. This will allow “community-driven broadband networks, such as public-private partnerships, rural co-ops or municipally owned broadband networks” to move forward without legal challenges. A new Broadband Incubator Office will help roll these out, and the $80 billion will help bankroll them.

Net neutrality gets a bullet point as well — “Given the FCC’s volatility on this issue, Pete believes that legislation will ultimately be necessary,” the document reads. That’s frank, and while Warren and others have spoken out in favor of an FCC solution, it is likely that legislation will eventually come around and hopefully solve the issue once and for all.

Bernie Sanders makes reinstating net neutrality a campaign promise

Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-VT) was the first to make net neutrality a campaign promise, though most of the candidates have expressed support for the rule in the past.

The plan is a little less specific than Warren’s, but the truth is any plan involving this amount of money and complexity is going to necessarily be a bit vague at first. Demonstrating priorities and openness to ideas and methods is the important part, as well as throwing out a giant number like $80 billion. The specifics are unlikely to see much debate until one of these people is in the Oval Office.

“To ensure greater opportunity for all, we must make a massive investment in Internet access” summarizes the Buttigieg plan pretty well. You can read the full plan here or below.

Pete Buttigieg Rural Economy by TechCrunch on Scribd

Posted on

Warren makes $85B federally funded broadband promise

As part of her bid for the presidency, Senator Elizabeth Warren (D-MA) has made some bold proposals to improve access to broadband in underserved areas, and has made it clear that restoring net neutrality is also among her priorities. She proposes $85 billion to cover the enormous costs of making sure “every home in America has a fiber broadband connection at a price families can afford.”

The proposal is part of a greater plan to “invest in rural America” that Sen. Warren detailed in a blog post. As well as promises relating to healthcare, housing and labor, the presidential hopeful dedicated a section to “A Public Option for Broadband.”

This isn’t “broadband as utility,” as some have called for over the years, but rather a massive subsidy program to multiply and diversify internet services in rural areas, hopefully bringing them to the speeds and reliability available in cities.

Before announcing her own plan, she criticized the outcomes of earlier subsidies, like the FCC’s $2 billion Connect America Fund II:

[ISPs] have deliberately restricted competition, kept prices high, and used their armies of lobbyists to convince state legislatures to ban municipalities from building their own public networks. Meanwhile, the federal government has shoveled billions of taxpayer dollars to private ISPs in an effort to expand broadband to remote areas, but those providers have done the bare minimum with these resources — offering internet speeds well below the FCC minimum.

Her alternative is to shovel billions to everyone but ISPs to improve internet infrastructure.

“Only electricity and telephone cooperatives, non-profit organizations, tribes, cities, counties, and other state subdivisions will be eligible for grants from this fund,” she wrote, “and all grants will be used to build the fiber infrastructure necessary to bring high-speed broadband to unserved areas, underserved areas, or areas with minimal competition.”

FCC’s broadband deployment report called ‘fundamentally at odds with reality’

By paying 90% of the costs of rolling out fiber and other costs, the federal government allows smaller businesses and utilities to get in on the fun rather than leaving it all to megacorporations like Comcast and Verizon. (Disclosure: TechCrunch is owned by Verizon through Verizon Media. Our parent company is almost certain to be dead set against Warren’s plan.)

Not only that, but it directly targets use by municipal broadband organizations, which have formed in some states and cities in response to ISP chokeholds on the region. These organizations have been rendered illegal or toothless across half the country by legislation often supported or even proposed by ISPs and telecoms. Sen. Warren said she would preempt state laws on this matter using federal legislation, something that would no doubt be controversial.

Applicants would have to offer at least one 100/100 megabit connection option, and one discount plan for low-income customers. This would ensure that companies don’t take the money and then lay down the bare minimum connection tolerable today.

The $85 billion fund will be administered by the Department of Economic Development, part of the Department of Commerce, under a newly minted Office of Broadband Access; $5 billion will be set aside for full-cost coverage of broadband expansion on Native American lands, which are often worse off than non-Native rural areas.

To be clear, this internet effort would not mean a government-run broadband option, even in the municipal case (these are often nonprofits or private entities funded by governments). The plan is to help small companies and organizations overcome the prohibitive cost of entry and jump-start them into actual operation. The government would not operate the service or have any control over it other than, as mentioned, at the outset as far as requiring certain capacities and such.

Bernie Sanders makes reinstating net neutrality a campaign promise

In addition to the plan for a publicly funded broadband push, Sen. Warren made it clear (as Sen. Sanders did last week) that she would be appointing FCC commissioners who support net neutrality, specifically as it was enacted in 2015 under Title II.

The FCC’s inaccurate broadband maps and progress reports will also get a kick in the pants under Warren’s plan, though the specifics are few. And “anti-competitive behaviors” like under-the-table deals between ISPs and landlords will be rooted out, as well.

These are big promises and of course easy to make ahead of election, but they’re also smart ones, directly addressing frustrations in the industry and parts of the process currently dominated by immovable ISPs and their lobbyists. And the fact that these issues are being addressed so prominently at all as part of a presidential bid is good news to those currently on the wrong side of the digital divide.