Stimulus Bill Contains Net Neutrality Provision

visible.frylock writes "Cnet is reporting that the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 (PDF), currently in the House Appropriations Committee, contains Net Neutrality provisions: 'The so-called stimulus package hands out billions of dollars in grants for broadband and wireless development, primarily in what are called "unserved" and "underserved" areas. ... The catch is that the federal largesse comes with Net neutrality strings attached. ... recipients must operate broadband and high-speed wireless networks on an "open access basis." The FCC, soon to be under Democratic control, is charged with deciding what that means. Congress didn't see fit to include a definition.' The broadband grants appear to begin in SEC. 3101 (pg. 49) of the PDF."

Comments

Fairs Fair

[Thomas Charron]

Well, it would make sense.. "We're going to give incentive for new net access, go ahead and screw any web site shmoe who doesn't have enough to pay for premium access"...

I mean, what do you think this is, the banking or finance industry?

Re:Eh..

[Shakrai]

Jobs like this are pretty much what governments are for. if we wouldn't have had the rural electric and water provisions in the 19030's we would still have rural folks reading by candle light and crapping in outhouses. There is NO way a corporation is going to spend the major expense of running fiber to rural areas, simply because it would never bring them a return on investment. So if we want to see nationwide broadband we pretty much HAVE to get the government in on it. Now once those lines are done and we have most of the country blanketed in fiber, THEN we should lease the lines to multiple competitors to break up the natural monopolies

So your business plan can be boiled down to:

1) Use the power of the state to force big evil telco to run fiber to rural areas that they can't profitably serve
2) Once fiber is laid use the power of the state to force big evil telco to lease those lines to competitors that didn't make the initial investment from step #1 for whatever reason (guess they bought off the right Congressman if they weren't obligated to build out to those areas like big evil telco was)
3) ???
4) Profit!

I realize the problem that you are trying to address (rural areas being undeserved by utility companies) but it seems to be quite a contradiction to force them to build out to those areas and then force them to let competitors use their lines.