Slashdot Mirror


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."

6 of 129 comments (clear)

  1. Sounds Great by drinkypoo · · Score: 4, Interesting

    I live in Lake county, California and this would be a fantastic environment for WiMax. We have a volcano (dormant... heh heh) in the middle of the county upon which we already have a radio shack, and I don't mean the store. I helped my pop insulate it when I was a kid. We have a capture-and-rebroadcast system here called LCTV, and I believe Edge (now part of the evil empire) has a tower up there as well (maybe AT&T has some of their own stuff up there too.) There is good road access, so it would be relatively trivial to truck a small shipping container and some building materials up there, and there is far more than sufficient exposure for combo solar/wind power to run the system. If this bill goes through before I move out of here, I may have to start tapping some connections and see if I can finally get a working last mile solution up in here.

    --
    "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
  2. feeling better already by Ruvim · · Score: 5, Funny

    so, we are finally getting someone in government who does not just measure Net in truckloads.

  3. A Cherry on Top by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Insightful

    of a crap sandwich still doesn't change the fact that it's a crap sandwich.

  4. open access by bartok · · Score: 5, Insightful

    So if it's not defined what open access means, how can anyone say that it means net neutrality? It could mean anything and that usually means the definition will be dependant on lobying dollars.

  5. Re:Eh.. by hairyfeet · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Oh please! I'm as anti government as anybody, but do you honestly think they will EVER run lines out to those in rural areas? Not a chance, simply because it isn't cost effective. My mother has lived in her home since 1980. The house was a block and a half from where the cable and DSL ended. Guess how far it is today? That's right! It is STILL a block and a half away!

    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. And I bet if we did that we would not only see speed increases but a lot fairer prices than we get now locked into "our way or the highway" monopolies.

    --
    ACs don't waste your time replying, your posts are never seen by me.
  6. Re:Slaves by Arthur+Grumbine · · Score: 5, Insightful

    How dare you live in an area that the corporations do not estimate to be profitable! No modern telecommunications for you! You don't deserve them!

    If I decide to go buy property and build a house out in northern Alaska, dozens of miles from anyone else, is it the government's job to provide me with all the same infrastructure as everywhere else?! I don't understand how I "deserve" anything from the government besides reasonable protection of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, and other constitutionally-enumerated fundamental rights. If I choose to live outside the "bubbles" of infrastructure that they've contributed to, I don't see how my choices obligate, or should obligate, the government (federal or state).

    --
    Now that I think about it, I'm pretty sure everything I just said is completely wrong.