ReveNews Online Revenue News & Opinions Since 1998

Net Neutrality Mandated in $7.2 Billion Broadband Stimulus Funding

Good news for Net Neutrality. This administration has shown that they are committed to the principals of Net Neutrality based on language in the rules recently released for the broadband stimulus funding. The Broadband Technology Opportunities Program (BTOP) is offering grants for; deploying broadband infrastructure in under-served areas, enhancing broadband capacity in public computer centers, and promoting sustainable broadband adoption projects. The rules require all grant winners to follow the FCC’s 2005 Internet Policy Statement as well as specifically calling out neutral traffic routing.

This shows that Net Neutrality is not some impossible to understand arcane rules that are anti-consumer like the opponents try to make you think. Opponents talk about extra government regulation, bureaucracy, and confusion because nobody really knows what it means. If the government can explain it in a few sentences in a 121 page document, then how hard can this concept really be to understand?

These rules are specifically called out and described in the Interconnection and Non-Discrimination Requirements section (Page 113) where they require applicants to commit to five obligations (page 114):

1. Adhere to the principles contained in the FCC’s Broadband Policy Statement (FCC 05-151 adopted Aug. 5, 2005).
2. Not favor any lawful Internet applications or content over others.
3. Display network management policies in a prominent location on the service provider’s web page and provide notice to customers of changes to these policies (awardees must describe any business practices or technical mechanisms they employ, other than standard best efforts Internet delivery, to allocate capacity. They must differentiate among applications, providers, or sources,  limit usage; and manage or block access to illegal or harmful content).
4. Connect to the public Internet directly or indirectly, such that the project is not an entirely private closed network.
5. Offer interconnection, where technically-feasible, on reasonable rates and terms to be negotiated with requesting parties. This includes both the ability to connect to the public Internet and physical interconnection for the exchange of traffic.

The second one is very specific here in the description where they say that:

This requirement ensures neutral traffic routing. Without a non-discrimination condition, network operators could give preferential treatment to affiliated services, or charge some application and content providers for “fast lanes” that would put others at a competitive disadvantage.

The document continues with text about the AT&T/Bell South merger requirements and notes that this is a more general version, allowing the carriers more room to cache, manage spam, deal with DNS attacks, etc.

Go a few more pages and on page 118 they continue with the justification:

Overall, these five requirements ensure that public funds will support the public goal of open networks. The standards chosen echo established FCC rules, but avoid detailed regulation and allow for flexibility when network management requires differential treatment or exclusivity.

The section concludes by noting that the rules apply for the life of the facilities and that failure to comply would likely be considered breach of their loan or grant agreements at which point one would assume the money would have to be repaid.

This really is great news. If the government is going to be spending our own tax dollars (stimulus funds) to improve broadband coverage across the country, then access should be equal to all for all content.

Search Through 10 Years of ReveNews Content:

•  

  

• Subscribe to ReveNews

  • Get ReveNews Updates in Your Reader
  • Get ReveNews Updates in Your Email

• The Latest Comments

  • SEO Text Links on Clues for Ranking with Google Caffeine
  • Matt McWilliams on The Way I See It: State of Affiliate Marketing Part 2
  • Holly Eagans on ShopAtHome Stabs Fellow Colorado Affiliates in the Back
  • Mark Welch on The Way I See It: State of Affiliate Marketing Part 2
  • Matt McWilliams on The Way I See It: State of Affiliate Marketing Part 2
  • Matt McWilliams on The Way I See It: State of Affiliate Marketing Part 2
  • Bill on The Way I See It: State of Affiliate Marketing Part 2
  • Jeannine Crooks on ShopAtHome Stabs Fellow Colorado Affiliates in the Back
  • Fred Waters on The Way I See It: State of Affiliate Marketing Part 2
  • Angel Djambazov on ShopAtHome Stabs Fellow Colorado Affiliates in the Back

• ReveNews Readers

• Archives

  Select Month February 2010 January 2010 December 2009 November 2009 October 2009 September 2009 August 2009 July 2009 June 2009 May 2009 April 2009 March 2009 February 2009 January 2009 December 2008 November 2008 October 2008 September 2008 August 2008 July 2008 June 2008 May 2008 April 2008 March 2008 February 2008 January 2008 December 2007 November 2007 October 2007 September 2007 August 2007 July 2007 June 2007 May 2007 April 2007 March 2007 February 2007 January 2007 December 2006 November 2006 October 2006 September 2006 August 2006 July 2006 June 2006 May 2006 April 2006 March 2006 February 2006 January 2006 December 2005 November 2005 October 2005 September 2005 August 2005 July 2005 June 2005 May 2005 April 2005 March 2005 February 2005 January 2005 December 2004 November 2004 October 2004 September 2004 August 2004 July 2004 June 2004