Net neutrality in House stimulus package is status quo

Initial takes that the inclusion of net neutrality language (p. 53) in the House stimulus appropriations package is highly significant -- are overblown. It is basically an affirmation of the status quo. 

Why the significance of the House appropriations NN language is overblown:

First, this language is very narrowly targeted (p. 51) at "basic broadband service in unserved areas, and advanced broadband service in under-served areas" i.e. where competition has not emerged because the extremely low density is not economic.  

• It should be of zero surprise that where there is no broadband, no competition, or little prospect of competition because of low user density -- that the Government would have clear operating expectations that these networks operate openly as competitive networks do.

Second, this is not regulation; it is a voluntary grant program.

• There is no regulatory mandate for net neutrality here.
• If an entity wants to use the taxpayers' money on building a network that is almost by definition not driven by economics or return on investment -- it is perfectly reasonable and responsible they must agree to the appropriators' conditions.  

Third, mainstream broadband providers are highly un-likely to apply for these grants.

• Almost by definition, the markets targeted by this bill are where competitive providers have not gone because doing so was uneconomic.
• Almost always if a network is uneconomic to build, it is unlikely to be economic to operate for the same density reasons.
• Whether or not it could make sense for some small rural companies would depend on the specifics of the market and the company. 

Fourth, this language would not be broad law of the land. Those that understand the legislative process know that appropriators cannot "authorize", or make law, through an appropriations/spending bill like this economic stimulus. 

• Moreover, appropriations measures are not permanent, but annual; they must be re-passed every year by Congress to keep the provision in force.  
• To become permanent law, a provision on net neutrality would have to be originated by the authorizing committees, passed by the House and Senate and signed by the President.

Fifth, this House language does not apply to the FCC, but applies to the Commerce Department's NTIA, and the Agriculture Department's rural programs -- specifically for allocating grants, loans or loan guarantees.

• The FCC's authority comes from permanent authorization law like the 1996 Telecom Act which directs the FCC to promote competition and deployment of advanced/broadband services. 
• This is relevant because the core net neutrality debate has centered on whether competition or regulation is the appropriate method for achieving the most open Internet.

Sixth, this is effectively a re-inforcement of the status quo -- not a big net neutrality advance as some net neutrality proponents would claim. 

• The appropriations language directs the grant recipients to "adhere to the principles contained in the FCC's broadband policy statement (FCC 05151, adopted August 5, 2005.)"  
• This is what everyone in the sector has had to do and has been doing since then.
• No news here.

Bottom line:

The economic stimulus appropriations language did nothing to alter the core net neutrality debate: which is whether or not longstanding bi-partisan communications law/policy will continue to be operative under the new Government:

• "To promote competition... and encourage rapid deployment of new telecommunications technologies" and 
• "...to preserve the vibrant and competitive free market that presently exists for the Internet... unfettered by Federal or state regulation."