The problem has several layers. Imposing government controls won't fix it, but instead will just change it into a different problem. In most communities in the US, Comcast, AT&T, Time Warner, or whatever ISP is available operate under contracts made with local governments. Their pricing structure and amount of competition, if any, is set by the government. They operate without any real competition or incentive to improve their service.
When is the last time your ISP came to you and said "what will it take to keep you as a customer?" That's never happened to me or anyone else that I've heard of.
The cost of running copper or fiber to each and every home is so high that it makes it almost impossible for any other company to try to break this stranglehold. What is needed is reliable, high bandwidth, and inexpensive wireless communications. I'm not nevessarily promoting cellular, because the data rates and data limitations that currently exist are just too low for most homes. But a wireless router on a pole down the street might solve the problem. Multiple ISP's could offer the same service within any given neighborhood, creating competition, which brings with it the incentive to provide reliable and efficient service.
If we go another step and eliminate the customer contracts, then we have pressure from the customer to keep the service "fair" by threatening to leave at any moment.
It's difficult to make a judgment when there really isn't even agreement on the definition of "Net Neutrality." The fact that it's become quite politicized makes it even more of a challenge to determine who's telling what truth, when and where.
On the one side are the Left, who believe that government has absolutely no place in something like this; that it should be 100% up to the people, so market forces can determine value and pricing; keeping everything fair (by their definition of fair). On the other side are the Right, who believe that government has absolutely no place in something like this; that it should be 100% up to the people, so market forces can determine value and pricing; keeping everything fair (by their definition of fair). Somewhere in the middle are people who believe government regulation is needed to keep everything fair (by their definition of fair).
Today's Internet really is infrastructure more than it is a business. It's like the highway system, but with more on and off ramps. Treating it like that would probably lead to a decent and livable outcome.
I watched the video. Colour me confused. I am not sure her analogies hold up and she completely ignores the laws of supply and demand. She also starts out with a presupposition of fair-play, which we all want, but is it realistic? ALso puts the blame on the FCC's inabilty to enforce its own rules.
Her argument that net neutratlity in Japan and Korea leaves me wondering if it is indeed the case. Here in Canada I hear the same argument but the pundits here say it is better in the US and Sweden.
I know I should care, but this is harder than placing an X on a ballot form and in addition not being in the US means that I don't really get a say anyway. Just like I don't get a say on the leader of the free world...
Drones are, in essence, flying autonomous vehicles. Pros and cons surrounding drones today might well foreshadow the debate over the development of self-driving cars. In the context of a strongly regulated aviation industry, "self-flying" drones pose a fresh challenge. How safe is it to fly drones in different environments? Should drones be required for visual line of sight – as are piloted airplanes? Join EE Times' Junko Yoshida as she moderates a panel of drone experts.