AT&T, Time Warner, and the Need for Neutrality
There is a lot wrong with internet/general utility regulation in the US, but I think it's mostly the last-mile cable logistics which are preventing competition in heavily populated areas, and that results in localized monopolies or duopolies.<p>This piece addresses the philosophy of the potential issues better than some, but this net neutrality hysteria in general seems to me like a lot of well intentioned folks are trying to solve a problem which does not exist, despite having had decades to develop (while the associated technology is still rapidly transforming, the Internet is no longer such an immature, radical new thing). Adding controversial regulations to the most innovative technology sector in the US to solve a problem which <i>might</i> develop (and could in all likelihood be undone very quickly and without significant infrastructure changes, were this to begin to develop into a problem) seems ridiculous to me. I imagine there are many better trees to bark up.<p>But to entertain the idea, of the three final 'key principles' the author lists, the first two are reasonable and unlikely to break things (if it was possible for Congress to write a one-page bill that contains only the language necessary to implement these rules, and nothing else). The third one is a slap in the face of innovation and new services in my eyes, although the author acknowledges it may be extreme.<p>The only sweeping public policy that I could support to address a problem in this space would be for one which already DOES exist: the lack of competition in the ISP space for the last mile. A possible public solution could include cities implementing a basic cabling system that cover all residences in urban areas (independent from any other private cables, which would likely be superior) that any ISP can connect to and serve via a city hub (much closer to the backbone, with an access point being outside the urban area, allowing many competitors to build infrastructure around it).