New
#1
It's probably just the lack of sleep I've had, the sleep that I haven't had, the...
Anyway, I was just thinking about the "interweb" (that word specifically - hmm, but then, maybe it was "interwebs" - tough to say for sure), emoticons (newer and older [relatively speaking - that is, from my experience] in comparison - QQ being newer, or at least more commonly used more recently, for example), and such. So, it looks like a bit of good fortune that I happened upon this thread.
I will enjoy reading up on this. Thanks for sharing.
So, "net neutrality." In a way this does kind of remind me of freedom of the press, free speech, equal rights, and so on. All overall good things, in my opinion. But on the other hand, it's someone's server(s), communication infrastructure, and data. So, while the public uses the internet (but then again, I guess you could say private individuals just as easily, if not even more so), it isn't really (correct me if I'm wrong) a public network/digital forum (as it were) for digital communication and data sharing. It's almost like a virtual public network. So while I think "net neutrality" is largely a just endeavor, it seems... well, unfortunately unrealistic to a degree to me.
Are the stewards (regulating body/bodies, what have you) of the internet public officials who can be held accountable?
Well, there was that judge, or so I've heard, that ruled against Verizon(?) and maybe another/other telecommunication entity/entities, basically saying that they couldn't single out and "throttle" down internet media host's/provider's (Netflix, YouTube, and/or similar) "bandwidth" and charge the media entities to have more or normal "bandwidth." So, maybe the internet is recognized as being public in some fashion, or maybe it just has laws that apply to how it's used per government.
If I want to connect to the internet, I have to pay the toll to those that pay the toll to those that own the infrastructure(s). Ideally (assuming non-political propaganda stereotypes about the justifiable roles of governments), I think this infrastructure should be public instead of private, and free to use (within certain reasonable limitations), like sidewalks. Though I realize that that isn't necessarily practical nor realistic overall. Maybe this public internet could have a free standardized type of connection per address, provided there was service in the area, and the government could charge for higher data transfer rates to offset the costs either somewhat, or perhaps entirely.