I think this has the potential to be helpful and profitable to the US with a growing elderly population. We need exoskeletions to help prevent all of those pesky broken bones and to augment those atrophied muscles. Imagine a world where instead of having those ugly motor-scooters the elderly were fitted with exoskeletons.
We do need some minimum level of Net Neutrality. We do not want a world where Verizon users cannot access AT&T websites. I believe that most people can agree to that. This minimum of accessibility also has to be at some reasonable level of speed. It needn't be entirely neutral, that is, at the highest speed available, but if it is offered only at the lowest speed available then it is essentially the same as no access. This minimum inter-network access has to be at least mid-level speed to be effective.
Beyond this we must ask which ways of charging for bandwith and content are acceptable and which are not. A big error made by amateur free market thinkers is that they believe that a free market means no rules. Free markets still operate within some level of rules such as no stealing and a certain requirement for transparency. Once information is not available to the consumer as to the difference between products offered this becomes no longer a truly free market.
I am OK with paying for the bandwidth of the connection coming into my computer. I am also OK with the website paying for the size of the bandwidth leaving their servers. What I am not OK with is interference in between the two. My connection provider should not be able to decrease my bandwidth because they do not like the website that I am accessing. Similarly the website's connection provider should not be able to decrease their bandwidth because the connection provider does not like me.
Slashdot Mirror
I think this has the potential to be helpful and profitable to the US with a growing elderly population. We need exoskeletions to help prevent all of those pesky broken bones and to augment those atrophied muscles. Imagine a world where instead of having those ugly motor-scooters the elderly were fitted with exoskeletons.
We do need some minimum level of Net Neutrality. We do not want a world where Verizon users cannot access AT&T websites. I believe that most people can agree to that. This minimum of accessibility also has to be at some reasonable level of speed. It needn't be entirely neutral, that is, at the highest speed available, but if it is offered only at the lowest speed available then it is essentially the same as no access. This minimum inter-network access has to be at least mid-level speed to be effective.
Beyond this we must ask which ways of charging for bandwith and content are acceptable and which are not. A big error made by amateur free market thinkers is that they believe that a free market means no rules. Free markets still operate within some level of rules such as no stealing and a certain requirement for transparency. Once information is not available to the consumer as to the difference between products offered this becomes no longer a truly free market.
I am OK with paying for the bandwidth of the connection coming into my computer. I am also OK with the website paying for the size of the bandwidth leaving their servers. What I am not OK with is interference in between the two. My connection provider should not be able to decrease my bandwidth because they do not like the website that I am accessing. Similarly the website's connection provider should not be able to decrease their bandwidth because the connection provider does not like me.