Yes, technically. The original idea was from J.C.R Licklider, who was working in the private sector and came up with it then was appointed to the DoD.
Regulation may be necessary because a handful of companies essentially control access. You want the internet? You have to pay AT&T, or Comcast or a few others to get it. They can control the price of access. A lack of competition means the price can remain high. But if Bob’s Internet wants in, he’ll have to use their infrastructure. It’s a monopolistic arrangement. Bob can’t lay his own fiber optic cable, he will have to rent somebody elses’.
Is 50 bucks a month too high? Who decides what “too expensive” is? These companies have the capital to hire the people necessary to lay fiberoptic, Bob does not.
Next. Everybody wants to monetize it. We’ve become so used to the internet so what’s wrong with charging a few bucks for “premium access”? Next year, if you want access to certain parts of the New York Times, you’ll have to pay. Maybe somebody will introduce a tiered structure: Basic Internet for X dollars, Mid-Range Internet for Y dollars, and Premium Internet for Z dollars. Money, money, money.
What is wrong with this? The internet has been a huge job creator because people are making money off of it. I’d reckon NYT is just trying to keep from going bankrupt. There has been tiered internet service since they got past 56kbps days. Right now you can get dial up cheap as dirt, my ISP offers a 40/50/60 dollar service. I live out in the boonies where 56kbps was all I could get for a long time. High speed is a breath of fresh air with all the new internet content out there today.
Then there’s control of content. The Recording industry, and the TV and Film industry, don’t like seeing billions of dollars of “content” being stolen on the internet. I think they have a case.
That’s been settled as far as I know.
Net Neutrality boils down to everybody has access to it and can do what they want without interference from Internet Service Providers, but I think a case can be made for certain activities on the internet that do not qualify as “innovative.”
Should we provide free gasoline so people can do what they want without interference of oil companies? People who would like basic information can get dial up still, if they can’t afford that then they probably can’t afford a PC.
I do not have the technical knowledge to fully understand the potential of a cyber-attack against the United States, but if utilities, for example, are stupid enough to not have the best security in place right now - well, that’s just criminally stupid.
Yes, the utilities need to be highly secured. But for years computer security has been reactive, not proactive. I’m not an expert there so I don’t know what exactly they can do to protect it.
Identity theft is supposedly, a part of this. It’s been proposed that there should be some sort of identification system in place to protect consumers and companies from scammers. Complaints against this idea involve some vague invasion of privacy concerns.
Very complex issue. People really need to educate themselves on what to do an not to do. Then they need to control their kids habits on the internet. Clicking an unknown link in their favorite forum can lead to everything they type on the keyboard being recorded.