Net Neutrality: Who Should Control the Internet?
“Net neutrality” has been a very controversial talking point over the past half-decade.
Proponents of mandating and enforcing net neutrality argue that allowing internet service providers to provide different speeds of access to different customers will ruin the internet (or at least its democratic nature).
Citizens have written their representatives in D.C. about the need for net neutrality and have protested in front of the FCC. The owners of popular websites, television celebrities, and even the president have all actively weighed-in in favor of net neutrality.
However, will disabling competition in internet service really keep the internet equally accessible to all consumers – or will it just make the internet worse for everybody?
Here is a superb analysis of this controversial issue by aware-winning writer George Anders, in the MIT Technology Review. He does a fine job of addressing two important concerns: preserving market freedom but also controlling corporate abuse. His bottom line?
When Tim Wu talked about net neutrality a decade ago, he framed it as a way of ensuring maximum competition on the Internet. But in the current debate, that rationale is in danger of being coöpted into a protectionist defense of the status quo. If there’s anything the Internet’s evolution has taught us, it’s that innovation comes rapidly, and in unexpected ways. We need a net neutrality strategy that prevents the big Internet service providers from abusing their power—but still allows them to optimize the Internet for the next wave of innovation and efficiency.
FYI: There is a gratifying amount of innovation and enterprise in the life insurance industry. We are tremendously regulated, but states still retain much power.
Different companies, products, and features, appear on the landscape on a regular basis. Individual underwriters with individual companies often make business decisions to take on business and help people get coverage at a reasonable rate.