There has been a lot of hubbub about net neutrality. I even saw not one, but two articles about the topic in my local newspaper the other day. Of course the discussion has been going on for a while now and will continue to go on—eventually ending up in the courts. My initial interest in the topic is different from almost every other account you read. While everyone else seems to be concerned about how fast their app will run, I’m more concerned about getting new applications out and allowing them to run correctly on a wide range of systems.
If net neutrality remains the law of the land, developers of all types will eventually have to rethink strategies for accessing data online as a minimum. However, the effects will manifest themselves in even more ways. For example, consider how net neutrality could affect specialty groups such as data scientists. It will also affect people in situations they never expected. For example, what happens when net neutrality assures equal access speeds for the x-ray needed to save your life and that online game the kid is playing next to you? Will people die in order to assure precisely equal access. So far, I haven’t found anyone talking about these issues. There just seems to be this nebulous idea of what net neutrality might mean.
My thought is that we need a clearer definition of precisely what the FCC means by equal access. It’s also important to define exceptions to the rule, such as medical needs or real time applications, such as self-driving cars. The rules need to spell out what fair really means. As things sit right now, I have to wonder whether net neutrality will end up being another potentially good idea gone really bad because of a lack of planning and foresight. What are your ideas about net neutrality? Let me know at John@JohnMuellerBooks.com.