Quoted from Bud:
I work in Government now and worked for government as a contractor for years. I've even worked the exact same position as a contractor as I did in a government capacity. Guess which one was more efficient, more streamlined and cost effective? The contractor was. The contractor has no choice but to be cheaper and better if they want to win the contract and continue to work it. The Gov has no competition, contractors have a lot of competition. So speaking from experience from both aspects I believe you are incorrect on your "Fix" statement.
-pezpunk and anybody else, if you are going to thumbs down me for the above statement, please elaborate. Otherwise I think you are of the belief that our government is the most streamlined and cost effective organization out there.
Streamlined and cost effective is not what I want in infrastructure. I want solid and built to last for a long, long time. Going cheap is rarely the best option with infrastructure. Certain things should be undertaken without a profit motive: health care, public safety (police and fire), education, bridges/airports/roads/communications, utilities, the postal service, etc etc etc.
iPhones, electric cars, spacecraft, pinball machines, luxuries, these are far, far better done with enterprise. No argument there.
But this argument has nothing whatsoever to do with net neutrality.
Telcos want to prioritize their services over others so that you watch/pay for theirs, which makes them more money. It's quite simple. Want to pay more for Internet and have a substantially less diverse and interesting Internet? Do nothing.