The debate over net neutrality has been raging for a long time. Wall Street, as evidenced by the retraction in internet providers today, had expected the end of net neutrality. Those companies will profit greatly from the demise of internet neutrality. But today, Obama came down squarely on the side of net neutrality urging the Federal Communications Commission (an independent agency) to come down on the side of net neutrality by regulating it like a utility. http://www.reuters.com/article/2014/11/10/us-usa-internet-neutrality-idUSKCN0IU1I620141110
I've always had the argument that the internet should of been split in two. The currently internet should be maintained as one with complete neutrality. It would be a network of legacy systems with the underlining concern that in it's complete openness it would/could always be misused or targetted by those that know how to. It would be up to the people that connect to it to understand those concerns for themselves and make their decisions. While a second network would be tightly controlled by government legislation, corporately firewalled, allowing for absolute litigation when necessary should someone attempt to attack that network or abuse those that use it. The second network wouldn't be legacy based (Simply put it would granted a version number that it would function to for a set duration of time until a new version is created to replace it. It would mean that network has a shelf life, that it is only compatible with those products designed for that version number and that it would never support a legacy system which is otherwise subjected to the flaws of old exploitations and software workarounds.) The reason for having the two networks is you don't end up attempting to neuter one network which screws it being any good as either internet type. By having two you have the balance of both clear cut control in areas where that's a concern and absolute freedom where it's absence is a concern. By having both it would lessen the problems caused by those that adamantly support or refute how government attempt to govern over something that is far larger than any one of them.
