Compared with the track record for human drivers which is proven to be completely unsafe?

Too late. Net Neutrality is a response to the reality of local monopolies. It is a direct result of the fact that many places have local monopolies or non-competitive (probably colluding) duopolies. If we had healthy competitive markets with five or six providers available to each household, then it would not be necessary to have net neutrality because who would buy service from a provider which had poor connections to the people and services you wanted to communicate with? All we would need would be transparency and truth in advertising... which we don't have either since companies are secretive about the business decisions they are making in order to throttle some communications.

To me the bare minimum short of Net Neutrality would be requirements, like those imposed on Tobacco advertising, that Verizon FiOS and Comcast really suck for sites they choose to black ball. Something like making them display their connection speeds to other networks and which content is on those other networks on every single advertisement. Then people could really know what they were getting. Because right now I pay for something like 25M/25M and sometimes I get that and sometimes I don't. It depends on the site. So what I really want to know as a customer is what are the differences between Verizon FiOS and Comcast in their actual delivery times, not just what they say they are selling me.

If I can't rely on these companies to do their best not to screw me over depending on with whom I want to communicate, then I want to know exactly how they are screwing me over and not delivering on their promised speeds.

On the Western Values issue. I don't think the problem is that we are imposing our values on others. I think the problem is that we aren't even adequately promoting those values here at home. We end up calling for Democracy and Freedom in the rest of the world and then sending arms to whichever dictator and despot is the most willing to brutally suppress any groups that might threaten our foreign policy. Even when those groups are moderate groups simply looking for a more equitable system of government in their own country. And our foreign policy is based not on the spread of freedom and democracy around the world, but based on securing foreign trade and foreign resources for very short term and short sighted economic purposes. If we truly believe that more representative systems of government and more freedom and liberty should be the goal for a more prosperous, equitable and free world, then we should act accordingly. I believe the ideas of liberty and democracy are ideas worth spreading and supporting.

I didn't say I had any trouble with the Internet, just with Netflix. Did you try Netflix on Tuesday evening? Also, from your name it appears you are in Oregon and I am in Massachusetts.

Exactly, "Linux on the Desktop" is called Chrome or Android and the "desktop" is wherever we are instead of a jumble of wires connected to a monitor. Desktops are a shrinking niche market. Otherwise Ubuntu or the like are great for desktops and laptops. Better than Windows in many respects. I haven't had problems like in the past for half a decade or more.

You forgot the most important reason. They are trying to degrade a competitor's service in order to promote their own. Both Comcast and Verizon compete directly with Netflix. Last night I was able to watch Verizon channels on my tablet just fine, but Netflix wasn't working at all.

Funny.... My Netflix was actually throttled pretty badly last night by Verizon and I was wondering what Netflix did to piss off Verizon. Now I guess I have the answer.

The "Here I am" message is insufficient for coordinating between vehicles. And as I mentioned localization using GPS, even differential GPS, is not reliable enough or fail safe enough for collision avoidance. ... Because some percentage of the time cars will be giving you bogus location messages. At some point message protocols for coordinating actions between vehicles does make sense. In addition to highway drafting, vehicles could use some protocol to more efficiently merge or change lanes. I just don't see transmitting absolute position and velocity being something good to base a system around. Autonomous vehicles need to be allowed to get established without V2V. As they are doing now. Don't hobble them by making them rely on a poorly conceived notion. Getting to a fail safe V2V for Here I Am messages is a very steep and expensive curve compared to a camera and proximity sensor based system which would be more closely following Moore's law.

I think the V2V proposal should be scrapped altogether. It would take decades to implement, be very expensive (at hundreds of dollars per car) and it won't actually make cars safer compared with relatively simpler collision avoidance using cameras and other relatively cheap proximity sensors that don't rely on everyone else having functioning V2V systems in their car.

Autonomous cars have cameras and other fail safe sensors they can rely on. GPS is for navigational way points and route planning. Just getting a signal from another car that it is at a certain position is not a sufficient replacement for actually seeing that car with a camera. In all cases I would program that car to trust the camera and distrust the V2V and if it didn't have a camera then the car should stop as safely as it can and not continue to try and drive automatically. GPS is better for navigational way points where precision on the scale of feet and inches is not as important. For collision avoidance in close proximity you want to rely on sensors.

Dell seems to think so.

Not a technical decision, but greed driven decision.

Also how is it that L3 can deliver the data to Verizon, but Verizon is just somehow incapable of passing it along to their customers? The answer is that it is not a techn

Again I am not sure why I am feeding a troll, but you seem to be in a gang of trolls. So sure... if we were talking about L3 sending data to Verizon that Verizon then had to ship across its own backbone then you would have a point. But in this case L3 is acting as the long haul backbone provider and all Verizon has to do is deliver the packets to the local customers that requested the data. Verizon is already charging its customers for the bandwidth, the only issue here is that they are choosing to not to deliver on that promise in order to try and shake down Netflix and by extension Verizons own customers for more money. This is a fraudulent business practice pure and simple. Enron would be proud.

Yes, okay. That is a funny thought experiment, but Verizon isn't actually confused about the fact that as a local ISP Verizon customers are the ones actually requesting netflix video so the concept of peering traffic "parity" does not apply to local ISPs connecting to backbone providers.