Top posting reformatted. > Kevin Oberman wrote: > > > >> That said, the actual, published document has some huge issues. It pays > >> excellent lip service to net neutrality, but it has simply HUGE > >> loopholes with lots of weasel words that could be used to get away with > >> most anything. for example, it expressly excludes and wireless network. > >> > > > > > From: Joly MacFie <j...@punkcast.com> > Date: Tue, 10 Aug 2010 17:53:07 -0400 > > Isn't the essence of consensus is to find common areas of agreement while > punting on the rest. There's plenty to focus on that IS in there, like > transparency and FCC control?
You can punt the rest, but when the wording states that a large and rapidly growing segment of the network is subject to having preferred services is a bit more that a 'punt'. Also, the wording seems to work hard at making sure that you will always be able to justify any "non-neutral' things you might decide to do. -- R. Kevin Oberman, Network Engineer Energy Sciences Network (ESnet) Ernest O. Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory (Berkeley Lab) E-mail: ober...@es.net Phone: +1 510 486-8634 Key fingerprint:059B 2DDF 031C 9BA3 14A4 EADA 927D EBB3 987B 3751
