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 <joly@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: oberman@es.net Phone: +1 510 486-8634 Key fingerprint:059B 2DDF 031C 9BA3 14A4 EADA 927D EBB3 987B 3751