On Wed, Apr 7, 2010 at 08:21, Mark Smith <nanog@85d5b20a518b8f6864949bd940457dc124746ddc.nosense.org> wrote: <snip>
So, there's the problem. According to the above, I'm both for, and against, Network Neutrality.
One thing which would significantly help this argument for or against Network Neutrality is defining exactly what it is.
ISOC has gone a step further and stopped using the term "network neutrality" in general. This is due in large part to the problem you described quite well here - the term is loaded with emotion and largely undefined. They are now using the phrase "Open Internetworking" to describe their stance on the issue. For what it's worth, here is a good document recently published which defines that stance: http://www.isoc.org/pubpolpillar/usercentricity/20100222-Inter-Networking.pd... ~Chris <disclaimer>I am the founding chair of the Colorado Chapter of the Internet Society - CO ISOC</disclaimer>
Regards, Mark.
-- @ChrisGrundemann weblog.chrisgrundemann.com www.burningwiththebush.com www.coisoc.org