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 -0400Isn'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.