Google wants your Internet to be faster

Kevin Oberman oberman at
Tue Aug 10 22:03:43 UTC 2010

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 at>
> 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 at			Phone: +1 510 486-8634
Key fingerprint:059B 2DDF 031C 9BA3 14A4  EADA 927D EBB3 987B 3751

More information about the NANOG mailing list