> I think you're reading this through glasses tinted to whatever predisposition > you have to the issue. Obvious I have my own biases, but that doesn't mean I'm wrong :)
Now, I never claimed I was impartial or unbiased, but the article in question does not rise to the standard of "best NN article" or even try to be impartial or unbiased in any way. A lot of what Dan writes is true, but I do take exception to a lot of the framing and editorialization. It completely ignores the primary issues, the facts of termination monopoly and how lacking last mile competition influences network neutrality, while subtly laying the blame on other secondary issues. > "Don't bring peering policies into it, as that's a completely separate issue." > That's what most people are pointing to as NN violations, though. Well, most people are idiots, so that doesn't count for much :) Jesting aside, the Internet order explicitly says: "30. But this Order does not apply the open Internet rules to interconnection." Thus anybody claiming otherwise should just shut up. Jared
