Access to all legal content, but not via means that violate agreed-upon terms of service: This approach guarantees access to all legal content which is available by means that do not violate agreed-upon terms of service, harm others' quality of service, or abuse the network (e.g. by monopolizing bandwidth). This approach allows for more flexibility in network management practices and innovation in the development of economical service plans for consumers. It requires full disclosure of terms of service, and also of the behavior of software which is offered to users for operation on the network. Anticompetitive practices, such as blocking of content that competes with products furnished by the provider, are strictly prohibited.
Peculiar. That sounds like the exact opposite of NN. Sounds familiar, too. Oh, look, the author cited a reference!
14 Brett Glass's Seven Network Neutrality Principles and Guidelines for Appropriate Regulation http://www.brettglass.com/principles.pdf
Okay. No one would have the nerve to cite themselves for a wikipedia edit, right? Let's see, it's an anonymous edit, from 220.127.116.11. Hmm... just one edit from that IP... increase power to the main deflector array... triangulate the signal with my dangerous-to-the-network hacker tools and...
OrgName: CORE BUSINESS SOLUTIONS
Address: 400 East First
If Mr. Glass's attempt to re-define NN to mean that ISPs can do whatever they like as long as there is some boilerplate language in a ToS succeeds, I will lose all faith in the intellectual abilities of human kind. If this spoonful of sewage can bring down the whole conversation so easily, I will throw my computers away and spend the rest of my days in state parks, living in a tent.
I would like to submit to the distinguished gentleman from Wyoming that if your cause needs you to change definitions with anonymous edits on wikipedia, there may be something wrong with your cause.