Talk:Net neutrality/Archive 2

image

99.236.221.124 (talk) 10:57, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

Commenting out above JPEG. First, where does it come from? Who is advertising that? Also, it is an advertisement of network non-neutrality. It could be a nice argument in the discussion about network neutrality, but this talk page is here for an discussion of the topic, it here fo ra discussion of the Wikipedia page. This isn't a soapbox or a discussion group, and this isn't a place to sway opinion one way or the other. -- ArglebargleIV (talk) 19:02, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

Jason Rosenbaum. No one for now, it's an example. Good job smart guy, that's the point. Actually we can put it into the article under "proponents" as a boon to their argument. Don't worry about copyright, his website urges people to "share this image". 99.236.221.124 (talk) 10:56, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

the lead

I actually feel like I know less about network neutrality after having read this intro. From WP:LEAD:

Good. Then you probably did understand it.- (User) WolfKeeper (Talk) 20:44, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

The lead should be capable of standing alone as a concise overview of the article, establishing context, summarizing the most important points, explaining why the subject is interesting or notable, and briefly describing its notable controversies, if there are any. The emphasis given to material in the lead should roughly reflect its importance to the topic according to reliable, published sources. The lead should not "tease" the reader by hinting at but not explaining important facts that will appear later in the article. It should contain up to four paragraphs, should be carefully sourced as appropriate, and should be written in a clear, accessible style so as to invite a reading of the full article.

The intro fails WP:LEAD, particularly "concise overview of the article, establishing context, summarizing the most important points, explaining why the subject is interesting or notable," as well as "should be written in a clear, accessible style so as to invite a reading of the full article." Hence the tag. --Newsroom hierarchies (talk) 20:30, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Yes, although this is the best we've come up with so far, and is as near consensus as the article has got in its history. 'Improving' the lead is easy, making the changes stick is far harder. Given the strongly conflicting (I prefer 'bloody minded') views surrounding this concept I don't see this article going GA any time soon. ;-)- (User) WolfKeeper (Talk) 20:44, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Well, I decided to be bold, and I kept all the text where it was -- but I created a new subhead called Contemporary Issues. This way the first paragraph stands alone, and it may not be perfect, but I do think it does an adequate job of "gisting." Since the rest of that chunk was all about... well, contemporary issues surrounding net neutrality, it made sense to me. It's then followed by History. Maybe they should be switched? For chronological reasons, perhaps. But obviously this is the extended definition, so I think it should go first. Thoughts? --BunnyColvin (talk) 18:09, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

I actually like... but I don't think it will reach consensus; we've more or less done it like that before, and many people seem to think that NN is a purely legal thing... or that NN is a purely freedom thing... or that the current LEAD doesn't summarise the article... or that... So I'm probably going to have to revert it.- (User) WolfKeeper (Talk) 18:47, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Really, going to revert something you agree with? I agree consensus on this issue can be awfully hard to come by, but dang. I won't revert it to my version, but I hope you'll change your mind. I'll keep thinking about it. --BunnyColvin (talk) 19:25, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Yes, it's called editing for the opposition or something like that. But anyway, I reverted the lead because wp:lead says that the intro has to introduce the article whereas the lead you simplified down to only introduced network neutrality.- (User) WolfKeeper (Talk) 21:22, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Makes sense. Given the nature of this article, I'm sure it's not over yet... --BunnyColvin (talk) 02:45, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

Too slow! WP:LEAD has changed, so I put it back pretty much again. :-)- (User) WolfKeeper (Talk) 03:42, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

my additions today

are, in my humble opinion, efforts to get the lead's definition of net neutrality back to a more or less neutral place.

if net neutrality is a thing that can be defined, then I believe that it should be done so in a clear and concise way. yet i have not eliminated ideas, but added a couple.

btw, if you believe that you've found a consensus based on the people who remain in the wikipedia net neutrality process, you may be limiting your perspective. consider the people who have had input and gone away from frustration based not on personal ability write but from shows of overwhelming force by non-collaborative, contradictory editors.Choosername 18:09, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

See also

I removed

• "Best video yet on Net Neutrality"

from the see also section. See also is meant for internal links to other Wikipedia articles. Kgrr (talk) 14:54, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

-- I was wondering why you removed the video? I think that there should be as many videos, links, articles, everything as possible, on all types of content, that allows people to experience and read and watch and listen about how there are people out there who are trying to limit not only select peoples rights, but for the whole internets rights. Where does it stop, or end? I've grown up in a society where the internet was always available. I Truly think that the internet is the model group of intellects. Where else in the world can every person stand up and speak what her or she believes in?

If you atleast believe in having all information on the internet be free, you should take a look at videos like this. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Khisanth05 (talk • contribs) 02:56, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a soapbox and random vloggers aren't reliable sources. -- Gordon Ecker (talk) 23:55, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

There's nothing wrong with providing a small sample of properly-flagged opposing views to let the reader develop her or his own own judgement. What's wrong is to force the reader by selective bias onto one particular side or to represent that opinion as the Truth or the Voice of Wikipedia. I'm sure some organization in the industry has a good video or written document presenting their side of the question that could balance this video. (Technically speaking the video should be put in "Further reading" rather than "See also".) See Fairness Doctrine where a lot of struggle and earnest good faith has created an incomplete article that (at the moment) both sides consider to be fair.—— Shakescene (talk) 02:01, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

You need to show that the source is reliable.- (User) Wolfkeeper (Talk) 02:12, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

But what if the other side of the equation is not correct and therefore they dont have strong arguments, should we restrain the side that have a better argument? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 136.145.176.41 (talk) 05:43, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

Talkpage Archive

I'd like to archive topics older than 3 months (which is nearly everything), as per WP:ARCHIVE. If there are any objections, please discuss. -Verdatum (talk) 15:05, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

Done--SasiSasi (talk) 00:25, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

August 1, 2008 Comcast decision

Is the August 1, 2008 FCC finding against Comcast going to be mentioned? Badagnani (talk) 18:53, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

Internet template

Someone added a template about the Internet that seems useful to laymen such as me. Not everyone who comes here knows very much about the legal, regulatory, financial, corporate, political or technical details of net neutrality, in fact when I ran across it in the Fairness Doctrine I didn't know that "net" referred to networks rather than the "net" balance between two viewpoints or two interests. And I think the template offers some useful context. But there must be some good reason that user:Kbrose wanted to delete user:SasiSasi's insertion, which I restored. I'm just not clear about the reasons for deleting this. (Perhaps it fits better in another part of the article; perhaps there's a horizontal template that would fit better than a hang-down medallion.) —— Shakescene (talk) 22:25, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

moved to template talk page.--SasiSasi (talk) 23:44, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

Net Neutrality Template

I have created a net neutrality template based on those in the n.n. articles. The template can be edited at [1]--SasiSasi (talk) 23:54, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

Cleanup

I am attempting a bit of a cleanup. I want to remove the US tag, hence I am moving all us specific stuff into Network neutrality in the United States. I am also removing some of the original research or unreferenced sections. Most of the content should be maintained but will be moved around. It looks like over the last two years people have just added interesting bits all over the place.--SasiSasi (talk) 23:29, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

To be continued...--SasiSasi (talk) 00:36, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

There is some repetition, a general lack of structure (grab bag), and much that is missing - like substantive, unbiased economic and engineering material.

one obvious way to organize this article is

• politics (which constitutes much of the current article)
• law
• engineering
• economics

Blablablob (talk) 16:23, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Simple definition

I put the "simple" definition under definitions. I think its helpful and if anything allows non-technical readers to digest the detail. Non technical readers will appreciate it, there has been some feedback on the talkpage that its possible to get through the entire intro without actually understanding what is talked about. Once the article is in better shape we should look at the intro again. As per wikipedia guidelines it should start with a succinct definition and then provide a summary of the article.... but that something for later, first the article. --SasiSasi (talk) 22:49, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

The edit raises the questions of what 'treating packets equally' means. For example, some definitions, such as TBL's definition permits prioritisation of some traffic; so not all traffic is truly equal.- (User) Wolfkeeper (Talk) 01:07, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

I agree that it may be very possible to go through the intro without understanding, I'm sure we can't guarantee understanding in any way, but I think that we at least need to be as unambiguous as possible, so that they don't get the wrong understanding though, or that our words cannot be reasonably misunderstood.- (User) Wolfkeeper (Talk) 01:07, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

Network neutrality is primarily a technical/political/legal issue. I would hope that most people understand more or less what it is from the article.- (User) Wolfkeeper (Talk) 01:07, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

I tried to clarify the definition a little (by correcting faulty parallelism), and also said that NN is a principle proposed for networks, rather than that NN is a principle (since the latter suggests that it's an established principle, which I think some will still dispute). What's not clear to me is whether avoiding degradation of some streams by others is part of network neutrality or rather an objection that carriers had raised against net neutrality. Guidance welcome. —— Shakescene (talk) 02:27, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

No, no. One of the central concerns of non neutral networks would be if they prioritise other traffic to a degree that almost, but not quite, no traffic flowed. That's frequently indistinguishable from poor service by the far end website or service provider. And this does happen. The network I'm on right now drastically reduces the priority of most peer-peer networks at peak times. But my provider is very open about how they prioritise and there's other providers you can choose here, so it's not a monopoly. Some other service providers may do it, and not tell you.- (User) Wolfkeeper (Talk) 02:43, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

I guess the question is whether this level of detail needs to be in the first sentence of the article?

The main issue we have is that there is not a single definition for network neutrality. There is a underlying "principle" and in the moment the definition section lists three detailed definitions of network neutrality (Absolute Non-Discrimination, Limited Discrimination without QoS Tiering, Limited Discrimination and Tiering) The question is whether this summarises the main network neutrality propositions correctly (if not we can add)? The article does/will cover various arguments and positions on network neutrality, so its a case of finding a structure to accommodate this. As the article was before, it was just wild collection of various points, arguments, theories and concerns, with no structure or consistency.

And, as far as I am concerned the main purpose of writing/editing an article is to allow readers to understand the subject (this is an encyclopaedia). I think reader understanding can be aided, for example by having a well referenced, structured and written article (I guess thats the purpose of the cleanup).

According to the manual of style "The article should begin with a straightforward, declarative sentence that, as briefly as possible, provides the reader who knows nothing at all about the article's subject with the answer to two questions: "What (or who) is it?" and "Why is this subject notable?"."

According to "writing a better article": "Make your article accessible and understandable for as many readers as possible. Assume readers are reading the article to learn. It is possible that the reader knows nothing about the subject: the article needs to fully explain the subject. Avoid using jargon whenever possible. Consider the reader...Here are some thought experiments to help you test whether you are setting enough context: Does the article make sense if the reader gets to it as a random page? Imagine yourself as a layman in another English-speaking country. Can you figure out what the article is about? Can people tell what the article is about if the first page is printed out and passed around? Would a reader want to follow some of the links?"

I do want to edit the article in this spirit. What’s the point of writing something if nobody understands it...--SasiSasi (talk) 02:45, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

Pricing models

This section was removed with "moved US section to nn in the US article" as the edit summary. I disagree with that claim. All major Canadian ISPs advertise based on peak bandwidth rather than committed bandwidth. If this isn't the case elsewhere, I feel that the section should be expanded to provide an overview of the world's major internet pricing models. Anyway, I've re-added the section with a Globalize/North America tag. -- Gordon Ecker (talk) 22:47, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

...the entire article has a US tag, so not sure if the globalise tag is necessary. There is also a net neutrality in Canada article... but jep, if we find more stuff on the issue (outside Canada/US) it can stay. The division between the three articles is difficult anyway, because the issue has been mainly picked up in the two countries.--SasiSasi (talk) 18:36, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

I've cut the globalize tag in that section, I didn't notice the one at the top of the page. -- Gordon Ecker (talk) 02:59, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

I've put a request at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Internet culture#Network neutrality. -- Gordon Ecker (talk) 03:16, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

I'm really very curious, why nobody considers the obvious (to me), that the one creating the connection has to pay for the connection. The entire current discussion is kind of pointless. If some Internet provider is complaining about people using plenty of bandwidth, I'm thinking -- he should be happy about these people. If the Internet Provider is not happy about such users, his pricing model is somehow crazy. Currently I'm paying my Internet provider for some undefined job. This "undefined" is the rub. Of course bussiness likes to be paid for something undefined, because this does not allow for any money back and it does not require them to provide any quality. The connection to some other end of the internet may or may not work. It may work only for some time. The quality parameters I need for this connection may or may not be realized. I think I should own the line to some public place, where multiple providers are present. My computer should negotiate with multiple providers to get the cheapest rate for some defined quality to some certain endpoint I require. If these quality parameters are not realized, the payment should be canceled or reduced. This way hosting a popular website would be cheap as it should be. —Preceding unsigned comment added by ExcessPhase (talk • contribs) 14:52, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

Two paras to work on

Bob Kahn, Internet Protocol's co-inventor, has called the term "net neutrality" a slogan, and states that he opposes establishing it, warning that "nothing interesting can happen inside the net" if it passes: "If the goal is to encourage people to build new capabilities, then the party that takes the lead in building that new capability, is probably only going to have it on their net to start with and it is probably not going to be on anybody else's net."

Columbia University Law School professor Tim Wu observed the Internet is not neutral in terms of its impact on applications having different requirements. It is more beneficial for data applications than for applications that require low latency and low jitter, such as voice and real-time video: "In a universe of applications, including both latency-sensitive and insensitive applications, it is difficult to regard the IP suite as truly neutral." He has proposed regulations on Internet access networks that define net neutrality as equal treatment among similar applications, rather than neutral transmissions regardless of applications. He proposes allowing broadband operators to make reasonable tradeoffs between the requirements of different applications, while regulators carefully scrutinize network operator behavior where local networks interconnect.

I have moved these articles temporarily here, the bob kahn one needs a rewrite (its not clear what he is saying, need to read the source and rewrite) and the Tim Wu one I am not sure where to put in the article, have to read the source as well.--SasiSasi (talk) 23:21, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

Having read the sources in the past AFAICT they more or less are saying what they're quoted as saying. Tim Wu's point is that the TCP protocol is quite poor at real time stuff. TCP is a wine protocol- old packets are more important than new ones. Other protocols prefer new packets and don't care nearly as much about old packets and discard them if they're older than a certain amount; this is ideal for telephony and other realtime critical scenarios.- (User) Wolfkeeper (Talk) 02:27, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

I don't think that Kahn likes NN very much, but his views aren't entirely anti-NN, just mostly.- (User) Wolfkeeper (Talk) 02:27, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

Proponents are turning into opponents

According to this WSJ article, some of the major players in favour of network neutrality, including Google, are now moving away from it. This development does not seem to be mentioned in the article. Esn (talk) 03:34, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

That article was heavily criticized for not accurately reporting Google's position. See here, here, and Google's own response. --ZimZalaBim ^talk 04:04, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Listing Clearwire's "Terms of Service and End User License Agreement"

Someone has deleted several times clearwire's Terms of Service and End User License Agreement, Including this Agreement is allowed as is puts out in the open how Clearwire treats people 'Copyright' is NOT a factor as any party to the agreement may post it unless there is a clause in the agreement otherwise —Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.76.242.14 (talk) 02:54, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

Hello, I am the editor who is deleting this, as it is a copyright violation to cut and paste the agreement (which is copyrighted, I checked) into Wikipedia. Also, Wikipedia is not the place to air your grievances with a company - see Wikipedia is not a soapbox or means of promotion. We try and maintain a neutral point of view. That is not to say criticism is not allowed, just that it must be referenced from a reliable, third party source. Personal experience or forums are not considered reliable, but articles in established newspapers or magazines would be. I hope this helps you. Seaphoto^Talk 03:08, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

Making an agreement copyrighted should make it unenforceable, as it cannot be shared with any one who might be trying to check if it is lawful or not. Aren't there any basic laws regarding this?

Either povide proof of the agreement beeing copyrighted or I will continue to copy it into here, as an agreement between two or more parties cannot be copyrighted without the concent of ALL parties to the agreement, also I dont have a dispute with clearwire, I was trying to show how Clearwire does not allow phone over internet (see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clearwire) so there should be a link between the Network_neutrality article and the issue about Clearwire's blocking phone over internet 184.76.242.14 (talk) 03:53, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

Law in Germany

I tried to salvage this paragraph which had read (without formatting):

On the 3rd of April T-Mobile the largest German mobile telecommunication company announced they are blocking Skype, even though Skype is both a key application for voice communication on the Internet and is known to consume a small amount of bandwidth. Therefore it is obvious the decision was not based on any real need of traffic management or Quality of Service issue.[62] In this case T-Mobile discriminated by content. The economic issue here is that there is a distortion of the competition on the market if T-Mobile will block Skype and, for example, not Msn Messenger.

Whitacre, former CEO of At&T, proposed to throttle YouTube because they are using the pipe without paying. He wanted to ask them a fee, but after a protest of the public opinion he changed his mind. This is one of the most quoted example by Lawrence Lessig.

which is bad English for any number of reasons, but more importantly is written from a point of view rather than reporting facts and the views of others. (Other people's views, if significant or revealing, are legitimate facts, like any other fact, upon which Wikipedia can report. What Wikipedia can't do is to express its own opinion upon contentious, uncertain or disputed matters.)

My imperfect revision reads (also before formatting):

On the 3rd of April, 2009, T-Mobile, the largest German mobile telecommunication company, announced that it is blocking Skype, a key application for voice communication on the Internet which is known to consume a small amount of bandwidth. Skype's defenders allege that T-Mobile's decision was not based on any real needs of traffic management or Quality of Service, but was rather a case of discrimination by content.[62] The economic contention here is that competition in the market would be distorted if T-Mobile were to block Skype and not, for example, Microsoft's MSN Messenger.

I deleted the second paragraph because I don't think it applies specifically to Germany or to German law. ("Whitacre", I've just found out as he's become the new chairman of General Motors is Edward Whitacre, Jr.) If this "throttling" of YouTube is one of Lawrence Lessig's most-cited examples, then don't just say so but give at least one instance.

In the first paragraph, there were at least three assertions that will be disputed by the opponents of Network Neutrality:

1. Therefore it is obvious the decision was not based on any real need of traffic management or Quality of Service issue.
2. In this case T-Mobile discriminated by content.
3. The economic issue here is that there is a distortion of the competition on the market if T-Mobile will block Skype and, for example, not Msn Messenger.

(The last, is just due, I think, to difficulty in English expression, leading to the reader's conclusion that Wikipedia asserts that a distortion exists.) I didn't try to delete those three points, just to recast them in a way that makes clear that this is the case against T-Mobile's actions.

I left in one assertion because it's something that can be tested relatively objectively (as opposed to, say, T-Mobile's state of mind), and which I presume is supported by the reference and the facts: that Skype consumes a "small" amount of bandwidth.

As in editing the Fairness Doctrine article (which originally drew me to this one), the difficult task is to provide all the information in an unbiased way, but as with the Fairness Doctrine, it is actually possible for editors with radically different positions on the underlying issues to cooperate in providing as much useful information as possible in a reasonably complete, fair and balanced article that a non-technical non-expert reader can understand. (And I've certainly edited Fairness Doctrine entries to reduce bias and distortions in both directions, not because of the particular direction in which my own views tend.) The more confidence one can have in the completeness, accuracy and objectivity of an article, the better foundation one has for forming, weighing and advocating one's own views. —— Shakescene (talk) 08:32, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

PoVish ?

I think the anti net neutrality side of the article places way a lot of emphasis on the fact that some of the opponents are co-inventors of the internet and protocols. Instead, the other side, simply links to their wikipedia pages. Compare

 opposed by some of the Internet's most distinguished engineers, such as ... 

 ...known as the 'grandfather of the Internet' because he taught many of its chief designers

With:

 Individuals who support net neutrality include

190.103.74.30 (talk) 17:34, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

It seems both sides are guilty of this.

 Vinton Cerf, a co-inventor of the Internet Protocol (IP) and current Vice President and Chief Internet Evangelist at Google...

--Indigobjames (talk) 22:01, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, reading this article is like listening to a debate. The use of words and phrases such as "however" and "In spite of this claim" clearly shows that this article needs to be cleaned up. --Humanist Geek (talk) 05:08, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

needs revision for logic & readability

"The principle states that if a given user pays for a certain level of internet access, and another user pays for a given level of access, that the two users should be able to connect to each other at that given rate of access."

So "given user" has "certain level of access" and "another user" has "given level of access" then they should connect at "given rate". This "principle" is meaningless gibberish. I'll leave it to a wiki-wonk to correct this contentious mess of a page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.89.173.219 (talk) 06:45, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

Done, please review Gkorodi (talk) 00:19, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

Law in the European Union

Hello everyone. I would like to inform you all that there has been a development concerning "Law in the European Union" and more specifically the "Body of European Regulators of Electronic Communications" (BEREC). I'm posting two relevant links for further reading [2], [3]. This could also be of use in the article "Body of European Regulators of Electronic Communications".--Mpap (talk) 16:16, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

Tiered Service Definition

Should we clarify that the level of service affected by Tiered service is for protocol level differentiation and not for speed? Some people might consider the speed of the internet connection here when talking about content providers being blocked or "slowed down" because of lack of pay. Someone could either extend the related page or clarify it here? Maybe? Gkorodi (talk) 00:26, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

Removed link to redstate.com

It's a blog posting that touches on no technical issues whatsoever. The author writes:

"Net Neutrality is a term that has floated around in the technical community for years. It’s a harmless concept, but I won’t go into it because it has nothing to do with Net Neutrality as a regulatory practice. Seriously. The Neo-Marxists at Free Press and the self-seeking bosses at Google have perverted that tech-pleasing label into something vastly different."

This might be a decent fit on the "Network neutrality in the United States" page, given the more political focus of that page, but it seems a bit hyperbolic and tech-free for this technical page.

Wesmorgan1 (talk) 04:53, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

Confusing noun phrase in first paragraph

The noun phrase “communication that is not unreasonably degraded by other traffic” was replaced by the simpler “communication that unreasonably degrades other traffic”. This means something different. If the original meaning was intended then I don’t understand the author and the paragraph should explain the relevance of “communication that is not unreasonably degraded by other traffic”. If the original makes sense to you as it stood, please revert.

NormHardy (talk) 03:01, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

Should China even be mentioned here?

I think that the section referencing China should be removed as it is misleading and pejorative.

The section implies a link between net neutrality and Chinese government censorship. There is no link whatsoever. China is a dictatorship that enforces censorship on the internet (you have no idea of the hoops that I've had to jump thought to get access to certain websites) for its own political gain. This is totally and utterly separate from the existence/non existence of legislation forcing ISPs to pass data through their networks without bias, and it's totally separate form the existence/non existence of legislation designed to promote competition between service providers.

Beijing isn't even using state regulation to enforce censorship, it's using state security laws.

Censorship will exist in China regardless of net neutrality. It's a bad habit of the state that transcends all media and the free market/lack of it. CrazyChinaGal (talk) 11:18, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

Please see WP:NOTAFORUM. -- Jrtayloriv (talk) 21:09, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

ESPN360 / ESPN3

So I came here expecting to see mention of how espn360 brokered deals with ISPs to provide access rather then letting users choose to sign up or not. It's a clear violation of network neutrality principles. It's a test to see if they can make money on alternative models. It's an example of turning the internet into something like cable television, where networks control content. I think it's a pretty good example of why this is a current issue, but, uh.... I dunno where it should go... 206.196.158.130 (talk) 17:37, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

Please see WP:NOTAFORUM. And this is probably not notable enough for inclusion. -- Jrtayloriv (talk) 21:08, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

Of course this isn't a forum. It's a place to replicate knowledge, specifically knowledge that can be cited. http://www.wired.com/epicenter/2009/06/cable-isps-see-net-neutrality-foul-in-espn-online-video-charges/ http://armchairgm.wikia.com/index.php?title=ESPN360_Dies_an_Unneccessay_Death:_A_Lesson_in_Network_Neutrality http://www.wired.com/epicenter/2009/02/espn-stands-fir/ http://www.bit-tech.net/news/bits/2009/02/06/espn-gives-a-middle-finger-to-net-neutralit/1 Citable examples explaining how ESPN3 is violating network neutrality. Now, while looking that up, I've noticed that there are indeed counter examples. Citable sources out there that claim this is not an example of a network neutrality violation. It is a contested issue. But simply waving it away as not notable turns a blind eye to an issue that has plenty of relevant sources. 206.196.158.130 (talk) 16:59, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

Cato and AEI are not "neo-conservative"

Changed from "neo-conservative" to "fiscally conservative". —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.102.116.202 (talk) 15:21, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

Delineating different ISP activities and responses to them

I pointed to this page in the discussion for Network neutrality in the United States because it mostly concerns policy in that country, but editors on this page might want to use it too:

http://commons.oreilly.com/wiki/index.php/Network_Neutrality:_Distinctions_and_Controversies

Andrew Oram, Editor, O'Reilly Media, http://praxagora.com/andyo/ 01:21, 15 September 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by AndrewOram (talk • contribs)

Neutral Point of View issues

I think this section adds to the confusion about Net neutrality. Net neutrality and quality of service are not the same. Net neutrality and the speed of connection seems to me are unrelated. thanks --Camilo Sanchez (talk) 23:47, 24 November 2010 (UTC) ==NPOV issues == Has anyone really read this article? Notice the opponents section including amounts of money spending to lobby Congress, and none of this mentioned on the Pro side? We can't have this in an article on a controversial issue. --THE FOUNDERS INTENT ^PRAISE 13:19, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

Free Press net neutrality coup

"The Net Neutrality Coup; The Campaign to Regulate the Internet was Funded By a Who's Who of Left-Liberal Foundations," by John Fund, Wall Street Journal, 21 December 2010. --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling (talk) 20:53, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

"Opponents of net neutrality characterize its regulations as "a solution in search of a problem", arguing that broadband service providers have no plans to block content or degrade network performance.[7] In spite of this claim, certain Internet service providers have intentionally slowed peer-to-peer (P2P) communications.[8]"

The bolded sentence references "certain Internet service providers", plural, yet the footnote cites only a single example - Comcast. Lacking references to multiple cases of intentionally slowed peer-to-peer communications the sentence is false. I'm changing it to read "Despite this claim there has been a case of an Internet service provider intentionally slowing peer-to-peer (P2P) communications.

                                   Gaius46 (talk) 15:14, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

why are cons before pros?

Usually criticism section goes after the main idea of the article. One needs to state the idea in order to allow for criticism of that idea. 89.216.196.129 (talk) 10:30, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

Good point. Please feel free to edit the article. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 10:55, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

Done. 89.216.196.129 (talk) 11:47, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

Thank you! 216.165.126.101 did this a couple of months back. Had it on my todo list and forgot. --Sstrader (talk) 18:36, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

Can someone double check my citation?

I added a source to a claim under Law in the United States: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Network_neutrality#Law_in_the_United_States

The citation link: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Network_neutrality#cite_note-93

It is a Reuters article. Wikipedia currently lists it as:

^ Gross, Grant (6 April 2010). "Court rules against FCC's Comcast net neutrality decision". Reuters. Retrieved 15 March 2011.

The article it links to is: http://www.reuters.com/article/2010/04/06/urnidgns852573c400693880852576fd0064cf-idUS44396209420100406

My concern is that I'm not sure who is technically the publisher; I found this on Reuters, and listed it as the publisher, but Reuters states that the article is "By Grant Gross at IDG News Service\Washington Bureau." I'm not sure who is technically the publisher in this case (it could be Reuters, IDG News Service, or the Washington Bureau for all I know). I'd like someone more familiar with citations to ensure that the right publisher is listed. Thanks in advance to whoever checks this for me! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Marceau42 (talk • contribs) 18:53, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

Hands Off The Internet site outdated

So, I was looking under the Opposition heading, and saw that an organization, "Hands Off the Internet," had been set up to oppose net neutrality. However, their site, www.handsoff.org, no longer appears to be under their ownership, and is now a German page for general, unrelated topics. Should we add a note about this or remove the link? Unless "handsoff" is German for something, I have the feeling that whoever now owns the site expects to capitalize off the traffic.

The citation that includes the link is currently #49. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Marceau42 (talk • contribs) 18:26, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

Fixed by providing links to the Wayback Machine instead.  « Saper // @talk »  08:21, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

Failed cite

^ European Commission (13 November 2007). "Impact Assessment on the proposals to amend the European regulatory framework (Working Document)" (PDF). pp. 91. Retrieved 26 December 2008.

This is currently citation #75 and it contains an invalid reference that only opens a GIF image.

Sincerely, [IP]. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.56.168.107 (talk) 22:05, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

Fixed by providing a proper link to the PDF document.  « Saper // @talk »  08:21, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

Essay/Re-write header

Article needs a re-write; the entire summary/opening paragraphs are incredibly bias - the pro net neutrality position is put forth just fine, but the arguments against net neutrality are almost straw-men arguments. The arguments are put up, then immediately refuted, with debateable evidence. This is not the way to write a non-biased article; one side can't be unrefuted, while the other is pummeled, especially not before the reader has ever gotten past the first two paragraphs 67.78.144.22 (talk) 14:53, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

Bad WOT Ratings?

A few of the resources have bad Web of Trust ratings. Should these be removed, in the interest increasing article-quality? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sweyn78 (talk • contribs) 22:48, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

mobile VoIP

"Law elsewhere in the world" - Korea

In Korea, blocking VoIP is not a hot issue anymore. As smartphone users are increasing, mobile carriers try to block mobile VoIP services. It is a very controversial emerging issue between 3G mobile carriers and service providers now. Also, this is a major concern on enacting Network Neutrality regulations in Korea. --JungIn (talk) 06:40, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

Requested move

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: Move. Cúchullain ^t/c 16:23, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

---

---

• Network neutrality → Net neutrality
• Network neutrality in Canada → Net neutrality in Canada
• Network neutrality in the United States → Net neutrality in the United States

– Net neutrality has been far and away the most common term for this. Both the net neutrality and network neutrality articles existed for a time until they were merged. NY Times CNET Marcus Qwertyus (talk) 16:11, 25 December 2012 (UTC)

• Support.[4] Apteva (talk) 05:45, 26 December 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose – Counting occurrences in newspaper headlines is obviously a poor methodology for making such a choice. Recognizability and precision would suggest that sticking with the more meaningful and precise term network will benefit our readers, compared to the ambiguous term net that has been used in connection with neutrality with completely different meanings, as in this book, this book, and many others like them. Check book n-grams to see that the full word is almost as common as the shortened one (and in many books, the concept will be introduced by the full term before switching to the short, so the full term is more than well justified per COMMONNAME). See this book, this, this, this, for a few examples. Dicklyon (talk) 17:02, 26 December 2012 (UTC)
  • In your ngram, "net neutrality" exceeds "network neutrality", but you then point out that most sources that use the former would also use the latter in introduction. I don't see how that's possible given the results; indeed, only if the latter exceeded the former would it make sense to discount the disparity due to duplication. Powers ^T 22:53, 30 December 2012 (UTC)
• Is this about a particular network (the Internet) or any (computer) network (including the Internet)..? If the former, perhaps "Net neutrality" might be preferable – if "Net" is likely to be read in this context as an abbreviation of "Internet"... CsDix (talk) 01:44, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

It's definitely about the Internet, but also about the various companies' networks that make up the Internet, which is where the opportunities for non-neutrality are. So network, which is what it comes from and is short for. Dicklyon (talk) 01:56, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

• Support; the abbreviated form is vastly more common. Powers ^T 22:53, 30 December 2012 (UTC)
• Support as per nom. -Kai445 (talk) 08:38, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

2014 court ruling in federal appeals court

Headline: "Court Rejects Rules on Net Neutrality"

• [5] and "Court Tosses FCC's 'Net Neutrality' Rules"

"A federal appeals court opened the way for broadband providers to charge content companies for faster speeds, striking down federal rules that had required equal treatment of Internet traffic." 31 min ago — FYI, Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 01:30, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

faver

I mean, seriously... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.128.182.70 (talk) 18:27, 19 May 2014 (UTC)

Subtle trolling or just bad style?

The "Mixed and other views" section has 10 instances of the word "applications" in a single paragraph, and my display puts "applications" as the first word in 5 successive lines. i.imgur.com/6Ve2Pzl.png It's sort of distracting. Forbes72 (talk) 04:12, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

 Done This is fixed.Forbes72 (talk) 05:34, 30 May 2014 (UTC)

Be very careful with terminology

As some sources point out, there is a great deal of mischaracterization that comes up around net neturality, mostly because everyone is using their own, completely different definitions. The "open internet" and "net neutrality" are generally embraced, there are no ISPs who go on the record to oppose net neutrality. Yet, pure net neutrality is embraced by almost no one. Discrimination against spam and malware etc. is almost universal. On the other hand, no ISP will go on the record to support "fast lanes" and "slow lanes", but they will support "fast lanes" and "hyperspeed lanes". It took me a great deal of effort to realize that while AT&T's blog post on theeir website spends a great deal of time talking about how to prevent "paid prioritization", it actually never says AT&T is opposed to "paid prioritization", but (qualifications bolded):

There is no paid prioritization like Free Press identified on the Internet today. No one has any plan or intent to introduce such paid prioritization practices. ISPs have all posted policies that prohibit them. And the FCC can act against anyone who might nonetheless try to do that. In short, the Internet today is totally safe from fast lanes and slow lanes.

http://www.attpublicpolicy.com/fcc/net-neutrality-and-modern-memory/

Only the "such" are opposed. However, in other statements, AT&T has said paid prioritization already exists on the internet and those practices are good:

(2) paid prioritization of Internet traffic is widely available to businesses today; and (3) such prioritization is often voluntarily purchased by small and medium-sized enterprises, including minority-owned businesses and community organizations.

http://www.attpublicpolicy.com/government-policy/the-danger-of-dogma/

I would advise editors here to be very careful when describing positions; it is very easy to make mistakes. Forbes72 (talk) 05:21, 15 June 2014 (UTC)

Possible example: South Korea

South Korea seems to lack net neutrality. If that's true, I suggest South Korea be mentioned in detail as an example of motivations for and outcomes of an absence of net neutrality. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Boltze.patrick (talk • contribs) 19:04, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

References

Comcast and Vonage throttling rumor

I want to address an anonymous edit that questioned Comcast's commitment to not throttling by pointing to a rumor from 2006 that Comcast was throttling Vontage. It's not Wikipedia's place to decide the validity of such statements, but after looking into it, a Vontage spokesperson directly addressed the issue. They acknowledged the incentive to throttle, but called reports of it actually occuring "heresay". The section it got inserted into is about the expressed opinions of various organizations, not their actual practice, and this rumor doesn't have reliable sourcing I can find. I'm not saying Comcast never interferes, as they certainly did interfere with BitTorrent, but the rumor doesn't belong here without better sourcing.

Vontage statement here: PcMag Forbes72 (talk) 04:32, 16 June 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for that info, Forbes72; but, just FYI, it's "Vonage," not "Vontage".

Gregg L. DesElms (Username: Deselms) (talk) 00:53, 27 July 2014 (UTC)

My mistake. I've seen their commercials dozens of times and I still somehow get the wrong spelling in my head. Vonage it is. Forbes72 (talk) 21:15, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

Split proposal to Net neutrality law

This article has gotten pretty long; I think a natural place to split the article is to move the "Current and proposed enforcement" and "Legal situation" sections into a new article. The current article would be an overview of what net neutrality is and what people think of it in general, and the new article would contain specific information on the legal status of net neutrality in different countries, and developments in government policy. Forbes72 (talk) 21:26, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

Since there's been no opposition, I've went ahead and made the split. Forbes72 (talk) 20:24, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

Repeated sentence

The end of the "Counterweight to server-side non-neutrality" section and the beginning of the "Data discrimination" contain what is very nearly the same sentence.

-"Tim Wu, though a proponent of network neutrality, claims that the current Internet is not neutral, because its implementation of best effort generally favors file transfer and other non-time sensitive traffic over real-time communications.[96]"

-"Tim Wu, though a proponent of network neutrality, claims that the current Internet is not neutral as its implementation of best effort generally favors file transfer and other non-time-sensitive traffic over real-time communications.[101]"

It looks like those citations are to the same paper, though the link in the first one is broken. Does someone want to rewrite one of these perhaps? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.93.70.119 (talk) 21:31, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

Definition doesn't follow from its citations

The article (as of this date) opens with a definition:

Net neutrality (also network neutrality or Internet neutrality) is the principle that Internet service providers and governments should treat all data on the Internet equally, not discriminating or charging differentially by user, content, site, platform, application, type of attached equipment, and modes of communication.

And yet, one of the sources cited in the formation of this definition (from Tim Berners-Lee) states:

Net neutrality is this:

If I pay to connect to the Net with a certain quality of service, and you pay to connect with that or greater quality of service, then we can communicate at that level.

That's all. Its up to the ISPs to make sure they interoperate so that that happens.

Net Neutrality is NOT asking for the internet for free.

Net Neutrality is NOT saying that one shouldn't pay more money for high quality of service. We always have, and we always will.

So this is a clear need for clean up: is net neutrality about differential charging, or not? If this aspect of what "Net Neutrality" is itself a matter for debate, then the article needs to be updated capture that.

I'd offer a rewrite, but I fear it would be obliterated by those who "want" Net Neutrality to exclude "charging differentially". (I don't mind if people WANT that... I mind if we argue about the definition and that precludes meaningful discussion about Net Neutrality and the public interest.) Dharasty (talk) 17:47, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

References

There doesn't appear to be any conflict. Let me bold the relevant parts:

...treat all data on the Internet equally, not discriminating or charging differentially by user, content, site, platform, application, type of attached equipment, and modes of communication...

...Net Neutrality is NOT saying that one shouldn't pay more money for high quality of service....

Different users, content, sites, platforms, applications, equipment, and modes do not mean different qualities of service. Quality of service, in this context, would mean a faster internet connection, or an internet connection that randomly drops packets less frequently, or an internet connection that fails less frequently. As an example, you may pay more for a "business connection" which is more redundant and includes an on-site technician in case of failure. This is a better quality of service, but it is agnostic of any of the items listed in the first quote. 173.173.64.117 (talk) 23:58, 8 March 2015 (UTC)

Mark Cuban: re Net Neutrality

http://www.cnbc.com/id/102438832

"Having them overseeing the Internet scares the s*** out of me," Cuban said. 96.59.92.70 (talk) 02:01, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

Mark Cuban is not a technologist, the article as written incorrectly identifies him as the founder of broadcast.com. However, someone else was the founder of Broadcast.com, Cuban only purcahsed it and then later sold it to Yahoo. Buying and selling companies does not make one a technologist. A technologist is a specialist in a technology. Until it can be shown that he has some special knowledge or experience in a net based technology, he's not a technologist. http://www.sbtechnology.com/new/news_temp.asp?NewsID=29 He's allowed his opnion as to Net Neutrality, but his opinion is just that, an opinion. 50.197.17.100 (talk) 03:02, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

Political Bias

Under Arguments against net neutrality, a good portion of the first paragraph and suspect of the latter follows considerable political bias in favor of the right rather than maintaining a political unbiased position. "Wall Street Journal editorial writer Holman W. Jenkins, Jr. wrote that "most of the big tech names like Google, Apple, Facebook and Microsoft have kept quiet as net neutrality morphed into a Title II utility-regulation agenda because they didn’t want to be attacked by left-wing groups, and because they trusted Tom Wheeler and Mr. Obama not to screw up an Internet that was working well. They've been blindsided, if not cheated, by the Obama administration."" = Political Bias. Especially in the last sentence of the text, "they've been blindsided, if not cheated, by the Obama administration." — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.160.88.22 (talk) 00:08, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

Hi, thank you very much for providing feedback. I agree that this article is currently not as neutral as it could be. The paragraph that you mentioned has been removed for now. We will continue to work on improving the neutrality of this article. Meanwhile, you are welcome to edit the article and improve its quality. Keep in mind though, that information and claims should be backed up by verifiable sources, or they may be removed. Please also remember to sign your messages on talk pages by typing four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your IP address/username and the date. Thank you, Tony Tan⁹⁸ · talk 00:39, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

Does anyone else see the irony in ensuring this particular article meets WP:NPOV? Etamni (talk) 22:42, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

@Etamni: Yes. ;) Tony Tan⁹⁸ · talk 23:31, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

"Framing of debate"

The section called "Framing of debate" doesn't mention anything about the framing of the debate, and consists of one sentence. Why is it here? Is there more to it? I read the article linked as a reference, and sure, he thinks the debate is "vague and misleading", but is that wiki worthy? --Richardson mcphillips (talk) 19:54, 15 April 2015 (UTC)

 Done. I agree. I deleted this sub-section. --Jeff Ogden (W163) (talk) 06:47, 26 April 2015 (UTC).

Bias in Arguments Against Net Neutrality

Seems biased to list the technologists against net neutrality without listing the technologists who are for net neutrality.

Also, many of these technologists are not against net neutrality; they have merely questioned whether Title II is the best way to achieve it.

Perhaps there should be a section on alternatives to net neutrality that includes competition via leased lines, which is common countries outside the USA.

Very biased/misleading.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 2602:306:36FD:47E0:75AF:E7EC:A76F:D296 (talk) 11:04, 2 October 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Net neutrality. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20070829170707/http://www.computerhistory.org:80/events/index.php?id=1162920599 to http://www.computerhistory.org/events/index.php?id=1162920599

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 02:31, 10 January 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Net neutrality. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20150402132441/http://www.cnbc.com/id/102248770 to http://www.cnbc.com/id/102248770

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 23:56, 28 February 2016 (UTC)

Bias in Arguments For Section

I think the subsections "Preserving Internet Standards" and "Preventing Pseudo Services" contain some bias. In "preserving Internet Standards" it says "Further, the legislation asserts that bit-shaping the transport of application data will undermine the transport layer's designed flexibility." This comes off a little opinionated with nothing refuting it. In "Preventing Pseudo Services" it only references one person's opinion. "He believes that it is unlikely that new investment will be made to lay special networks for particular websites to reach end-users faster." That's definitely bias. These sections are also extremely short with only a couple of sentences. I think these sections should either be combined, removed or fleshed out more. DRights (talk) 17:10, 7 August 2016 (UTC)

Dr. Valletti's comment on this article

Dr. Valletti has reviewed this Wikipedia page, and provided us with the following comments to improve its quality:

There is some advocacy in this piece, either by proponents and by opponents of net neutrality. Quote from what I think is a well-balanced article by Greenstein, Peitz and Valletti (but I may be biased) in the Journal of Economic Perspectives, 2016: "There are a number of open research questions in this setting because the situation involves multiple participants in complementary economic relationships where they share the costs and benefits of actions, and users benefit from improvement and investment. It should come as no surprise, therefore, that the thrust of the conclusions from economic analysis tilt against simplistic declarations in favor or against net neutrality."

We hope Wikipedians on this talk page can take advantage of these comments and improve the quality of the article accordingly.

We believe Dr. Valletti has expertise on the topic of this article, since he has published relevant scholarly research:

• Reference : Marc Bourreau & Frago Kourandi & Tommaso Valletti, 2014. "Net Neutrality with Competing Internet Platforms," CEIS Research Paper 307, Tor Vergata University, CEIS, revised 14 Feb 2014.

ExpertIdeasBot (talk) 16:12, 24 August 2016 (UTC)

Bias in favor of Net Neutraility?

In the section, "User intolerance for slow-loading sites", a study by S.S. Krishnan and Ramesh Sitaraman is brought up as possible evidence that video users accommodate to faster speeds making slower download speeds "intolerable".

The quote, "The results demonstrate how users can get used to faster Internet connectivity, leading to higher expectation of Internet speed, and lower tolerance for any delay that occurs," is only one possible interpretation in favor of their hypothesis. Another interpretation that is not brought up in the article is that users with faster internet will tend to watch more videos that they aren't willing to wait for, whereas users of slower internet choose which videos they want to watch more carefully, and don't generally pick videos that they would be willing to abandon sooner because of the cost of downloading any video. Rawr

In general, the controls and details of the experiment, as well as critical discussion around the results are ambiguous and biased favorably toward Net Neutrality. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Zorgate (talk • contribs) 20:10, 23 August 2016 (UTC) Zorgate (talk) 12:26, 26 August 2016 (UTC)

Review of article for class

Net neutrality is essentially the idea that all data transmitted over the Internet should be treated fairly, with no particular type of data given priority over another. The status of net neutrality across the world in legal terms varies greatly; the United States' Federal Communications Commission recently adopted the idea of net neutrality, and has rules in place to enforce it.

This article is excellent: it is quite long and detailed, has tons of references, and is very well researched and explains all about net neutrality very well. [Belinrahs|^talktome⁄ _ididit] 23:30, 10 October 2016 (UTC)

Regarding first section on "Net Neutrality" and the section on "Dumb pipe"

Hello fellow Wikipedians! I have noticed that a lot of you have mentioned that this article contains some biases. Maybe presenting the two sides of the net neutrality debate in the first section before mentioning Comcast's violation of net neutrality principles would help to make the information more neutral.

Also, in the Definition and related principles section, there is no mention of who coined the concept of "Dumb Network" (George Gilder). It was mentioned who coined the term 'net neutrality', hence, this pattern needs to be followed when defining the other concepts. --Ramloc11 (talk) 20:29, 26 October 2016 (UTC)

Pai on net neutrality

The current section on the "United States" includes several statements that Pai "wants" or "thinks" certain things. No one but Pia knows what he really "wants" and "thinks". We only know what he does. I'm rewording those sentences to make them more neutral.

Pai claims he wants to '"reestablish" the power of market forces in regulating the Internet.

"Pai says the reversal will increase infrastructure investment and innovation among broadband companies." He fails to mention that it will also throttle free speech and competition: Net neutrality became a major issue after Comcast was caught censoring the web traffic from a competitor. DavidMCEddy (talk) 01:59, 31 May 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Net neutrality. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added {{dead link}} tag to http://www.im.uni-karlsruhe.de/Upload/Publications/336c39b3-7a62-4159-bb1a-483f39dd5b24.pdf
• Added {{dead link}} tag to http://static.publicknowledge.org/pdf/nn-letter-20060301.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120928201632/http://www.computerhistory.org/events/index.php?id=1162920599 to http://www.computerhistory.org/events/index.php?id=1162920599
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080919065427/http://www.savetheinternet.com/%3Dpress11 to http://www.savetheinternet.com/%3Dpress11

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 00:46, 22 July 2017 (UTC)

Edit warring,complaints about the FCC and off-topic entries under the wrong countries

I've fully protected the thing. God willing, its a clean version. If there are problems that due diligence require me to correct, ping me or make an edit request as explained at WP:RFPP. While my personal POV is probably sympathetic, this is not Dlohkipedia. Let's try to to keep the politics out of the encyclopedia. And let's not SOAPBOX in unrelated country sections-- or anywhere. Thanks, -- Dlohcierekim (talk) 20:02, 22 November 2017 (UTC)

...and governments regulating most of the Internet must treat all data on the Internet the same...

First and foremost, net neutrality is the principle of having a level playing field regardless of how its achieved and the Internet has been more or less neutral since day one.

It predates the controversy in the United States by a long stretch and was brought up in cases where ISPs sometimes throttled traffic through given ports.

Governments have always regulated telecommunications but this regulation is apparently something new so the wording used here seems to be conflating the principle and the "net neutrality" regulation.

This is giving rise to heated debates for a question of semantics between groups that are for a neutral net or level playing field and groups which reject government oversight.

Wikipedia most probably should be impartial in this respect. --JamesPoulson (talk) 11:08, 24 November 2017 (UTC)

@Dlohcierekim: it seems that the wording has been transformed with respect to what can be found on the reference link. See https://www.publicknowledge.org/issues/net-neutrality. --JamesPoulson (talk) 11:16, 24 November 2017 (UTC)

Protected edit request on 24 November 2017

Change

"At the end of 2012 Slovenia legislated a law of electronic communication implementing a strong principle of net neutrality."

to

"At the end of 2012, Slovenia legislated a law of electronic communication implementing a strong principle of net neutrality."

in the section titled Slovenia. This edit adds a comma between "2012" and "Slovenia". Gamebuster19901 (Talk║Contributions) 14:17, 24 November 2017 (UTC)

Done. Mz7 (talk) 21:49, 24 November 2017 (UTC)

Confirmation bias and missing the point

There are obviously a lot of beliefs surrounding this issue. But what is conspicuously absent is any discussion of the likely, real-world impact of the options presented. Regulation reducing net neutrality by metering bandwidth consumption will tend to make the popular more expensive and the less popular less expensive. Let that sink in. It's why the money is going where we see it going. I recommend a comment somewhere in this article that points out this fact as it is not clear from the article as-is. 174.131.5.205 (talk) 18:28, 20 November 2017 (UTC)

Wikipedia is a summary of published sources. Can you cite a source which presents this perspective? We need citations. Thanks. Blue Rasberry (talk) 19:03, 21 November 2017 (UTC)

Thanks. The point I'm making is based on years of experience in this field and I don't have time to research sources. I was suggesting that if someone wants to write a good article, they should focus on the gravamen of the arguments. End users already have "fast" and "slow" lanes. That's why the public pays more for higher bandwidth services. What "net neutrality" does is that it prevents the telcos from charging the server side - the content provider - for *their* bandwidth. It's got nothing to do with the internet per se. It has to do with access to the internet. And it isn't "censorship" any more than Joe Public paying a higher monthly fee for greater monthly bandwidth and caps is.

So, my point is, large companies that are very popular (have a lot of traffic being served up to the public) will pay higher prices. They are more popular, by definition, and they will pay more. That cost might be passed on to others, but nonetheless, the more popular will cost more. This subject is so sunk in the quicksand of belief no one is discussing what the debate actually is about.

174.131.5.205 (talk) 05:35, 25 November 2017 (UTC)

"Arguments against" and unreasonable length/repetition of arguments

Some of the arguments presented in "Arguments against" are barely backed up or repetitions of other arguments and in need of a rework and/or more counter-arguments embedded, which the "Arguments for" section has. E.g. Pais point regarding internet speeds in the US vs Europe, on which factual evidence, especially concerning wireless speeds, is rather limited (e.g. https://www.speedtest.net/global-index). The section as a whole also seems quite blown up, especially when compared to the "Arguments for" section.

Here are some specific points in need of improvement:

- "Significant and growing competition, investment" and "Deterring competition" seem to discuss the exact same economic argument. Why is this separated into two arguments?

- "Prevent overuse of bandwidth" has not a single source pointing to any actual risk of overuse coming up, which I'd consider crucial for this argument. The second paragraph furthermore cites several rather nonsensical arguments in this context that do not really fit here:

1) "Bret Swanson of the Wall Street Journal wrote in 2007 that the popular websites of that time, including YouTube, MySpace, and blogs, were put at risk by net neutrality. He noted that, at the time, YouTube streamed as much data in three months as the world's radio, cable and broadcast television channels did in one year, 75 petabytes. He argued that networks were not remotely prepared to handle the amount of data required to run these sites. He also argued that net neutrality would prevent broadband networks from being built, which would limit available bandwidth and thus endanger innovation." - the main point made here is not overuse of bandwidth but a potential lack of return on investment due to net neutrality, which is a completely separate argument in that section. To cite the sourced original article (http://www.discovery.org/a/3869):

"Wall Street will finance new telco and cable fiber optic projects, but only with some reasonable hope of a profit. And that is what net neutrality could squelch. Google, for example, has guaranteed $900 million in advertising revenue to MySpace and paid Dell $1 billion to install Google search boxes on its computers; YouTube partnered with Verizon Wireless; MySpace signed its own content deal with Cingular. But these kinds of preferential partnerships, where content and conduit are integrated to varying degrees -- and which are ubiquitous in almost every industry -- could be outlawed under net neutrality."

Ironically, in the next paragraph, the same article even states that overuse of bandwidth is not an issue in actual broadband networks (consider that article is from 2007):

"Ironically, the condition that net neutrality seeks to ban -- discrimination or favoritism of content on the Internet -- is only necessary in narrowband networks. When resources are scarce, the highest bidder can exclude the others. But with real broadband networks, capacity is abundant and discrimination unnecessary. Net neutrality's rules, price controls and litigation would prevent broadband networks from being built, limit the amount of available bandwidth and thus encourage the zero-sum discrimination supposedly deplored."

2) "One example of these concerns was the "series of tubes" analogy, which was presented by US senator Ted Stevens during a committee hearing in the US senate in 2006."

This analogy has been highly criticized and ridiculed (which is not mentioned at all despite it being notable for pretty much only that reason). I have no idea why this, of all things, is sourced here as a serious argument trying to support that point.

--95.168.159.112 (talk) 16:50, 25 November 2017 (UTC)

Please go ahead and make any such changes, I would support them. Carl Fredrik ^talk 17:10, 25 November 2017 (UTC)

Not possible because it is protected. Would be great if someone with the proper rights can do it before the protection ends due to current interest in the topic. --95.168.159.112 (talk) 18:16, 25 November 2017 (UTC)

Protected edit request on 26 November 2017

In Net neutrality#India, the first words are not in the DMY format. Please change it to the DMY. D4R1U5 (talk) 08:06, 26 November 2017 (UTC)

• I.E Change "8th Feb 2016" to "8 February 2016" Gamebuster19901 (Talk║Contributions) 09:26, 26 November 2017 (UTC)

Done — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 12:22, 27 November 2017 (UTC)

Protection reduced

to extended confirmed per request on my talk page. If this proves to be unwise, please report at WP:RFPP of ping me. -- Dlohcierekim (talk) 20:02, 27 November 2017 (UTC)

External links : Don't Break The Net is a commercial site / online store.

Don't Break The Net is a commercial store online and does not relate to the topic really. It just get free publicity here. On the same line though, TechFreedom is a relevant site. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Michaël Lessard (talk • contribs)

 Done @Michaël Lessard: Removed link. --Codyorb (talk) 01:40, 1 December 2017 (UTC)

Misleading/Biased/Incorrect/Imprecise use of "website" across article

Across the article I'm seeing lots of repetitious usage of the word "website" to describe one of the parties negatively impacted by a loss of net neutrality (in sentences describing how they'll have to make deals and get charged more by Big Telecom or whatever). That's very misleading, possibly on purpose to cheaply further the "Big Telecom vs. The Little Guy" narrative present into the article.

This is 2017. Virtually all websites and content accessible via the public internet is served from datacenters parked on backbones and owned by Amazon/Google/Microsoft/Netflix/Facebook/etc. These megacorps manage all the infrastructure and dealings with ISPs... handling all that is exactly what they're being paid for. A loss of Net Neutrality might expose these juggernauts to new scary competitive angles from Big Telecom, but whatever financial machinations happen at this low layer of the business are already well isolated from the stable service SLAs/rates/policies their customer base has built on top of. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Amannm (talk • contribs) 14:23, 2 December 2017 (UTC)

I appreciate your concern. There are other names for sites of information that can be found on the Internet, although "website" is still the most universal and recognizable. According to WP:COMMONNAME, it's recommended to use the word most commonly used by the general population. --Codyorb (talk) 17:37, 9 December 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 14 December 2017

To add under the U.S. segment of net neutrality in other countries.

December 14th 2017- The FCC votes to repeal net neutrality 3-2. Against strong opposition from the public. Mindersteve (talk) 19:18, 14 December 2017 (UTC)

Already done Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 19:30, 14 December 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 14 December 2017

Add the fact that attorney generals for New York and the state of Washington have announced that they are suing the FCC over its decision.

http://abcnews.go.com/Technology/wireStory/latest-clyburn-blasts-fcc-net-neutrality-repeal-51792629 Acid Ly (talk) 20:26, 14 December 2017 (UTC)

Already done Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 22:02, 14 December 2017 (UTC)

why is this article written in such a pretentious, wonkish manner?

"Research suggests that a combination of policy instruments will help realize the range of valued political and economic objectives central to the network neutrality debate."

"A more detailed proposed definition of technical and service network neutrality suggests that service network neutrality is the adherence to the paradigm that operation of a service at a certain layer is not influenced by any data other than the data interpreted at that layer, and in accordance with the protocol specification for that layer."

These sentences are nonsense. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 199.224.16.12 (talk) 16:54, 12 July 2017 (UTC)

Yeah, the first sentence you quoted caught my eye as a tad "odd," as well as this bit at the end of the sentence following it,

...along with limiting providers and regulating the options those providers can offer.

I can see how that might be technically true, but it becomes suspicious in the context of disinformation campaigns that seek to highlight net neutrality as being detrimental to ISPs.

Note to self: double check the sources used for the above sentences,

1st [6] https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2910104

Extra bit [7] https://www.nytimes.com/2015/02/27/technology/net-neutrality-fcc-vote-internet-utility.html

2nd from unsigned 199.224.16.12:[8] https://www.hbarel.com/analysis/policy/what-is-network-neutrality

Mystyc1 (talk) 01:45, 8 August 2017 (UTC)

I agree. This whole article seems to be highly one-sided and devoid of objectivity. Under "Arguments Against" every single viewpoint is countered often within the same sentence. The same cannot be said for the "Arguments in Favor" section. Wikipedia should facilitate objective information. 213.186.167.147 (talk) 18:37, 15 December 2017 (UTC)Moe

John Perry Barlow against net neutrality?

The "Arguments against" section of this article cites John Perry Barlow as opposing net neutrality, citing his A Declaration of the Independence of Cyberspace as a source for that claim. In my humble opinion it is a bit of a stretch.

I think this manifesto is being cited as against net neutrality because it advocates against government intervention on the net. But, as the opening of the article says, net neutrality is not about government intervention:

   Net neutrality is the principle that Internet service providers must treat all data on the Internet the same, and not discriminate or charge differently by user, content, website, platform, application, type of attached equipment, or method of communication.

Moreover, the manifesto says (emphasis added)

   We are creating a world that all may enter without privilege or prejudice accorded by race, economic power, military force, or station of birth.

And

   We are creating a world where anyone, anywhere may express his or her beliefs

Which to me seems to be exactly advocating for net neutrality.

At best, the source doesn't say anywhere whether he's against net neutrality.

For this reasons, I propose that John Perry Barlow name be removed from the list of individuals opposed to net neutrality. --Klez (talk) 08:11, 14 December 2017 (UTC)

I was just coming to make this same point; Barlow's comments are against government regulation of content and restriction of access, not against government regulation of the corporations who transfer traffic. It's also worth pointing out that Perry's article is over 20 years old and was not written to address the current question. The Rev (talk) 21:19, 15 December 2017 (UTC)

Misleading source information

The last paragraph of the article, the "Reactions to Net Neutrality" section, claims that "the majority of Americans are staunch supporters of net neutrality," and cites a poll run by Mozilla. According to that source, though, the sample only included a shade over 1,000 Americans - a far cry from the majority of all Americans. Elvis2500 (talk) 21:35, 15 December 2017 (UTC)Elvis2500

 Partly done Thanks for pointing that out! I added quotation marks to the claim, as it is a direct quotation from the article. I also added the fact that it was completed by 1,000 people, and let the reader decide if the survey is credible or not. Codyorb (talk) 23:58, 15 December 2017 (UTC)

Apparently, the quote isn't from the article cited. I'm removing it. Codyorb (talk) 00:05, 16 December 2017 (UTC)