|↓||Skip to table of contents||↓|
|This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Net neutrality article.|
|Archives: 1, 2|
|This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:|
|To-do list for Net neutrality:|
|This article is the subject of an educational assignment at Michigan State University supported by WikiProject United States Public Policy and the Wikipedia Ambassador Program during the 2011 Spring term. Further details are available on the course page.|
|This article has been mentioned or used by a media organization. The reference is in:
- 1 Definition doesn't follow from its citations
- 2 mobile VoIP
- 3 Hands Off The Internet site outdated
- 4 Failed cite
- 5 Essay/Re-write header
- 6 Bad WOT Ratings?
- 7 Requested move
- 8 2014 court ruling in federal appeals court
- 9 Subtle trolling or just bad style?
- 10 faver
- 11 Be very careful with terminology
- 12 Comcast and Vonage throttling rumor
- 13 Possible example: South Korea
- 14 Split proposal to Net neutrality law
- 15 Mark Cuban: re Net Neutrality
- 16 Repeated sentence
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)
"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)
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.
^ 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.
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 18.104.22.168 (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)
2014 court ruling in federal appeals court
Headline: "Court Rejects Rules on Net Neutrality"
-  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)
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
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):
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:
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.
- 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)
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)
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)
Mark Cuban: re Net Neutrality
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."
-"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."
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 22.214.171.124 (talk) 21:31, 26 February 2015 (UTC)