Talk:Net neutrality

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
          This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
WikiProject Internet culture (Rated C-class, High-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Internet culture, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of internet culture on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
C-Class article C  This article has been rated as C-Class on the project's quality scale.
 High  This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.
 
WikiProject Law (Rated C-class, Low-importance)
WikiProject icon


This article is within the scope of WikiProject Law, an attempt at providing a comprehensive, standardised, pan-jurisdictional and up-to-date resource for the legal field and the subjects encompassed by it.
C-Class article C  This article has been rated as C-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Low  This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
 
WikiProject Business  
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Business, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of business articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
 ???  This article has not yet received a rating on the project's quality scale.
 ???  This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.
 
edit·history·watch·refresh Stock post message.svg To-do list for Net neutrality:

Here are some tasks awaiting attention:
News This article has been mentioned by a media organisation:

Definition doesn't follow from its citations[edit]

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 [1] (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)

mobile VoIP[edit]

"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[edit]

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 (talkcontribs) 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[edit]

^ 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[edit]

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?[edit]

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 (talkcontribs) 22:48, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

Requested move[edit]

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)



– 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.[1] 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[edit]

Headline: "Court Rejects Rules on Net Neutrality"

  • [2] 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?[edit]

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)

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

faver[edit]

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

Be very careful with terminology[edit]

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)

Comcast and Vonage throttling rumor[edit]

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)

Possible example: South Korea[edit]

South Korea seems to lack net neutrality.[2] 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 (talkcontribs) 19:04, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

Split proposal to Net neutrality law[edit]

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)