Talk:Net neutrality

image

http://i38.tinypic.com/2igjeqh.jpg 99.236.220.155 (talk) 22:58, 28 October 2009 (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)

Bot report : Found duplicate references !

In the last revision I edited, I found duplicate named references, i.e. references sharing the same name, but not having the same content. Please check them, as I am not able to fix them automatically :)

• "BERNDEF" :
  • [http://dig.csail.mit.edu/breadcrumbs/node/144 Sir Tim Berners Lee's second blog entr.m4v mp4]
  • [http://dig.csail.mit.edu/breadcrumbs/node/144 Sir Tim Berners-Lee's second blog entry on Network Neutrality] [http://web.mit.edu/webcast/mit-berners-lee-net-neutrality-blogs-220k.ram real] [http://dig.csail.mit.edu/2006/06/mit-berners-lee-net-neutrality-blog.m4v mp4]
• "KAHNVID" :
  • [http://archive.computerhistory.org/lectures/an_eveninig_with_robert_kahn.lecture.2007.01.09.wmv "An Evening With Robert Kahn," video from Computer History Museum, 9 Jan 2007], [http://vasarely.wiwi.hu-berlin.de/kahn_net_neutrality_transcript.html transcript of the video passage in which net neutrality is mentioned]
  • [http://archive.computerhistory.org/lectures/an_eveninig_with_robert_kahn.lecture.2007.01.09.wmv "An Evening With Robert Kahn," video from Computer History Museum, 9 Jan 2007]

DumZiBoT (talk) 10:20, 10 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)

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)

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)

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)