|↓||Skip to table of contents||↓|
|This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Net neutrality article.|
|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 by a media organisation:|
|Threads older than 180 days may be archived by.|
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)
- 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. 188.8.131.52 (talk) 23:58, 8 March 2015 (UTC)
Mark Cuban: re Net Neutrality
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. 184.108.40.206 (talk) 03:02, 12 March 2015 (UTC)
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 220.127.116.11 (talk) 21:31, 26 February 2015 (UTC)
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 18.104.22.168 (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)
"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)
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.