Talk:Net neutrality/Archive 1

application to mobile phones?

Cellphones should be mentioned here. Got ICQ or VOIP on the iphone? I don't think so...--134.147.252.130 (talk) 09:59, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Imbalance between opposing and proposing sections

In the pro-net neutrality section, several important names are omitted - the names of people important in the creation of the web. For one, Tim Berners Lee, the creator of the www protocol is completely omitted.

The 'Proponents of net neutrality' section has essentially reflected Tellecom propaganda by implying that the majority of net-neutrality supporters are large corporate entities.

This should be rectified.

Suggestion: There should be a similar section to the 'Opponents', with names of innovators (such as Tim Berners Lee) who support net neutrality. Also, the various organisations and the fairly large movement amongst nerdy types to protect net neutrality should be represented in a manner more accurate than 'some liberal blogs'. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.118.113.164 (talk) 13:21, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Existing examples of the violations of net neutrality

In any case, I want to add this and cite it, just don't know how because I've generally just limited myself to spell-checking and talk pages. Of course, directly from the source probably isn't the best way to go, but I know that there are plenty of blogs that reference this site in particular. There should be an entire section for principle violations that can cover the Comcast throttling and ESPN360. What sucks is the ESPN360 case gets much less attention than it deserves. Here's the link: http://broadband.espn.go.com/espn360/faq#4--98.216.144.236 (talk) 05:37, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Ironically, Opening Description Has Npov Problems

The opening description is biased in favor of net neutrality. It describes network neutrality purely in terms of openness, ignoring the basic premise of government-enforced network neutrality as itself regulation. D prime (talk) 05:08, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Depends whether you think NN is inherently a legislative issue, or a conceptual issue that may result in legislation. Given that many networks are largely neutral even without legislation forcing them to be, I think that it being labelled as a concept is more NPOV with the legislative issues being included in the controversy parts of the lead.- (User) WolfKeeper (Talk) 15:53, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Valid point. But most people are being made aware of Net Neutrality in reference to the recent ideological movement. Considering that, if Net Neutrality is necessarily defined as the network status and not the political movement, a distinction should be made in the opening paragraph, so uninformed people don't take the description of the technical meaning of NN as referring to the movement. I'm going to make this distinction obvious with an edit now, but of course if it needs revision we can continue the discussion.D prime (talk) 04:37, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

Frame relay

Something should be said about Frame relay since it is often used today to provide internet access and is sold nearly ALL THE TIME in a way that would seem to run afoul of many proposed net neutrality laws.

Suppose, for example, that two sites buy net access via fractional T1, with full T1 burstable. One buys 384kbps CIR, burstable to 1536kbps and the other buys the remaining 1152kbps, burstable to 1536kbps.

The trouble comes from the burstable part. Sometimes frames have to wait in order to allow the other site to get it's guaranteed rate. But the Markey amendment would make this illegal:

SEC. 715. NETWORK NEUTRALITY. (a) IN GENERAL.—Each broadband network provider has the duty— to prioritize content, applications, or services within the provider’s network, if the provider chooses to prioritize any data, based only upon the type of content, applications, or services and without charge for such prioritization;

And what happens to burstable bandwidth in general? Under Markey, I can't see how you can have both guaranteed bandwidth and burstable options on the same link if it's shared.

Jingoistic article on "NN in the US" needs to be eliminated

The attempt by foreigners to separate the US controversy from NN as whole is parochial and non-productive. The dispute in the US is what NN is all about, not a sideshow. Foreigners reluctant to admit that the US invented the Internet and is most influential in its management and governance need to take stock of reality.RichardBennett 11:06, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

Agreed. The net neutrality is a political issue in the US. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 206.148.148.138 (talk) 06:29, 27 February 2007 (UTC).

Merging isn't really an option; together the articles are too long, and won't shrink enough with a merge (and we know this because they were together before). Splitting the articles a different way could work, but given the debate/legal positioning in the US fits a whole article on its own, as does this article on its own, it would be tricky; this is the nearest to a natural cleavage line we're going to find.WolfKeeper 09:14, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Merging would give massive structural problems; notably merging would involve doubling the length of the introduction, but it's too long already. We've been there before, it doesn't work.WolfKeeper 09:14, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

The present separation is deceptive. Network neutrality is primarily a regulatory principle, and regulatory principles are political in nature. The only country in the world in which a regulatory dispute over NN has ever taken place is the US, the birthplace of the Internet. I'd be happy to split the article between the policy dispute and the various antics that have been produced by Google and other minions to advance their positions, but the existing segregation is inconsistent and deceptive.RichardBennett 23:20, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

The idea that Network neutrality is primarily a regulatory principle is your POV. Other POVs evidently differ (Tim Berners Lee's definition for example does not say that NN is a regulatory issue, he describes in terms of the behaviour of a network.) If you want to argue the in the US that it is primarily a regulatory principle, then you have ample scope to do that in Network neutrality in the United States. The Network Neutrality article needs to cover issues like how you know if you do/do not have Network Neutrality and definitions of it, as well as covering regulatory issues (in so far as they cover the world- which is what the wikipedia is about, not just North America.)WolfKeeper 06:39, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

The idea that NN is a regulatory principle rather than a design principle is supported by the fact that the term has only been used in the regulatory literature. The literature on network design - including the Internet's 4000+ RFCs and the academic corpus - does not use such a vague and emotionally-charged term. RichardBennett 10:07, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Bob Kahn supports the creation of policy supporting Network Neutrality however. That would presumably imply that he thinks that there needs to be a new RFC on this.WolfKeeper 10:47, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Actually no, he doesn't support any net neutrality regulations, and neither does Dave Farber, Esther Dyson, or any of the other pioneers of the Internet except for Google employee Vint Cerf.RichardBennett 21:26, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

BZZZZZ! Regulation != policy. And if you discount everyone with an opposing view, nobody supports net neutrality! So net neutrality must be wrong! (As in no, you don't get to do that.) WolfKeeper 22:58, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

But that non-sequitur has nothing to do with the point, which is that NN is nothing more or less than a regulatory principle aimed at taking property from network operators and giving it to ad sellers like Google. And there is no factual evidence that says otherwise. RichardBennett 21:26, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

"a regulatory principle aimed at taking property from network operators" what property? What the heck are you smoking?WolfKeeper 22:58, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Bob Kahn says: "You really want orgs to put new and innovative features out on the net and i think that organisations that do that should be able to control it but you would want the whole net to be integral, the fact that somebody is on another net still be able to participate as part of the internet experience, that we not allow it to fragment. and i think that it is possible to make that happen, its not necessarily in the interests of the organisations putting a new capability out to articulate that, because they want to differentiate themselves, but I think that that can be done at the policy level and I think it's the 5% or 2% piece of the problem that you end up having to work on, when things naturally aren't going to evolve in a way that allows the world population to be part of it." WolfKeeper 22:58, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Note that stopping the Internet balkanize is the key part of NN principle is about. And this misrepresentation that NN is only about regulation is a big oversimplification. NN is a principle, NOT a set of regulations. When Bob Kahn says 'I think that can be done at the policy level' he is actually stating a pro network neutrality position at the policy level. Policy is not regulations.WolfKeeper 22:58, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Congratulations, Wofie, you're the only guy in the world who thinks Bob Kahn supports net neutrality regulations. Everyone else who heard that talk came away with the impression that he believes it's too early in the life of the Internet to impose a freeze on the design of its packet transport system. At present, voice, TV, and Internet are separate networks, and that is fragmentation. Combining them on a single network requires modification of the protocols on whichever network that is. Kahn said that enhanced services will be separate for a time and ultimately merge, and came closest to supporting a TBL theory of NN, where multiple services co-exist for different fees. This is at odds with the Save the Internet/Susan Crawford/Google notion of NN. And everybody knows that. Nobody disputes the idea that NN is a "principle" as well as a "slogan". But a principle of what? As I've proved many times over, it's a principle of regulation, not of design. Don't be so obstinate, embrace the vision you advocate. RichardBennett 00:14, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

I continue to admire the high level of your truthiness. Not only do you not have the slightest clue what the other guys in the world think, but you can't even read what I wrote. Which bit of 'he is actually stating a pro network neutrality position at the policy level' didn't you understand?WolfKeeper 03:28, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

If AT&T is allowed to supply television to consumers then that means they can stomp all over the cable suppliers, all the cable suppliers go out of business and AT&T just gets fatter. AT&T, and telecommunications companies all over the world want to do this as an extend and embrace, and have done for a considerable length of time. Monopolies are bad news in many cases; they're not very efficient, because market forces do not work. In most countries cable suppliers are protected for this reason, because it keeps the monopoly on its toes.WolfKeeper 03:28, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Diffserv doesn't need modifications to the protocols; it mainly needs agreements at the edges of networks, and programming of routers. It's theoretically possible to implement it using a recursive agreement, as in, you hand a company you have a link to a GPL-like agreement, and they have to implement it and hand the same agreement to their suppliers within a certain time period or the agreement lapses and *they* lose QOS. If the agreement is worded correctly it would spread across the internet.WolfKeeper 03:28, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Google and TBL are very close, arguably the same, neither disallows QOS.WolfKeeper 03:28, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

You've failed to prove anything. You can't cite that NN refers to only regulations, because a) it's not true b) other people hold contrary views which have to be supported in the article under NPOV. Primarily NN is an emergent property that networks can have that can be created or supported by legislation, competition, policy and self interest. The idea that it is only a regulatory thing seems to have been invented by you Richard. Truthiness FTW!WolfKeeper 03:28, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Kindly stop editing my remarks on this page, Wolfie. It's dishonest and obnoxious. On the actual topic, find a source other than Calton who says Bob Kahn is in favor of NN at any level or stop fantasizing. Don't you people have a rule against "Original Imaginary Facts" or something? RichardBennett 03:42, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

No, commenting on peoples comments is not dishonest. On the other hand using sockpuppets, anonymous IPs, editing while blocked, misquoting network engineers, attempting rewrite Vint Cerf out of history because he happens to be on the other side of an issue than you, doing multiple, childish reverts, accusing people of being paid shills, accusing people of being unemployed people who hope to be paid shills, accusing people of being google, reintroducing deleted, uncited material, when claiming that it is, in fact, cited. These things are dishonest and obnoxious.WolfKeeper 07:57, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Oppose merge — together the two articles would be way too long. —Remember the dot (t) 05:45, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Non-Neutral Point of view dispute 4/25/2007

Google fanciers Wolfkeeper and his meatpuppet Calton have mangled this article into a mass of incoherent spin, fantasy, and paranoia that comes nowhere close to a neutral and dispassionate summary of the issues.RichardBennett

I have NPOV flagged this article. My issue is with section 3.1.1.1. It openly disputes the basis of the claims made by the Save the Internet Coalition, something that is not opinion-neutral. Spaceman3750 00:58, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

I'm glad we've got you here Richard to give us that 'neutral and dispassionate summary'.WolfKeeper 22:15, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

I suggest the lede be re-organized to include an "arguments for" section where they can offer up Google's slippery-slope speculations and an "arguments against" section where an equal number of words be provided to balance the presentation. As it stands, this article is simply an indictment of Wikipedia, not a useful starting point for research.RichardBennett

We're following the WP:LEAD scheme as best we can, currently the summary is the first two paragraphs. The third paragraph is yours to add WP:VERIFIABLE material that is anti network neutrality. Provided it's strictly verifiable and on topic I for one won't touch it. Oh yeah, for practical reasons no more than say, double the current length either; this is supposed to be a WP:LEAD summarising the article and explaining what NN *is* and *isn't*, not a book in its own right.WolfKeeper 22:15, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

I really, really, really mean it about verifiability though Richard, not a single word that isn't verfiable.WolfKeeper 22:15, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

The fourth paragraph is pro net neutrality and the fifth is agnostic. OK?WolfKeeper 22:15, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

I want equal space for for and against viewpoints,

The same limit on pro as anti, twice what the anti is currently.WolfKeeper 23:15, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

with no cheating in the supposedly agnostic portions.

We only put agnostic stuff in the agnostic portions.WolfKeeper 23:15, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

And you have to keep your meatpuppet Calton off my stuff. He auto-reverts most of what I write today.

Provided you stick to verifiable opinion (and not your own opinion, it has to be someone else's) then I will revert him. But I won't revert him if you slag him off in the edit summary.WolfKeeper 23:15, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

In essence, both sides of the controversy are using slippery-slope arguments, and the underlying immediate issue really is IPTV. RichardBennett

Provided you cite somebody saying that, that's fine to put in that paragraph.WolfKeeper 23:15, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

So we give you the 3rd paragraph to edit, and you edit the 4th paragraph with your very first edit?WolfKeeper 00:08, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

The first paragraph is spin. Where's the proof of this: "Network neutrality refers to a principle of ... network design" as opposed to a principle of regulation? This term has more history in regulation literature than in design literature. There is no mention of it in the RFCs.RichardBennett 01:08, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

That's a straw man. There's never going to be a mention of the term in the RFCs before 2003, when it was coined, and after the vast majority of the RFCs were written. What exactly do you expect, most failures of network neutrality are what generations of engineers used to call 'broken' or a 'segmented network' or lots of other things. Just because there's no mention of the 'term' doesn't mean it didn't exist. The idea that people would actually intentionally break a network for fun and profit never really occurred. Did zero exist before somebody named it? Network neutrality is essentially the normal state of affairs.WolfKeeper 01:39, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

"Network neutrality is a guiding principle" [1]WolfKeeper

"Network neutrality is best defined as a network design principle." - Tim WuWolfKeeper 01:39, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

FWIW Vinc Cerf says it is a 'concept'; close enough, a principle is an idealised concept.WolfKeeper 01:39, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

So NN is about neutral networks, and that's a principle. There are regulations labelled as NN regulations, and debates labelled as NN debates, and politics labelled as NN politics, and at some point for all I know there will be fizzy drinks called Net Neutrality drinks. The point is that NN in these terms are simply a shorthand and these regs try to legislate for it, the politics discusses the applicability of, and the debates discuss the positions people take on NN. But NN on it's own refers to conceptual or principle that anything can talk to anything else.WolfKeeper 01:39, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

The point is that the term originated in the regulation literature, not in network design. There is no such thing as a neutral network, they all exist for a specific purpose.RichardBennett

Right- it was a law professor that popularised the term as part of discussions on possible regulations. But the term itself refers to an idealized concept (i.e. a principle) of network design, not regulation. We both know that almost all real life networks violate NN in lots of ways. (The whole point of most hardware firewalls is inherently to do that for example ;-) ) The point is whether telecoms companies should be able to introduce non neutralities deliberately. But if they did introduce deliberate gaps in service, (with sufficient lobbying) they wouldn't necessary be in violation of any laws or regulations at all, but they would still be violating the principle of network neutrality.WolfKeeper 04:10, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

You're dodging the point. The concept of net neutrality originated in legal papers on the regulation of the monopoly telecom network in Europe, and was adapted from the telecom regulation world to the Internet regulation world by Tim Wu, in order to create some buzz and make a name for himself. It is not and never has been a principle of network design except in the minds of the activists who've created a fictional history for the Internet. To illustrate the point, consider that it has been possible at every moment of the Internet's history to operate the network in either a content-neutral or content-aware manner, without altering its design in any way.RichardBennett 22:39, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

Not in any way? Design is something that goes on at every level. If you decided to change the operation of a network without designing it, you deserve everything you get! The real point is that people have always had an inherent idea of what Network Neutrality is, they just never gave it a specific name before.WolfKeeper 01:35, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Therefore the Internet is neither neutral or non-neutral by design, but only by operation. Regulation deals with the manner of the network's operation, not with its design.RichardBennett 22:39, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

Operations and design aren't completely distinct. There's design going on at every level. Operations very often involve network design choices that can affect neutrality, but so can protocol design. Just because something is or isn't dynamically configurable doesn't alter anything very much at all. You seem to be making the extraordinary claim that a network can't be designed to be non neutral. That's blatantly false.WolfKeeper 16:43, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

Network architecture and operation are two distinct things, that's why they have different names.RichardBennett 22:39, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

They're largely distinct, but operations on networks can change architecture and architecture can change operations. There are certainly ways to design network elements that inherently are non neutral; it's perfectly possible to design-in support for one protocol and block another; operation would have little or nothing to do with that, at most it would be part of the architecture when choosing to use a particular network element.WolfKeeper 01:35, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Wrong. On packet networks, Network Architecture is dictated by the layout of information in the packet header, and operation doesn't affect these, it simply honors them or not. IP packets carry all the information necessary to build a perfectly fine set of service tiers, and they do so for the reason that the designers of the original network never intended to treat all streams equally. It has long been understood that interactive applications have different requirements that bulk data transfer applications, and the architecture of the TCP/IP Internet comprehends this fact.RichardBennett 19:23, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

I draw a distinction between Network Architecture and the subset which is the architecture of the TCP/IP internet protocol. Apparently you don't.WolfKeeper 21:37, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

And when I use the term "network design" I'm referring to the architecture, which is the set of choices the network makes available to operators and users. The architecture of the Internet makes information available at every level that makes discrimination not only possible but necessary: every router knows what content every packet carries,RichardBennett 22:39, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

It doesn't and it shouldn't. It doesn't; since the payload can be encrypted. It might be able to guess based on flow behaviour, but that's all.WolfKeeper 01:35, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Here you're displaying your ignorance of how TCP/IP actually works. The IP header is clear text, and routers use the information in it to make routing decisions. One of the elements it contains is the protocol type of the payload, which is necessary for IP at the receiving end to pass the packet to the proper process. That tidbit combined with the TOS/DSCP field, sender IP and receiver IP are all that's needed for nice, non-neutral route discrimination. RichardBennett 19:23, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

You see, the internet mostly only works because everyone plays fair. If the network starts to be unfair to the users, all bets are off. The thing is that protocols can say that they are one protocol when in fact they are layering a completely different protocol within them. There's *nothing* you can do to prevent that. You could layer bittorrent on http for example.WolfKeeper 21:37, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

where it's coming from and where it's going. This information is necessarily used to select routes and to queue packets according to their priority.RichardBennett 22:39, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

That's typically not discrimination, it's selection.WolfKeeper 01:35, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Like there's a difference. You slay me.RichardBennett 19:23, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Yes, there's a difference.WolfKeeper 21:37, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Advocates of the NN regulations propose a scheme that would force Internet routers to ignore much of this information, which would have a very bad impact on the Internet's efficiency. A network certainly can be designed to be either neutral or non-neutral, depending on how you define the terms. The Internet is not constrained by design to be operated either way, which is why this debate is taking place. RichardBennett 22:39, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

'Advocates of the NN regulations'. Nice weasel words. Where does it say that this is an inherent part of NN? Nowhere.WolfKeeper 01:35, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

The AT&T merger agreement contains such language: "not to provide or to sell to Internet content, application or service providers ... any service that privileges, degrades or prioritizes any (data) packet transmitted over AT&T/BellSouth’s wireline broadband Internet access service based on its source, ownership or destination." Surely this isn't news to you.RichardBennett 19:23, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

You seem to be under the mistaken impression that the Internet is a physical network. In fact, it's actually a set of agreements between networks and network operators about how to pass information. This is very different from the world of telecom where the networks themselves are regulated by the government. Many of the actual networks that provide Internet interconnection provide non-neutral behavior and many commercial customers pay extra for that behavior. It has always been this way in the Internet world, and for good reason.RichardBennett 22:39, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

NN isn't really about peering or depeering, it's about deliberately blocking or selectively and deliberately degrading end users.WolfKeeper 01:35, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

And here I had always thought it was about networking, but according to you it's some form of slavery. Dear me.RichardBennett 19:23, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Almost a joke there.WolfKeeper 21:37, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

There's not enough design in the Internet to force it one way or another as far as your neutrality concerns go. The IP packet is simply some addresses, sequence number, and control fields that allow priorities to be set and higher-layer protocols to be identified. It takes policies in routers to make it either content-sensitive or content-blind. The regulations address these policies, not the design of the network itself. RichardBennett 12:58, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

Network design includes laying out the network and deciding flow policies.WolfKeeper 16:43, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

That's not the sense in which engineers use the term "network design", it's more a civilian's simplification.RichardBennett 22:39, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

Ok, so is the introduction intended for engineers or 'civilians'? Hint: 'Civilians'.WolfKeeper 01:35, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Civilians who come for education, not for Google-spin. RichardBennett 19:23, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

And even your pal Tim Wu admits that the early Internet was not "neutral with respect to all applications" as it had a built-in operational bias toward bulk data transfer and against time-sensitive applications. RichardBennett 12:58, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

Right. That's why it's a principle. Remember, idealised concept? That doesn't mean that the internet doesn't fairly closely follow the principle.WolfKeeper 01:35, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

It's a principle that has a crisp definition in the telecom world, but not in the Internet world. The Internet, you see, is not a telecom network. Really, you can look it up in Wikipedia and see for yourself. Take a few minutes to learn before trashing this article with your naive misunderstanding of networking. Seriously. RichardBennett 19:23, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

There is in fact considerable dispute as to whether it's appropriate to borrow regulatory guidelines from monopoly telecom networks and apply them to multi-purpose, routed, packet data networks like the Internet. Many fans of the Internet say it's been a success chiefly because the lack of regulations on the network core has permitted innovation that's not legal on the telecom network. So there you are, in any controversy of a political nature over a technical subject, there are many voices crying to be heard who don't understand the subtle interaction of legal and technical principles. And while I can appreciate the fact that the Wikipedia audience isn't highly educated or exceptionally intelligent, there's probably enough gray matter in most of them to realize your Lead is misleading.RichardBennett 22:39, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

Misleading in what way? Are you saying that that isn't what Network Neutrality is?WolfKeeper 16:43, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

Misleading in the sense that it confuses principles that have pertained in the past to physical networks with new regulations on network interconnects.RichardBennett 22:39, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

Your argument is misleading in the sense that a concept that describes a particular emergent feature of data networks does not necessarily only or mainly refer to regulations, and you have not been able to show a cite that the term only refers to that. It's like I'm saying 'lighting sources produce light', and you're saying that that's a purely regulatory issue about light bulbs!WolfKeeper 01:35, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

"Emergent feature" that's alleged to part of the Internet's DNA? Now who's using "weasel words?" RichardBennett 19:23, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

You are. I've never mentioned DNA in this context.WolfKeeper 21:37, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Tell me how a neutral network deals with the resource contention problem created by the co-existence of BitTorrent streams and VoIP streams on the same segment. Does it: a) Treat them the same; b) Give VoIP precedence; or c) Over-provision in order to prevent the possibility of resource conflicts.RichardBennett 12:58, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

All can work.WolfKeeper 16:43, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

All can work to accomplish some end, but which one gets to the "neutral" end?

Which bit of all can didn't you understand??? If you're asking which is the best, it's a different question.WolfKeeper 01:35, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Right, you don't know the answer so you go on the attack.RichardBennett 19:23, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

The answer is 'all can work' to achieve neutrality. a)'s marginal because VOIP needs to have higher priority in the face of lots of best-effort traffic, to some extent it can get that with a more 'robust' congestion policy than TCP/IP, (and latency can still be a problem) in practice people do use it on the internet today, b) works and isn't against network neutrality unless the network restricts the prioritisation to certain flavours of VOIP or restrict the end points of calls, c) works because you don't get congestion so VOIP works fine. As I say, they all can work; some work a bit better than other in some situations but they all work.WolfKeeper 21:37, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

The NN crowd is sharply divided about that. And until there is a agreement on that side, any regulation will be ineffective.

Right... so disagreements will mean regulations won't work? Spin much?WolfKeeper 01:35, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

So it's not enough to have some vague general idea of what you want when you go imposing regulations through law. It has to be specific to be enforceable. RichardBennett 22:39, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

So-called network neutrality advocates have proposed all three, so even they don't know what "neutral" means on networks that support multiple services. Telecom regulators never had to deal with that problem, of course. RichardBennett 12:58, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

Given that all three can work, the fact that all three have been proposed doesn't seem to me to be a problem.WolfKeeper 16:43, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

See last comment. This is "I was for it before I was against it". RichardBennett 22:39, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

You're only offering me 25% of the lede for balance, and that's not right.RichardBennett 01:08, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

We have to define what it is before we can discuss it, otherwise the article makes no sense. I think you're getting about 1/3 of the lede in practice, maybe a bit more; the pro is only getting 1/3 too though, the rest is taken up with agnostic and definition.WolfKeeper 01:39, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

Your definition isn't straight, it's right out of the advocacy blogs that say "net neutrality is the one true and eternal guiding principle of all democracy", when the reality is that it's a neologism coined to create fear and panic among a class of people easily scared.RichardBennett 13:08, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

I'm just glad we have you around to keep a level head.WolfKeeper 16:43, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

Beating your head against a wall of spin tends to take it out of level. RichardBennett 22:39, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

Exactly, there isn't any spin, it's concussion on your part.WolfKeeper 01:35, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

It's now apparent to me that your understanding of this topic is insufficient for you to distinguish between a fair exposition of the issues and the spin you've internalized from the advocacy groups that have filled your head with nonsense. This discussion is a waste of my time and it's now over. RichardBennett 19:23, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Old Outline

Please post by category, adding your comment at the end of the relevant section.

==A.big issues ==
===A.i. Tone: NPOV===
===A.ii. Other tone issues===
===A.iii. Outlines===
===A.iv. Ease of use,===

==B. small issues==
===B.i. factoids for removal===
===B.ii. facts for adding===

==C. Talk Sections for archiving==
===C.i. Wikipedian trouble===
===C.ii. Out of date/irrelevant===

==D. secondary issues==
===D.i. definitional===
===D.ii. details of technological issues involved
in acheiving "net neutrality" under any definition.===

A.big issues: POV, tone, outlines, ease of use

A.i. Tone: NPOV

NPOV "funded by"

Every single article and website linked under the "against net neutrality" includes the organizations that fund them. To keep this article objective, please include the names of companies who fund the pro-neutrality websites (Microsoft? Google? Yahoo?) or remove the "funded by" comments next to the against net neutrality section.

—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 208.106.1.71 (talk) 22:40, 5 January 2007 (UTC).

One issue: there is no evidence that Microsoft, Google, or Yahoo support any of the pro-neutrality websites. Most of these websites are set up by organizations such as the FSF which have a long history in defending free speech, etc. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.118.113.164 (talk) 13:25, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

NPOV alert

This article seems to me to be slanted towards the pro-net neutrality position. The primary problem is about "framing the debate". I think its pretty clear that the term itself is a frame, an analogy would be if the abortion debate was called "the pro-life vs. anti-life debate". The article falls for this framing by first discussing the general or abstract concepts of network neutrality. A better approach I feel would be to discuss the origins of the debate, namely that emerging internet applications that cost ISP's much more in bandwidth charges led them to ban certain devices or find ways to pass that charge on, by charging content providers instead of end users.

The other issue with this debate is that it seems to be an "astroturf" debate, with a inordinate amount of editorials on it.

• Please see "Dispute from 71.140.198.6" below Hackajar 16:12, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
• I would suggest talking about reframe here instead of forcing a NPOV Hackajar 16:17, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

Hackajar's additions on May 16th are clearly biased and speculative, simply regurgitating Google's fear-mongering tactics about the COPE Act. This sort of hysteria is part of the debate over NN regulations, but he shouldn't be offering up such astroturf propaganda as if it were factual.

Statements were added as a matter of common sense, a UPS driver does not pay the city to use road to drive to your house to deliver a package, not influenced by "fear-mongering" generated by any company. Hackajar 13:18, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

This is an encyclopedia. We publish verifiable information from reliable third party sources. Not "common sense." Please review WP:NOR. Thank you. Nandesuka 13:31, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

I think I added some con-NetNeurality stuff to balance it out. I'm not saying what position I have or whether I have one. John wesley 12:58, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

Once again, the page has been massively edited with a "net neutrality is good, non-regulation is bad" point of view. They're bringing in all sorts of red herrings from the 90s and distorting the interests in the regulation fight.

Folks, Wikipedia is not supposed to be an extension of Moveon.org, it's supposed to be place where people can get the straight story without all the spin.RichardBennett 20:39, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

Not even that. NPOV is about capturing notable points of view, there's no necessity that there be a straight story. Right now the only POVs we seem to have is a bunch of wiki editors (or atleast there's a massive lack of referencing of key points that seem to have appeared from absolutely nowhere.) This is bad.WolfKeeper 08:24, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

Net neutrality is a complex issue, not a good guys vs. bad guys emotional drama. RichardBennett 20:39, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

This article fails the 'Says who?' test on many occasions. If you have to ask it, it doesn't belong in an encyclopedic article. NCSUPiMaster

Dispute from 71.140.198.6

• 71.140.198.6 attempted a npov of this article. here is ARIN info:

CustName: Bank of the West

Address: Private Address

City: San Francisco

StateProv: CA

PostalCode: 94107

Country: US

RegDate: 2005-10-03

Updated: 2005-10-03

NetRange: 71.140.198.0 - 71.140.198.255

CIDR: 71.140.198.0/24

NetName: SBC07114019800024051003110635

NetHandle: NET-71-140-198-0-1

Parent: NET-71-128-0-0-1

NetType: Reassigned

Comment: Abuse contact abuse@swbell.net, Technical contact noc@sbcis.sbc.com

RegDate: 2005-10-03

Updated: 2005-10-03

• Removing npov as this looks to be trolling Hackajar 16:10, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

Image

Why does an issue like NN have a logo/brand? The image should be removed. 66.92.65.208 (talk) 02:42, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

Okay, it's a bit POV, but oh oh oh, can someone recreate this picture for this article? It's brilliant. --Interiot 23:35, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

• Very brilliant, but wayyyyy too POV. Hjfreyer 13:57, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
  • I don't understand how the logo (self-made by a Wikipedia user and used nowhere else but here) adds to the article. Shouldn't it be deleted? Nrbelex ^(talk) 05:28, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

New Summary

It's becoming pretty clear that the attempt to summarize this topic as something to do with network theory isn't cutting it, so I'd like to propose a new summary that says something like: "Net neutrality is the rallying cry of a political movement that emerged in the United States in 2006. The movement originated on leftwing political blogs such as MyDD.com and Moveon.org, and has grown across the political spectrum to include such rightwing organizations as Gun Owners of America and The Christian Coalition of America.

The Net neutrality movement is concerned that changes in the regulation of last-mile Internet access will enable new pricing models changing the way the Internet has traditionally worked.

etc....

What do y'all think? RichardBennett 21:35, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

I see that Calton has re-written the summary in a non-neutral and counter-factual way. I've tried to correct it. May I suggest we don't go willy-nilly making more changes without discussion? RichardBennett 23:12, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

Actually, I attempted to write a neutral introductory paragraph, RichardBennett replaced it, Carlton reverted back to the one I wrote, RichardBennett replaced it again, and after a few edits, I just put back the one I wrote. RichardBennet's summary (above) seems inaccurate because the term apparently dates back at least to the paper by Tim Wu and was not associated with a political movement at that point as far as I can tell. If there's any evidence that it originated with mydd.com, could you tell us what it is? I think this paragraph is a better starting point because it summarizes (at least in my understanding) what Tim Wu wrote and the most common definition in newspaper articles I've read.

At one point, I quoted Tim Wu in the summary, but people didn't like it because Wu's usage isn't the "common usage" understood by Calton and others of his ilk. Wu says the Internet isn't neutral. If you want to go back to that, I'm fine with it but several people will be very angry with you. May I suggest you read Wu's paper and see how he defines it instead of guessing? RichardBennett 05:09, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

I like the opening as it stands now. But how do we know that Tim Wu actually coined the term?

The term, for better or for worse, is currently in high usage by people who both feel that this is a technical and mostly a-political concept (as currently described in the intro to the article) and, as this talk page shows as well, people who feel that the debate inexorably has political aspects. If I'm still awake later, I'll try a rewrite of the intro and/or start a disambiguation so we don't risk losing all this tim wu stuff.User:choosername 14:29, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

Current lede

Seems to me that non commercial, non private and non nationalised leaves only socialist or quasi-socialist ownership (such as co-operatives). Whilst I have no opinion on whether that's a good idea, it seems to be uncited that this is in fact what network neutrality is about. Indeed it seems to be about restricting what kinds of traffic shaping or prioritisation should be allowed on the internet; and whilst cooperatives may be one way to achieve that, it's unclear that that is the goal.

Given that, I propose to remove it, unless a very clear cite appears very soon indeed. WolfKeeper 18:01, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

The current lede says:

"Network Neutrality is a regulatory program that would forbid the sale of enhanced communication services such as Quality of Service on the Internet access network. The phrase was coined by Columbia University law professor Tim Wu to describe networks that don't favor some classes of application (for example the World Wide Web) over others (such as online gaming or Voice over IP). Wu claims that the Internet is not neutral "as among all applications" as it favors file transfer over real-time communication."

So, the lede claims that Tim Wu wanted a network that can support VOIP, and called it Network Neutrality; but Network Neutrality is a regulatory program that would forbid QOS (and hence VOIP, since QOS is supposed to support VOIP and other services)???? Huh?WolfKeeper 12:51, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

I've removed the first sentence again. A cite was added that was supposed to support it, but pointing to the proposed regulations, but the proposed regulations don't ban QOS at all. The key part of the regulations seem to be:

SEC. 12. INTERNET NEUTRALITY.
(a) DUTY OF BROADBAND SERVICE PROVIDERS.—
With respect to any broadband service offered to the pub-
lic, each broadband service provider shall—
...
(4) enable any content, application, or service
made available via the Internet to be offered, pro-
vided, or posted on a basis that
(A) is reasonable and nondiscriminatory,
including with respect to quality of service, ac-
cess, speed, and bandwidth;
(B) is at least equivalent to the access,
speed, quality of service, and bandwidth that
such broadband service provider offers to affili-
ated content, applications, or services made
available via the public Internet into the net-
work of such broadband service provider; and
(C) does not impose a charge on the basis
of the type of content, applications, or services
made available via the Internet into the network
of such broadband service provider;
(5) only prioritize content, applications, or
services accessed by a user that is made available via
the Internet within the network of such broadband
service provider based on the type of content, appli-
cations, or services and the level of service purchased
by the user, without charge for such prioritization;
and...

I read this as allowing all reasonable services; it just stops the service providers degrading competing services.

I do not see that that can be construed as a ban on QOS in any way; so I have removed it. In addition, the removed sentence seems to be giving undue weight to a particular point of view, and is a huge violation of NPOV.WolfKeeper 15:18, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

Read it bill again, dude, paying special attention to para (4)(B) and (5); (5) says "without charge for such prioritization" which says the broadband carrier can't charge for QoS. So NN is in fact a ban on for-fee QoS and differentitated service plans generally. I'm restoring the excellent summary that' you've arrogantly removed.RichardBennett 17:21, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

No, you read it again dude. It says that you *can* prioritise QOS, you *can* sell prioritising for QOS to the customer, but you can't restrict QOS to just these 'few friends of the ISP'. In other words, if the customer pays money to the ISP expecting to get VOIP, if the ISP then only provides them their own/their friends VOIP and deliberately degrades the competition then they are in breach of this law. And it doesn't stop the ISP from getting money from the VOIP service itself nor for providing VOIP quality broadband for a fee. and as far as I can tell it doesn't stop ISPs from providing and charging for QOS services on their own network at all, if the packets don't travel over the Internet- if they don't leave the Providers network.WolfKeeper 03:18, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

This is an encyclopedia. The lede is supposed to define the subject. Even if the claim in this sentence is true (and I have some significant doubts) this material (that you wrote) jumped straight to a conclusion in the first sentence of the entire article. The placement in the article is beyond words as to its sheer awfulness, and I did not find it to be very well written either (but I expect you could fit it in somewhere else in the article). It also utterly shreds the fundamental policy of the wikipedia NPOV; just because you, (allegedly a network engineer that might be able to make money if QOS was introduced) think that this takes primacy on this subject does not necessarily make it so.WolfKeeper 18:28, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

Right, this is an encyclopedia, not a piece of Google marketing literature than needs to obscure the issue in order to dance around its significance. We have no better summary of the issue than the law the neuts are trying to pass, and giving a fair and accurate summary of the effect of that law is as good as any lede can possibly do. The rest is explanation of why the law reads as it does, but the article should damn well start with a clear exposition of the law, the very centerpiece of the fight. Don't be such a coward.RichardBennett 19:03, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

This is an encyclopedia it is not a law book, and further network neutrality has global significance, it is not simply an American law. Primarily you need to consider the audience. People come to this article expecting to find out primarily what it is and what it isn't. Even if what you say is inevitably true (and I find that very arguable at best), it still shouldn't be in the first sentence, and it very probably shouldn't even be in the lede at all.WolfKeeper 19:18, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

Oh yeah, and while we're on the subject there's a difference between drawing a conclusion based on a cite (i.e. OR), and writing down a cited conclusion (i.e. something that is verfiable). The sentence I removed was actually OR since no third party had actually said it.WolfKeeper 19:18, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

Wolfkeeper, if by "socialist" you mean "public domain" "public interest" and "common trust" then sure, the idea of neutrality is socialist. And that the idea of "public" isnt limited to the U.S. public concerned with "consumer rights" "security" and "stablity" and "quality of service" might also be a "socialist" concept. Have it your way.

That the rest of the world might disagree with the POV you seem to be paid to represent is just an issue we will have to work out here. The fact that you insist on using the Tim Wu reference in the first sentence shows that you are probably Tim Wu and spamming your name, or otherwise just dont get how articles should be written. -Ste|vertigo 03:16, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

I just don't agree with Richard Bennett's interpretation of this:

(5) only prioritize content, applications, or
services accessed by a user that is made available via
the Internet within the network of such broadband
service provider based on the type of content, appli-
cations, or services and the level of service purchased
by the user, without charge for such prioritization;
and...

To me that says that ISPs *can* prioritize traffic as part of a level of service. And clearly levels of service can have different prices, by definition. It says you can't simply charge for prioritization, which would rule out metered services. But in my opinion that in no way rules out having different service levels with different prioritization support.WolfKeeper 12:22, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

I can't therefore go along with the references to this law in the current lead; the interpretation is uncited, and is a legal inference of a point of law by a non lawyer. We need a cite for that to stay in the article; if somebody signficant says that they have a problem with that, somewhere on thie internet then it gets to stay. If nobody can find that, it has to go, because it's non verifiable.WolfKeeper 12:22, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

Do Not Violate Wikipedia rules

I invite editors to read Wikipedia:Lead section, specifically, "The lead should be capable of standing alone as a concise overview of the article, establishing context, explaining why the subject is interesting or notable, and describing its notable controversies, if there are any." Net neutrality is HIGHLY controversial, and therefore the lead should describe the controversy. My sentence:

Net Neutrality has been criticized for being "a solution in search of a problem" as well as for destroying incentives to build new networks and launch next generation Internet services.

will stay. This sentences DESCRIBES a POV that is absolutely central to the controversial nature of net neutrality. I am not saying "Net Neutrality IS a solution in search of a problem," I am saying it has been criticized for being "a solution in search of a problem" and then I cite the organization doing the criticizing. Please do not remove it from the lead section. Thank you Mgunn 05:27, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

A.ii. Other tone issues

China and others

"Even countries like China that intercept certain content do not violate neutrality principles."

Wouldn't that, by definition, violate the access part of network neutrality?

    I agree, but I also hate China as much as I hate the U.S and big business. :-P

There is no way that China doesn't violate net neutrality -- it blocks users from getting what they might want. Will delete reference to ChinaLightbluebear 18:15, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

Wrong, Net neutrality only applies to telecom companies, not the government. 70.48.250.130 04:37, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Without big business, you wouldn't be on that computer or on the internet. You wouldn't be driving a car and you wouldn't have appliances in your home. There is a difference between corrupt business practices and bullying vs. "hating big business". Wise up there, charlie.

Overblown?

An encyclopedia may not be the appropriate place to ask this question. But, ironically, that is the whole point of this question. Is the US political conversation on the net neutrality issue being overblown by both sides?

To wit: 1) Both sides claim apocolyptic doomsday scenarios if they don't prevail (that's why I'm asking this question here). 2) Both sides make what seem to be valid claims. 3) Both sides have large populations of techno-wizards that support their point of view (in other words, this is not just a debate amongst idealists and theorists) 4) Nearly everybody seems to equate "internet" with little wires from a Telco or Cable company coming into your house (or business) -- without regard to other potential "pipelines" such as satellite, powerlines, wireless networks and who knows what else. Won't these other delivery technologies have a huge impact on the results? 5) The argument seems to be divided according to the perception of what a "website" is. It seems as though net-neutrality advocates generally percieve a "website" as a relatively static thing that you read -- while critics of net neutrality seem to be saying there are two kinds of websites, the static kind you read and the kind with moving pictures such as websites that allow you to watch live sports on the internet. 6)Isn't the internet already a tiered system between Dial-up and Broadband? And doesn't the US have the lowest (or at nearly) rate of broadband access in the industrialized world? So haven't the US market forces already created a scenario similar to the net neutralist's POV -- or am I even more ignorant of the topic than I thought I was? After all, on-line gamers and people watching internet television generally aren't doing it through a 56K modem... 7) Is any of this proposed legislation irreversible? If one of the doomsday scenarios turn out to be true, can congress rewrite the laws at any time in the future?

To summarize: I don't know what to think! And this is the only source that seems to even be trying to be unbiased -- so naturally I'm screwing that up and asking for opinions. By the way, my name is Ken.71.126.114.156 15:19, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

"It seems as though net-neutrality advocates generally percieve a "website" as a relatively static thing that you read" -- I'd be interested to see a source for this claim. On the face of it, I would call this assumption ridiculous, but I will try to be open-minded. —  Stevie is the man!  ^{Talk | Work} 18:57, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

I think the controversy is between Big Content on the one side and Big Communications on the other. The most passionate advocates for Neutrality are concerned about Free Speech, but they've unfortunately got that concern overlapped with fear of Quality of Service. Quality of Service is vital to the development of new Internet applications, so we've got a problem. It would be best if the lawmakers could find a way to satisfy the legitimate free speech concerns without turning the Internet into an Amish wonderland.RichardBennett 19:29, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

The truth is net neutrality does not protect free speech. You think net neutrality pervents government censorship? No, Net neutrality doesn't apply to the government, it applies to telecoms, which means it does not pervent government from, say, pass a law that force all ISP to censor certain content.

The (US) government is prohibited from passing said laws by the First Amendment to the Constitution [2]. Corporations do not have to follow the same rules. Electrostatic1 08:01, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

net versus network neutrality

Some folks seem to want there to be a semantic distinction between "network neutrality" and "net neutrality". I think it's a false distinction and I'm taking it out again; as far as I can tell, people use these terms interchangably. The only difference is that "net neutrality" sounds less formal. If you think they mean different things, can you point to some articles that show a clear distinction?

As generally used, "network neutrality" is a general principle of network design. "Net neutrality" is that principle specifically applied to the Internet. --Delirium 11:36, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

As if the world consists of Americans only

"[...]and discourage investment in broadband deployment to all Americans.[...]"

Can anyone please explain the reason for this being here? I think it should be changed. I know the net-neutrality problem is (fortunately) a US problem, but shouldn't we put a barrier between WHAT nn is and HOW nn is under pressure in the US?

Cheers.

What is this, "world", you speak of? =D--70.225.174.67 03:24, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

It means that the U.S. controls the thing, and that the campaign to privatise internet traffic is focused largely on influencing the U.S. government. The rest of the world doesnt matter to the U.S. or to multinationals, nor do things like freedom of speech etc. PS: Please sign your posts. --Ste|vertigo 03:09, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

--No need to curse. removed foul language.

It must be noted that in Europe, because internet and telecoms markets are heavily deregulated and competitive, the foundations are already there for ISPs, Mobile Phone networks, etc to prioritise packets by application. In fact some ISPs in the UK are already offering preferential QoS deals to big name websites. The communications watchdog (OFCOM) has declined to get involved. In short, the view in Europe over Net Neutrality is that unnecessary legislation and red tape will only prevent companies from developing solutions to solve capacity issues brought about by time-critical applications such as IPTV and VOIP. As such, the view from the EU is that there should be nothing to stop an ISP or a Cable company from prioritising data and possibly charging for it. After all, it is a free, open and highly competitive market and there will be competitors out there who will offer sweeter deals to consumers who want open access. That is how a free market works guys. It is quite ironic, the home of red tape and bureaucracy (Europe) is having to lecture the so called home of free enterprise (the USA) on things like this. --Pudduh 17:38, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

A.iii. Outlines

Time to split?

This article is getting pretty long and parts of it may be too confusing for the casual browser who saw something about "net neutrality" on the news and just wants to know more about the political debate. Also, "network neutrality" the theory of network design is very different from "net neutrality" the political slogan. I propose that we divide it as follows:

Network neutrality (a theory of network design)

Summary: Network neutrality relates to the various kinds of distortions that networks impose on the traffic they carry, either due to design, to management practices, or to meet business objectives. Network neutrality is a focal point for regulatory policies, especially related to the Internet.

Content: All of Section 1 (promote subsections) and most of Section 4 on economics as well as external links which discuss theory.

Network neutrality (a political catchphrase)

Summary: Network neutrality is a political slogan used by activist groups to signify any of a wide-ranging collection of public policy goals. The precise interpretation of the term is the subject of contentious debate, perhaps because it is a recent coinage without a well-established history.

Content: Everything else, including the political arguments from the economic section, as well as external links to the various political action groups and a couple of the less-confusing articles on both sides of the issue.

The two pages would link to each other through See Also and maybe at the top of the articles. The political article would contain a small amount of simplified theory--just enough to demonstrate the complexity of the issue, while the the technical article might mention in passing that the controversial nature of the design theory has led to a political debate.

-unsigned entry by SixStrings117 02:58, 12 June 2006

I just logged in to suggest the exact same thing. As long as the article tries to presents two very different things under the same topic, it will always remain obscure. What I would want escpecially in the political section, is a listing and history of the different political definitions of "network neutrality".

-Ados 12:34, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

I agree wholeheartedly. While we're at it, it'd be nice to do a better job separating out country-specific concerns from general concerns---the article is currently very U.S.-centric, making it nearly useless for someone who wants information on network neutrality but doesn't care about the United States Congress. --Delirium 15:51, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

A proposed listing of the terms of the debate (slightly editted from my personal blog)

Verifiably legitimate fears for the neutralists:

1. Tiered access for internet users to internet services as determined by their telco.

2. Non-negotiable hikes in usage fees to content providers (potentially from individuals and startups on up, including giants like Microsoft and Google)

3. Tiered access to internet users as purchased through the telco for content providers (and particularly e-businesses).

Verifiably legitimate fears for the telcos

4. Owners losing their rights to approve or deny uses of their infrastructure

5. "Congestion" at popular sites disallowing the high-speed access to various internet services with the current physical infrastructure and method of processing of bandwidth requests.

Terms of the debate with uncertain grounding.

6. Both sides claim that the other way leads straight to higher costs for consumers.

Due to the ongoing expansion of premium internet services, what once was free is now only available for a fee. In addition, individual and household telco costs continue to rise despite consolidated corporations theoretically reaping the benefits of efficiencies of scale.

7. The telco side claims that the money earned from new charges to high traffic internet destinations will go directly to infrastructure improvements. The webcos suggest abuse to be imminent.

The money collected would not go directly to any particular project, but to the corporate body in general, to be divvied up amongst employees, contractors, executives, shareholders, and whomever else is deemed appropriate. Enshrining the promise to build in federal law may, to a greater or lesser extent, enforce broadband infrastructure expansion for several years. The current FCC and legislative trends (see the wikipedia entry on Spectrum Management and follow the links to the legislative acts for the paths taken in spectrum regulation) suggest that the government would prefer a self-regulating free market solution. Nevertheless, countries with more advanced networks, namely South Korea, Japan, and the UK, have each had a significant push from their respective governments to achieve that end. The government may therefore decide to fund the project, with accompanying regulations, if it is decided that merely allowing a surcharge that will go in part to infrastructure does not appear to be the motivation required to create a true nationwide broadband network.

8. Each claims that there is a coding-oriented argument to their side.

Telcos say their new packet processing will be faster, internet sites say sites would load less reliably. These arguments are speculative in nature, and depend more on how the potential new processing is regulated (or not).

9. Legally speaking... Because it's so important to the application of the law and what people (particularly law makers) deem acceptable, claiming status quo has been an object of both sides.

Precedent is very important under U.S. common law. I believe this will make all the difference when it comes to the regulatory decision. Kevin Drum's brief article weighing the two sides in Washington Monthly, seems to make it fairly clear that technologically, the answer is in favor of the neutralists, and legally the answer is in favor of the telcos who want the right to charge users for specific data transfer services. This is not to say that the neutralists don't have a legal leg to stand on or vice versa. In fact, Verizon and Comcast, as well as Google, Microsoft, and Craigslist are well within their rights to debate this issue, since it hinges on telcos being able to charge webcos large amounts of money, potentially making and taking huge sums. Little of this "end of net neutrality" can truely apply to the "little people" and start ups, in the short run because it would upset too many people. Nor is "enshining net neutrality" very likely to hold in the long run, say 10 or 20 years from now, as much as to the big players and their very own profits.

10. Freedom of speech, democracy, the free market.

The U.S. press has been heavily subsidized, as has the U.S. market. Will smaller voices get silenced? Regardless of neutrality and free market issues, since Google, Microsoft, Verizon, Comcast, AT&T, already have financial ties through marketing agreements, territorial treaties (explicit or not) and the like. Will a few corporations be allowed to charge what the market will bear for their specialized services? It may come down to the question of whether telcos can harvest funds from internet service companies. It's a legal, economic, and political issue, not a technological one, though the results may include technological changes.user:choosername

This isn't a "neutralists" vs. "telcos" debate, as many on the ant-regulation side are not Telcos. The Wellbert Calton is spinning the summary again, and that's going to force a POV tag if he can't be brought to heel. RichardBennett 04:25, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

Actually, anti-regulation is economically most beneficial to the telcos, as spoken for by laissez faire economists and politicians. Telcos=telecommunications companies, which i guess i used roughly to mean telephone and cable companies, like they are listed in forbes. are there other organizations you are thinking of that I am not considering? yeah, the simplified doesn't not address every detail, so maybe it would be better to say webcos (and lefties) versus telcos (and righties)? the terms are not necessarily perfect without the rest of the article to back it up, but as someone else has brought up here, the telecommunication companies may make up the most economically important side of the debate, but the webcos and influencial social organizations on the other side make for a broader range of prominant organizations.

user:choosername

Tossing the baby out with the bathwater edits?

Recently, the edits and cuts have been rather aggressive. In the name of brevity, I believe the current article has lost some definition on important hardware/software issues that ultimately caused this debate. I almost get the feeling that over the months, some may want to concentrate more on the politics and avoid facts about the technologies, because technological facts could interfere with either side’s political view. Should it not an unbiased report of the technologies, and not the politics caused by those technologies that should our main concern?

Well, yes. But the latest summary more or less says: "neutrality good, everything else bad." If that's the point, why not just go ahead and say so? The fact of the matter is that no two people can agree on what net neutrality means, let alone whether it's really Internet architecture or simply a full-employment bill for obsolete Telco regulation wonks.RichardBennett 09:57, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

I don't care whether everyone on the planet has their own definition, if you can't reference it, it shouldn't be in the wikipedia. If you can reference it, then it can be. It's not perfect, but that's a start. At the moment, practically nothing is referenced in this article. I refuse to believe that there is nothing worth referencing on this subject. On the contrary, the more contentious it is, the more people must be talking about it, and the more references we should be able to add. It's not about right or wrong, it's about notable POV.WolfKeeper 08:16, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

Maybe we need to break the article into two with links to direct readers to say the hardware/software technical issues apart from the legal and regulatory issues. Because there are at least two bill cable bills on deck 1) nationwide franchising preempting local franchising and 2) Cable ISP regulation Bona Fides 12:52, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

Before attempting to split, it might be a good idea to rearrange the material into a more comprehensible heading structure. Gazpacho 17:22, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

Attempting to structure the document

I am trying to put some structure to the document.

Instead of plugging paragraphs here and there, it would be good that people classify arguments of the various parties in categories:

• societal arguments (is neutrality something that is crucial to enable innovation and freedom of speech that have become so naturally associated with Internet?)
• economic arguments (are telcos / cablecos targeting value captured by dot-coms? is forcing them to unbundle their network a disincentive to investment?)
• legal arguments (are telcos / cablecos obliged to open up their networks? should they be on a legal basis?)
• technical arguments (is the technology able to support tiered pricing, etc.)
• techno-ideological arguments (like the dumb network / smart network design controversy)
• metaphors (this is like transportation / this is like the post / ...)

--ZakMcKracken 17:02, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

Shifted Advocates

I shifted the line about Advocates of Net Neutrality to a new line so as to match the way that Opponents was presented. This makes it easier to notice and compare the 2 entries.

The old version had advocates tagged onto the end of the previous paragraph.

I believe this new way lends to ease of read and neutrality through equal design.

article outline template vs. the chronology

the following suggestions are written by Ben 18:11, 14 December 2006 (UTC) and 07:33, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Someone mentions at the top of this page that things make sense right up til the end of the time line. Well, an encyclopedia article is not just a time line folks. Use the chronology, because that's the only part that touches on all the important parts, but what really needs to happen is to put peoples' focus on the substance of the issues, and to do that we have to get rid of (or at least move to the end of the article) this annoyingly long chronology of the idea behind the concept.

The other step that needs to take place now is to reorganize the sections so that they are focused in to sections and subsections as follows:

first, because this is most popularly a question of to regulate or not to regulate...

'Official Government Actions=
'==Non-U.S. Government Programs==
'==U.S. state level==
'==U.S. federal==
'===Congress===
'====Bills in work====
'====Bills that have failed====

'Debate Perspectives By Interests Represented=
'==User end==
'===economic===
'===sociological===
'==Carriers==
'===economic===
'===technological===
'==Government==
'===economic===
'===political===

'==Noted individuals in the Debate==
'===whoever===

and then just drop all the other crap. this article is getting very very bad.

A.iv. Ease of use

suggestions for links and ease of use

I made my first Wikipedia edits today on this "net neutrality" article. I put a note next to the names of Tim Berners Lee and Susan Crawford saying who these people are. Sorry if this was a violation of Wikipedia protocol and in the wrong format. Someone who knows how to do html editing should put their names in blue as links to their Wikipedia articles. Also you should put "Abilene Network" in a format to link to its article. A lot of non-tech people read this article as it is a hot national topic. Thanks.

Cpnugent 23:46, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Article needs overhaul...

This article needs some major overhauling, possibly even splitting up into other articles. I don't have the time or the expertise on the subject, or I'd do it myself, but somebody needs to. I am trying to use this article as a general starting point for a report on Network Neutrality, but it is not proving useful at all; there is simply way to much information, and it is not organized enough to digest. Please, SOMEBODY HELP THIS ARTICLE!!! TrogdorPolitiks 03:41, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

• Second - adding a cleanup template. When I have more time later this week, I'll see what I can do. Hjfreyer 13:27, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Hjfreyer - looks like a significant amount of this page was accidentally removed when you added the cleanup template. can you revert the page back to its original content prior to adding the template? 192.223.226.6 15:22, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

The main problem with the article is that it confuses network neutrality as a concept with the various regulatory efforts being undertaken in its name, which may or may not make the Internet more neutral. RichardBennett 21:39, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

I think those might be good lines to split it up along. Network neutrality should be an article about the general concept, with a *brief* history of legislation in various countries around the world touching only one the biggest issues that proponents and opponents raise. Detailed treatment, especially country-specific information like the mess of U.S. legislation (existing and proposed), should be moved to an article like Network-neutrality legislation in the United States. --Delirium 02:20, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

Please do that, user:delirium. Ben 22:43, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Re: Richard's comment. The main problem with the article is that it's sprawling and unreadable, and in many cases just nonsense. I also disagree with the statement in another way. The regulatory efforts and corporate efforts under debate are not secondary concerns. Rather, each plays a primary roles in how net neutrality is defined and is being defined. To me, if any one person is personally more interested in the technological aspects in isolation of socio-economic, legalistic, and end-user concerns, they can create an article to that effect. The technological issue is primarily of concern to the internet using public and to the corporate and governmental bodies involved, but only because of the legal, economic, and social matters at hand.Ben 22:43, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Eesh this article is daunting. (Just to look at what first comes up, IE where's white space? etc) I think it "scares" a lot of people away who want to learn about the subject. I know this is an important and complex topic, but this linked page seems to work so much better as a sort of encyclopedic-form article (despite that it is POV) http://www.google.com/help/netneutrality.htmlhttp://www.google.com/help/netneutrality.html --truthdowser 06:00, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Summary is a summary

I reverted edits by 24.187.33.18 that attempted to cram too much detail into the summary. Some of those points might make the article more clear, but the summary is already too long. RichardBennett 08:19, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

I'm prepared to slash and burn it to something managable; and by summary I assume we are talking about the lead. - RoyBoy ⁸⁰⁰ 13:49, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

Citation style

All of the exlinks in this article should be moved to the exlinks section, changed to ref tags, or removed. Gazpacho 18:25, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

Article is not very informative

Because of the recent discussion in the news about this topic, I become more interested in finding out what exactly this is all about. My first two resources, wikipedia and google, surprisingly didn't provide me with the answers they usually do. The introductory content for this article is too technical and convoluted. The definition is so technically formal that it is almost useless in relevance to understanding what's at stake in Congress right now. I suggest this is moved to perhaps a section labeled "Formal definition". It doesn't help that both sides are playing the "anti-regulation" card, which makes matters confusing for anyone that is not familiar with what is going on. It took me reading several articles (which was difficult since I was trying to find unbiased sources) to realize that this is government regulation vs. company regulation, not just regulation vs. no regulation like some sources try to make their readers believe. I think the general definition (the one above the table of contents) should provide a clear, simple definition of the issue, along with acknowledging that this is a controversial issue right now. Then one small paragraph should be dedicated to explaining the arguments of those in favor of net neutrality, and another one to those against it. These along with a clarification of what side is labeled pro-regulation and anti-regulation would give information that is much more useful than the one currently there. It's in the best interest of the wikipedia community to provide clear information especially targeted at those who are not too familiar with the jargon and implications of net neutrality legislation. I'm not suggesting including biased content. The majority of people, once having a clear notion of what this is all about, will steer towards keeping the internet free of discrimination.

Let's try to make this article accessible to the layman

I consider myself a rather smart individual, but I could barely grasp what net neutrality is after reading much of this article. I know it's an inherently confusing issue, but I have always believed that introductory paragraphs should be easily understandable by a lay person. (I've suggested this kind of thing on scientific entries before -- like Escape velocity -- but apparently scientists and engineers disdain simplicity at the cost of any precision.) Someone who knows what they're talking about needs to at least clean up the first few grafs and make it more readable. Wikipedia should clarify, not confuse. Ztrawhcs 18:39, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

This article is a mess. Problem is, there's a lot of information to be classified and you don't want to throw everything away. Is there a proper Wikipedia "policy" to deal with major changes? --ZakMcKracken 21:10, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

Top of article (definition)

Ok, I've moved stuff around a bit, and added a whole bunch of fact tags.

Given the inability of most contributors to reference things, or give concise definitions, I'm completely unwilling to see anything at the top of the article that isn't referenced (in fact I'm unwilling to see it anywhere else either, but you have to start somewhere).

So I've moved any definition that isn't referenced out of the beginning of the article. If they become well referenced then we can move them back to the top, provided they are kept short. Short is good; the rest of the article is there for long.WolfKeeper 01:49, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

Please look into my concerns if they are correct

I have not read this article for several weeks and have noticed a few things that need a second look. First, I R a computer engineer and find the article is not very readable. Tons of info, facts, words, and terms are tossed around, but understanding what the issues are, are buried in the chaff. I can only imagine what a novice reading this article must feel. Secondly, under "Dumb" versus "intelligent" networks the quotation from The Rise of the Stupid Network may not be the right quotation in the right place to simply explain Dumb Networks. Could someone else look into JUST DELIVER THE BITS, STUPID and IDIOT SAVANT BEHAVIORS FOR DIFFERENT DATA TYPES sections of The Rise of the Stupid Network and see if my concerns have merit?

Explanation?

I don't really know what I am doing with editing. I have a request though. I am, essentially, a consumer. I've heard these adds about net neutrality and I have no idea what it is. Could this article start with an explanation of the concept and why it matters. It seems like the article starts with comentary about the effects without ever actually defining what net neutrality is.added by User:71.71.38.60

Dunno. OK. Off hand example: China allegedly has a non neutral network- the chinese government block certain Western websites entirely from access. That's an example of gross non neutrality of a network.WolfKeeper 07:31, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

Confusing to non-experts

Hi all, this is my first contribution to wikipedia discussions. I'm a smart person (I'm getting a phd in math) but not an expert on computers or the internet. I just heard about the net neutrality issue today, and I was hoping to get a basic grounding in what the discussion is about. Instead, I found lots of poorly organized technical jargon and specific facts without context. The basic point is never laid out.

I think this article should be significantly condensed, so that someone who has never heard of the issue can see what it's about. More specific stuff, such as the history of legislation, should be moved to other articles.

For now, it appears I'll have to look elsewhere to inform myself.

benjcallen

Timeline

I think the timeline towards the beginning of the article should include some of the events against Net Neutrality. It only lists events for it, not against it. I would give a better balance to the timeline. Jeroorda 19:31, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

B. small issues

B.i. factoids for removal

Al Gore edit

I believe the prior edit about creation is incorrect; but I do remember that he had something to do with its initial funding or later funding. Can someone get the more accurate version? I editted it to remove the seeming blantant inaccuracy without removal of the name. But I think it's not enoiugh Chivista 19:48, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

We Are The Web Correction

A Wikipedia contributor falsely claimed that the stars of We Are The Web are against government regulation of the Internet, when it's clear that they are actually fighting for net neutrality and against corporate control. I've fixed the error, and remind contributors that it's important to draw a clear distinction between net neutrality supporters and critics. Often times, the two are confused, like when John Stewart called Ted Stevens' COPE bill a "net neutrality bill" on The Daily Show. --M.Neko 04:23, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

Double Tax is stupid argument

If I have a 10% tax, then another ten percent tax on the net, I would be left with 81% to keep. This is arithmentically the same a single tax of 19%. The issue of network neurality is different taxes or diff tolls or diff speeds, not single or double. John wesley 13:51, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

Unregulated Neutrality Outside the U.S.

Glad to here I'm living with enforced neutral networks (UK) but perhaps someone who knows about it could expand on how exactly these countries have enforced nutral networks.

Also, thought I would mention that this article is probably going to get a lot of traffic because net neutrality is the main subject of a new MoveOn alert

Yes, I'd also like to know more about that. Does anybody have any references to the UK legislation referred to in the article? --Ryano 12:14, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

There does not seem to be any support to the claims made here that Korea, the UK, and Canada have enforced net neutrality. Can anyone add cites to actual laws or regulations?

Vint Cerf testified [3] before Congress on February 7, 2006 that "in places like Japan, Korea, Singapore, and the United Kingdom, higher-bandwidth and neutral broadband platforms are unleashing waves of innovation that threaten to leave the U.S. further and further behind." He then describes how British Telecom has split itself into retail and wholesale businesses and engages in neutrality with respect to the retail customers of its wholesale business. I have not attempted to verify this claim, and this doesn't by itself seem to support the statement that these countries have enacted network neutrality as law. Error28 18:47, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

It's true that he says that. But as you note, he does not say that neutrality is legislated. That's a big difference. We still need an actual reference; so far nobody has been able to find evidence of the claim. At what point should it be deleted from the main page?

As a UK nethead (ASxxx:AS15412:AS702:AS3549:AS1290 by way of a rough AS career path) I'm certain there is no current neutrality legislation in the context of this debate in force or enforce in the UK. We're fortunate to have been largely left alone to self-regulate, other than some legislation relating to law enforcement (interception & retention). There are some provisions relating to interconnect in the Communications Act 2003 potentially enforceable by our regulator (Ofcom), but from following Ofcom's regulatory & competition bulletins, these have never been applied to ISP interconnect or neutrality areas. The split Cerf describes for British Telecom was a commercial competition split between BT's retail & wholesale to prevent discriminatory pricing & unfair competition between those divisions & their competitors. Wholesale (Openreach) has to treat all it's customer's equally, Retail is more free to compete. As competitors, we're free to implement QoS & charge users/content providers however we like, subject to traditional market forces & rules. The main operational 'regulation' tends to occur around the LINX, with interconnection disputes usually settled in the traditional manner (over beer, or over beer at RIPE meetings). If people are looking for an 'official' answer, I'd suggest contacting the LINX's regulatory affairs people, who do most of the work stopping our government from interferring. And finally on a personal note, if US ISP's / telco's aren't allowed to implement QoS & find a way to charge fairly for capacity, the US will simply get left further behind & delay sensitive content will move, and the US users will suffer.

Exactly, UK, Canada, Korea, ect. are not regulated by the government via net neutrality, their pipes are neutral because of free market and competition. 70.48.249.197 08:41, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

Irrelevant Link

Removing the link to the Neutrality Club. Website has nothing to do with Network Neutrality.

AT&T Broadband "prohibiting" wi-fi

That alleged quote about AT&T prohibiting wi-fi is misleading. You need to re-read the referenced paper (and/or visit the actual TOS website). What they, in essence, prohibited was using Wi-Fi to provide a public hot-spot (or any other mechanism of "sharing" the service-- e.g., a fiber cable to your neighbor's house that was plugged in to your router)-- i.e., they did not want you to allow other people to steal their service.

Remove American Spectator rumor or provide facts

The claim that Google has made a large donation to Moveon.org has no firm source or factual basis. This is not the place for spreading unsubstantiated rumors from political weeklies. --Tdent 16:51, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

EFF on Neutrality

Seth Ilys added the EFF as a supporter, but I don't see any position on neutrality on their site. --GreedyCapitalist 00:39, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

Brad Templeton, chairman of the board of EFF, says the EFF has remained neutral on network neutrality. --Lippard 20:05, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

Madison River is no precedent

The page says:

In early 2005, in the Madison River case, the FCC for the first time showed a willingness to enforce its network neutrality principles. The FCC imposed fines on a local telephone carrier that was blocking voice over IP service. As Michael Powell stated, "The industry must adhere to certain consumer protection norms if the Internet is to remain an open platform for innovation." That case however, is no longer a precedent, as the laws that it followed no longer apply.

The FCC did not "impose a fine" on Madison River. Madison River and the FCC reached a settlement in which the FCC did not actually establish that whatever Madison was doing was contrary to regulations. Cf. [[4]]: "The Parties agree that this Consent Decree does not constitute either an adjudication on the merits or a factual or legal finding regarding any compliance or noncompliance with the requirements of the Act and the Commission's orders and rules. The Parties agree that this Consent Decree is for settlement purposes only."

That is the reason why it does not create a precedent: it is not a ruling. Not because laws no longer apply.

The Powell quote is NPOV.

--ZakMcKracken 21:39, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

State of WA Reference

The piece stating:

Comcast blocked ports of VPNs, forcing the state of Washington, for example, to contract with telecommunications providers to be sure its employees had access to unimpeded broadband for telecommuting applications.

has no attribution and was inserted by 216.231.36.182.

I'm new to this environment (can't ya tell...) and believe it to be false as I set up the VPN Environment at the Dept. of Information Services at the State of Washington in my previous job.

Can someone give me some direction here... Thanks!

--DwightMoody 20:13, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

minor mod to Shalunov cite

The sentence that used the Shalunov reference stated that Bachula's conclusions regarding regulation were not supported by the engineers who conducated the QoS experiments. I removed the word not so that the claim agrees with the reference.

more on I2 and QoS

It appears to me that there is a fairly clear bias and agenda that has driven some of what has been written about QoS. In particular:

 The Internet2 project concluded, six years ago, that the QoS protocols were 
 probably not deployable with equipment available at that time.[8] This development  
 was the basis for the testimony of Gary Bachula, Vice President for External Affair
 for Internet2, to the Senate Commerce Committee's Hearing on Network Neutrality. 

That is a gross mischaracterization of Bachula's testimony. There were numerous reasons why I2 opted against QoS, lack of deployable equipment being only one of them. Bachula's testimony was about the I2 experience of running without QoS and with plentiful bandwidth. The claim that lack of functional equipment to deploy QoS is the "basis for the testimony of Gary Bachula" is clearly the work of someone lacking a neutral point-of-view, and it doesn't belong here.

I don't agree that that is a mischaracterisation. It does show signs of being worded to be deliberately deceptive; but without being actually untrue. In my opinion it does not reflect the spirit of Bachula's remarks.WolfKeeper 22:52, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

 He expressed the opinion that adding more bandwidth was more effective than any
 of the various schemes for accomplishing QoS that they examined.[9]

This is what the article needs - simple, clear, and accurate claims. What we get next is more POV crap:

 Network engineers have found that newer routers are capable of implementing QoS
 with no loss of performance, and therefore reject[citation needed] Bachula's argument 
 for a ban on QoS[citation needed] based on the assumption of historical impracticality.

Bachula doesn't argue for a ban on QoS. Further, the author seems to suggest that everyone is in agreement on some point. Most likely, the author is writing about a field about which he knows very little. "network engineers" don't reject the argument that Bachula never made. This stuff should be removed completely or rewritten with a neutral POV by someone capable of not injecting their own bias.

I completely agree. And who are these weasely network engineers anyway? I previously added cites to the paragraph. If they are not filled in in the next couple of days with 100% appropriate references, I intend to remove it with prejudice.WolfKeeper 22:52, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

I removed the following sentence:

 This calls into question any conclusions drawn from experiments conducted with older equipment lacking this capability, such as the Internet 2 study.

But the cited references say:

Still, his group has come to the conclusion that logistical, financial, and organizational barriers will block the way toward any bandwidth guarantees. Here are a few of the daunting problems, summarized from an article by Internet2 researchers Teitelbaum and Stanislav Shalunov:

• Guaranteed service assumes that every router along the route supports the QoS protocols. As the RSVP RFC points out, non-RSVP nodes not only ignore QoS requests, but might reroute packets so they aren't using the reserved route at all. While the RFC considers this result tolerable, real guarantees would require huge numbers of ISPs to agree to deploy the protocols all at the same. The Internet does not work that way.
• ISPs must cooperate in ways that help their competitors more than themselves. In other words, one ISP will be promising a premium service as a way to win customers, then asking competing ISPs to help meet that promise. Such help is not likely to be proffered until ISPs are run by the spiritual descendents of St. Francis of Assisi.
• New, complex payment mechanisms would have to be put in place. Who pays whom along the route? How much more should QoS cost? What if users want the priority service to kick in only when the network gets congested? Moving from a flat, one-size-fits-all system to a tiered system is always a headache.
• Complex monitoring systems will have to be put in place along the routes. How do customers know they're getting the throughput they paid for? (Subjective experience is a very poor indicator.) What kinds of penalties can be imposed on ISPs that cheat and get caught only once in a long while? And suppose the ISP cannot meet its promise due to a Denial of Service attack beyond its control?
• Once ISPs start offering QoS, they have incentives to degrade standard service so as to nudge customers toward paying for the premium service.

Whereas the QOS router presumably only solves the first problem. So the contention seems contentious, and is unreferenced, and seems to draw conclusions which don't agree with citations (that's OR).WolfKeeper 23:15, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

Irrelevant and possibly misleading entries in Network Neutrality#Disputed_Claims_of_Discriminatory_Practices_in_the_US_and_Elsewhere

Partial quote from the section in question:

• In April, Time Warner's AOL blocked all emails that mentioned www.dearaol.com, an advocacy campaign opposing the company's pay-to-send e-mail scheme. An AOL spokesman called the issue an unintentional "glitch."

• In February, 2006, some of Cox Cable's customers were unable to access Craig's List because of a software bug in the Authentium personal firewall distributed by Cox Cable to improve customers' security. Save the Internet said this was an intentional act on the part of Cox Cable to protect classified ad services offered by its partners. The issue was quickly resolved by correction of the software bug and finally by a change in the network configuration used by Craig's List. Craig Newmark acknowledges this was not intentional.

It seems to me that these "examples" are about 99.7% irrelevant to net neutrality. Leaving them in will only confuse people about what's at stake. Yank 'em out? My Alt Account 22:32, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

B.ii. facts for adding

Discriminatory Practices and violations of network neutrality

This article makes sense until this section. At this point it mangles one particular definition of free speech together with network neutrality to diss on a bunch of "repressive" governments and then diss on the UK and Norway for censoring child pornography. This is kind of weird as the common definition of "free speech" is a strict subset of what one who was uninformed of human behavior would consider "free speech" -- i.e. commonly it is either considered that certain types of speech should be absolutely prohibited or speech is conveniently defined to exclude these certain types of communication: marketing for highly unpopular services such as prostitution and contract murder, Copyright violation, child pornography, and so forth. Label the later absolute free speech and the former common free speech. Now the problem is that the entire section of the article uses a value judgement that "common free speech" is a good thing and then kind of wanders into the path that either absolute free speech is a good thing (condemning those who censor child pornography?) or that absolute free speech is not a good thing yet nevertheless it is not the role of telco to provide the necessary censorship. This is a really bizarre form of moral posturing, primarily because it deals with that pathological area between "common free speech" and "absolute free speech" in an uncommon way by saying that nothing should be censored. This does not seem by any means to be a majority opinion, but the article implies the "nothing should be censored" stance to some extent, presumably due to unconsidered negative and positive connotations of the word censorship on the part of the author. In any case this could all be attributed better and not have such a moralizing slant to improve its "NPOV"-ness, by removing words such as "violation" and changing the tone. Now does my argument make sense, and does this need improvement, or am I just being anal? - Connelly 09:45, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

Senate Activity

I've come across an article on Snowe-Dorgan Legislation that, according to the article, has language similar to the failed Markey amendment in the House. The first place that Net Neutrality will be discussed in the Senate is the United States Senate Committee on Commerce, Science and Transportation. I'm not sure where to include this in the article.... but it probably should be there somewhere.

Attribution of theories or positions

I noticed that we've attributed views to Tim Wu and Suan Crawford. Can someone find an extermal link to their positions and place them next to the statemnet or summary of their positions in the article. Thannx :) John wesley 17:59, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

There is a link to Tim Wu's article right next to the quote that's taken from it. Crawford prefers blogging over academic writing, so the source of her commentary would most likely be some of her blog entries.RichardBennett 21:35, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

FCC: The four freedoms

I'd like to add something to the text on the four freedoms. Michael Powell's original words have been mutated by Martin, and the change is meaningful to the progress of net neutrality. Just checking to make sure it's not too controversial or meaningless in this context.

"These early instances of "broadband discrimination" prompted both academic and government responses. FCC Chairman Michael Powell in 2004 announced a new set of non-discrimination principles, which he called the principles of "Network Freedom". *** BEGIN NEW*** In a at the Silicon Flatirons Symposium in February 2004, Powell stated that consumers must have the following four freedoms:

1. Freedom to access content.
2. Freedom to run applications.
3. Freedom to attach devices.
4. Freedom to obtain service plan information.

remarked upon by David Isenberg, Chairman Kevin Martin later modified these four freedoms to read:

• • • END NEW ****

Chief Internet Evangelist

Removed a mention of Vinton Cerf being 'Chief Internet Evangelist' of Google. There is no article, and term sounds purposedly and extremely biased. Kobayen 18:48, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

It actually is his title [5], I added it back, also that he is a vice president, and removed the link, since as you said, it's not an article. This is relevant, since at these hearings he was very much speaking for google, and was employed by them - cohesion 06:36, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

Confirmed?

"On June 8, 2006, Congress passed the Communications Opportunity, Promotion, and Enhancement Act of 2006 (COPE), a bill, which does not include meaningful network-neutrality protections. The House voted 269-152 against an amendment to the bill, offered by Massachusetts Democrat Ed Markey, which would have codified net neutrality regulations into federal law." Is this confirmed?--Phoenix Hacker 05:24, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

News.google.com, though somewhat choked by COPE propaganda at the time of checking, is already reporting several instances including a BBC report. It looks confirmed. Also, fuck. --Kizor 10:08, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

---

"Notion" has a highly pejorative flavor, and gives the reader the feeling right at the outset that the author may be contemptous of the concept. Certainly not npov.

History repeating?

I ran across an October 1996 Wired article about "Netheads vs Bellheads" where ATM verses PI. The more I read the more this sounded very much like Network Neutrality. It was strange, just switch a few terms and it is the same argument. The big boys want to monitor and charge for usage (ATM) and other want to have unlimited usage with no need to monitor (PI). In short, the internet would be crippled in performance by ATM to be able to monitor and charge for usage. Ten years later and the same battlelines with different players are being drawn. Worth a read. http://www.wired.com/wired/archive/4.10/atm.html?pg=1&topic=

Another blast from the past. Rise of the stupid network http://www.hyperorg.com/misc/stupidnet.html

I once saw a TV program in the 1980s that said in the early 1900s, a funeral home was losing all its business to a rival funeral home across the street. It was found out that the telephone operator was a friend of the rival funeral home owner and directed all calls for funerals to her friend. To solve the problem the losing mortician invented the automatic telephone switch to bypassed live operators. If someone knows the story could provide a source or is this another myth?Septagram 16:45, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

Never mind, I found it. Almon_StrowgerSeptagram 17:05, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

LOL. Yes, I found a ref that this was a network neutrality issue and added it to the history. Nice one.WolfKeeper 19:24, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

Does that reference (Net Neutrality: The Technical Side of the Debate: A White Paper )include this sentence? "In 1888, the automatic telephone exchange was created by Almon Brown Strowger who is said to have created it to bypass biased telephone operators who diverted unsuspecting customers to his competitors." That paper cites this wikipedia article as its reference? Was this really the reason? Where does it say that? Jtaylor1024 18:52, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

He does reference this article, but we added that reference about Strowger after he had published in ACM. And no, that particular sentence is not a quote and I don't see what could make you think it was. Are you actually claiming that that sentence is incompatible with the source?WolfKeeper 19:49, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

effects outside usa?

i have hard time understanding is this going to effect europe. how can some decicion by us senate be "the death of the internet?" can someone please enlighten me? thank you.

I don't think it has any direct effect, but things that become popular in the U.S. can have indirect effects on other countries. (And vice-versa, of course.)

This article needs to refer to countires other than the US. Which countries enforce net neutrality? Kernow 15:28, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

How does this affect Wikipedia

Hello,

Does Network neutrality or lack of it affect Wikipedia in any way? Has anyone looked at this?

-- Newhoggy | Talk 22:04, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

Censorship in China is achieved by blocking within the network, and wikipedia is being blocked. That is an example of a grossly non neutral network. So, yeah Wikipedia is being harmed by the lack of network neutrality in that case.WolfKeeper 22:06, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

Please help with misattribution

This is Tim Wu writing. First, I believe some of my views from my writings have been stretched here further than they should go.

Sorry about that. This is a very difficult article to maintain, people have huge axes to grind and they use these axes to chop the article into little bits. I haven't noticed anything actually exactly polar opposite to what you seem to have said anywhere; which makes a nice change, but I agree that it is getting somewhat tenuously related to what you wrote.WolfKeeper 09:26, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

Gosh, do you think so? I notice you put a quote from your favorite hack in the lede, and deleted a fuller quote from the actual bill proposed to Congress that makes your hack look not so good. Why hide the facts from the poor reader?67.169.7.187 11:36, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

It is true that in my original paper proposing a Net Neutrality rule, there was room for some kinds of prioritization. However it would be great if someone would read what I wrote, and write about what I actually said (writing about it myself seems inappropriate).

Second, this article used to claim that I coined the phrase -- whether that is true or not is debatable.

Is there an earlier reference to that exact term anywhere? I did look, but nothing jumped out. The basic concept is much earlier of course.WolfKeeper 09:26, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

However it is true that I wrote the first published and popularized proposal for a net neutrality rule, in the paper "network neutrality, broadband discrimination," which is cited in this work. So if people want to note that in the history of the term I think that would be accurate. It is not necessary of course, and I don't want to be seen as self-promoting -- I am simply trying to explain what happened. 207.237.59.51 03:33, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

Yes the Wikipedian policy is that you shouldn't write about yourself anyway; but if anything is clearly wrong, then we must fix it. You can write anything here though, and the editors choose whether to add it or not. So if you have any special suggestions we will certainly consider them at the very least.WolfKeeper 09:26, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

Legislative History

The Congress currently does a lackluster job of conveying the legislative history of network neutrality proposals in the United States. I have a draft at User:PuerExMachina/NetNeutralityLegislative that I would like to revise/wikify and turn into a new section 3.1. Perhaps all of section 3 should be promoted to its own article? It's one of the less contentious sections of this overly-long article. PuerExMachina 02:58, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

C. Talk Sections for archiving

C.i. Wikipedian trouble

Coining the phrase

Question: Does anyone know where the phrase "network neutrality" actually came from?

Ask Susan Crawford.

Tim Wu coined the phrase, and the article now reflects that.RichardBennett 21:37, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Well I woke up this morning, looked in the mirror, and OH MY GOD, I'M TIM WU. This is just another of Bennett's telco hacks mis-stating information, a long time telco industry practice. Tim Wu didn't invent the phrase Net Neutrality.

I used the phrase myself in several papers I circulated beginning about 2001, including copies to my colleague Tim Wu (who's works I strongly commend to the reader).

Why is Bennett trying to attribute Tim? He wants people to think that Network Neutrality is a new thing, untested, just being proposed here in the US by the 'neuts', as he calls them. He doesn't want the people reading the article to know how long net neutrality has been the law, and that it is the dominant paradigm in the world (a conversation that Tim and I had at Silicon Flatirons in 2005, but the way.)

I'm of a very split feeling about this. Bennett, the telco hack, is getting paid to mess up my edits and the edits of others to clarify and 'truthify' the Net Neutrality entry. I have to do it when I can, and then he just goes back and screws it up again. Should we continue to try annd help out the public by clarifying it and deleting his telco nonsense, or should we abandon the effort entriely and just give it up to the telcos, who won't be happy until they control it (see, the President's Analyst, film).

Michael Weisman, JD, LLM

False Assertions of Authority, 1 Bogus Vandalism Alert, 1 actual

• • Note that the following section contains personal attacks and threats as specifically banned by talk page guidelines. [[6]]
• perhaps these portions should be removed by the original author..??
• perhaps these portions that could be removed reveal certain aspects of the author's perspective that properly inspire caution in other wikipedians.

71.232.91.1 07:19, 13 December 2006 (UTC) This entry has been attacked by Calton, a typical Wikipedia self-appointed Czar who repeatedly reverts entries he knows nothing about, generally with retarded comments.

I'm alerting the Wikipedia Community to the antics of this pest.RichardBennett 10:24, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

I'd have to disagree with you. While I haven't gone through Calton's history, in this case, it appears he was right. I see no evidence or references to support your assertation that he removed.

It seems your fairly new to wikipedia. You might want to check out the links provided by the person who welcomed you. I would especially recommend you view this Wikipedia:Citing sources. From your history, it sounds like yoru a network engineer with extensive experience. However, although it may seem frustrating, you will have to provide evidence/references for anything you claim. Given your experience and CV, I expect you could write an article for a major newspaper or similar which could be used as a reference. However you are discouraged from referencing anything you yourself wrote. One option would be to mention it in the talk page clearly mentioning that you wrote it. This way, if anyone feels the issue you raised is worth a mention, they can include it.

P.S. You might also want to check out Wikipedia:Vandalism. This will help you get an idea of what vandalism is and isn't Nil Einne 13:32, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

Calton is a notorious Revert Warrior, constantly engaged in disputes caused by his drive-by edit and smear campaigns. The Admin page is full of complaints about him. Go check it out.66.7.225.34 00:24, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

Richard, logging out and using an IP to pretend to be someone else really doesn't fool anyone. And the thing about lying is, if you're going to do so, you ought not to do it about things that are easily checked -- like your reference to the "Admin page...full of complaints about" me.

The basic point Nil Einne makes is basic Wikipedia policy: references are required, period/full stop. Stuff that's only inside your head (like the nonsense you added to Mike Godwin) doesn't count. --Calton | Talk 01:16, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

Actually, no, references aren't required for all the information Wikipedia, period, full stop. The vast majority of this stuff is not cited, and the only literature that exists on this subject directly is on the web. "Net Neutrality" is a nine-month old term, and the Sensenbrenner bill is only a month old. In the absence of a fully developed body of knowledge, we rely on expert commentary whereever we can find it. And if one is actually a recogonized expert in the field, the "voices in his head" are typically authoritative. You're an English major, and all this technical rot makes your head hurt. I understand that. So perhaps you should go conduct your grammar and spelling lessons somewhere else. And incidentally, Godwin did graduate from Plan II (as did I) and he is a Wellbert, as are you. Now go play in traffic. Richard Bennett 66.7.225.34 03:00, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

So many words, so little sense.

• Actually, no, references aren't required for all the information Wikipedia, period, full stop Beyond the fact you misstated what I actually said, I should again point out that, unlike what seem to believe, asserting something vigorously doesn't automatically make it true -- including your most recent proclamation. Try reading Wikipedia:Verifiability, Wikipedia:Citing sources, and Wikipedia:Reliable sources, for starters. If they use any big words you don't understand, please let us know.
• The vast majority of this stuff is not cited, and the only literature that exists on this subject directly is on the web. See WP:Reliable sources. You'll note, "Because Richard Bennett said so!" isn't listed as a reliable source.
• And if one is actually a recognized expert in the field, the "voices in his head" are typically authoritative. Credentialism, if you're going to rely on that argument, actually depends on the actual presentation of credentials. Again, Wikipedia:Reliable sources, and note that "Because Richard Bennett said he's recognized expert in the field and we should believe him!" isn't listed as a reliable source, either. But even your attempt credentialism isn't going to work, since you're claiming to speak for ALL network engineers -- and claiming to BE all network engineers is a hurdle not even your ego is going to allow you to do.
• You're an English major, and all this technical rot makes your head hurt. Actually, I'm an English major who's been using computers since they were still using punchcards: what makes my head hurt is utter rot disguised as technical expertise.
• I understand that So far, you're batting zero on understanding pretty much everything important around here -- from basic citation policies, neutrality standards, civility, original research, and even the meaning of common English words like "vandalism" -- so permit me a bit skepticism about any sudden flashes of understanding.
• And incidentally, Godwin did graduate from Plan II (as did I) and he is a Wellbert, as are you. The Godwin education bit (and I'm sure he deeply regrets having been in the same program as you) was an editing error that crept in before you added your nonsense to the article, namely the "Wellbert" bit. And since this term is something you, Richard Bennett, made up all by yourself and is only used by you, that's what's called around here "original research" -- or to use language you might actually understand, "making shit up." Pay attention here: no making shit up on Wikipedia. Clear? --Calton | Talk 04:11, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

Let's go take a look at the Admin page I cited, where we have the record of several of Calton's little screaming fits: It's easy to access. Ask.com has 81 hits for Wellbert, and the Well's gated archives have several dozen more. I added the Plan II thing to Godwin's page, and you removed it saying it was "nonsense". That was vandalism on your part, plain and simple.

The Sensenbrenner bill was described by its supporters as an attempt to block the implementation of enhanced services, Wellbert, didn't your punch cards tell you that? Just remember, being able to drive a car doesn't mean you know how to build one. Now get lost. RichardBennett 08:54, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

Let's go take a look at the Admin page I cited Sigh. I guess you're not very good at following advice, especially about not telling easily refuted lies. Are you expecting no one to actually check? To save anyone the trouble, my name shows up exactly TWICE on the current state of the page -- as a signature on two comments on someone else's 3RR report. Go ahead and check right now, if you like, I'll wait. <whistles tunelessly>. Okay, back?

See, Richard, the more blatant the lies, the less trust you retain. You just got here, and you're apparently intent on flushing away all reasonable doubt (what around here is known as "assume good faith" as soon as possible.

As for your nonsense about "Wellbert" -- I invite anyone to enter the term into Google. Hmm, lotta hits, right? Examine them: those that refer to The WELL all seem to be connnected to some guy named Richard Bennett at bennett.com. Whatta a coincidence! Like this one, or maybe this one -- enlightening reading. Remember my advice, Richard, about not making shit up?

The Sensenbrenner bill was described by its supporters as an attempt to block the implementation of enhanced services Oh really? Have an actual cite -- again, besides the voices in your head? --Calton | Talk 14:15, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

Gosh, Wellbert Calton, you failed to mention that the Nielsen-Haydens are Wellberts. Did that slip your mind? I can get you a cite if you need one. But why does the term "Wellbert" drive so many Wellberts insane? RichardBennett 19:26, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

Now the Wellbert Calton has redefined broadband networks that service TV and telephone customers as being only "computer networks". When will the mindless and cluesless Wellbert vandalism cease? RichardBennett 01:20, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

I would like to report that it appears that this page has been vandalized again, "This would mean that the icon on a computer desk top would chang its protocals like internet eplorer 7. But Microsoft is fighting against the elimination of net neutrality so their icon probly wont change its protocals but other desktop icons like fire fox People PC and Earth Link might. Sence Telcos only provide the fiber optics they would have to make a deal with the ISPs becouse they cant force them to change their protocals and Google, Yahoo!, and Microsoft defenatly wount do that." There are numerous grammatical and spelling errors within the 'Background' section of Network neutrality. I am pretty new to wikipedia so I am not sure how to check who actually did this. --Picomp314 01:55, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

Adding Quality of service to the Internet Protocols

I've read both referenced comments and they seem to be generally in accordance, whilst the wiki text seems to imply violent disagreement. Would it be possible for the massive differences to be better described?WolfKeeper 00:39, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

There are two points of view about over-provisioning vs. QoS in the network engineering community, but WolfKeeper consistently removes any mention of the QoS point of view.

I believe that the history of my edits show this to be untrue. The history of your edits include a large number of very marginal rephrasings, many automatic reverts of apparently reasonable edits, repeatedly mischaracterising citations, including completely inverting the meaning of one, even reverting it after it was pointed out and corrected, so that the cited person had to come on to the wikipedia to complain and get it removed entirely. There have been several complaints about you here. Overall that's about the worst catalogue of abuse by an editor I have ever seen here; thanks for that 'RichardBennett'; it's been 'educational'.WolfKeeper 16:28, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

This results in an unbalanced article.

Your edits have been long on trying to tell the world how you see it- i.e. OR and very short on citations. I do not see that you understand balance here; or care.WolfKeeper 16:28, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

When I have time, I'll attempt to restore the balance that he has removed from the article, but it's going to be difficult as he appears to have a vested interest in the bias.

I'm not going anywhere. If you actually did balance the article I really would have no complaints, many of your edits do the exact opposite. Balance is about expressing countering views fairly, where no unargued facts are to be had. Right now, there are few unargued facts in this area.WolfKeeper 16:28, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

This is one of the problems that arise when pseudonymous editors are allowed to play here - Wikiality replaces reality. RichardBennett 02:35, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

I'm so glad you think you get to define reality 'RichardBennett', whoever you are.WolfKeeper 16:28, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Richard Bennett Conflict of Interest

I claim that Richard Bennett has a conflict of interest on this article. He is a well-known network engineer that is trying to push a particular point of view, and he seems to be trying to increase the demand for networking equipment.

While I have a lot of sympathy for the point of view he is pushing, the way he is doing this seems to be unacceptable and has included (as can be seen on this talk page) grossly misrepresenting other people's positions, numerous WP:OR edits and gross violations of WP:NPOV.

The anonymous user 67.169.7.187 that has recently performed several edits appears to be User:RichardBennett who in turn seems to be the real world Richard Bennett (the nature of the edits are incredibly similar in my opinion). I believe this to be a sockpuppet.

n.b. Richard Bennett is not banned from the wikipedia at present, he has been suspended in the past.WolfKeeper 18:18, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

Who is paying you to lie, Wolfkeeper? Every user of the Internet has a 'conflict of interest' on this issue, because if Google gets its way the network will suffer. You may think it's noble to do their dirty work, but you're hurting the network with your spin and distortion.67.169.7.187 21:30, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

The IP resolves to Livermore, California, which is Bennett's turf, and the language is certainly familiar. I don't think you need to be Sherlock Holmes to make the connection here. --Calton | Talk 23:51, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

Wolfy argues that people with real technical knowledge should be banned from correcting Wikipedia articles. 67.169.7.187 02:51, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

Anyway, conflicts of interest are actually permitted in the Wikipedia, provided Neutral Point of View is scrupulously maintained, but other editors are going to need to check his edits over carefully for balance, accuracy and good citations. (In the past he has repeatedly included a citation which was diametrically opposite to what the text claimed, a practice which seems to bring the wikipedia, and himself into disrepute.)WolfKeeper 23:39, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

That's a serious charge you make, anonymous one, so put up some evidence or retract it. The integrity and authority of Wikipedia is at stake.67.169.7.187 10:18, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

Yes, the fate of Wikipedia itself rests on the good opinions of Richard Bennett. To quote Bill Maher, get over yourself, Richard. --Calton | Talk 23:49, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

Google's Agents at work

Once again, we see WolfKeeper trying to foist off the idiosyncratic view of NN offered by Tim Berners-Lee as representative of the fundamental concept. It's not, as very few NN advocates agree with it. The mainstream view of NN is represented in the legislation sponsored by Save the Internet, according to which connecting to the Internet at various levels of service is forbidden. While it's possible that WolfKeeper actually believes what he's writing, the issue is obviously over his head and he's misleading the reader with his personal viewpoint. Stephen Colbert would get a good laugh over this revision of reality. 66.7.225.34 01:49, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Oh. So we're agreed that SaveTheInternet are defining this term for the mainstream then? Good. So when you go to http://www.savetheinternet.com/ doesn't it have a video called 'Humanity Lobotomy' which contains a section, 7 minutes in, with Tim Bernher-lee expressing his notable point of view? Strange, because it does on my Isp. Hmm. Maybe your Isp blocked that page from you because savetheinternet hadn't paid them enough money.WolfKeeper 03:10, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Google, Save the Internet put the mainstream definition into their legislative proposal, just like your employer did. TBL is an interesting fellow, but his definition of NN is idiosyncratic. Now go ask your overlords what to do now that you've been outed. 66.7.225.34 03:14, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

You do know that this constitutes a personal attack on another editor?WolfKeeper 03:27, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Google, you've been making personal attacks all along, so two can play that game, you know. Conflict of interest, indeed. 66.7.225.34 03:55, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Prediction: I've put the following quote from the Snowe-Dorgan Amendment into the lede: " [Broadband service providers may] only prioritize...based on the type of content, applications, or services and the level of service purchased by the user, without charge for such prioritization; (emphasis added) is a typical provision[3]". I predict that it will be removed, without any rational explanation, by a spin doctor. Just sit back and watch, and I'll post the winning edit comment here. RichardBennett 03:17, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

Tone

Recently Richard Bennett added this to the lead:

"Another prominent advocate, David Weinberger, simply says net neutrality is intractable: ...I recently spent a day—sponsored by an activist think tank—with a dozen people who understand Net tech deeply, going through exactly which of the 496 permutations would constitute a violation of Net neutrality. Caching packets within a particular application area but not according to source? Caching application-based non-cached application-based packets? Saying "Hi" to all passing packets, but adding, "Howya doin'?" to only the ones you like? Patting all packets on the back but refusing to buy some lunch? The whole thing makes my brain hurt.[3]"

I have big problems with it: the tone is completely unencyclopedic, it doesn't fit with the rest of the lead, nor does it fit with the rest of the article. I considered creating a special section for it, but nothing sprang to mind. If it was paraphrased and cited it might be acceptable, but I'm very unhappy with it right now.

It also doesn't seem to be consistent with policy WP:LEAD; so I took it out, but Richard Bennett reinserted it, at least in a slightly better place.

What do others think?WolfKeeper 12:04, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

Weinberger is a big booster of NN and a very prominent writer on the Internet and society. While his statement doesn't have a snooty tone, it's honest and encapsulates the difficulty of enacting NN regulations better than anything that anyone has said on the subject.RichardBennett 20:32, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

Yes it was honest, but your characterisation of it wasn't. All he said was that going through 496 scenarios gave him a headache. Gee. You think? He nowhere says that it is intractable.WolfKeeper 02:54, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

If it's slightly embarrassing to those who want to peddle the idea that NN is easy to define and easy to enforce, that's reality. The tone of this article is actually a lot like the entry on Mao Tse Tung in the Chinese language version of Wikipedia: a whitewash. Some reality would be very beneficial here. RichardBennett 20:32, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

Funny how one of the biggest NON network neutralities is in China, where they deliberately add lots of network blocking. Seems non neutral networking helps the Chinese government out with their censorship a great deal. Given your evident views on network neutrality it sounds like something you could help them expand.WolfKeeper 02:54, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

A lead is supposed to be: "explaining why the subject is interesting or notable, and describing its notable controversies, if there are any". This lead is lacking in these requirements as it attempts to hide the controversy. RichardBennett 20:32, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

No it's lacking in you getting your finger out of your arse and adding some good well-referenced counter arguments. All you're doing is writing down statements that sound good to you, but without any actual references that actually agree, and deleting anything that sounds bad to you. That is an abuse of the wikipedia.WolfKeeper 02:54, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

Actually, no. That's not only a personal attack, it's a bald-faced lie. You're guilty of removing citations I've added to the lead,RichardBennett 03:01, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

No. I have not removed a cite that actually supports the claims that you were making. If you think I have, by all means list them here. Removing a cite that doesn't support the material is perfectly legitimate, as is removing uncited material (last time I checked the policy phrase was "at any time").WolfKeeper 03:23, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

and then removing the material depending on the cites on the basis that it's then uncited. The history is quite clear on this. You also flagged as "dubious" a claim that was directly supported by the plain text of the legislation.

I don't agree that that's definitely what the legislation means. And you have been unable to come up with a reference that that is what it means. But you saying that it means X is WP:OR unless you've got a cite on that interpretation. You haven't got one. The wikipedian rule is 'verifiability over truth'. What you're claiming may be true, but I can't verify it. So it has to come out soon. I'm sorry, what your saying is plausible, but unproven. If you could actually (notably) cite it, then I'm actually very happy to leave it. But you're not a lawyer. If you could even get a politician, saying something that would be OK too.WolfKeeper 03:23, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

So now you're demanding an infinite spiral of references to interpretations of references.

No, I'm not. I'm asking that you neither misrepresent or over-represent references, in accordance with policy.WolfKeeper 01:14, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

It's not enough to show the plain language of the bill, it's necessary to provide a reference to an interpretation.

Correct. That's the wikipedia policy. Otherwise it is WP:OR. Deal with it.WolfKeeper 01:14, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

And then you can claim that the interpretation is unclear, so you need a reference to an interpretation of the intepretation. That's a load of bollocks. RichardBennett 19:35, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

Not if the interpretation really is unclear.WolfKeeper 01:14, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

You've also made a campaign of running off to all the admins you can find and charging me with all sorts of things, including but not limited to 3RR and NPA violations.RichardBennett 03:01, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

And you were found guilty of violations both times.WolfKeeper 03:23, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

You've done this in an attempt to keep information about the notable controversies out of the lead.RichardBennett 03:01, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

No, not at all. I'm trying to keep strict accuracy in the lead.WolfKeeper 03:23, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

I'm the one who's following Wikipedia guidelines here, and you and your Meatpuppet Calton are violating them.RichardBennett 03:01, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

Actually, no. But you still don't get this do you? Sockpuppets and meatpuppets aren't illegal, they're not exactly encouraged though; but it's mainly what you do with them. You edited with a sockpuppet while you were 3RR.WolfKeeper 03:23, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

That's a lie, I did no such thing. RichardBennett 19:33, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

But keep it up - the best way to expose the emptiness of the NN agenda is simply to give you free reign to spin it; with enough rope you'll simply hang yourself.RichardBennett 03:01, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

LOL. Agenda? Is that like the 'gay agenda' or something? Monday, Network Neutrality, Tuesday, Free speech. Wednesday, takover the world. That sort of thing? Exactly what kind of agenda are we talking about here?WolfKeeper 01:14, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

FWIW, I agree that the paragraph that cites me should be edited out. It is unencyclopedic. It also is used to make a point that it in fact does not support. The fact that it's challenging to work out the precise application of NN in some instances doesn't mean that the meaning of the principle itself is unclear. It's tough to figure out exactly how to apply, say, affirmative action, gay rights, or the end-to-end principle, but it'd be highly misleading to start an article on them by saying they principles are unclear. It's the nature of principles to require thought, argument and politics in their application. So, I hope someone removes that paragraph. dweinberger

Later that same day: I went ahead and removed the paragraph because it reads like a blog post, not an encyclopedia entry, and because it fails as evidence to support the point it's trying to make. It's also not neutral. I also changed the characterization of NN in the first paragraph as "Internet regulation" to "Internet policy," because NN aims at regulating the carriers, not the Internet. Calling it "regulation" is an attempt to sway the reader, I believe. (If I was out of line in removing a paragraph that refers to me, I apologize and await a speedy reversion.) dweinberger

Wikipedia editors strive to be encyclopedic but we can't require all of reality to conform to that standard. Whether your honest remarks are encyclopedic or not, they're a notable part of the debate and therefore warrant inclusion so I've put them back in the lead with slightly different framing.RichardBennett 00:02, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

C.ii. Out of date/irrelevant

Network Neutrality Article

Shouldn't the article for Network Neurality be crosslinked to this article?

Network Neurality

Isn't network neurality when networks start thinking for themselves?! 204.69.40.7 12:58, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

"Good morning, Dave."

outline of the talk page revision, including the original post numbers as of today.

Ben 17:51, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

A.big issues

A.i. Tone: NPOV

   * 11 NPOV alert
   * 22 Dispute from 71.140.198.6
   * 24 Image
   * 37 New Summary
   * 59 Current lede

A.ii. Other tone issues

   * 17 China and others
   * 36 Overblown?
   * 40 net versus network neutrality
   * 60 As if the world consists of Americans only

A.iii. Outlines

   * 34 Time to split?
   * 38 A proposed listing of the terms of the debate (slightly editted from my personal blog)
   * 44 Tossing the baby out with the bathwater edits?
   * 49 Attempting to structure the document
   * 61 Shifted Advocates
   * 70 Please remove chronology
   * 71 Official Government Actions
         o 71.1 Non-U.S. Government Programs
         o 71.2 U.S. state level
         o 71.3 U.S. federal
               + 71.3.1 Congress
                     # 71.3.1.1 Bills in work
                     # 71.3.1.2 Bills that have failed
   * 72 Debate Perspectives By Interests Represented
         o 72.1 User end
               + 72.1.1 economic
               + 72.1.2 technological
         o 72.2 ISP
               + 72.2.1 economic
         o 72.3 Government
               + 72.3.1 economic
         o 72.4 Noted individuals in the Debate
               + 72.4.1 whoever
                     # 72.4.1.1 and then just drop all the other crap. this article is getting very very bad.

A.iv. Ease of use,

   * 26 Article needs overhaul...
   * 42 Summary is a summary
   * 43 Citation style
   * 45 Article is not very informative
   * 48 Let's try to make this article accessible to the layman
   * 52 Top of article (definition)
   * 62 Please look into my concerns if they are correct
   * 64 Explanation?
   * 70 Confusing to non-experts

B. small issues

B.i. factoids for removal

   * 2 Al Gore edit
   * 3 We Are The Web Correction
   * 9 Double Tax is stupid argument
   * 14 Unregulated neutrality outside the US
   * 18 Irrelevant Link
   * 20 AT&T Broadband "prohibiting" wi-fi
   * 25 Remove American Spectator rumor or provide facts
   * 29 EFF on Neutrality
   * 47 Madison River is no precedent
   * 50 State of WA Reference
   * 55 minor mod to Shalunov cite
   * 56 more on I2 and QoS
   * 58 Irrelevant and possibly misleading entries in Network Neutrality#Disputed_Claims_of_Discriminatory_Practices_in_the_US_and_Elsewhere

B.ii. facts for adding

   * 1 Discriminatory Practices and violations of network neutrality
   * 6 Senate Activity
   * 7 Attribution of theories or positions
   * 12 The four freedoms
   * 16 Chief Internet Evangelist
   * 30 Confirmed?
   * 32 History Repeating
   * 39 effects outside usa?
   * 57 How does this affect Wikipedia
   * 63 Please help with misattribution
   * 66 Legislative History

C. Talk Sections for archiving (or editing) C.i. Problematic wikipedian behavior in the article and talk pages.

   * 13 Coining the phrase
   * 35 False Assertions of Authority, 1 Bogus Vandalism Alert, 1 actual
   * 54 Adding Quality of service to the Internet Protocols
   * 65 Richard Bennett Conflict of Interest
   * 67 Google's Agents at work
   * 68 Tone

C.ii. Irrelevant/Out of Date

   * 21 Network Neutrality Article
   * 19 Network Neurality

D. secondary issues

D.i. definitional issues and debate reformation

   * 4 Publius speaks about Network Neutrality
   * 5 What we are writing about
   * 15 Not helpful
   * 23 Traffic shaping?
   * 27 What the heck
   * 33 Network Engineer Views?
   * 53 Majorly restructured
   * 69 A simple explanation?

D.ii. details of technological issues involved in acheiving "net neutrality" under any definition.

   * 8 Nondiscrimination vs. nondifferentiation
   * 28 High Bandwidth Games
   * 31 effect on parallel networks?
   * 41 "Dumb" Network vs "Intelligent" Network
   * 46 too much "muddying" the water!
   * 51 article in serious need of technical review

D. secondary issues

D.i. definitional

Publius speaks about Network Neutrality

The internet is described as being a neutral network (let's assume that it is)--that content is passed along the internet neutrally. Internet Service Providers can't speed up or slow down or even block content, because they want to promote their own content. The debate has been framed with one side describing the internet that way and wanting to have legislation that will keep the internet that way. They want to prevent big corporations like the telephone companies and cable companies from deciding which content will be passed along and blocked etc, who have recently rumbled that they want to charge for content they pass along. Ie. Google has to pay so many dollar so we can use it, otherwise they will restrict it's bandwidth--the pipe used to send content. and maybe they send their own content for free, so promoting their own search engines. Also claimed that voip services, etc would be discriminated against by carriers who have no incentive to try not to lose their lucrative more expensive services.

The big corporations, telco and cable, claim that the number of users is burgeoning everyday, using more bandwidth with content like youtube--video, etc. And for the internet to keep up which they say is on outpaced equipment. They need to create a whole new tier of internet for high speed access with large numbers of users. They can only do this if they can pay for it, and they can only pay for if they can charge for it. Proponents for this view believe that the market should be free and unregulated so that users, the end customers, can get the kind of service they want. Instead of constantly rising rates for users with no real improvements in performance in their end. They argue that big corporations like Google and Yahoo and Microsoft should pay for the content that they are sending through their carriers more because they use more resources. the telcos and cable companies argue why should others use their property for free, that which they involved great sums of money or capital. They also argue that big corporations like google and microsoft are trying to scare small groups that their websites and blogs will go away and that those big corporations just do not want to pay for the investments the future requires and leave the bill to be footed by users.

People are saying it's not straightforward left vs right. Though mostly grass roots supports seems to be tilted for those who want network neutrality legislation. The telco and cable big corporations have greater lobbying efforts because they have much more experience in this field. Diverse groups even foes are being united in the drive to legislate to ensure network neutrality. The liberal advocacy group Moveon.org is fighting on the same side as the Christian Coalition for network neutrality legislation. Moby and Gun Owners of America are also together for network neutrality. Conservative groups claim they are worried about free speech, and if that could be in effect discriminated against if carriers allowed to price what content is delivered.

That's how the debate is being framed. Most of the debate at the grass roots level and popular conception level and the media is framed this way with the side for network neutrality coming off sounding better. I mean diverse groups fighting for free speech sounds good right? Well, I'd say let's take a critical eye. It's true that some of these groups do seem themselves this way and are sincere. However, why would the Christian Coalition and it's related groups that won the fight in regulating content over mass media--tv and radio--fight for the right for pornographers to have the same right to express their content as they do? You say I am cynical and they just want to protect their own right to express their views? I say maybe, but maybe also they want to introduce legislation to enforce network neutrality--who would do it? the FCC, the same institution they used to get Howard Stern off of commercial radio and restrict tv programming--to open the door for internet regulation and censorship.

Do we really want the FCC to regulate the internet like they do television and radio? This is a world issue, because much of the internet is in the US. Many of the same politicians that yelled at Yahoo and Google for what they did in China in response to gov't regulation there are, are in favor of this legislation that would regulate the internet here. I won't make a claim that one side IS actually better yet. I do want to point out that there is already legislation and agencies quite capable of moving quickly--the FCC included--that already regulate anti-competitive practices. Like the voip thing, the FCC stopped companies in the previous years that tried to block other services for their carrier's users. And it's already against the law for companies to use market power anti-competitively as Microsoft has been brunt of some action to promote their company's content domination. So do we really want to introduce legislation to have the internet regulated by the FCC? Since most internet content originates in the US, does the free world want us to do this? We better take a long hard look at the legislation if we are going to support it and make sure it does what we want it to and doesn't open pandora's box. I know for sure I don't want the FCC to regulate internet content and decide what's appropriate and what isn't. Otherwise we might end up with a two tier system of the internet anyways, just like radio, those who pay for satellite radio to get howard stern with uncensored content and those that can't afford it.

The issue is far more complex, and I don't have time to write all about it but just wanted to make a point about taking a critical eye in actions that might affect our civil rights. It's actually a more complex issues that include whether the internet is actually network neutral, the technologies involved, costs, market economics, etceteras. I don't spell check or all that so enjoy

--Publius

The truth is net neutrality does not protect free speech. You think net neutrality pervents government censorship? No, Net neutrality doesn't apply to the government, it applies to telecoms, which means it does not pervent government from, say, pass a law that force all ISP to censor certain content. 70.48.249.197 08:35, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

Yeah Publius, this is logic at its most tortured. Net neutrality protections were in effect until earlier this year, with no ill effect to the internet or the availability of its content. If they were reinstated, that would hardly usher in a new era of internet censorship. It's much more likely that corporations would censor internet content, under the banner of "free speech." The irony, of course, is that they don't really have anything to say, but are trying to control the thoughts and ideas of others. They SAY they have no intention of doing this, but recent incidents involving Telus Canada and AOL prove otherwise. --M.Neko 04:33, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

What we are writing about

The "net neutrality" matter seems to have drifted away from the practical realities. The article on Net Neutrality in my view needs to focus on who wants to do what, framed in a fairly non-argumentative way.

Ed Whitacre, CEO of AT&T, framed the topic in the following statement [7]:

"...Now what they would like to do is use my pipes free, but I ain't going to let them do that because we have spent this capital and we have to have a return on it. So there's going to have to be some mechanism for these people who use these pipes to pay for the portion they're using. Why should they be allowed to use my pipes? ... for a Google or Yahoo! (YHOO ) or Vonage or anybody to expect to use these pipes [for] free is nuts!

His reference to "pipes" was to "last mile" broadband access, where the consumer has at most three options - cable, telco or perhaps some wireless option.

His statement presents at least four major issues.

1) The consumer (business or residential) pays for access, so access is not "free" and the access customer presumably has reason to expect "best efforts" service. Note that the access consumer typically is also the "cost causer," because it is the consumer who decides to pull down content, including high fidelity multi-media content. As Adam Smith would probably agree, AT&T or any other access provider should establish access prices that sustain the access business. Indeed, the proximate cause of this debate is that it is far from a "slam dunk" that the local access providers are going to get sufficient uptake and adequate pricing for their services, which is a normal business risk.

2) The content providers (e.g., Yahoo or Vonnage or millions of others, including Wikipedia) presently pay their own ISPs to be able to inject content into the Internet, but under "net non-neutrality" would not only pay their own ISPs, but the many thousands of ISP's who provide "last mile" internet access to residential and business consumers. For all concerned, managing n-way customer relationships between content providers and "last mile" access providers (now including wireless)would become far more complex than today.

3) If AT&T collects "prioritization" money from, say, Bank of America in return for packet prioritization over, say, Citibank, AT&T will at a minimum be complicating its direct customer relationship with its access service customers. In effect, if neighbors A and B are paying AT&T equivalent monthly access fees, but only A does banking with Bank of America (hypothetically the bank paying a service premium), B will be getting lesser service.

4) The practicality of end-to-end packet prioritization as the major element of QOS (quality of service) runs afoul of the pluralistic nature and ubiquity of the Internet. The fact that AT&T categorizes a certain content originator's packets as being higher priority than someone else's only would apply where AT&T has operational network control. When those packets move into some other provider's network, those preferred packets very well might drop down to low or no priority.

An article in Wikipedia should, I suggest, focus on what Ed Whitacre was advocating and its practicality from both a commercial and technical perspective. Ed Whitacre's frankly commercial description of the issue has generated assorted ideological, legislative and legalistic debates that obscure the fundamentals.

Not helpful

I was reading an article about network neutrality and didn't find this definition very helpful to find out what it means. The first paragraph uses the word "neutral" four times and Internet/Network even more times. What is meant by calling a network neutral? Does this phrase refer to web hosts blocking access to certain websites or to a cable Internet provider like RoadRunner preventing other ISPs from using the same cable lines to route their Internet traffic through? I still don't know...

Network Neutrality means that internest service providers (AOL, Verizon, Comcast, ect.) do not have the right to regulate the amount of time it takes for a particular web site to load, or, if it loads at all.

First sentence. "Network neutrality is the principle that network operators should not discriminate among network applications." Could that be simplified? I came to Wiki for a nice simple explanation for this. I've read articles on "Network Neutrality" but I don't even know what neutral means there... Nuggit 00:32, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

Net Neutrality is about choice. You can choose which sites you wanna go to. But without Net Neutrality, your ISP (Internet Service Provider) can restrict access/service to sites that don't pay them.

I'd also like to put a simplified version of the definition somewhere in tyhe article, but I don't know exactly where. Abby724 19:32, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

I agree. Some of your previous definitions were more helpful. If you want a definition that clarifies the different uses, you will probably need in introduce levels of abstraction: net neutrality as a concept and conceptions (i.e. interpretations) of that concept. For example, "net neutrality" is a concept that prohibits exercising market power, obtained through ownership in last-mile telecomunications facilities, to favor certain Internet content (website content, applications, or services) or devices or to exclude competition in the Internet content or device markets. There are at least two subconcepts: device neutrality and content neutrality.

There are at least two conceptions of content neutrality: "Pure content neutrality" prohibits giving priority to some data packets over others based on content or origin and requires that data packets be treated on a first-come, first-served basis. "Type-based content neutrality" prohibits giving priority to some data packets over others within a certain type based on content or origin. Within a type of data packet, all data packets must be treated on a first-come, first-served basis. For example, under type-based content neutrality, priority could not be given to one VoIP provider's voice data packet in favor of another VoIP provider's voice data packet, but voice data packets could be given priority over email data packets.

Warning: The above definition is original research, even though none of the ideas are original but instead come from many sources. My sources for the concept include Paul Misener's testimony before Congress when the panelists were asked to define net neutrality. The pure content neutralit conception comes in part from Scott Bradner, Father Knows Best About Net Neutrality, Network World (Feb. 20, 2006). And the "type-based content neutrality" comes largely from Tim Wu's work, the Markey Amendment, and the Snowe/Dorgan Amendment. Cbrooker75 17:32, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

Traffic shaping?

Is traffic shaping considered to be a violation of network neutrality? --NeuronExMachina 00:13, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

I don't think so, provided it doesn't discriminate.WolfKeeper 23:30, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

Sure, you wouldn't think so, but the proposed laws are written in such a way that even fair queuing might be illegal. Just look at the language of the Markey amendment:

SEC. 715. NETWORK NEUTRALITY. (a) IN GENERAL.—Each broadband network provider has the duty—

...to prioritize content, applications, or 
services within the provider’s network, if the provider
chooses to prioritize any data, based only upon the
type of content, applications, or services and without
charge for such prioritization; 

Now look at fair queuing:

In order to decide which packet should be forwarded first, FQ estimates a "virtual" finishing time of all candidate packets (i.e., the packets at the head of all non-empty queues), based on the arrival time of the packet and the number of users who are sharing the buffer. Then FQ compares the virtual finishing time and selects the minimum one. The packet with the minimum "virtual" finishing time is forwarded.

Guess what: that's not in the list of allowed prioritization methods.

What the heck

Seriously, could we get a simple description of what the heck this topic is. I don't want to read the whole thing to figure it out.

Net neutrality = less control over the internet by telecommunication companies, more government control over the internet.70.48.250.130 04:41, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Not necessarily pro-government control, but rather, no restrictions or preference given by the telecommunication companies. --Keyne 20:17, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

Net Neutrality means that ISP cannot discriminate against content or charge content providers for access to the ISP's customers. Net Neutrality is being challanged by ISP's who are proposing providing prioritized service to content providers who pay additional fees. This will probably: 1) squeeze the little guy (bloggers, independants) out of the content business, while allowing well funded interests to provide new/better ways of delivering content.Edps 16:55, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

Thank you. That was an excellent summation. Perhaps something to that effect should be added at the beginning of the article?--167.83.10.24 13:52, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

Though I'm inclined to agree with the first sentence of Edps's post, the rest of this stuff is inaccurate. IMO net neutrality is a political catchphrase, and the debated issues, in terms of significance, are in the short run, probably mostly bogus political, social, and economic issues. Longer term, all major players are basically seeking higher profits, the one goal they have in common, by law, being publicly traded corporations. As a newbie here, this is just a guess, but maybe whoever put up the request to "wikify" this article is suggesting that we focus on the primary usage of the term (correct?), namely the political and social debates taking place now (also correct?). Check my blog for some more info. http://mostdisappointing.blogspot.com/2006/06/data-carriers-face-virtual-hurdle-in.html 71.232.91.1 09:10, 13 December 2006 (UTC)but first posted 14:09, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

Network Engineer Views?

I just edited out the following statement - Network engineers regard this provision as a poison pill. It was made specifically describing the following provision:

If a broadband network provider prioritizes or offers enhanced quality of service to data of a particular type, it must prioritize or offer enhanced quality of service to all data of that type (regardless of the origin or ownership of such data) without imposing a surcharge or other consideration for such prioritization or enhanced quality of service.

I searched MSN and Google (are they shaping results on this topic?), but found no support for this statement when made regarding the specific clause. This clause does not seem to preclude charging more for certain types of service, such as video or voice, but forbids charging external sites for improved access. Links I found from self-proclaimed "network engineers" include:

Google PDF

TidBITS

Washington Monthly

From these, aparrently network engineers prefer “dumb” transparent networks. The third link states clearly that network engineers are generally against network neutrality – tiered service is needed, some of the proposed bills ban it. This specific phrase does not seem to. Also, how does being blind to the source of data ban admission control? It bans discrimination against the source of data, not discrimination against the type of data entering the network.

IANAL, so if I mis-interpreted the legal implications of this clause, please put the text back the way it was. Actual network engineer opinions here would be helpful!

See the discussion on Tim Berners-Lee's blog and on George Ou's ZDNet blog about Quality of Service and tiered service plans. The Markey Amendment was apparently intended to prevent ISPs from selling "fast access" but it also reduces consumer choice by making QoS-based service tiering illegal.

Tim Berners-Lee's blog George Ou on ZDnet

I'm an actual network engineer.RichardBennett 20:09, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

Majorly restructured

I've moved everything around (major editoring without any new content or deleting anything). I think it's a lot better. I've divided it mostly into background and debate. I think it actually reads surprisingly well. YMMV and probably will. Have at it. (Please don't gratuitously revert though.) Go!WolfKeeper 10:22, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

Unfortunately, these last edits do significant violence to the truth. Advocates of network neutrality fall into two camps, those who want tiered services available to all at no additional charge, and those who want to forbid tiered services and Quality of Service altogether. Both camps have similar arguments, starting with a view of Internet history, winding through common carriage, and ending up with a ban on Quality of Service for fee found in the legislation. Opponents of such regulations have to counter both arguments, and have done so effectively.

The article summary as it stood before Wolfkeeper's massive pro-Google attack was widely referenced on the Internet and this current pithy entry will never be, as it's useless, meaningless, and free of context. RichardBennett 18:58, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

As a rule of thumb the top of a wikipedia article should probably be perfectly understandable to a 16 year old wherever possible. That would be likely to make it seem ridiculously simplistic to professional network engineers.WolfKeeper 00:39, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

A simple explanation?

As a simple explanation contrasting Network Neutrality (NN) and quality of service (QOS), I suggest we use a highway analogy. Network neutrality is like a highway with multiple lanes all being used equally, anytime, and at the same high speed limit. Quality of service is like a highway where each car requires a special license plate (i.e., cost) to drive in the fast or slow lane. Each have their advantages and disadvantages. NN can have traffic jams if everyone uses the highway simultaneously, thus ruining just in time deliveries, but when traffic flows, everyone travels at the maximum speed. QOS can insure just in time deliveries by creating a clear fast lane, but others are relegated to crowded lanes with slower speed limits. Since the fast lane is more expensive, large use commercial and the wealthy will find travel easier and worth the price while the small use drivers and the cost conscious will have longer commutes. The NN highway designers say, forget all those licenses, regulations, and special lanes, let’s ramp up the speed limit, add more lanes, and stick more people in each car until the traffic jams go away. Everybody will have the same commute time. The QOS highway designers say, why spend all that money on unneeded road improvements when the highways are “empty”, except for the occasional traffic jam, that a little regulation and traffic signs can eliminate. It reduces to, do you want a toll road or a freeway? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Septagram (talk • contribs) 23:52, 3 December 2006 (UTC).

The thing is that network neutrality and QOS coexist just fine. Violations of the network neutrality principle are about the network deliberately not providing good quality of service or connectivity to certain network locations or for certain applications, even though the hardware and bandwidth resources are available, and you have paid to use those resources.WolfKeeper 01:14, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Actually, they either do or they don't, depending on how one defines Net Neutrality. TBL claims there's no problem, but he's fooling himself. The proposed law puts NN and QoS on a collision course.RichardBennett 22:21, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

That's why network neutrality is a principle, not a law. TBL is defining the theoretical principle. There may be laws that attempt to define the acceptable practice for law enforcement reasons, to varying degrees of success, but they are not the same thing.WolfKeeper 08:59, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

D.ii. details of technological issues involved in acheiving "net neutrality" under any definition.

Nondiscrimination vs. nondifferentiation

"Non-discrimination means that all traffic over the network (typically or exclusively digital packets or bits) is treated the same by the network, including the traffic originating with the network operator. This principle of 'bit parity' means that all bits are treated as 'just bits', and no bit traffic is prioritized over other bits, and none is hampered or disabled."

I prefer the terminology that "discrimination" means blocking access to some sites completely and "differentiation" means treating some classes of traffic differently (e.g., by using QoS). Lippard 03:33, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

High Bandwidth Games

Should games be considered high bandwidth applications alongside video and audio downloading? I'm under the impression that multiplayer gaming, while certainly very latency sensitive, does not actually consume significant bandwidth. Can someone with more expertise please comment and change the article if necessary?

Perhaps it isn't a matter of the amount of bandwidth per gamer, perhaps it is the high number of gamers that, when added together and taken as a whole, consumes so much bandwidth. --DavidPesta 20:25, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

Games typically use very little bandwidth. Netrek, for example, uses about 10Kbps and is playable over a modem. That's about the same as some VoIP compression schemes.

effect on parallel networks?

I came to the article looking for whether this would have an effect on attempts to build "parallel" networks like Internet2 or National LambdaRail, or any similar future commercial endeavor. Would a telecomm company be prohibited from building a parallel backbone and offering transit over it only to customers who pay extra? --Delirium 02:08, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

"Dumb" Network vs "Intelligent" Network

Under "Technical controversies" I believe there is a problem with discribing "Dumb" Networks vs "Intelligent" Networks. I feel the current short definition glosses over the important technological advantages and disadvantages of each networks and needs further explaining. Under the current edit, that someone keeps reverting back to their definition and allows no other changes, I believe the current wording is unitentionally biased against "dumb" networks by the reason that people see "dumb" as inferior to "intelligent", if one looks at only the words and not at the engineering. I have tried to add my engineering two bits at explaining the technologies and their pro/cons to no avail. Could someone with engineering experience look into and see if my concerns are warrented and make changes.This clarification of these networks could help non-engineers understand what "dumb" and "intelligent" really mean and greatly affect the network neutrality argument.

I agree that this issue should be made clearer. People not familiar to the issue would immediately draw conclusions to the contrary as stated above. A more detailed explaination would greatly help the article. The alternative is to move from the word 'dumb' to 'open' - it clears up the initial misconceptions generated, while still being factually correct.

too much "muddying" the water!

I think the idea of "equal and neutral access" is a goal, that most everyone understands or ses it the same way more or less, as no one wants to be seen as simply "discriminatory" for no clear reason at all. Having said that, what is specifically involved here, in this Net Nuetrality issue is really the sharing of the costs associated to bring present slow network to an "adequately" high speed, to deliver a "rich content" medium of communication, indicated as in - internet2 technology. If the most of the costs associated are onetime investment capital such as for the infratructure, to bring fiber or whatever it takes to realize it, and further if the runing costs are minimal and negligent over and above the maintenance that is already carried on by telcos for voice circuits, then --- I suggest that the issue is entirely can be simplified -- by voluntary sponrships and/or investments in the companies, as the way normally capital is handled, by all open business relationships and participation, including content providers, equpment manufacturers, or any business that want to contribute it to build such an "infrastructure" rather than being an issue of financing it directly through profits made by telcos, or ISPs; consequently, dragging the consumer and the end and/or intermediate users calling it as "pay-by-play" into the discriminatory solutions!

This of course will become a "wedge" to only further polarize and complicate, as no one likes to pay for "infrastructure" by themselves once it is seen or categorized as such. It is not as such a QOS issue, in the sense, if it is technically feasible, and achievable goal to build and provide sufficiently large bw of 100 mb/s or higher to end-users, with only onetime capital cost then it just makes sense to keep it simple by bringing in sponsorships type business relationships rather than passing that capital cost to the user and regulating the tarriffs, etc, etc. All businessess have interest in promoting such infrastructure by each ones' aim to achieve profits for their own "quality" of their own services or products or whatever, and the user makes that decision, as he/she will have guaranteed access to all of them without any such nuetrality issue clash. I don't know why no one is even seeing it as such.

I do not understand Prof. Tim Wu bringing all sorts of historical problem issues of discrimination as though it is some how related to the technical challenges of IP protocols, layer decisions, etc. It is mind-boggling to see Thinker such as him, overly complicating the issue at hand rather than simplifying it. As these technical problems have anyway need to be implemented for reasons of interoperability and such, it does not anyway effect the prioritizing of deliery issues, as it simply and only related to -- 1) technically realizability 2) at what kind of cost? thats' all. Further, to simplify this problem, this cost should be seen as a capital investment rather than a "pass on" competetive pricing cost and/or relating to profits to be made on the "connection" charges. This would never satisfy anyone as each one see it as being imposed, regulated upon, and counter argue as how it would eat-away from their profits, and so they must have the better rights, and so on, so forth.

-Chandra

article in serious need of technical review

This article badly needs some technical review. The lead sentence is a strong clue of what to expect. The term "network neutrality" wasn't coined in 2005. If the author of that line had taken the time to look at Tim Wu's site, he could have found a letter by him and Lessig using the term from 2003 <http://www.timwu.org/wu_lessig_fcc.pdf>. The term certainly predates that letter by several years.

Worse is the description of peering and transit:

  These agreements are known as peering agreements when 
  traffic between the two carriers is balanced, and transit
  agreements when traffic is imbalanced. In the latter case,
  the carrier that downloads most from the other carrier is
  the one who pays to interconnect

This isn't right. This isn't even wrong. Peering and transit have absolutely nothing to do with imbalances in traffic. After reading to this point in the article, I gave up on hoping to find a useful resource. How can I trust the balance of the article given such egregious misinformation?

I'd recommend the article be flagged more conspicuously as being completely broken until it gets some proper technical review.

--63.249.118.143 18:24, 10 August 2006 (UTC))

It is inappropriate to flag an entire article because a paragraph is claimed to be wrong.WolfKeeper 17:43, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++

mgunn's line

chopped originally because it was a run on. brevity is the soul of wit. perhaps it could use some help again. added at the request of mgunn. Ben 02:30, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Actually it isn't a run on sentence. Qouting the Wikipedia definition, "A run-on sentence is a sentence in which two or more independent clauses are joined without punctuation or conjunctions..." My sentence has only one subject, "Net neutrality." Let me make it a bit more like a mathematical expression and put the parts that go together inside of parenthesis:

Net Neutrality (is highly controversial) and (has been criticized ((for being "a solution in search of a problem") as well as (for destroying incentives to ((build new networks) and (launch next generation Internet services))))).

Hope that helps.Mgunn 07:21, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Regarding run-ons, that's actually not the whole definition. Check http://englishplus.com/grammar/00000011.htm for a better one. The sentence also has participle issues. Simply, your version is harder to understand than necessary, by design or not.

Wikipedia:Etiquette directs us to "avoid reverts and deletions where possible," and to "ammend, edit, discuss." Ben 12:47, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Mgunn said on the history page of Net neutrality in the US:

"POV problems remain. Please review WP:NPOV and WP:Civil"

My main purpose in maintaining this dialogue has been to request in kind from you what you have demanded for yourself, namely respect for work being done.

From the wikipedia NPOV tutorial:

"...in an encyclopedia, ideas that a lot of people believe or once believed deserve not only mention but respectful treatment. Many of these problems can be solved through what we call disambiguation."

I feel that this goal of multi-faceted respect is exemplified by much of the work of the Network neutrality in the US article. It could well become the case here as well.

--Ben 04:19, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

May I add to the argument about Mgunn's sentence that not identifying an opinion's source in the text of the sentence or paragraph is an example of weasle words?

--Ben 04:10, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

External Link Spamming

This article is becoming a magnet for link spamming, both in the External links section and a few of the citations. The vast number of ELs alone violates WP:NOT guidelines - WP is not a directory of links. Others include numerous link spammers masquerading as adding something to this article, but in reality simply promoting a website or products and services WP:EL. Opened a discussion in Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Spam#Network neutrality. Recommend clearing the External link section and starting over with a clear guideline that NO commercial links or website promotion welcome. Calltech 14:54, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

Not every sentence in a Wikipedia article requires a source

The uses of non-neutral networks section list a variety of uses for non-neutral networks. By definition, if non-neutral networks are implemented within the Internet, some violation of pure "network neutrality" will take place (because they are non-neutral!). The implementation of different speeds is often referred to as tiering.

I therefore added this line: "If such service prioritized services are to develop in the context of the broader Internet, some type of tiering will have to take place."

Every line on Wikipedia does not need a source, and this is 100% logically obvious. Mgunn 17:30, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

No, every contentious line on wikipedia does need a source, and this is unsourced, I am pretty sure it's in fact incorrect. Prioritisation of traffic is not the same as lack of network neutrality. Reverted.WolfKeeper 17:37, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Let me amend my line, "If fee contingent prioritized services are to develop in the context of the broader Internet, some type of tiering will have to take place."

This is essentially the definition of tiering, and from the Markey Net Neutrality Act, "Each broadband network provider has the duty to... if the broadband network provider prioritizes or offers enhanced quality of service to data of a particular type, prioritize or offer enhanced quality of service to all data of that type (regardless of the origin of such data) without imposing a surcharge or other consideration for such prioritization or quality of service"[8] Charging for prioritized service (and not delivering prioritized service to those not charged), would violate the bill. For some discussion, look here [9]. Mgunn 19:19, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Ok, that's not the definition of tiering and a) you're claiming they would charge *extra* to prioritise emergency service traffic from subscribers b) that's an American law you're refering to, and this is the general article on Network Neutrality. An American law does not define Network Neutrality.WolfKeeper 22:33, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

So if you understand the various definitions of Network Neutrality, does it violate network neutrality to charge a fee to deliver prioritized bandwidth over the Internet for Remote surgery (and not deliver prioritized service if the fee is not paid)... does this violate network neutrality?Mgunn 08:21, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

Depends on which definition you use. According to TBL's definition, it doesn't unless there are restrictions to the end points; since you are just charging for better quality of service for emergency service calls or for surgery-related connections. In other words provided you pay for a 'surgery quality line' and don't have to pay for a 'surgery quality line' that is only connected to one end point or a restricted list, then it's in accordance with TBL's Network Neutrality.WolfKeeper 21:22, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

So according to you, under the TBL definition does it violate network neutrality to charge a website, such as Google, an extra fee for prioritized bandwidth (and deliver slower, not prioritized bandwidth to websites that don't pay the fee)?

TBL has made it very clear that if Google's ISP charges them extra to support prioritized or more bandwidth or otherwise better quality of service, that's perfectly normal; he said something like: 'that's the way it has always been'. And I think that few people that have really thought about it would argue that that's a bad thing. (It actually costs the ISP slightly more to provide a prioritised service in many cases). That doesn't in and of itself violate network neutrality. OTOH if some downstream ISPs deliberately blocked Google's high priority traffic, then that clearly would be a violation of network neutrality.WolfKeeper 15:48, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Does it violate network neutrality to let Google come up with a list, and let Google pay more for prioritized bandwidth between Google and ip addresses on that list? (and deliver slower service to ip addresses Google doesn't pay for) I don't get what point the restricted list distinction has. Mgunn 06:03, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

The point is that the internet should permit traffic between *all* the subscribers to a particular level of service. If google pays their Isp for high priority service and people across the world also have high priority service, then google should be able to communicate with all of them. That's network neutrality.WolfKeeper 15:48, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Mediation

Wolfkeeper's paid point of view may be necessary, but I fear that he has to some degree tried to own this article and impose his own clever interpretation of things. If others agree, this article might be a good candidate for the Medcom, and, if OWN appears to be a continuing problem, the Arbcom.. -Ste|vertigo 00:05, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

That's pure libel. Which part of wp:assume good faith don't you understand?WolfKeeper 00:11, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

So sue me. Thats not libel, thats a characterisation of your tactics with regard to this article.

No, it's libel. You have no way of truthfully saying that I'm a paid shill, and I don't believe that a careful analysis of my edits would support that position.WolfKeeper 01:15, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

I understand the difference between good faith editorship and a habit of whitewashing articles with meaningless technical jargon. -Ste|vertigo 00:24, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

I'm really starting to wonder. This article is highly contentious, perhaps slightly less so since we've split it into NN the concept and the US-specific aspects. It's really important that everything be referenced.WolfKeeper 01:15, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

PS: Please accept my apologies if you are indeed not a paid shill of the telecom industry. -Ste|vertigo 00:27, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

So me removing a few uncited statements stating (quite incorrectly in my view, but that's not especially relevant) that there might be acceptable uses for violating Network Neutrality makes me a paid shill of the telecoms industry in your view? As in what the?WolfKeeper 01:15, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

I thought I had apologised for that. Certainly I will keep anything resembling a personal comment out of the discussion. -Ste|vertigo 01:33, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

The point is, depending on which definition of NN you use, high priority traffic doesn't violate NN. The emergency calls or surgical connections would be high priority traffic, but independent of source/destination, and any emergence service or doctor could in principle receive them. That's not a failure of NN (atleast according to TBL's definition anyway.)WolfKeeper 01:15, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

I see your point, and agree that the term "net neutrality" is somewhat of a codeword as used by the pesky free speech crowd. Such is terminology. The other side has codewords also - "high priority traffic" for example. The argument is that anything less than a completely even playing field will lead to stratification. For future info, its considered rude to interrupt peoples comments like youve been doing. Only when comments are long should you do so, and even then its necessary to add a quick inital like this -SV.

New lede

The new lede will have to be more general, and less technocratic, though much can be salvaged from the current version. US politics is a dominant center of the political debate after all, and the term is largely used to refer to the political debate, so we dont have to separate US politics from this article and that material should be reintegrated. Like it or not, the article will have to deal firstly with the debate, and the points of view represented in the debate.

As I understand it: Net neutrality (free speech jargon) vs tiered services (business jargon) The network neutrality (NN) argument centers on the difference between packet ("content") switching and circuit ("pipes") switching, where free speech advocates claim that the packet-switched Internet should remain unincumbered by the telecommunications industry, the owners of the circuitry. NN advocates claim Telecom owners are seeking to commercialise content, by means of tiering its service schedule in a way which limits top-tiered (broadband) services to high-paying customers. Telecom companies claim that tiering its services is a standard practice, does not directly impose controls on content flow, and as such the claimed impact on free speech is a non-issue. NN advocates claim that telecom companies had already promised to provide fiber-optic connectivity to 86 million homes, which it has not done. Not doing so, NN advocates claim, shows telecom's bad faith and that it is posturing for a large-scale change in how the internet distributes its content. The business interest is in tiered services so that it can limit its high-broadband content to its paying customers. They claim that doing so imposes no restrictions on free speech. -Ste|vertigo 00:51, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

We tried that, it just doesn't work. The technocratic stuff gets destroyed. That means the lead never actually says what Network Neutrality is; and it just becomes an enormously US-centric article, particularly the lead. The Wikipedia is not supposed to be US-centric, except on specifically US subjects, which this actually isn't, the same issues crop up all over the world.WolfKeeper 01:11, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

But you agree that there is no single definition of what net neutrality is. Offering the technical selections is nice, but confusing, when the main issue that brings people here is the politicised usage. -Ste|vertigo 01:39, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

I'd like to know what evidence you have that that is true; I don't think it's true.WolfKeeper 01:48, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

"Evidence?" For what? The fact that there are differences of opinion, or that a technocrat lede is confusing?-Ste|vertigo 02:41, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

"the main issue that brings people here is the politicised usage". Cite?WolfKeeper 15:15, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

I think thats pretty obvious, given the media blitz. Like it or not, misnomer or not, something you can niggle with or not, thats the way the term is largely used, and that the conceptual framework. Technical language (just like holding up a CITE sign) is an obfuscation to understanding the basics, as each side claims them - not an aide. Naturally business wants to cloud matters with techie jargon, but an encyclopedia exists to clarify, not assist a party in its tactics of obfuscation. -Ste|vertigo 00:56, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

No, ultimately the wikipedia has to reach a NPOV. If you like, that means assisting all parties in their own obfuscations.WolfKeeper 02:13, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Thankfully, what you claim is not the case, although it is a humorous statement, and one which may apply in WP's POV problem areas. I have made some changes to the lede. Reverting them outright is not acceptable. Please comment on each point, offer an alternative, and we will find a good compromise. Otherwise, well have to ask for help. -Ste|vertigo 03:08, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Section removed

moved section from article because it has reached Spam Event Horizon. I've noticed recent activity and attempts by concerned editors to improve this article, and would hope their knowledge and expertise can sort out which in this mess warrants inclusion.--Hu12 06:32, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Moved excised material to Talk:Network neutrality/extralinks

e== Dispute resolution == Ive filed an RFC Here.-Ste|vertigo 03:21, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

• As most commonly used, network neutrality is discussed as a political issue because the general public is not expert in packet-switched networking. Therefore it makes sense for the introduction to discuss the topic as a political/business issue, but that should naturally lead into a section giving a high level description of the technical aspects. Both political and technical aspects can be discussed in greater detail later in the article. Rule #1 of introductions: start general and lead in to specifics. —Dgies^t c 04:56, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Network neutrality as a political issue exists almost entirely in the United States. In other countries it is largely a regulatory, economic and conceptual issue. Thus the political discussions are probably best placed in the Network neutrality in the US article with cross-references from this. This article largely addresses the conceptual aspects of the network neutrality.WolfKeeper 09:34, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your comment. I think we should have something which is agreeable to everybody in short time. There are still some problems (the intro can be shortened by about a paragraph) but its better. -Ste|vertigo 02:43, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

• At first glance, it would seem evident that the question is too complicated to deal with in one article, and the political and technical sides need to be separated. Unfortunately, they are interwoven: an answer to one part of the political argument for tiered service is a technical expansion that would make it unnecessary. As is common in questions of politics, each side will propose the technical argument that justifies their politics. Nor is the politics straightforward--some of it may be big business versus individualists, but some of it is different big businesses against each other. There are also some more personal issues: many remember the technical stagnation of the Bell era, many live in niches that might disappear with one resolution or another, [etc.] . Given that nobody involved can accurately predict either the technical or the economic developments, there is no neutral way of settling the argument. I think there is also no non-neutral way of stating the argument. here I am trying to do so, and I think my personal view of this is all too apparent. And so with others: a technical introduction will tend to orient the article to one direction, while a comprehensive introduction in one paragraph will be either POV or weasel words. It is perhaps not realistic to expect people to be objective with the issues involved. In practice, WP quite often deals with this by a slightly disguised POV split--but the question is not whether one side owns the article, but which side owns the key "tradename" of the title. There's no way to evade that one. DGG 04:24, 13 January 2007 (UTC)07 (UTC)

I think this is about right. Its political, with obfuscative technical and economic concepts and jargon to match.-Ste|vertigo 01:21, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Let's assume that that is true (I don't think so, but let's assume it.) You add it to the article. How long do you think it would last? Not long if you can't cite it. FWIW, I did some googling, and that does not seem to be the current consensus, although you may be able to find one or two people that think that; but not enough to hang the whole article (or lead) on; and there are people like Tim Wu who very clearly consider it an economic issue and not political and he is very notable here. In other words, at best, you're oversimplifying.WolfKeeper 06:46, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Its a basic issue though, and not altogether too complicated: the NN concept rests on the accusation that telecom (a pejorative term, apparently) is a business which looks at traffic as a potential means to make its bucks, by instituting a toll model not too different from the telephone. Whether that accusation has merit or we cant know so we cant answer either way.-Ste|vertigo 01:21, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

You mean quotes like:

Q: How concerned are you about Internet upstarts like Google (GOOG ), MSN, Vonage, and others?

A: How do you think they're going to get to customers? Through a broadband pipe. Cable companies have them. We have them. Now what they would like to do is use my pipes free, but I ain't going to let them do that because we have spent this capital and we have to have a return on it. So there's going to have to be some mechanism for these people who use these pipes to pay for the portion they're using. Why should they be allowed to use my pipes?

The Internet can't be free in that sense, because we and the cable companies have made an investment and for a Google or Yahoo! (YHOO ) or Vonage or anybody to expect to use these pipes [for] free is nuts!"

- SBC - CEO Edward Whitacre, Jr. listed as a 'key person' at AT&T.

I don't think you need to be a genius to see that as a threat. He saying that the current scheme where everybody pays to simply get on the internet isn't good enough, and he's expecting more money from Google, Yahoo etc. otherwise they won't be allowed to use his pipes. And they seem to be lobbying American politicians to give them the legal power to do that.WolfKeeper 06:46, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

That doesnt stop us from documenting the back and forth and trying to (ABAWK) define the jargon being thrown around. Naturally telecom doesnt want to use free speech jargon and free speech doesnt want to use telecom's. All we can do is write clearly enough to make sense. -Ste|vertigo 01:21, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

The point is while you may think that, there's no cite that says that. Therefore under the wikipedia's rules, it is incorrect to add that to the article. Personally, I think you've made a jump from 'Network neutrality has political aspects' to 'Network neutrality is mostly political' to 'Network neutrality only has important political aspects'; and the lead you are pushing for reflects that. Trouble is, that's not citeable (I just tried to google it, and came up with essentially nothing.) If that were generally agreed (in fact if anything about this topic was generally agreed), then it would be much easier. Alas not right now. We are stuck with collecting POVs and citing them, and trying to come up with a summary in the lead that isn't too long or too abstruse. And it isn't easy.WolfKeeper 06:46, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

WK, the lede now has a run on sentence (trying to explain too much in one breath, perhaps), and a bisected first paragraph. Worse though is the insertion of the word "reasonable" as a subjective variable, upon which we the readers are supposed to accept at face value. Use subjective variables only in the context of full paragraphs which explain them. The lede is likely not the place for this. -Ste|vertigo 01:19, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Since the rest of the article explains that to a large degree, I don't see it as a killing problem, and I think it communicates the general idea.WolfKeeper 02:40, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

And if you're criticising my text, consider the following which really was a run-on sentence': "Network neutrality refers to a principle that underlies the design of the Internet as non-selective or "neutral" about the content flowing through it." (n.b. I simplified it slightly for discussion).WolfKeeper 02:40, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps you can't see it, since you wrote it, but it's way, way too easy to read it as: 'Network neutrality refers to a principle as non-selective or "neutral" about the content flowing through it.' What's 'it' here? Principles don't have content flowing through them! The reader doesn't know that 'as non-selective or "neutral" about the content flowing through it.' that it refers to the phrase 'the internet' until they reach the end of the sentence and work back, or if they guess lucky. (In fact you can even parse it as referring to 'the design of the internet'- but designs don't have content flowing through them either- a design is a piece of paper with writing on!) The subject of the sentence is Network Neutrality, not 'the internet' and there's an inherent ambiguity. Probably a lot of people reading it never, ever managed to parse it correctly.WolfKeeper 02:40, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

"Network neutrality refers to a principle as non-selective or "neutral" about the content flowing through it.' What's 'it' here?" I believe the actual sentence has the object clause "of the Internet (or any network)." Though all such pronouns can be said to be somewhat ambiguous, as written there was no ambiguity for a reader of English. Feel free to try again, but please use clear language. -Ste|vertigo 21:17, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

I never claimed it was ambiguous, it's not ambiguous; there's only one meaning, just like there's only one solution to a puzzle in the back of a newspaper. It's just people shouldn't have to work that hard with the sentence to understand it. It's a really poor sentence, there's far too many ways to group the phrases that make absolutely no sense.WolfKeeper 22:15, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

You just won the 'grasping at straws' award. -Ste|vertigo 21:15, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

No, there's two subjects to the sentence: 'Network Neutrality' and the 'Internet'. It's a run on sentence. It's grammatically incorrect as it stands.WolfKeeper 03:31, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

The lead needs a total rewrite. It fails to (from WP:LEAD:

Provide an accessible overview

The lead section should briefly summarize the most important points covered in an article in such a way that it could stand on its own as a concise version of the article. It is even more important here than for the rest of the article that the text be accessible, and consideration should be given to creating interest in reading the whole article (see news style and summary style). The first sentence in the lead section should be a concise definition of the topic unless that definition is implied by the title (such as 'History of …' and similar titles).

In general, specialized terminology should be avoided in an introduction. Where uncommon terms are essential to describing the subject, they should be placed in context, briefly defined, and linked. The subject should be placed in a context with which many readers could be expected to be familiar. For example, rather than giving the latitude and longitude of a town, it is better to state that it is the suburb of some city, or perhaps that it provides services for the farm country of xyz county.

According to the perfect article guideline, a lead "begins with a clear description of the subject at hand. This is made as absolutely clear to the nonspecialist as the subject matter itself will allow. The purpose of an encyclopedia is to codify human knowledge in a way that is most accessible to the most people, and this demands clear descriptions of what the subject matter is about. So we aren't just dropped into the middle of the subject from the first word—we are eased into it."

The current lead completely fails to describe the subject at hand. Stevertigo has argued that this article lead should not contain a description of what network neutrality is. The current lead says everything except what it is, it completely dances around the outskirts of doing so. This is totally at variance with the above guidelines.WolfKeeper 22:20, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

Definition of network neutrality in the lead

OK, how about this:

Precise definitions of Network Neutrality vary, but most would agree that a completely neutral nework is one which has essentially no restrictions on what kind of equipment can be attached, no network restrictions on which ways attached equipment can communicate with one another, and one that does not unduly degrade one set of connections for the sake of another.

I think we should be able to more or less reference each of these claims, although the last 'unduly degrade' bit is the hardest.

What does everyone think?WolfKeeper 22:42, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

<off topic>I dislike the way youve characterised what I said. Ive no objections to working in technical descriptions, I just dont like to see a miasma of technocratic descriptions overrun or confuse a basic definition. Now thats out of the way.</off topic> The version you suggest above again elevates the importance of "precise" disagreements about the definition, perhaps rightfully so in a technical article, but again the term "network neutrality" has (like it or not) come to be within the bounds of political parlance. Its free speech jargon, fine, say that. But dont confuse the general philosophical-like concept of law and policy with technical niggling. The concept of equipment attachment is interesting indeed, but the way youre using it its like its just a tool to confuse the principal idea - "principle" as they say. Mention equipment in the more technical overview paragraph. The principle is general and agreeable enough that there is little such ambiguity as you present it. Its much better writing, but Ive underlined the subjectives for you so you can see my point a little clearer. -Ste|vertigo 23:50, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

The only reason those subjectives are there is to avoid making the definition too long. A small amount of equivocation is probably unavoidable in the lead with a subject as complex as this; and this is worthwhile to do in the lead, but not elsewhere. The important point is to get across the basic concept first. It's acceptable to describe in general terms why the concept was created and so forth (there are political and economic reasons why the term was coined); but I think we need to stick as closely as possible to the wikipedia's standards and start with a good definition.WolfKeeper 01:19, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

The political and legal aspects are very important, but they are not what, at heart, Network Neutrality is. We are supposed to be describing what it is in the lead. Encyclopedias are primarily technical[10]. Even political articles are technical articles about politics here, so I feel you are creating a false dichotomy.WolfKeeper 01:19, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

OK, attempt 2:

Definitions of Network Neutrality vary widely, but most would agree that a data network which has no discriminatory restrictions on what kinds of equipment can be attached, has no discriminatory restrictions on whether or how equipment can communicate, and does not degrade one set of communications for the sake of another; would be an example of a completely Neutral Network.

Basically I'm just finding a subset of all of the three main definitions to use it as an example, I feel this helps inform the reader of the general idea.WolfKeeper 01:19, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Sorry WK, but your changes arent improvements. -Ste|vertigo 06:30, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

Sorry Steve, but your ideas for what this article's lead should and shouldn't contain aren't consistent with the standards, policies or the spirit of the wikipedia and aren't working out. Please desist from removing or oversimplifying technical information from the wikipedia. This is, at heart a technical issue with political and economic aspects, not a political issue with technical aspects; that's why it has the name it has, the name denotes principles of data flow, not principles of politics.WolfKeeper 12:28, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

I disagree. At heart this is a political issue which explains why it is most people can't even consistantly define what "network neutrality" is. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 206.148.148.68 (talk • contribs)

Yes, I think WK is in the minority on this one. Hes trying to get at some purist technical definition which doesnt seem to exist. -Ste|vertigo 23:03, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

Really? So you and some anonymous person's opinion is more important than Tim Bernher's Lee's or Tim Wu's or Susan Crawford's why exactly?WolfKeeper 23:13, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

Frist, Tim Berners-Lee, the most technical of three, gives a definition of network neutrality that would allow many practices that most network neutrality supports actually oppose. He obviously supports allowing companies to charge for certain levels of service. Several network neutrality bills explicity prohibit charging customers for such services. This disagreement between his definition of network neutrality and the many of the proposed legal definitions supports the idea that this is mostly a political and not technical issue.

In my opinion it supports the idea that TBL has actually thought it through fully, and isn't merely choosing his opinions for political reasons.WolfKeeper 19:33, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

Second, the other two people you mention are legal scholars. How could their opinions not be political? And recall the actual language used by Susan Crawford: "The Internet's transport layer should not be shaped..." Anytime people use words like "should" in connection with laws, that puts you into the realm of value-judgements and how they translate into rules to punish others for not following those judgements. That's political.

Funny that. I thought that there was separation between judicial/legal structures and political structures in almost all western countries. If they are legal scholars then they're not primarily political. Tim Wu's argument is to a reasonable degree based on economics if you've read the paper (which I have).WolfKeeper 19:33, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

And what about people like Alfred Kahn one of the inventors of TCP/IP? He's mostly anti-NN. What about his opinion?

What about Vint Cerfs opinion?WolfKeeper 19:33, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

This whole network neutrality debate is over control of the networks of service providers and the role of state in restricing what they can do with them. And the push for state control comes from people that are frightened over all those terrible things they imagine will happen. It's obviously political. —Preceding unsigned comment added by IP-here (talk • contribs)

Or is it about the role of service providers in deliberately restricting what users can do so that they can extract money for doing nothing? The FCC seems to have ruled on the side of the consumers in this case, and the FCC aren't supposed to be party political in any way. Whenever you have clashes between the rights of two parties, then it's usually a legal thing, and the FCC seem to be ruling on it in that way. Other countries seem to have done the same thing.WolfKeeper 19:33, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

Funny how government defending the public interest is called "the state." And the people who are alert to matters of public interest are called "frightened." -Ste|vertigo 06:36, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

WK youve got to stop cutting people's comments up in little chunks just to chime in on particular points. -Ste|vertigo 06:38, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

Working copy

Network neutrality (equivalently "net neutrality", "internet neutrality" or "NN") refers to a principle that underlies the design of the Internet (or any network) as non-selective or "neutral" about the content flowing through it.

The term was coined term around 2003 in political opposition to the possibility that telecom internet service providers, in the course of implementing proposed new service and content models, might impose selective (hence discriminatory) controls on the Internet's traffic and content.

Telecom companies (who currently profit by providing access to the full Internet) have proposed segregating certain "high priority" traffic according to a "tiered services" (TS) model, which they claim will allow them to provide advanced functionality and higher quality for customers. The issue is that telecom may try to use this power to discriminate between traffic types, to charge tolls on content from some content providers (ie. websites, services, protocols). Failure to pay the tolls would result in poor service or no service for certain websites or certain sorts of applications.

Tiered service proponents claim that there are valid uses for a "high priority traffic" model, and that such would not impose substantial bandwidth or quality of service restrictions on the general public. Accordingly, "net neutrality" has been accused of being "a solution in search of a problem" and of eliminating incentives to build new networks and launch next generation Internet services.

Neutrality proponents claim that telecom companies seek to impose the tiered service model more for the purpose of profiting from their control of the pipeline rather than by the demand for their content or services alone. They draw parallels to other mass-communication and telephony technologies, as an example of how telecom corporations have dominated and/or stifled broadcasting and telephony technologies, resulting in fewer consumer options, less diversity in services, more corporate beaurocracy,and network stratification cf. social stratification. Others have stated that they believe "net neutrality" to be primarily important as a preservation of current freedoms. Yet a third group finds the terms of both sides of this debate dubious.

OR + Network Neutrality

FWIW I recommend anyone editing this article to read WP:OR and in particular WP:OR#Synthesis of published material serving to advance a position. It's super easy to add OR accidentally.WolfKeeper 02:23, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Neutrality?

There's no such thing as "net neutralit

Conflict

We seem to have a conflict, WK. I suggest the best way to deal with it is to get some help from a third party. Mediation is a good way to go. -Ste|vertigo 07:27, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Filed an RFM here - Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Network neutrality - needs your signature, WK. -Ste|vertigo 02:16, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

No. RFM here: Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Network Neutrality -- WolfKeeper 07:24, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Why the double listing under the fancy name? (perplexed) -Ste|vertigo 08:36, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

Irony

Am I the only one who finds the neutrality tag on this article ironic?

I rather doubt it. It's just what happens when somebody with a major axe to grind goes around trying to reword everything so that the whole article reads according to what they want it to say, rather than referring to what the notable opinions say on the subject.WolfKeeper 18:08, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

Partial transcript - bob kahn on NN

Let me ask you about a specific economic issue, btw my name is phil ghost, that is Network neutrality

There's been quite a bit of stuff going on in the last couple of years, regulatory things as well as policy issues. Could you give us your thoughts on

network neutrality; is it a good thing, is it a bad thing; where's it going to go?

Bob Kahn:

Well, let me, let me just tell u that that term as far as I'm concerned is a slogan, so the real question is you've got to penetrate down and ask what it is you are really asking about.

if the, 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 its probaly not going to be on anybody else's net.

If you first requrie them to get everyone in the world to buy into it, so its uniform and everywhere that's probably too hard. You got to start incrementally and allow things to grow.

What does network neutrality try to achieve? Well, one model of it says that the network is just sort of a transport vehicle of some sort and that all the important stuff takes place on the boundaries. i would take the following position, i would probably disagree with Vint who has been very strong on one side of the nn issue, being now a google rep, but I would probably take the position that uhh organisations ought to be able to provide services and those services could include functionality that is being provided within the net, provided that other parties that then wanted to participate in it could have a way to do that at the boundaries, and if it turns out that it is more efficient to do things inside the net than outside the net, im ok with that, im really am ok with that.

the time you run into problems is when, by virtue of doing that, you.. you tend to fragment the net. and anything that will end up fragmenting the net i am opposed to, provided it's not um an incremental evolution of a new technology that is happening. if you do it by policy that say that guy can't participate in this, then I would be opposed. You really want orgs to put new and innovative features out on the net and i think that organisations that do that should be able to control it but you would want the whole net to be integral, the fact that somebody is on another net still be able to participate as part of the internet experience, that we not allow it to fragment. and i think that it is possible to make that happen, its not necessarily in the interests of the organisations putting a new capability out to articulate that, because they want to differentiate themselves, but I think that that can be done at the policy level and I think it's the 5% or 2% piece of the problem that you end up having to work on, when things naturally aren't going to evolve in a way that allows the world population to be part of it. you really want to incentivise people to innovate, and if they're going to innovate they're probably going to innovate on their own nets, or with a few other nets that they can work together with. but you would like them to do that in a way that other networks who want to participate they can. because if you don't do that the natural conclusion is fragmentation, and I think that fragmentation is sort of the inverse of what you want to see in the internet environment.

I am totally opposed to mandating that nothing interesting can happen inside the network, its just if interesting things happen in the net it ought to be because of consenting nets, not something that will prohibit somebody else from participating if they chose not to do it that way.

---

I'm not entirely sure he's really said anything except that he thinks it's perfectly ok to put functionality in the network (which is more or less Tim Wu's position as well, provided that that's the best place to put it.)

A lot of what Bob Kahn says seems to be very ambiguous. For example the last sentence can be easily read either way, he's been talking for almost 2 hours at this point. To a fair degree he's talking up both sides of the street; but is slightly anti-network neutrality.

There's nothing ambiguous about Kahn's position. He says it's too early in the life of the Internet to freeze its interior architecture, and that's what the debate is all about. Proponents of NN regulations say the Internet can't be changed, and opponents say it must be changed in order to meet new needs. That's why we're having a debate in Washington, DC, the capitol of the country that gave birth to the Internet.RichardBennett 02:35, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

No, I don't agree at all, his views are far more nuanced. In particular he's very down on network fragmentation and not being able to access services from other networks; these are primary NN concerns. If he was completely anti-NN he wouldn't care about these things.WolfKeeper 03:06, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

OTOH he seems to be very anti-fragmentation (which is entirely compatible with TBL's definition, actually TBLs definition and Bob Kahn's ideas of what are a good thing seem to me to be entirely compatible.)

He seems to be very anti legislation, and pro policy; but he seems to be concerned that there will be problems in some 2-5% of cases.-- WolfKeeper 09:05, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Bob Kahn's 'definition'

Bob Kahn, the Internet's primary inventor, has rejected the term net neutrality as just a slogan, saying "What does network neutrality try to achieve? Well, one model of it says that the network is just sort of a transport vehicle of some sort and that all the important stuff takes place on the boundaries. I would take the following position, I would probably disagree with Vint who has been very strong on one side of the nn issue, being now a Google rep, but I would probably take the position that organizations ought to be able to provide services and those services could include functionality that is being provided within the net, provided that other parties that then wanted to participate in it could have a way to do that at the boundaries, and if it turns out that it is more efficient to do things inside the net than outside the net, I'm OK with that, I really am OK with that[5]." He believes network neutrality means 'the network is just sort of a transport vehicle of some sort and that all the important stuff takes place on the boundaries[6].'

Is this supposed to be a definition, because it doesn't read like one. Reading the transcript above there's nothing that to me is definitional. He's simply giving his opinions on Network neutrality, and there's nothing wrong with that. And I don't have a problem with Bob Kahn's opinions on this being in the article, but the question is, since he's just giving an opinion to a question from the audience and is really in no way him defining something definitively, why is it in the definitions section?WolfKeeper 01:31, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

The definition is the words following "one model of it is..." Taking that model as the definition, he explains his opinion of it. There are other definitions, but for this one he explains the implications and that's valuable for lay people such as yourself who don't otherwise understand where the regulations you support are pushing the Internet.RichardBennett 02:39, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Right. So one sentence. I put that in, you took it out. The rest is a bunch of analysis. Analysis is not part of a definition. Whether he likes the definition or not, or whether he is OK with this or that is not a definition.WolfKeeper 02:56, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

(ec) There are several problems with that quote. One, as you mention, is that it is out of place. The other is that simply dumping in a lengthy, semi-meandering quotation is poor writing. Perhaps we could find something pithier from Kahn? ObiterDicta ( pleadings • errata • appeals ) 02:42, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Citations for Bob Kahn quote

Currently, the following text is cited to a January 2007 piece in The Register:

In summary, Kahn believes network neutrality means 'the network is just sort of a transport vehicle of some sort and that all the important stuff takes place on the boundaries[6].'

The problem is that the quoted language appears nowhere in that article. Richard has reverted to this several times. Please read the source and tell me what I am missing. ObiterDicta ( pleadings • errata • appeals ) 02:36, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

You're missing the bottom of the Register article where it gives 'thanks to Richard Bennett'. it wouldn't surprise me in the slightest if Richard Bennett didn't summarise the event for the Register; and that's why Richard's edits are so similar to the Register's article. Whether it happened like that I don't know, but it kinda stinks that Richard Bennett self-evidently is introducing references to articles that he helped write that seem to misquote Bob Kahn to some degree.WolfKeeper 02:51, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Your paranoia is laughable. The Register writer read a reference to Kahn's talk on my blog and took it from there. He identifies himself as the author of that article. RichardBennett 19:24, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

I've got to agree with Richard to the extent that Wolfkeeper's analysis suggests that Orlowski just phoned it in and just worked from Richard's summary. That strikes me as highly unlikely. ObiterDicta ( pleadings • errata • appeals ) 00:57, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

No,I saw that. I just couldn't see the quote he cited the article as authority for...ObiterDicta ( pleadings • errata • appeals ) 03:48, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

That's not correct. The Register quote, before you started messing with it, was the summary that said "nothing interesting happens inside the net." The direct quote from Kahn is cited by KAHNVID. Kahn took a very strong ant-neutrality regulation position, and various people are trying to truncate his quote so make his position appear ambiguous. Please don't be taken in by them.RichardBennett 02:41, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Only you did this Richard. Remember, I added the transcript and quoted from it repeatedly? Do I need to cite this. I just did a check on the web, you saw this talk about the middle of February; and you knew exactly what was in it then; why then did you quote from the slanted 'summary' in the Register article, not the original? You really can't have this both ways. The only bad faith edits I'm seeing here is yours, but your acting like everyone else is the bad guy. This cannot and will not stand. The wikipedia records everything you've done here; we can and will pull out every edit.WolfKeeper 01:48, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

I was talking about the actual source that was cited for that, namely the article in The Register, which I do not have the ability to "fiddle with." I couldn't find the quotation you inserted in that article. It repeats the fuller quote above, anyway,which was cited to the video. Someone (perhaps you) removed it as I was trying to. BTW, the earlier quote of him I inserted (and which was quoted in The Register, covering his speech) was merely an attempt to provide a direct quote for the language you had originally wanted to insert and were edit-warring with Calton about. See this diff. In other words, I was trying to expand the material you had originally inserted and was trying to make it more difficult to remove by including a brief direct quotation, rather than your summary, which mixed what Kahn had said with your interpretation of what he had said. You have now replaced what you had originally wanted to insert with an entirely different quotation, which is problematic for reasons discussed above. ObiterDicta ( pleadings • errata • appeals ) 03:01, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

The fuller quote is not "problematic" because it captures a nuanced point of view. There seems to be a bias among Wikipedia faithful in favor of writing that has an arrogant and puffed-up tone. It's perfectly fine for you to write that way if you want, but you can't very well require Reality to speak that way. Kahn is the most important figure in the creation of the Internet, and his words have great weight in the elucidation of this issue. Erring on the side of completeness is not a sin. Wolfkeeper reads into Kahn's remarks what he wants to see, but for those of us who favor balance and objectivity more information rather than less is clearly needed. In other words, nobody asked you to be Bob Kahn's Creative Writing teacher, and you should be willing to share the opinion of the most notable figure in the history of the Internet with the poor saps who read Wikipedia hoping for enlightenment rather than spin. RichardBennett 19:22, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Right. The only reply I feel compelled to make to the above is that Kahn was speaking (not writing) in the discursive style appropriate to a public talk. An encyclopedia, on the other hand, is supposed to be a concise treatment of a topic. Simply dumping in a long quote is poor writing. ObiterDicta ( pleadings • errata • appeals ) 00:25, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

So what if you think Bob Kahn's speaking style is "poor writing?" That's your subjective opinion, and it carries no weight in an assessment of the importance of his statement to an understanding of the topic. Do you know the first thing about network engineering? Do you have any idea who Bob Kahn is and what he's done for the Internet? Do you have any idea, in fact, of how ridiculous it is to censor the most important statement on net neutrality ever made because in your pedestrian opinion it's "poor writing?" This is pettiness at a historic level, and you take my breath away. RichardBennett 00:49, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

I'm saying it's not writing Richard, it's speaking. The two have to be crafted differently. I'm not trying to "censor" him, I simply think that there is a better way to present his views (and, as discussed above, this belongs in a different section of the article). Look at the piece in The Register to see how Orlowski does it. ObiterDicta ( pleadings • errata • appeals ) 00:55, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Orlowski is not a good example of this, he's only slightly less biased on anything. There's extra words that appear in his articles that change the meaning. I do not consider the Register to be a reliable source. It does not have a good reputation, and this is apart from anything he has written on NN (or for that matter the wikipedia.)WolfKeeper 01:48, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

So Wolfkeeper - you don't like Orlowski's criticism of Wikipedia, and so by extension, you don't like his reporting of Net Neutrality? Why don't you just buy a punchbag, call it "Orlowski" or "Bennett", and beat the hell out of it every night? You're not in a position to edit this objectively. Please recuse yourself. Darbyshire 19:19, 7 March 2007 (UTC)This is the only edit made by "Darbyshire" as of the time of this post. Pretty obviously pulled from Richard's sock drawer. ObiterDicta ( pleadings • errata • appeals ) 23:26, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Paranoia runs deep, into your heart it will seep It is pretty typical of cults to find a great deal of emotional disturbances such a paranoia among the faithful, as they're accustomed to perceiving all non-members as a threat to the enterprise. I am not User:Darbyshire, I am User:RichardBennett. I use my real name, not a cowardly pseudonym. Please retract your unfounded, hysterical and paranoid allegation, or even better, show even the tiniest little bit of empirical evidence. I'm waiting breathlessly for your response, ObiterDicta. RichardBennett 00:58, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

And just when I was beginning to think the sock puppetry was a little too obvious, but that would probably make me even more paranoid, right? If the sock, whoever the puppeteer is, becomes disruptive, we could use Checkuser to clear your name, or not. ObiterDicta ( pleadings • errata • appeals ) 02:39, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

I was thinking of him more as just a decent writer, rather than endorsing his POV. ObiterDicta ( pleadings • errata • appeals ) 23:26, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

In the UK, the island nation to the East, Orlowski is considered an expert on NN. He was an invited panelist at a recent session of the Westminster eForum devoted to this subject:

Net Neutrality in the UK

Guests of Honour: Claire Hobson, Head of UK Telecoms Policy, DTI; and Dougal Scott, Director of Policy Development, Ofcom

Timing: Morning, 20th March 2007

Venue: Westminster SW1

Sponsor: AT&T

As the debate around net neutrality in the US continues, this meeting will bring together key stakeholders to discuss the possible implications for the UK, and the future of the Internet.

Its purpose is to provide a timely opportunity to consider some of the major issues that affect UK business and consumers, including unhindered access to the Internet as a fundamental right, what the Internet of the future may look like, and the international scope of the net neutrality debate.

We are delighted that Claire Hobson, Head of UK Telecoms Policy, DTI, and Dougal Scott, Director of Policy Development, Ofcom, will be giving keynote addresses at this event.

Other confirmed speakers so far include: Richard Allan, Head of Government Affairs, Cisco Systems UK and Ireland; Dorothy Attwood, Senior Vice President, Regulatory Planning and Policy, AT&T; Professor William Dutton, Director, and Professor of Internet Studies, Oxford Internet Institute; Andy May, Director of Regulatory Affairs, Cable & Wireless; Graeme Maguire, Partner, Bird & Bird; Andrew Murray, Senior Lecturer in Law, London School of Economics; Stefano Nicoletti, Principal Analyst, Ovum; Andrew Orlowski, Editor at Large, The Register; Chip Shooshan, Principal Consultant, Analysys Consulting; Bill Thompson, Technology journalist; John Wilson, Internet advocate; and Christopher Wolf, Partner, Proskauer Rose. Further senior speakers have been approached, and we are awaiting confirmation of availability.

-------------------------------------

If he's good enough to advise the British Parliament, he's good enough for me. RichardBennett 22:02, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

So, Richard. Two words, Vint Cerf. This pretender did nothing, and his views shouldn't be equally included here? Bob Kahn is the only father of the internet- is that what you're saying?WolfKeeper 00:31, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Vint Cerf was one of Bob Kahn's assistants. Kahn was working in Internet architecture when Cerf was still in school, do yes, Kahn is by far the more important figure. And he's also the "neutral" party now that Cerf is on Google's payroll. I personally don't trust people on Google's payroll to represent this issue fairly, and you certainly know why. Kahn is the father of the Internet, and he's not a paid shill. So for those two reasons, his views must be prominently displayed in this article or Wikipedia is nothing more than a joke. EssJay never did anything near as bad for Wikipedia's credibility than what you boys are doing to this article. RichardBennett 00:49, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, Bob Kahn did it single handedly, he's an amazing guy, I heard he invented all the protocols, and told TBL how to do the web, and invented Ethernet in his spare time, and not a paid shill too you say? Wow. It just gets better and better. Everyone here is a paid shill of course, apart from you Richard, I'm so sorry we are so inadequate for Wikipedian credibility Richard.WolfKeeper 01:35, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Did I say single-handedly? I don't think so. Kahn organized the project, secured the funding, laid out the general guidelines, and designed TCP. Cerf laid out the frame format for IP. Kahn was and is independently wealthy, and has never been on the payroll of any company involved in the NN dispute. Cerf works for Google. That's a paid shill. You simply aspire to be a paid shill, and my guess is you're unemployed, as are most Wikipedia editors. And BTW, I actually co-designed the UTP version of Ethernet, and I'm real sure Kahn wasn't in the room so you can put your mind to rest on that subject. RichardBennett 00:58, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

You might want to look up the word 'irony'. Also the word 'shill' is defined here as:

2. a person who publicizes or praises something or someone for reasons of self-interest, personal profit, or friendship or loyalty.

Given that you work in the telecommunications industry and evidently you believe you are likely to profit from any large scale deployment of equipment that you think might be triggered by legislation opposed to Network Neutrality, that actually does make you a shill, Bennett.WolfKeeper 22:37, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

I confess that I do work for a living, but not in the telecommunications industry. Once again, the facts are not on your side. And please remember WP:NPA. You really should recuse yourself as this exercise is only making your virtual self look worse and worse as it goes along. RichardBennett 23:07, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Uh huh. The point is that you've worked in telecom before, and you could do again.WolfKeeper 23:49, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Nope, I've never worked in telecom, I'm a datacom guy; I'm a net-head, not a bell-head. Check a reliable encyclopedia for clarification of the difference.

No, you're a router-head. A net-head knows why the net is neutral. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 4.236.27.170 (talk) 11:22, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

I've done both. For all practical purposes, same thing, there's no minimum cut -off distance- a signal that goes 6 feet between two products is still telecommunications. Oh yeah, and while we're on the subject, a network of networks is, by definition, still a network. Got it? It's like that joke: if you call a tail on a dog a leg how many legs does a dog have? Answer 4, just calling a tail a leg doesn't make it one. So when somebody says 'the internet is not a network'; they're wrong. Try to deal with it.WolfKeeper 02:28, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

And while we're on the subject, have you ever had a (paying) job? RichardBennett 01:55, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

RFC on Richard Bennett

I'm trying to raise a RFC on user Richard Bennett. Frankly I'm bored with his insulting subject lines, they violate a whole bunch of Wiki policies, including WP:AGF WP:CIVIL etc. etc. So one of the admins suggested starting an RFC on the matter to kick it around.

I've started an RFC on him here I need at least another signature of somebody who has attempted to intervene with him. I need the signature in about the next 24 hours or it lapses. Many thanks for any help anyone can give.WolfKeeper 08:33, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

How pathetic is this? The meatpuppets Wolfkeeper and Calton can't prevail on the facts so they seek to censor the other side of the debate. RichardBennett 21:23, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Is it that, or is it that you can't prevail with your attempts at distorting the article, so you instead resort to self-defeating insults?WolfKeeper 08:00, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Definitions

The definitions section can only contain definitions. Any non definition will be removed to a different section or reverted. It's not simply a section that contains comments on Network Neutrality, that's what the debate section is for. I'm going to removed/delete any comments pro or con, because thats not a definition. A definition consists of phrases like: 'Network neutrality is:'. And the definition has to say what it is, not describe properties of it.WolfKeeper 21:09, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Who died and made you God, Wolfy? It seems to me that it's misleading not to identify whether a given definition comes from a person or commercial entity who's in favor of regulation or opposed to regulation. Some of the definitions, such as Bob Kahn's, are sarcastic or ironic, and the Wikiality method of reality alteration tends to obscure that. Irony is a hard thing for many Wikiists to grasp, but normal people deal with it routinely. So no, I don't intend to follow your law nor to grant you ownership of this article. Scream if you must. RichardBennett 21:24, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

If it's sarcastic or ironic, then it's not a true definition; in which case it doesn't go in the definition section. Right? You see there's a hint in the section title. Try heeding it.WolfKeeper 21:38, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

It's a true definition reflecting the fact that most intelligent people see this a bogus issue. Ask one. RichardBennett 21:42, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Even if true, their opinions would go in the debate section, not the definition section.WolfKeeper 21:57, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Definition:

3. the condition of being definite, distinct, or clearly outlined.

For example, calling something a 'slogan' is not a definition. Plenty of things are slogans. 'Sex and drugs and rock and roll' is a slogan. 'Network neutrality is a slogan' is clearly not a definition since it doesn't name the slogan. Would any slogan that supposedly freezes the network core be Network neutrality? It seems doubtful. This is non definitive.WolfKeeper 07:12, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Nope. Advocates of a highly-regulated Internet call NN a "principle of network design" in order to make it sound like a good and noble cause. Calling it a "slogan", as Bob Kahn does underscores the demonstrable fact that it's actually a political, regulatory, and social idea that doesn't really have anything to do with network engineering. People like Bob Kahn, one of the fathers of the TCP/IP Internet are capable of distinguishing network design principles from political slogans. Lawyers like Tim Wu and Susan Crawford aren't.

You continue to use the term 'network design' far too narrowly, and you continue to do ad-hominen attacks, and make statements that you have been unable to cite about things that aren't really so. Is AT&T's lobbying of America's Congress so they can simply make more money a 'good and noble cause'?WolfKeeper 02:50, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

So I'm "doing" ad hominem attacks by pointing out that law professors don't practice network engineering? Okey dokey. And yes, in America we regard making money as a good and noble cause. That's why we love Google, they make more of it than any phone company. Granted, much of it is from illegal activities, but who's quibbling with their success? RichardBennett 10:12, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

So the question is: will this article some day come to resemble Wikipedia's concept of NPOV, where both sides are represented sympathetically, or will is retain its current pro-regulatory bias? RichardBennett 00:09, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, right. Given that you just deleted two definitions of Network Neutrality, including the guy's who originally popularised the term, and added words to another one which weren't there in the first place, my question is, whether a single, correctly cited, opinion would survive your concept of 'both sides represented sympathetically', and I'm including both for and against opinions in that.WolfKeeper 02:50, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Well, actually, no, I didn't delete Tim Wu's actual definition, just the fluff around it. You did the same thing to Bob Kahn's and Dave Farber's statements, 'member? I figure what's sauce for the goose is good for the gander. Wikipedia calls it "neutral point of view"; wait, you don't think that means "pro-neutrality point of view" do you? Whoa, that explains a lot. Read the WP:NPOV more carefully, you'll find it rewarding. RichardBennett 10:12, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Who invented the Internet?

Fans of Google employee Vint Cerf have taken to overstating their boy's role in the design of the Internet protocols in the Early Days. The fact of the matter is, Cerf was an assistant to Bob Kahn. Kahn had primary responsibility for TCP/IP, and he designed TCP and delegated IP to Cerf, who did what he did under Kahn's supervision. Cerf had no role in TCP. Several attempts to give Kahn credit for his authorship of TCP have been replaced with a weaselly assertion that Kahn was co-designer or something of Vint Cerf's Internet. That's not really kosher. While it is technically arguable that Cerf and Kahn were co-designers of the whole package of protocols, so were lots of other people. I want to highlight Kahn's role on TCP, and that shouldn't be reverted by vandals such as the Wellbert User:Calton and his puppet. RichardBennett 21:42, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Kahn voiced the original plan for TCP, which both Kahn and Cerf oversaw the work on.

Danny Cohen, Steve Crocker, David Reed, John Schoch and perhaps a couple others convinced Vint Cerf, in a hallway discussion in Marina del Rey in 1977, to split Kahn's notion for TCP into IP below and TCP and UDP above (Bob Kahn was not at that meeting). David Reed wrote UDP to finish the picture.

They each presented different cases; John Schoch argued based on the PUP architecture; Danny Cohen argued that speech did not call for retransmission, but rather numbered packets and an option of non-delivery since latency was key; David Reed made the case that protocols that were not based on connections would make the network more general, that while you could support streams on top of datagrams, if you required streams you'd interfere with efficient datagram services. Many people would say separating IP from TCP and UDP was the seminal point of origin for what the Internet is -- and, for that matter, the moment that network neutrality was assured. (Indeed, competing routers following IP will result in network neutrality, in uniform treatment of packet flow without regard to applications. Network providers can only reasonably expect to be able to offer prioritized treatment of application flows on their own networks. In broad terms, as long as network providers don't own all the routers, the network of interconnected networks that we call the Internet will be net neutral from a global perspective. In this sense, the only other way to end net neutrality would be to get official backing, perhaps regulatory, for non-neutral treatment of packets across routers.) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 4.236.27.77 (talk) 05:33, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Unless you can find a cite that Kahn is the only father of the internet, then it's uncited material and/or OR, which can be removed at any time. The fact is that Vint Cerf and Bob Kahn wrote the paper together, and the fact that Vint Cerf did the IP protocol means that Bob Kahn isn't the sole father. The fact that Bob Kahn may have been senior doesn't affect that.WolfKeeper 21:52, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Incidentally, calling people vandals who make good-faith attempts to follow the wikipedian policies can get you kicked off the Wikipedia. I intend to escalate this until that happens, or you stop. Since you evidently have absolutely no self control, I don't think you will stop.WolfKeeper 21:52, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

This is the first time in history that "Calton" has been used in the same sentence with "good faith", and I find it immensely amusing. Your meatpuppet has contributed nothing to this article, Wolfy, he's only reverted the Good Faith efforts of others. You're not fooling anyone with that nonsense. Keep asking mom for help, and maybe she'll give you a candy. RichardBennett 23:45, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for proving my point in a nutshell.WolfKeeper 02:21, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

A little questions

After having had a look at the article, all I can say - What the fuck is net neutrality?

Can't you just make things simple... It's Wikipedia, not geekspedia (which in itself is a good idea, though).... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.212.200.48 (talk) 19:27, August 25, 2007 (UTC)

BBC News links to this article

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/technology/6983375.stm

Though not used to source the article per se, it is provided in the "Related Internet Links" section. This article's already on a perfectly respectable B-standard, but consider this a heads-up as this may or may not result in more vandalism. Una Laguna^Talk 15:59, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Section "Law outside the US" is self-contradictory?

This section states that NN has been instantiated into law by Japan, but in the next sentence claims that NTT gives their own video services higher bandwidth than outside traffic. This seems contradictory to the definitions of NN given above, as well as the the claim that the EU, in contrast to Japan, allows prioritization. NTT is clearly prioritizing in this example and thus not running its network neutrally. Baanes 00:35, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

NN is more about not blocking or degrading network services. Are there any examples of other's video services that don't work in any sense correctly because of lack of prioritisation in NTT's network?WolfKeeper 00:55, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure, however if NTT's own service is faster than others because of their network's prioritization others are degraded by comparison. Given a fixed transfer rate at the user's end, then NTT is probably limiting outsiders' speeds if its own is consistently faster (speculation). At any rate, This example does not showcase NN laws that are allegedly in force in Japan, although it implies that it does because of its position in the paragraph. Particularly when compared to EU law cited in the next paragraph against prioritization this is confusing. Baanes 01:51, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

NN is more about not blocking, is it? Then moving a one packet to the front of the queue of a router temporarily blocks all other packets and is therefore not NN. And if that movement causes a web page to load 50ms later than it might normally, then that's makes for a degraded web browsing experience, so that's not NN either. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 32.134.0.167 (talk) 15:49, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

Timeliness constraints for web pages are far less severe than video or audio; I very much doubt people would notice 50ms extra loading time. To an extremely high degree if people don't notice it, then there's no significant violation of NN.WolfKeeper (talk) 16:32, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

Provided the network reserves a reasonable, guaranteed percentage for web pages then the network is probably neutral enough between video and audio services.WolfKeeper (talk) 16:33, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

Vague intro

I can't figure out, merely by reading the intro, whether there is a controversy over net neutrality. There's not even an adequate definition.

Are we talking about tiers of service? Is it anything like first class mail vs. Federal Express?

Not so much, although some people think that having only one level of service would be desirable, and label this 'Network neutrality'. But that's probably not really the core issue that people would agree on.WolfKeeper 19:24, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Is the net neutrality issue a fight over whether people who pay more can get faster or more reliable service?

Not so much, although people would prefer to get a faster and more reliable service without paying more. ;-)WolfKeeper 19:24, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Is this related to the ability to watch movies over the Internet? (And how about the desire of companies like ABC to stream their "TV programs" over a cell phone?) --Uncle Ed 18:13, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Not precisely. It's more to do with the potential strangle-hold that ISPs have to ensure that only one or two companies *can* stream to their customers; and whether it's right that ISPs should be able to *specifically* block services such as Bittorrent or any other network services that there may be today, or may get developed in the future.WolfKeeper 19:24, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Okay, then it sounds like the real issue is who gets to profit from streaming video, and "net neutrality" is being used as a proxy for that fight.

As you describe them (and based on what little else I know), the issues seem to boil down to this:

1. Broadcasters want to make money by providing streaming video to consumers.
2. ISPs want to make money as middlemen for this.
3. Consumers want faster, more reliable Internet access in general, as well as access to streaming video.
4. Some people feel it is "desirable" to have only one level of service
   • This needs further explanation: is it one level of excellent service, propped up by an unspecified factor? Or is it one level of poor service (like first class mail in the U.S.) enforced by outlawing competition (Federal Express is forbidden to compete directly with the U.S. Post Office for "first class mail")?

Where I'm coming from, on this, is my observation that in many areas of society there are people who want a "one size fits all" solution. Like in public schools: your kids get the school they're assigned to, unless you opt out completely by paying a hefty premium for private schools. (Your tax dollars, with rare exceptions, cannot be applied to private education, even if the private school does it cheaper and better!) --Uncle Ed 12:53, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

intro POV

as i read it, the intro puts excessive emphasis on broadband. AFAICT one of main issues in the net-neutrality debate is whether content providers should be able to pay network service providers for preferential treatment of their traffic. AFAIK this can apply to any aspect of the interent not just the last mile. if this is not the case then some explaination of why is called for IMHO (or needs to be more prominent if it's there already). -- ef —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.80.214.27 (talk) 20:02, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

The article is heavily biased toward NN legislation, and needs much more mention of the opposition by groups such as "Hands Off the Internet". A sentence or two in the intro is hardly sufficient. JLMadrigal (talk) 12:18, 28 November 2007 (UTC)