Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 03:14, 29 November 2006

Template:AIDnom

To-do list for Net neutrality: edit · history · watch · refresh · Updated 2013-01-08 Here are some tasks awaiting attention: Wikify : Cleanup article to conform to Misplaced Pages:Manual of Style

This article has been mentioned by a media organization: Marv Dealy (25 August 2006). "Recent Windows update a real bugger/Byte by Bite". The Union Democrat.

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 Misplaced Pages 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)

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 :

"...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 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 Misplaced Pages) 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 Misplaced Pages 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.

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)

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)

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)

European Union Information Society Bangemann Report

I've just read the Bangemann Report, and it doesn't contain the phrase network neutrality, let alone having popularized it. It does talk about the necessity for interconnection in certain conditions, but that's an idea that's been around since about 1913 or so. Suggest deemphasizing.

160.39.43.240 06:52, 17 May 2006 (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, Misplaced Pages 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

The four freedoms

I'd like to add something to the text on the four freedoms. 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 ****

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

Neutrality as Law

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 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)

Y and G

I replaced search engine Y and G with A and B, I found it funny but either use Yahoo and Google or A and B. Y and G just seems odd and it ever so slightly accusses yahoo of benifiting from descrimination. Plus I'm not so sure that saying google is technically superour should be on this page.

feel free to discuss

Good idea --Robthebob

Agreed. It is better left as you put it--167.83.10.24 14:22, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

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)

huh?

Susan Crawford distinguishes substrate neutrality by which she means only the physical pipes which the Cable cos and Telcos say they own free and clear and over which logically as First Amendment speakers like in Miami Herald v. Tournillo government has no right to regulate as to content absent a compelling state interest that can pass the strict scrutiny of judicial review.

Could someone please reword this? It is a hideously long run-on sentence; I haven't got a clue what is being said.

I have removed it. If it means something, someone can clean it up and put it back, preferably with a citation. Tuf-Kat 02:17, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

just FYI, that wasn't a run-on... just a really long sentence :)

The internet is a series of tubes...and they all lead to Chuck Norris jokes. - Hito

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 , 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)

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.

Irrelevant Link

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

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."

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.

Network Neutrality Article

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

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)

Traffic shaping?

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

Image

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)

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)

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)

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)

Careful! 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 many cases) bogus political, social, and economic. Longer term, the major players are all seeking higher profits as they share the goal 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 my full scope of my disappointments related to this debate. http://mostdisappointing.blogspot.com/2006/06/data-carriers-face-virtual-hurdle-in.html bennicotera 14:09, 20 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)

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)

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.

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)

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

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)

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)

Vandalism Alert

This entry has been attacked by Calton, a typical Misplaced Pages self-appointed Czar who repeatedly reverts entries he knows nothing about, generally with retarded comments.

I'm alerting the Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages: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 Misplaced Pages: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 Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages, 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 Misplaced Pages, 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 Misplaced Pages:Verifiability, Misplaced Pages:Citing sources, and Misplaced Pages: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, Misplaced Pages: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 Misplaced Pages. 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)

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!  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.

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 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.bennicotera 14:29, 20 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.bennicotera

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)

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? in retrospect, yeah the wording is probably no good, but for another reason: maybe it would be better to say webcos (and lefties) versus telcos (and righties)? the terms are clearly not perfect, 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.

bennicotera

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)

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)

"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.

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 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)

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)

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.

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

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. ]: "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)

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. Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages "policy" to deal with major changes? --ZakMcKracken 21:10, 3 August 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)

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)

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))

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)

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)

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)

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. 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.

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 Bachula's argument 
 for a ban on QoS 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)

How does this affect Misplaced Pages

Hello,

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

-- Newhoggy | Talk 22:04, 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)

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)

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)

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.

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.

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?

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)

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)

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)

I'll tell you what, "Calton" and "Wolfeeper" - you state your real names and places of employment, and I'll provide mine. Unless you're willing to do that, nobody will take you seriously.

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

No need, Richard, since we already know who you are. Not much of a negotiator, are you? --Calton | Talk 04:04, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

What a little gnat you are, Calton, always buzzing around the grown-ups demanding candy and throwing tantrums. Run along now, you're boring us.67.169.7.187 10:16, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

"Us"? What, you're royalty, a newspaper editor, or have a tapeworm? --Calton | Talk 23:49, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

Anyway, conflicts of interest are actually permitted in the Misplaced Pages, 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 Misplaced Pages is at stake.67.169.7.187 10:18, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

Yes, the fate of Misplaced Pages 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)

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)

Google's Agent 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)

• Misplaced Pages pages with to-do lists
• Misplaced Pages pages referenced by the press