Jump to content

Talk:Net neutrality

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Bluerasberry (talk | contribs) at 03:43, 15 December 2017 (refactor comment about image in lead...). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available on the course page. Peer reviewers: Belinrahs.

Template:WAP assignment

This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Dmonyei (article contribs). Peer reviewers: Dmonyei. This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): NoahDaniels (article contribs).


why is this article written in such a pretentious, wonkish manner?

"Research suggests that a combination of policy instruments will help realize the range of valued political and economic objectives central to the network neutrality debate."

"A more detailed proposed definition of technical and service network neutrality suggests that service network neutrality is the adherence to the paradigm that operation of a service at a certain layer is not influenced by any data other than the data interpreted at that layer, and in accordance with the protocol specification for that layer."

These sentences are nonsense. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 199.224.16.12 (talk) 16:54, 12 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]


Yeah, the first sentence you quoted caught my eye as a tad "odd," as well as this bit at the end of the sentence following it,

...along with limiting providers and regulating the options those providers can offer.

I can see how that might be technically true, but it becomes suspicious in the context of disinformation campaigns that seek to highlight net neutrality as being detrimental to ISPs.
Note to self: double check the sources used for the above sentences,
1st [1] https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2910104
Extra bit [2] https://www.nytimes.com/2015/02/27/technology/net-neutrality-fcc-vote-internet-utility.html
2nd from unsigned 199.224.16.12:[3] https://www.hbarel.com/analysis/policy/what-is-network-neutrality
Mystyc1 (talk) 01:45, 8 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Net neutrality. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 00:46, 22 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmation bias and missing the point

There are obviously a lot of beliefs surrounding this issue. But what is conspicuously absent is any discussion of the likely, real-world impact of the options presented. Regulation reducing net neutrality by metering bandwidth consumption will tend to make the popular more expensive and the less popular less expensive. Let that sink in. It's why the money is going where we see it going. I recommend a comment somewhere in this article that points out this fact as it is not clear from the article as-is. 174.131.5.205 (talk) 18:28, 20 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia is a summary of published sources. Can you cite a source which presents this perspective? We need citations. Thanks. Blue Rasberry (talk) 19:03, 21 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. The point I'm making is based on years of experience in this field and I don't have time to research sources. I was suggesting that if someone wants to write a good article, they should focus on the gravamen of the arguments. End users already have "fast" and "slow" lanes. That's why the public pays more for higher bandwidth services. What "net neutrality" does is that it prevents the telcos from charging the server side - the content provider - for *their* bandwidth. It's got nothing to do with the internet per se. It has to do with access to the internet. And it isn't "censorship" any more than Joe Public paying a higher monthly fee for greater monthly bandwidth and caps is.

So, my point is, large companies that are very popular (have a lot of traffic being served up to the public) will pay higher prices. They are more popular, by definition, and they will pay more. That cost might be passed on to others, but nonetheless, the more popular will cost more. This subject is so sunk in the quicksand of belief no one is discussing what the debate actually is about.

174.131.5.205 (talk) 05:35, 25 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Added image of Meo advertisement

In this October 2017 advertisement, the Internet service provider MEO offers separate billing for various kinds of online services. Net Neutrality prohibits this sales model.

This advertisement has been widely circulated in the English speaking world in the last month. The social context is that it is in Portuguese and from Portugal where lack of net neutrality is normal, but many in the English speaking world find this image shocking.

Here is some news coverage around this screenshot: (see better formatted list below Blue Rasberry (talk) 13:07, 22 November 2017 (UTC)) r/technology commentators (27 October 2017). "In Portugal, with no net neutrality, internet providers are starting to split the net into packages. This is the future of the Internet if the FCC gets its way. It's not theory. It's happening already". Reddit. Doctorow, Corey (28 October 2017). "Portuguese non-neutral ISP shows us what our Trumpian internet will look like / Boing Boing". boingboing.net. Coren, Michael J. (30 October 2017). "Without net neutrality in Portugal, mobile internet is bundled like a cable package". Quartz. Bode, Karl (31 October 2017). "Portugal Shows The Internet Why Net Neutrality Is Important". Techdirt. Price, Rob (21 November 2017). "If you want to see what America would be like if it ditched net neutrality, just look at Portugal". Business Insider. I just posted it to be at the lead because I think this is the most relevant image identified for demonstrating what net neutrality does. Blue Rasberry (talk) 19:15, 21 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This has nothing to do with Net neutrality. It is a phone plan where you get 10GB a month and can pay for extra unlimited data for certain apps. We have this in America with net neutrality so no it doesn't prevent this. Also, the image has been intentionally modified to remove the part that says it's a phone plan and to fear monger for net neutrality. This is apples and oranges. If you want to discuss possible fears fine but you can't show phone plans as results of not having net neutrality. Ozfer (talk) 03:22, 22 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Can you give a source for that? Not saying that you are wrong, or that the media is right, but since there's been a lot of news articles about it the burden of proof (to give us a source/citation/whatever confirming what you've just said) is on you. Karl.i.biased (talk) 03:32, 22 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Don't you have to source something to put it on wikipedia? How is he allowed to slap pictures in without a source first off? Second, it's right from MEOs website under phone internet section just use google translate. https://www.meo.pt/internet/internet-movel/telemovel/pacotes-com-telemovel Ozfer (talk) 03:35, 22 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
But he did source it. He provided 5 links just above this post, citing such reputable sources as Business Insider and Quartz. Whereas you just gave us a link to the page this screenshot was taken from. I don't see the page mention what you've stated about data plans and all that. Which is why I have to revert your edit. Sorry. Karl.i.biased (talk) 03:58, 22 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
What are you talking about? There is no source on where the picture is from (it should be cited to the MEO site not to a blog) and half the links here don't even contain the picture or are blogs and are non-reputable. Click on my link and use google tranlate. It literally has pictures of phones and says data plan. Anyways when was the last time you used snapchat on a desktop? Notice how the picture has been manipulated to hide the phone only apps so you can't tell its a DATA PLAN and snapchat icon is blured out. Stop reverting. The business insider is an editorial piece and even that article doesn't have the manipulated version with blurred out snapchat icon. Ozfer (talk) 04:50, 22 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Those have been blurred likely due to copyright concerns — otherwise we simply unblur them. And there are sources, so that argument does not hold. Neither does the argument that it is a mobile data plan — why would that matter? Carl Fredrik talk 07:43, 22 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Why would it matter? Did you not read a thing I wrote? We have the exact same price models in the US for phone plans with net neutrality rules in place. This has nothing to do with net neutrality. The photo was intentially doctored to make it look like it's not a phone plan and intentionally not sourced to meo so people can't decide for themselves. This matters because net nuetrality is not about phone plans so the #1 picture should not be phone plans. This is intentional fake news. 129.21.113.90 (talk) 14:57, 22 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Net neutrality has to do with internet access. The specific last-hop technology used (cable, DSL, LTE, etc.) is irrelevant. Vinay (talk) 22:44, 22 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Do you have a proof for what you say? A source maybe? Anything? Because as long as you just claim that the image is fake news we are not going to remove it, so sorry. Karl.i.biased (talk) 15:25, 22 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Are you daft? CLICK ON THE MEO website and use google translate. I shouldn't have to post a Washington post article for you to be able to read the definitive source or for you to notice how the picture has been doctored. Here is another source. http://www.telecomsense.com/2017/10/note-net-neutrality-zombie-apo.php Ozfer (talk) 15:30, 22 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, so if you want to use a different streaming service (say a new competitor to Netflix), that costs you more because you have to use a more expensive data plan to get reasonable use out of it. This is exactly the stifling effect that net neutrality advocates fear... established players end up with a big advantage that keeps new entrants out. I also don't understand why you keep going on about the image being "doctored". Yes we can edit the article to mention that it's a mobile plan. How is it relevant whether it's mobile or wired? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vinay (talk • contribs) 18:09, 22 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The image hasn't been doctored, we've removed copyright violations! Carl Fredrik talk 21:38, 22 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

News coverage of this image

Here is the news coverage by date. This confirms that reliable sources report that selling favored access to get data from one web application versus another is a violation of net neutrality. So far as I can tell, US Representative Ro Khanna (Democrat - California) was the first to use the Meo advertisement as an illustration of a practice which is contrary to net neutrality and offensive to people who support net neutrality. From his Twitter it went to the /r/technology on reddit, then from there Corey Doctorow posted it to Boing Boing, and from there it went everywhere and continues to travel. I say this by checking the dates of posting and not finding anything earlier. If anyone can track any earlier origin or pathway then please share. All of these pages contain the image with the exception of reddit which as usual has only a link and no images. Reddit discussions are not normally a reliable source for wiki, but this did make the top of the front page so it was the most discussed news item in the world on that day. I gave the links to all of these to the Wayback Machine so the Internet Archive has copies of them. It already had most of them anyway. I have a German link and Italian link to mainstream newspapers so I would say that this is an International issue despite the origin of this being United States citizens using a Portuguese advertisement to discuss their own local laws.

Blue Rasberry (talk) 13:07, 22 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • Oppose including/divulging the image. User:Bluerasberry, I don't know if you are aware, but Portugal is a member of the EU and, as such, it has to obey to certain rules regarding net neutrality, that you can find here [4]. Your claim that lack of net neutrality in Portugal is normal is therefore false. That a number of sources (also, did you just link to reddit?) could not identify this Internet option for what it is, and that is zero-rating and not lack of net neutrality, is indeed troubling but ultimately not Wikipedia's fault. These kind of packages also exist in other EU countries such as Spain [5] and the UK [6]. These plans also currently exist in the USA, as you can see in the Verge [7] or Wired [8]. Let's not spread misinformation, please. RetiredDuke (talk) 15:39, 22 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • The question here is if zero-rating goes against net neutrality or not, but let's not think that this type of deals only exist in Portugal currently. RetiredDuke (talk) 15:44, 22 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • Thanks for replying. Since you mentioned EU, I specifically took a look at the Italian article to see how another EU country reports on that. This article specifically mentions that in Spain & Portugal net neutrality is regulated by their own special laws. I am no expert in this field, but are you sure that EU has an established law for net neutrality that covers the entire union? Because even this wiki page seems to disagree with that in it's EU section. Karl.i.biased (talk) 15:49, 22 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
      • Not to mention that, you know, companies can and often to violate regulations. This is a recent add (less than a month old) maybe it violates the law (if it even exists). It's existance certainly doesn't mena that there should be no law regulating such plans — Preceding unsigned comment added by Karl.i.biased (talk • contribs) 15:53, 22 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Karl.i.biased In the EU, net neutrality falls under the scope of BEREC - Body of European Regulators for Electronic Communications[9][10]. In Portugal, there's also a regulating body, called ANACOM, that follows the guidelines set by BEREC on net neutrality.[11][12][13]. I see where you are coming from with this debate, but as I stated above, these kind of data plans exist all around Europe, like in Spain, the UK and also in Romania[14]. In the USA as well. Do I necessarily think it's right to have these kind of plans? No. But these plans are still a far cry from lack of net neutrality since you do not have to pay to have access to specific websites. RetiredDuke (talk) 16:17, 22 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • I accept, you are right. I was wrong. Oppose including/divulging the image. Karl.i.biased (talk) 16:30, 22 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose – RetiredDuke makes a compelling case, and I don't think this is the best image to put at the very top of the net neutrality article as a means of describing what it is. Mz7 (talk) 17:50, 22 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'm striking my comment to put more thought into this. On the one hand, I'm partial towards the principle that Wikipedia should follow the lead of reliable sources, and the wealth of reliable sources that describe this image is also significant. On the other hand, since it's not exactly uncontroversial whether zero-rating violates net neutrality, I'm not sure whether using such an example would, from an editorial standpoint, be the best illustration to have at the top of an article. Mz7 (talk) 06:34, 23 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support, although the accompanying text should probably be clarified. I don't think you have to block access to other websites to create a stifling effect. If you're using Netflix or YouTube, you can get a cheap plan with very little "general' data included, get the the €4.99/month add on and use it freely. If you're a new service your users will either use up their data plans quickly or be force to upgrade to a much more expensive plan. In other words even if they are better, new services will start off at a big disadvantage to existing players because it costs more for users to get to them. This is exactly what net neutrality advocates warn of. Vinay (talk) 18:22, 22 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support — The case seams clear-cut. We have myriad sources supporting its relevance, and only spurious arguments against it. Zero rating is in fact only a net neutrality violation in disguise. This is pretty much non-disputed and the ~20 sources above clarify that. So per Vinay; the accompanying text should be clarified. Carl Fredrik talk 21:36, 22 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note I just added a link to a Twitter post by Tim Wu where he says, "look what it looks like without Net Neutrality (in Portugal)" when talking about this image. Tim Wu coined the term "net neutrality" and defined it. Blue Rasberry (talk) 15:50, 24 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • @RetiredDuke, Karl.i.biased, and Mz7: You all have declined to support adding the image above. I would like to ask for more clarification on why you are opposing. I am making some statements here. Can you say whether you disagree with any of these points?
  1. We have authoritative commentary. Tim Wu, the person who defined net neutrality; Corey Doctorow, a prominent net neutrality spokesperson; and Ro Khanna, a top-ranking politician who takes net neutrality as one of their platform political issues; have all published statements that this particular image illustrates a violation of net neutrality.
  2. We have established that the mainstream media is recognizing the authorities' views. Media publications which are reliable sources for commenting on net neutrality have indicated that this particular image illustrates a violation of net neutrality. Those publications include Quartz, PC Gamer, The Logical Indian, The Globe Post, La Stampa, Deseret News, Business Insider, NY Mag, and Süddeutsche Zeitung, and Bustle.
  3. We have a lot of media about this particular image relative to typical commentary on this topic. This particular image has gotten much more media attention and commentary as a depiction of a violation of net neutrality than any other single image which the Wikimedia community has identified. Also in general, this particular image has gotten a lot of media attention from prominent and relevant sources.
I do not want to burden any of you with defending your positions, but just to understand where you are standing, I wanted to ask if any of you disagreed with these points. Right now it would surprise me if anyone disagreed with these points, but I wanted to back up to the basics to confirm that you all see what I see.
If I understand correctly, you accept these points, but as a matter of either original research or some sources you have not shared, you are suggesting that there are other net neutrality commentators who describe net neutrality in an alternate way. I expect that there is no doubt that leading authorities on net neutrality call this image a depiction of a violation of net neutrality. What disagreement do we have, if any, on the authority, relevance, and relative popularity of the view that reliable sources use this particular image as an illustration of a violation of net neutrality? Blue Rasberry (talk) 18:31, 24 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your explanation, Bluerasberry. I can see where you're coming from. Originally, I was mostly persuaded by RetiredDuke pointing out that the plans in question are based on zero-rating, and as I understand it, it's not clear from a legal standpoint whether zero-rating violates net neutrality – a key example of such a zero-rating program that crossed my mind was Wikipedia Zero, which the Wikimedia Foundation states is compatible with net neutrality, yet has been held to violate net neutrality in at least one jurisdiction [15]. As I stated, I'm rather partial to the view that Wikipedia as a matter of principle should follow what reliable sources say (per WP:NOR), so the sources that you provide which all discuss this image as an example of a net neutrality violation are quite convincing. I'm interested in what RetiredDuke has to offer sourcing-wise regarding his view. Mz7 (talk) 21:16, 24 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Protected edit request on 27 November 2017

Edit request withdrawn

Restore this Meo advertisement as an illustration to the top of the article at the second line immediately below the notice on formatting dates: 

[[File:Screenshot-2017-10-28 MEO - Televisão, Internet, Telefone e Telemóvel.png|thumb|right|500px|Advocates for net neutrality have cited [[Internet service provider]] [[MEO (Portugal)|MEO]]'s October 2017 advertisement as an illustration of [[Internet access]] without net neutrality.<ref>
This particular image has been the subject of discussion in media including the following:
*{{cite web|last1=Khanna|first1=Ro|authorlink=Ro Khanna|title=In Portugal, with no net neutrality, internet providers are starting to split the net into packages|url=https://twitter.com/rokhanna/status/923701871092441088?lang=en|website=@rokhanna|publisher=[[Twitter]]|language=en|date=26 October 2017}}
*{{cite web|last1=Doctorow|first1=Corey|authorlink=Corey Doctorow|title=Portuguese non-neutral ISP shows us what our Trumpian internet will look like / Boing Boing|url=https://boingboing.net/2017/10/28/warning-taken-as-suggestion.html|website=[[:d:Q891048|boingboing.net]]|date=28 October 2017}}
*{{cite web|last1=Coren|first1=Michael J.|title=Without net neutrality in Portugal, mobile internet is bundled like a cable package|url=https://qz.com/1114690/why-is-net-neutrality-important-look-to-portugal-and-spain-to-understand/|website=[[:d:Q7269379|Quartz]]|date=30 October 2017}}
*{{cite web|last1=Wu|first1=Tim|authorlink1=Tim Wu|title=Web has been disappointing lately, I'll admit, but look what it looks like without Net Neutrality (in Portugal)|url=https://twitter.com/superwuster/status/925181150506692608|website=@superwuster|publisher=Twitter|language=en|date=30 October 2017}}
*{{cite web|last1=Bode|first1=Karl|title=Portugal Shows The Internet Why Net Neutrality Is Important|url=https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20171030/12364538513/portugal-shows-internet-why-net-neutrality-is-important.shtml|website=[[:d:Q1647664|Techdirt]]|date=31 October 2017}}</ref>]]
Advocates for net neutrality have cited Internet service provider MEO's October 2017 advertisement as an illustration of Internet access without net neutrality.[1]

References

  1. ^ This particular image has been the subject of discussion in media including the following:

I recognize that the conversation about this image is not completed, but it has stalled. Normally there is no hurry but this article is at the center of an urgent political discussion right now which is rising and will peak 14 December at the repeal of net neutrality laws in the United States. Three days have passed with a conversation pause and even from the beginning the opposition has declined to respond to the sources and rationales for adding the image which I have posted on the talk page. Perhaps this image can be removed again, or perhaps we edit the citations or captions, but at this point in the discussion, please re-add it to attract more comments. Blue Rasberry (talk) 13:25, 27 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved
Since I made this request, the protecting admin dropped the lock from fully protected to extended confirmed. That change made it possible for me to perform the edit myself so I withdrew my request. My making this edit is not a claim that the conversation has ended, but rather, only that at this time in the usual wiki way anyone can make changes when they address the standing conversation in a way that furthers the discussion. I and others here to talk with anyone who has a response to the discussion to this point. Blue Rasberry (talk) 22:57, 27 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

That MEO picture should be deleted because is misleading.

It is used for scare people, have nothing to do with Net neutrality. Is a personalized Internet service, not a surplus. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Koala Wiki (talk • contribs) 12:06, 28 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

it's being used by proponents of net neutrality as an example of what they say will/might happen without net neutrality. I would say that it is very germane. -- Aunva6talk - contribs 03:56, 29 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
It should be removed, or at the very least, moved down into the body in the arguments in favor section. Placing it at the very top is, pardon the expression, not neutral. The image has been shown to be inaccurate anyway, as Portugal has net neutrality. Read this article. —Torchiest talkedits
Move it to the body, to the in favor section as suggested by Torchiest. Above the infobox is the wrong place and is messing with the format of the lead. PackMecEng (talk) 14:48, 30 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@PackMecEng and Torchiest: I just added the image back and put it on the top. I acknowledge that KUSA (TV) in Denver published an article disputing the other sources' characterization of the MEO image depicts a violation of net neutrality. Can either of you comment on why you feel that the Denver TV source should override the other sources cited which say the opposite thing? I feel that since the sources saying that the image is net-neutrality related are from recognized experts, then those sources should have priority over a local news feed. Thanks. Blue Rasberry (talk) 03:08, 13 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Anything pro or con net neutrality does not belong top of page and not above the info box. PackMecEng (talk) 04:12, 13 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@PackMecEng: Are you saying that this image is pro or con net neutrality? It is an industry advertisement so maybe that makes it "con" net neutrality. The caption says that the "pro" net neutrality side has critiqued it. It seems like a balanced image to me because all sides of the discussion want this sort of depiction in use. What parts of the image do you see as either pro or con?
There is no {{infobox}} here. We have two navigation boxes, one for "net neutrality" and one for "Internet". Right now I just pushed these down, but I intend to propose that those boxes go at the bottom of the article, perhaps in navigation templates as {{navbox}}es. Check the relative traffic for other popular terms in those boxes - it is obvious that net neutrality has been a much more popular subject than any of those for a long time. It is fair to place these boxes in the lead but not to exclude actual content like an illustration. If an article has an image which is appropriate for the lead then navigation boxes defer to informational content. Blue Rasberry (talk) 11:49, 14 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The image is clearly being used as a piece of pro-NN propaganda. Including it at the top, when all the sources promoting it are strongly on one side of the debate, is non-neutral. It fits more naturally in the pro section as the caption itself indicates it is cited by advocates. —Torchiest talkedits 19:13, 14 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Torchiest: I changed the caption to include the source which you provided. How do you feel about this phrasing? What more neutral phrasing can you offer? Blue Rasberry (talk) 03:42, 15 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Consensus on Portuguese internet package screenshot

Noting the discussion here, I'd like to establish a final consensus discussion for using the image or not. Voting begins below. --Codyorb (talk) 00:19, 1 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Codyorb: I think we are not yet at a time to vote. There is some back and forth conversation, and I think that should develop a little more before advertising a vote. I am still not clear on the basis for opposition. It does seem like a vote will be coming though. If we called for a !vote, do you have ideas for how it should be organized? Thanks. Blue Rasberry (talk) 03:15, 13 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your concern. I'll close the discussion (for now). --Codyorb (talk) 16:25, 13 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

These prices aren’t for access to the listed websites, they are for unlimited data to the listed websites because Portugal has data caps. Any American should understand this as we pay extra for unlimited data on our cell phones. Data caps do not violate Net Neutrality. Decimation41 (talk) 06:33, 14 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I think the image should be removed. It is definitely misleading. It has nothing to do with net neutrality in respect to broadband internet. It was added in a knee-jerk, fear mongering manner and while we sit here and discuss whether to have it or not it remains. If anything, the image should be remained as the talk continues. SouthernJusticeWarrior (talk) 01:09, 15 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Meo Photo is Disappointing

Does this page really have a twitter post as a fact? Meo, like Verizon, AT&T, Sprint, and T-Mobile has data caps. I don’t know if you get 3GB, 6GB, or 50 a month, but you have a limit on their plans. However, if you pay more, (sound familiar smart phone users?) you can have unlimited acces and the listed sites do not count against your data cap. It doesn’t violate Net Neutrality, it’s almost an inevitable solution to it, just like in June of 2010, when our unlimited data plans on our phones vanished just days before the release of FaceTime. Decimation41 (talk) 06:40, 14 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The adverisedment at the top of the article

This is an English language Wikipedia article.

Screenshot-2017-10-28 MEO - Televisão, Internet, Telefone e Telemóvel

Do we got something like this in English?

Da Vinci Nanjing (talk) 18:16, 14 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Edit warring,complaints about the FCC and off-topic entries under the wrong countries

I've fully protected the thing. God willing, its a clean version. If there are problems that due diligence require me to correct, ping me or make an edit request as explained at WP:RFPP. While my personal POV is probably sympathetic, this is not Dlohkipedia. Let's try to to keep the politics out of the encyclopedia. And let's not SOAPBOX in unrelated country sections-- or anywhere. Thanks, -- Dlohcierekim (talk) 20:02, 22 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

...and governments regulating most of the Internet must treat all data on the Internet the same...

First and foremost, net neutrality is the principle of having a level playing field regardless of how its achieved and the Internet has been more or less neutral since day one.

It predates the controversy in the United States by a long stretch and was brought up in cases where ISPs sometimes throttled traffic through given ports.

Governments have always regulated telecommunications but this regulation is apparently something new so the wording used here seems to be conflating the principle and the "net neutrality" regulation.

This is giving rise to heated debates for a question of semantics between groups that are for a neutral net or level playing field and groups which reject government oversight.

Wikipedia most probably should be impartial in this respect. --JamesPoulson (talk) 11:08, 24 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Dlohcierekim: it seems that the wording has been transformed with respect to what can be found on the reference link. See https://www.publicknowledge.org/issues/net-neutrality. --JamesPoulson (talk) 11:16, 24 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Protected edit request on 24 November 2017

Change
"At the end of 2012 Slovenia legislated a law of electronic communication implementing a strong principle of net neutrality."
to
"At the end of 2012, Slovenia legislated a law of electronic communication implementing a strong principle of net neutrality."
in the section titled Slovenia. This edit adds a comma between "2012" and "Slovenia". Gamebuster19901 (Talk║Contributions) 14:17, 24 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Done. Mz7 (talk) 21:49, 24 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

"Arguments against" and unreasonable length/repetition of arguments

Some of the arguments presented in "Arguments against" are barely backed up or repetitions of other arguments and in need of a rework and/or more counter-arguments embedded, which the "Arguments for" section has. E.g. Pais point regarding internet speeds in the US vs Europe, on which factual evidence, especially concerning wireless speeds, is rather limited (e.g. https://www.speedtest.net/global-index). The section as a whole also seems quite blown up, especially when compared to the "Arguments for" section.

Here are some specific points in need of improvement:

- "Significant and growing competition, investment" and "Deterring competition" seem to discuss the exact same economic argument. Why is this separated into two arguments?

- "Prevent overuse of bandwidth" has not a single source pointing to any actual risk of overuse coming up, which I'd consider crucial for this argument. The second paragraph furthermore cites several rather nonsensical arguments in this context that do not really fit here:

1) "Bret Swanson of the Wall Street Journal wrote in 2007 that the popular websites of that time, including YouTube, MySpace, and blogs, were put at risk by net neutrality. He noted that, at the time, YouTube streamed as much data in three months as the world's radio, cable and broadcast television channels did in one year, 75 petabytes. He argued that networks were not remotely prepared to handle the amount of data required to run these sites. He also argued that net neutrality would prevent broadband networks from being built, which would limit available bandwidth and thus endanger innovation." - the main point made here is not overuse of bandwidth but a potential lack of return on investment due to net neutrality, which is a completely separate argument in that section. To cite the sourced original article (http://www.discovery.org/a/3869):

"Wall Street will finance new telco and cable fiber optic projects, but only with some reasonable hope of a profit. And that is what net neutrality could squelch. Google, for example, has guaranteed $900 million in advertising revenue to MySpace and paid Dell $1 billion to install Google search boxes on its computers; YouTube partnered with Verizon Wireless; MySpace signed its own content deal with Cingular. But these kinds of preferential partnerships, where content and conduit are integrated to varying degrees -- and which are ubiquitous in almost every industry -- could be outlawed under net neutrality."

Ironically, in the next paragraph, the same article even states that overuse of bandwidth is not an issue in actual broadband networks (consider that article is from 2007):

"Ironically, the condition that net neutrality seeks to ban -- discrimination or favoritism of content on the Internet -- is only necessary in narrowband networks. When resources are scarce, the highest bidder can exclude the others. But with real broadband networks, capacity is abundant and discrimination unnecessary. Net neutrality's rules, price controls and litigation would prevent broadband networks from being built, limit the amount of available bandwidth and thus encourage the zero-sum discrimination supposedly deplored."

2) "One example of these concerns was the "series of tubes" analogy, which was presented by US senator Ted Stevens during a committee hearing in the US senate in 2006."

This analogy has been highly criticized and ridiculed (which is not mentioned at all despite it being notable for pretty much only that reason). I have no idea why this, of all things, is sourced here as a serious argument trying to support that point.

--95.168.159.112 (talk) 16:50, 25 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Please go ahead and make any such changes, I would support them. Carl Fredrik talk 17:10, 25 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Not possible because it is protected. Would be great if someone with the proper rights can do it before the protection ends due to current interest in the topic. --95.168.159.112 (talk) 18:16, 25 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Protected edit request on 26 November 2017

In Net neutrality#India, the first words are not in the DMY format. Please change it to the DMY. D4R1U5 (talk) 08:06, 26 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Done — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 12:22, 27 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Protection reduced

to extended confirmed per request on my talk page. If this proves to be unwise, please report at WP:RFPP of ping me. -- Dlohcierekim (talk) 20:02, 27 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Don't Break The Net is a commercial store online and does not relate to the topic really. It just get free publicity here. On the same line though, TechFreedom is a relevant site. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Michaël Lessard (talk • contribs)

 Done @Michaël Lessard: Removed link. --Codyorb (talk) 01:40, 1 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Misleading/Biased/Incorrect/Imprecise use of "website" across article

Across the article I'm seeing lots of repetitious usage of the word "website" to describe one of the parties negatively impacted by a loss of net neutrality (in sentences describing how they'll have to make deals and get charged more by Big Telecom or whatever). That's very misleading, possibly on purpose to cheaply further the "Big Telecom vs. The Little Guy" narrative present into the article.

This is 2017. Virtually all websites and content accessible via the public internet is served from datacenters parked on backbones and owned by Amazon/Google/Microsoft/Netflix/Facebook/etc. These megacorps manage all the infrastructure and dealings with ISPs... handling all that is exactly what they're being paid for. A loss of Net Neutrality might expose these juggernauts to new scary competitive angles from Big Telecom, but whatever financial machinations happen at this low layer of the business are already well isolated from the stable service SLAs/rates/policies their customer base has built on top of. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Amannm (talk • contribs) 14:23, 2 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I appreciate your concern. There are other names for sites of information that can be found on the Internet, although "website" is still the most universal and recognizable. According to WP:COMMONNAME, it's recommended to use the word most commonly used by the general population. --Codyorb (talk) 17:37, 9 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Why should I call congress?

If I can somehow convince Congress to veto this act, what should I do? Chariho 205165 (talk) 00:16, 13 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

There are numerous petition websites out there that you can use to contact the government. One of them I can think of is Battle For the Net, which you can access at www.battleforthenet.com. Codyorb (talk) 16:28, 13 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

John Perry Barlow against net neutrality?

The "Arguments against" section of this article cites John Perry Barlow as opposing net neutrality, citing his A Declaration of the Independence of Cyberspace as a source for that claim. In my humble opinion it is a bit of a stretch.

I think this manifesto is being cited as against net neutrality because it advocates against government intervention on the net. But, as the opening of the article says, net neutrality is not about government intervention: 

   Net neutrality is the principle that Internet service providers must treat all data on the Internet the same, and not discriminate or charge differently by user, content, website, platform, application, type of attached equipment, or method of communication.

Moreover, the manifesto says (emphasis added) 

   We are creating a world that all may enter without privilege or prejudice accorded by race, economic power, military force, or station of birth.

And 

   We are creating a world where anyone, anywhere may express his or her beliefs

Which to me seems to be exactly advocating for net neutrality.

At best, the source doesn't say anywhere whether he's against net neutrality.

For this reasons, I propose that John Perry Barlow name be removed from the list of individuals opposed to net neutrality. --Klez (talk) 08:11, 14 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 14 December 2017

To add under the U.S. segment of net neutrality in other countries.

December 14th 2017- The FCC votes to repeal net neutrality 3-2. Against strong opposition from the public. Mindersteve (talk) 19:18, 14 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Already done Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 19:30, 14 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 14 December 2017

Add the fact that attorney generals for New York and the state of Washington have announced that they are suing the FCC over its decision.

http://abcnews.go.com/Technology/wireStory/latest-clyburn-blasts-fcc-net-neutrality-repeal-51792629 Acid Ly (talk) 20:26, 14 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Already done Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 22:02, 14 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Talk:Net_neutrality&oldid=815488297"