Talk:Net neutrality/Archive 3

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

The term "Net Neutrality" is older, the concept was fundamental from a very early date, AND this article should include a discussion about "the right way" to "avoid" Net Neutrality.

This article could use some help right near the top, especially at this key time when Net Neutrality (NN) has been seriously attacked, with regards to how long-standing Net Neutrality has been. And, it should have some discussion of "the right way" to achieve the goals those who want to destroy Net Neutrality desire - without violating Net Neutrality and thereby make it a lot more clear both what's at stake and the avarice of those who want NN ended. I would have just made some minor edits, and added a small paragraph on "the right way", but the article is locked.

We are asked to cite our sources; in this case I am the source. And, I can likely find some others to back me up, if necessary. I describe my credential on this matter herein, and wouldn't mind in a more private setting sharing more with whoever makes decisions about this article.

In the late 1970s, through the middle 1980s, as a technologist, I wrote network protocols (some of which are still in use on the internet) and in 1995 I joined UC Berkeley's Electronics Research Laboratory (their Computer Science department) to lead a team of 43 or so researchers, including as a member of my staff Turing Award winner Jim Gray and led by Professor Michael Stonebraker (now at MIT), who recently also became a Turing Award winner.

In my earlier work, management directed that data packets had to be all handled identically and the only issues were the basics of reliably getting data to where it needed to go. "The network is a utility," I was told. One layer above the PLL - Physical Link Layer of the OSI model - was ONLY to get data where it goes and not make any other decisions as those belong to higher layers. So, the concept of Net Neutrality was present from the beginning or extremely early on - "before the late '70s" is as close as my personal knowledge of that goes. I bet there's someone - if they could only be found - who can pin this down a lot more specifically. My guess would be that the guys who did the IP layer of TCP/IP would know.

In the early 1990s, I worked for an internet connected firm and worked closely with the networking staff and occasionally helped because of my earlier work. I was curious how they'd connected to the Internet and, because our company had it's own private, inter-corporate network, there was talk about our becoming a part of the official internet and people I worked with were responsible for figuring out if we were going to do it. The subject of net-neutrality came up, though I don't recall if that term was used at the time.

It's also very important to note that our firm could do exactly what the anti-Net Neutrality people want to do, in that with our multiple connections to the net, we could bypass congestion points via our internal net and pass the data packets at a more advantageous connection point. This is the RIGHT way to NOT violate Net Neutrality while some traffic gets "preferred service". And, there's NOTHING against the NN rules in this; anyone can have their own private network and join the internet wherever they care to make a connection, and thereby gain a performance advantage. "The Right Way" is that carriers like Comcast can sell this capability to companies while still conforming to Net Neutrality, and indeed, they have. The problem for the oligarchs is that they can't force that business. And THAT is what this current battle is about; If you can slow down or drop packets that are already "on" the internet, then you can force those you wish to pay your blood money. In effect, you're saying that within your corporate borders, YOU, the hardware owner, have domain over what or whose data can or can't pass, or how quickly. (In my view, that is NOT the internet, that's a private network; this is a battle to make the internet private.)

I can also attest that in when I joined UCB in 1995, talk of the net was all abuzz and my team discussed it daily in some way or another. I can't tell you who coined "Net Neutrality" but I can tell you the term was in use by 1995 at Berkeley in Soda Hall.

While I disagree as my first hand experience says it's false, my point isn't to attack the assertion about Tim Wu in the article which states:

"The term was coined by Columbia University media law professor Tim Wu in 2003, as an extension of the longstanding concept of a common carrier, which was used to describe the role of telephone systems."

Rather, I think the way it's written now implies that Net Neutrality came about sometime around 2003 and that's just completely false, and instead it's important the article make assertions about how Net Neutrality has always been a part of the net, and that such an assertion belongs very close to the top because many people only read the first couple of paragraphs of an article, especially a long one. And, also near the top, the article should have a discussion of what the current issue is all about, as I just discussed - forcing people to pay premiums for what is really the standard service.

If whoever controls this article grants, I'll attempt to draft up a competent update to the page - you probably know better than I do how to notify people via this system! (I haven't written a lot for Wikipedia.)

§ — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rtroy (talk • contribs) 04:57, 16 December 2017 (UTC)

@Rtroy: I appreciate your enthusiasm. I have to push back a little though. You are a new user and you volunteering to do a project which would probably take about 200 hours of labor. Instead of doing what you described, can you imagine a 1-2 hour project, start with that, then go from there?

Please consider starting with an online tutorial. The way you are describing things, I predict that you will have challenges with group conversation and research. You ask for permission, but there is no permission or authority here other than the shared rules. Also, Wikipedia is based in literature research, so if you want to add information, you must cite sources for everything. If you want to start with making sweeping changes to the article, feel free to delete everything here which does not have a citation. That might be the bold change you want. It would be appreciated, and could be the start of a cleanup effort. Thanks for speaking up. I hope that you stick around with steady changes and regular discussion to this talk page. If you start something then others will join.

It would be a big deal if you found and shared any published source which described net neutrality by any other name before Tim Wu in 2003. Blue Rasberry (talk) 03:33, 18 December 2017 (UTC)

Authenticity of "Internet pioneers" letter

"Twenty internet pioneers, including the inventor of the worldwide web, Tim Berners Lee, wrote an open letter to the pertinent House and Senate subcommittees, asking that they urge the FCC to cancel its vote to repeal net neutrality."

I was confused that the letter was published via Tumblr, and all the reporting on it (including the linked source) seems to use it as the only source and doesn't mention any external confirmation. I did find a tweeted link (archive) on Tim Berners Lee's verified account, so it appears to be legitimate. Should this be included as a source? 2A02:8109:F3F:C51C:5F72:A59A:E835:ABF5 (talk) 20:19, 18 December 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 22 December 2017

Just came back to make some overdue edits to the Arguments section, but the article still is protected. See here for my original suggestions:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Net_neutrality#"Arguments_against"_and_unreasonable_length/repetition_of_arguments

In particular, I would request the following specific changes to "Arguments against":

• Remove "Significant and growing competition, investment" and merge its arguments under "Unnecessary competition" and "Deterring competition". The content of this section discusses the exact same economic arguments - those primarily being that there is no need for regulation if there already is enough competition in the market.

• Remove the "Prevent overuse of bandwidth" argument completely. None of the linked sources backs up the argument, one of them even dismisses it (the WSJ article, which actually discusses the investment argument and not this one) and another one ("series of tubes") has been highly criticized and is pretty much only noteworthy for that reason. Until there is a proper source arguing for this being an issue, it should definitely not be listed as an argument here.

Lastly, a lot of the text in this section is nothing but quotes and, frankly, quite tough to read. Compare with the "Arguments for" section. Would be great if this can get a major overhaul due to the current importance of the topic, instead of staying protected until nobody discusses those issues anymore. 95.168.159.112 (talk) 01:25, 22 December 2017 (UTC)

Not done: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit semi-protected}} template. Upsidedown Keyboard (talk) 14:30, 23 December 2017 (UTC)

How does it relate to existing QOS and WMM?

I would like to see a section on how Net Neutrality relates to existing QOS capabilities, including WMM. WMM (Wireless_Multimedia_Extensions) is an 802.11e standard to prioritize video and audio traffic. In my experience I have had to disable WMM on my wifi routers because video traffic was given priority and impacted other operations like http connection handshake. It may seem like a good idea to prioritize video so Netflix does not get interrupted. But video is high bandwidth, and a more responsive system might use shortest job first, therefore lowering priority of video streams. I'm suggesting it is helpful to have prioritization and not treat all content as equal. The devil is in the details here, and how to implement "equal" can make a big difference in the system behavior. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ericjster (talk • contribs) 22:50, 24 December 2017 (UTC)

"Prevent overuse of bandwidth"

Following my suggestions above, I just removed this section from the "Arguments against". Until there is at least one source legitimately arguing this point, this should not be in the article. As I already said, the linked article explicitly mentions that bandwidth is not an issue at all, ironically, and the "series of tubes" argument is noteworthy only because nobody took it seriously, which is clearly laid out in the article about it. --109.45.2.123 (talk) 10:35, 3 January 2018 (UTC)

Discussions about net neutrality

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)

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)

Um... Have just lost Net Neutrality? And is that bad for us?

You guys?

I've just learn that the FCC has just repealed Net Neutrality.

Is that bad? Really bad? --LooneyTunerIan (talk) 03:36, 16 December 2017 (UTC)

Realistically, no. PackMecEng (talk) 03:36, 16 December 2017 (UTC)

And figuratively? --LooneyTunerIan (talk) 04:26, 16 December 2017 (UTC)

It goes back to how it was before February 26, 2015. Wikipedia was fine then and no reason to think it will not be just fine after this ruling. My personal opinion, the internet made it just fine for decades without it. PackMecEng (talk) 04:53, 16 December 2017 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a forum

As a reminder Wikipedia cannot host general discussions about the subjects of articles. Consider having those discussions on another site. Instead, advance the development of the Wikipedia article by sharing published reliable sources here presenting different views about how net neutrality either matters or does not matter. There are interesting publications for all sides which this wiki article should summarize and cite.

If anyone sees a discussion being started here, please help by trying to turn the conversation to researching and sharing sources to cite, criticizing the text of the Wikipedia article, or discussing whether the Wikipedia article could do better to give information about whatever discussion topic anyone raises. Thanks. Blue Rasberry (talk) 17:21, 18 December 2017 (UTC)

I don't think you're understanding the situation, dude. Net Neutrality is like our internet freedom. If that gets taken away, there'll a war with no end! --LooneyTunerIan (talk) 02:02, 23 February 2018 (UTC)

Split of content to Net neutrality by country

There was a section for describing the differences by country at the Wikipedia articles "net neutrality" and "net neutrality law". This caused the problem of Wikipedia:Content forking so I cut the section from this article and the other and combined it at Net neutrality by country. Please comment about the split at Talk:Net neutrality by country. Blue Rasberry (talk) 12:05, 9 May 2018 (UTC)

As I mentioned on the other talk page, the by country section is now a stub. It should still have a small summary added. — AfroThundr ^(talk) 13:02, 9 May 2018 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

The image hasn't been doctored, we've removed copyright violations! [[User:CFCF|

What is the purpose of sighting sources if the sources themselves are based on individual opinion rather than empirical data? Removing copyrighted data may be perceived as a doctored image when the end result is the same, regardless of intent. There seems to be a number of individuals giving their first person account of existence of these plans within the framework of Net Neutrality. Do you oppose the veracity of their statements? If so, what proof do you require that such things were happening in the US prior to the repeal of Net Neutrality? Would an advertisiment suffice? (I think that was provided) Must someone make an editorial article in order to prove that the grass is green? 213.186.167.147 (talk) 19:58, 15 December 2017 (UTC)MoeCarl Fredrik]] ^talk 21:38, 22 November 2017 (UTC)

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.

• Khanna, Ro (26 October 2017). "In Portugal, with no net neutrality, internet providers are starting to split the net into packages". @rokhanna. Twitter.
• /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.
• Coren, Michael J. (30 October 2017). "Without net neutrality in Portugal, mobile internet is bundled like a cable package". Quartz.
• Wu, Tim (30 October 2017). "Web has been disappointing lately, I'll admit, but look what it looks like without Net Neutrality (in Portugal)". @superwuster. Twitter.
• Bode, Karl (31 October 2017). "Portugal Shows The Internet Why Net Neutrality Is Important". Techdirt.
• Lilly, Paul (31 October 2017). "This is what your internet service could look like without Net Neutrality". PC Gamer.
• The Logical Indian Crew (1 November 2017). "What Would The Internet Be Like Without Net Neutrality? Portugal Is An Example". The Logical Indian.
• Pelaez, Marina Watson (18 November 2017). "Portugal: Glimpse Into the World Without Net Neutrality". The Globe Post.
• Fantoni, Lorenzo (20 November 2017). "Spagna e Portogallo mostrano com'è internet senza la Net Neutrality". La Stampa (in Italian).
• Scribner, Herb (21 November 2017). "What could the net neutrality decision mean for you? Look to Portugal for an example". Deseret News. Deseret News Publishing Company.
• 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.
• Feldman, Brian (21 November 2017). "Without Net Neutrality, What Happens to My Netflix?". NY Mag.
• Kuhn, Johannes (22 November 2017). "Den USA droht ein Zwei-Klassen-Internet". Süddeutsche Zeitung (in German).
• Friedmann, Sarah (22 November 2017). "Will Net Neutrality End In America? Here's What You Should Expect If It's Scrapped". Bustle.

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

• 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 [1]. 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 [2] and the UK [3]. These plans also currently exist in the USA, as you can see in the Verge [4] or Wired [5]. Let's not spread misinformation, please. RetiredDuke (talk) 15:39, 22 November 2017 (UTC)
  • 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)
  • 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)
    • 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)

Karl.i.biased In the EU, net neutrality falls under the scope of BEREC - Body of European Regulators for Electronic Communications[6][7]. In Portugal, there's also a regulating body, called ANACOM, that follows the guidelines set by BEREC on net neutrality.[8][9][10]. 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[11]. 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)

• I accept, you are right. I was wrong. Oppose including/divulging the image. Karl.i.biased (talk) 16:30, 22 November 2017 (UTC)
• 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)
  • 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)
• 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)
• 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)

Snopes debunks the claims about this graphic in December 2017, a few weeks after you wrote this.Sy9045 (talk) 18:06, 31 May 2018 (UTC)

• 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)
• @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)

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 [12]. 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)

Those authority figures are wrong, according to fact checkers. Portugal already has net neutrality regulations as set by the EU. Sy9045 (talk) 18:10, 31 May 2018 (UTC)

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:+ Smart Net - advertisement offering service packages.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.

References

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)

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)

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)

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. -- Aunva6^{talk - contribs} 03:56, 29 November 2017 (UTC)

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 ^talk_edits

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)

@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)

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)

@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)

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 ^talk_edits 19:13, 14 December 2017 (UTC)

@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)

The caption is a more accurate depiction, but the image didn't go viral because of that. The virality was based on an inaccurate depiction. Why does the graphic belong at the top of the page in the most prominent area of the article?Sy9045 (talk) 10:55, 31 May 2018 (UTC)

But Portugal does have net neutrality rules, so the proponents are incorrect. The country follows net neutrality rules as set by the EU. The graphic is very misleading and does not deserve to be at the top of this article.Sy9045 (talk) 10:48, 31 May 2018 (UTC)

I'm actually typing this while using MEO ISP. it's my provider. it has absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with net neutrality. it's misleading and it makes no sense. meo respects net neutrality otherwise I wouldn't be their client for years. they don't block any websites. they don't throttle others. it's really stupid to see this in wikipedia when net neutrality is such a big issue. shame on this shit. I was reading the article and I was like wtf, this is from meo (altice now btw) and I just had to make a comment here on how silly and absurd it is. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.244.0.157 (talk • contribs) 06:36, 15 December 2017 (UTC)

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)

@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)

Thank you for your concern. I'll close the discussion (for now). --Codyorb (talk) 16:25, 13 December 2017 (UTC)

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)

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)

Image should be removed. It's highly controversial and misleading. The claims about it have been proven false by fact checkers. Sy9045 (talk) 10:44, 31 May 2018 (UTC)

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)

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)

The caption is completely wrong

Meo is a phone/smartphone company selling data packages for smartphones - 14 euros a month for 500mb plus free calls within Portugal and 250 minutes of calls outside Portugal - plus for 5 euros a month they can add the 10 gigabytes for some selected sites.

The current caption is "MEO offers to sell additional access to particular data services in this October 2017 advertisement. Consumer advocates for net neutrality have cited this pricing model as an illustration of Internet access without net neutrality." This is misleading - it's a smartphone-exclusive offer of a bundled package of phone calls plus text messages plus data plus extra data.

Note on references - Twitter is NOT a reliable source. What Cory Doctrow writes in boingboing is not a reliable source - and it is contradicted by the fact checking on 9news (which is a reliable source)

ANACOM and BERC say that MEO's practices are legal and within zero-rating policies.

The actual sale page should be linked as a ref

-- Callinus (talk) 07:35, 15 December 2017 (UTC)

I strongly oppose using MEO "Smart NET" addons as an "example" of no net neutrality. This is clearly disinformation, that started with a politically biased tweet and spread like wildfire in some english language news sources, blogs and social media. The claim that Portugal "has no net neutrality" is blatantly false and was immediately dismissed by fact-checking sites and more careful news sources.

"Smart NET" addons are zero-rating additional packages. While there is some wordwide controversy regarding zero-rating offers, they are common in several EU countries and they do not violate EU neutrality regulations (EU Regulation 2015/2120 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 25 November 2015). "In accordance with this regulation and guidelines, zero-rating is not prohibited. However, a zero-rating offer where all applications are blocked once the data cap is reached out except for zero-rated applications would infringe the regulation". This is not the case with MEO or any other European zero-rating offer so far. When you reach the data capa on the basic plan, you are still able to use any app or access any website, regardless of having or not these "Smart NET" addons (although you are charged for the extra traffic). Smart NET addons only give you a discount price on some apps' traffic.

• Snopes Fact Checking: Is Portugal an Example of What Happens Without Net Neutrality? Mostly False:

Except Portugal does practice net neutrality, and the graphic doesn’t accurately depict what Portugal’s Internet looks like overall. The European Union’s Body of European Regulators for Electronic Communications (BEREC) established net neutrality guidelines in 2015. Portugal is a member of the European Union, so its internet providers must comply. The service promoted in the MEO graphic, “Smart Net,” is essentially a menu of add-ons to the company’s standard mobile data service plan. Contrary to the way it’s been presented, it doesn’t limit users’ access to particular apps or sites. Rather, it lays out prepackaged options via which MEO customers can add extra gigabytes of data usage to their mobile phone plans (similar to Vodafone’s “Passes” offerings). MEO defended Smart Net in a statement to the Portuguese news web site Observador (translation by Google): MEO complies with the European regulation on net neutrality and there is no market distortion caused by its commercial offers. The Smart Net offerings correspond only to additional traffic ceilings for certain thematic sets of applications that are no more than the reflection of Portuguese consumer preferences. Portugal’s telecommunications regulatory agency, ANACOM, would not speak to the Smart Net plan in particular but told Observador that “the issue of network neutrality, zero-rating offers and packages with additives are topics under analysis at ANACOM.”

• The Verge: If Portugal is a net neutrality nightmare, we’re already living in it
• 9News: Verify: What does Portugal have to do with U.S. dumping net neutrality?

Sure, this doesn't mean that zero-rating addons aren't subject to some controversy and criticism. But they are not a straightforward example of having no net neutrality. Therefore, using MEO example to illustrate the lead or this article is simply wrong and disinformation. JMagalhães (talk) 16:11, 15 December 2017 (UTC)

I also would like to add that, although the image is not "doctored", as some new users alleged, the caption that went viral and now illustrates this article is clearly cherrypicked, since on the same page MEO offers several "neutral", non-discriminatory traffic addons. JMagalhães (talk) 16:50, 15 December 2017 (UTC)

I strongly agree with you. It's puzzling why a very misleading graphic is the first thing you see when you read about net neutrality.Sy9045 (talk) 10:40, 31 May 2018 (UTC)

Lead image thumbnail size

Wikipedia's Manual of Style says that lead image thumbnails should be no wider than 300px. The current 500px-wide thumbnail competes with the text for readers' attention and is very distracting. It takes up half the page at normal screen resolution, and should be smaller so that people can choose whether to see the full-size image by opening it in Media Viewer (if you don't know what that is, log out of Wikipedia and click the thumbnail). It is currently shoved in people's faces, which is wrong; people should be given a choice about whether to see this image of an advertisement. Firebrace (talk) 18:03, 15 December 2017 (UTC)

@Firebrace: I had it at 500. You put it to 300. Someone else put it to 350. I am looking at a laptop screen. 300 looks too small to me. 350 is noticeably better but I would like bigger. I object to 300 but do not think it is urgent for me to object to 350. How do you feel about 350? Where do you want this conversation to go?

I think that a bigger picture is merited because the image itself contains text. I do not think all of the image text should be legible, but some should. I would like for the bolded titles (like "Messaging") to be of the same size as the digital text of the article readers with standard text settings. Right now I think it is smaller.

Do you have any other ideas for deciding a size other than the 300px default? Under what circumstances could you support an exception? Blue Rasberry (talk) 23:41, 15 December 2017 (UTC)

There is no exception in the Manual of Style for images with text. A thumbnail is a preview of the full-size image, which can be seen by clicking the thumbnail. Firebrace (talk) 00:33, 16 December 2017 (UTC)

@Firebrace: Is it your position that if a viewer cannot clearly see an image which is 300px that there are no circumstances for making an exception that the image be larger? Blue Rasberry (talk) 01:12, 16 December 2017 (UTC)

The whole point of a thumbnail is that you're not supposed to clearly see the image... Firebrace (talk) 01:15, 16 December 2017 (UTC)

@Firebrace: Surely you cannot mean that. We never want to prevent someone from seeing an image clearly.

The point of a thumbnail is in saving space while hopefully striking a balance so that the image effectively communicates its purpose. I will ask this in another way - under what circumstance can an image which is intended to be viewed at a size larger than 300px be included in the lead of a wiki article? Do we make exceptions for the image to be larger, do we present an image which is small and difficult to comprehend, do we avoid using that image, or do we do something else? If I understand correctly, you are saying that even if a picture is too small to comprehend, then still use it because people can click the thumbnail. Is this correct? Blue Rasberry (talk) 02:18, 16 December 2017 (UTC)

No, a thumbnail is a preview of an image. See thumbnail. Firebrace (talk) 13:30, 16 December 2017 (UTC)

@Firebrace: I fail to understand you. It seems to me that you are saying Wikipedia presents thumbnails without consideration of whether the viewer can understand the image, just so long as the image is the standard size or 300x. I have no idea what this means, because it seems obvious to me that images on Wikipedia should have most of their value as illustrations and not as links to click to get more information. If I am missing something then explain in a different way, if you care to do so. Thanks. Blue Rasberry (talk) 14:12, 16 December 2017 (UTC)

Why not...

Why not just remove the image from this article, create a section about Meo's data plans at (what is now) MEO (Portugal) article, and move the image over there? JSH-alive/^{talk/cont/mail} 13:25, 29 January 2018 (UTC)

Highly misleading graphic that Snopes has debunked

See here: https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/portugal-net-neutrality/. I don't understand why this graphic is at the very top of this article, especially because those who cite it tend to use it to justify net neutrality regulations. It's a highly misleading graphic. Portugal already follows net neutrality rules as set by the EU. Further, the net neutrality rules set under the Obama Administration did not ban what MEO is offering. I do not think this misleading graphic should be in this article, especially not at the very top. Sy9045 (talk) 10:35, 31 May 2018 (UTC)

The original justification for putting this graphic at the very top has been debunked by fact checkers

The editor, Blue Rasberry, originally added this image to the very top of this article because of this reason: "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." In the original caption, the editor writes this: "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 claim has been proven false by fact checkers like Snopes. The editor also cites a Ro Khanna tweet and various news articles that cite his tweet. Khanna's claims have been debunked by Snopes. As you can see now, the caption to the graphic has been heavily changed. Unless the editor can clearly state why this graphic still belongs at the very top, I will remove the graphic. Sy9045 (talk) 11:32, 31 May 2018 (UTC)

@Sy9045: Here is the snopes piece for context.

The image should stay because journalists and educators covering net neutrality have used it as an illustration many times. In what ways do you dispute that many sources and authorities have used this image to illustrate discussions of net neutrality? When some sources say yes and some say no, how do you think Wikipedia should decide whether to include both perspectives or only one perspective? Blue Rasberry (talk) 13:55, 31 May 2018 (UTC)

Please cite the journalists and authoritative figures that reference this graphic as the authoritative graphic on net neutrality. The ones you linked to referenced Ro Khanna's tweet and/or use it as a justification for what happens without net neutrality, which has been debunked by Snopes. Sy9045 (talk) 17:45, 31 May 2018 (UTC)

@Sy9045: Ro Khanna's tweet, for example, is his perspective. Snopes and other sources might have a different perspective. I agree with you that different sources present two sides in conflict.

The sources which you requested and which use this image to illustrate net neutrality discussion are at Talk:Net_neutrality#News_coverage_of_this_image. When one group of people takes one political position, and another group has another position, then how do you think Wikipedia should address that? Should Wikipedia just cover one side, or multiple sides? Blue Rasberry (talk) 18:12, 31 May 2018 (UTC)

Again, those authority figures incorrectly claimed what would happen without net neutrality. That is clearly false since Portugal already has net neutrality. Further, this is a highly controversial graphic. The inclusion of this graphic does not support Wikipedia's policy of a neutral point of view. Sy9045 (talk) 18:24, 31 May 2018 (UTC)

@Sy9045: We disagree here. I think you see this topic as a single statement of fact. I see this as a political issue where two sides have different opinions about how to define a term. If you think it would be productive to talk with me then I am here but I do not know what more to say. Maybe other people who have participated in discussions above have comments. If you want other opinions consider these options:

• Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard - request a review of the neutral point of view here
• Wikipedia:Requests for comment - request comments from lots of people. This is less casual than the other options.

Let me know if I can help you get other comments or find a process to discuss. Blue Rasberry (talk) 10:46, 1 June 2018 (UTC)

Again, you've linked to "authorities" whose claims have been disproven by fact checkers. The people you cited claimed what would happen without net neutrality, disregarding the fact that Portugal already follows net neutrality guidelines as set by the EU. Your original justification for placing the image at the top was heavily modified after your original caption was shown to be false. Why should we keep the extremely misleading image up at the very top? Sy9045 (talk) 02:31, 2 June 2018 (UTC)

@Sy9045: There is more than one definition of net neutrality. The EU defines it one way. Other authorities define it another way. The citations above are for one side of this political controversy. I do not understand what you say about the modification. We keep the image because there are two sides to the politics and this Wikipedia article presents them both. If I understand you correctly, you believe that Wikipedia should only present one side of this political issue.

Yes, Portugal follows the net neutrality rules set by the EU. No one is arguing with that. Portugal does not follow net neutrality guidelines which other authorities, including those outside Portugal and the EU, have defined. Can you think of a more clear way to caption the image? Blue Rasberry (talk) 12:20, 2 June 2018 (UTC)

Again, that's not up for you to decide. You added original research into your original caption, which Wikipedia doesn't allow. Please cite authoritative sources that debunk Snopes' article on the graphic you posted. All of the sources you referenced were before their fact check. Sy9045 (talk) 01:27, 3 June 2018 (UTC)

@Sy9045: I am not able to understand you. I am not able to see that you understand me. I feel that I have given you what you requested but I fail to understand your response. How would you feel about seeking mediation? Would you be willing to post at the Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard to ask for anyone else to come to this conversation give their opinion? If not that, then how would you like this conversation to advance? Blue Rasberry (talk) 17:45, 3 June 2018 (UTC)

The facts have since changed, as shown by fact checkers, since you used your justification to post the graphic to the top of the article. What is your new justification for posting the graphic at the top? Can't you use it in the sub-sections instead? Why does it deserve to be the very first thing a user sees on their mobile phones when they open this article? It's a very misleading graphic and very confusing to people not knowledgeable on this subject. Sy9045 (talk) 02:19, 4 June 2018 (UTC)

I see no change in the situation. I am unable to understand your view and unable to perceive any understanding that you have of my view. What kind of mediation would you accept to advance discussion of this issue? Can you request something from Wikipedia:Dispute resolution requests? Blue Rasberry (talk) 01:00, 8 June 2018 (UTC)

I want your clear and concise justification for placing the aforementioned graphic at the top. Your original justification for putting the graphic at the top was debunked by fact checkers. Why does the graphic still belong at the top over everything else in the article?Sy9045 (talk) 01:30, 15 June 2018 (UTC)

@Sy9045: I see a political controversy where different sides have different definitions of net neutrality. If I understand you correctly, you are only willing to recognize one definition. I see one side, like Portugal, saying that they have a definition of net neutrality and that they comply with that. I see another side, including some Americans, who have a second and different definition of net neutrality and Portugal is not following that one. These are political opinions, not facts, so there is nothing to debunk. Both sides have different definitions. Can you say why you think that only one side in this political controversy should have their view in Wikipedia?

The graphic belongs at the top of this article because Wikipedia seeks the most relevant, recognizable, and popular illustrations available. This image, more than any other we have available, is the center of discussion about net neutrality because of all the journalism it got in so many different languages. It supports both sides. For one definition of net neutrality the image represents good things in Portugal that match Portugal's definition. For another definition it represents a violation of net neutrality.

To what extent are you able to recognize that different groups have different definitions of net neutrality? Blue Rasberry (talk) 11:44, 15 June 2018 (UTC)

Edit request.

I believe the US repeal was June 11, and not July 11. 108.160.125.102 (talk) 02:05, 17 October 2018 (UTC)

Missing Canada Section

Hi I am new to Wikipedia. In the "by country" section this article only includes USA and India. I believe this article should have an added section for Canada as well. Since net neutrality is a heavily talked about issue in Canada, I feel this article can benefit from talking about the Canadian Radio-Television Telecommunications Commission (CRTC) and what they are doing too keep net neutrality in place.--Hamzas2 (talk) 19:00, 15 November 2018 (UTC)

If I am not mistaken that already has it's own article Net neutrality in Canada. PackMecEng (talk) 19:04, 15 November 2018 (UTC)

Added section with imported lead from main article.[13] PackMecEng (talk) 19:08, 15 November 2018 (UTC)

"...exist only to protect against misuse."

At the end of the first introductory paragraph, the last sentence appears thus, "Net neutrality regulations exist only to protect against misuse." Clicking the citation brings up page 326 of "American Governance" Vol. 3 in the "Gale Virtual Reference Library". It's unclear to me whether I'm reading the actual page 326 as the full work is not available without purchase. Nowhere on this page, however, is the claim made that, "Net neutrality regulations exist only to protect against misuse." Furthermore, and putting aside the hardly academically credible sourcing of "Schenectady County Community College" and author Cory Jensen whom know one has ever head of, "misuse" is completely undefined. What constitutes "misuse" and "misuse" by whom and against what? There are certainly many institutions/persons who would argue net neutrality legislation puts incredible power in the hands of government and is therefore subject to "misuse" and abuse of all kinds. Regardless of which side is right, this last sentence of the first paragraph is merely a matter of opinion and, in so far as it is a statement specifically advocating for net neutrality, it is certainly not neutral and does not belong in the introductory paragraph. It belongs only in the "Arguments in favour" section and even there, given the very flimsy nature of the sourcing, highly speculative and broad nature of the claim, and completely unqualified value of "misuse", the sentence seems essentially useless. I plan to remove the sentence in the next two days unless some credible opposing argument can be made. While net neutrality is an area of interest to me, I'm very new to Wikipedia editing and I beg your indulgence.Felacronom (talk) 20:01, 1 January 2019 (UTC)

Fourth Paragraph Changes Needed

The first sentence of the fourth paragraph leads with, "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," citing to, "Reconciling political and economic goals in the net neutrality debate" by Johannes Bauer and Jonathan Obar. The link leads to a simple abstract as the full document is behind a pay-wall. Isn't there a Wikipedia rule that states one must cite open sources? In any case, this sentence is advocacy in favour of net neutrality. Neither the sentence nor the full cited document are neutral; these people are in fact advocates of net neutrality through government regulation. This sentence and its corresponding citation therefore belong in the "Arguments in favour" section. Of course, it's hard to determine exactly where it belongs without having the full document available for detailed investigation. I plan to move this sentence in two days to the "Arguments in favour" section unless some reasoned argument in opposition surfaces.

The second sentence continues with the introductory phrase, "Combined with strong public opinion...". The only evidence of "...strong public opinion..." offered is a New York Times article, "F.C.C. Approves Net Neutrality Rules, Classifying Broadband Internet Service as a Utility" of February, 2015. The article itself mentions, "..an extraordinary level of political involvement..." in a US political process that claims some 4 million "comments" directed to the FCC on the issue. The article does not specify whether all of those comments were in favour of net neutrality or further provide any insight into how they were characterized, whether they were credible (as in, not from bots), and etc. Considering that there are about 325 million people in the USA, this hardly seems like an example of "strong public opinion" nor does the article itself anywhere mention/demonstrate "strong public opinion". More importantly, however, this article concerns the concept of "net neutrality" generally; not merely net neutrality in the USA. Is there "strong public opinion" in favor of government imposed net neutrality in other countries? How is this known? In constructing the sentence by prefacing with what seems like almost a mandate from the population at large to justify government regulation, the author of the sentence has engaged in advocacy in favor of net neutrality. As the claim to "strong public opinion" is unsupported in the very article cited and purely advocacy, I plan to remove the introductory phrase entirely within two days unless convinced otherwise by considered argument.Felacronom (talk) 20:49, 1 January 2019 (UTC)

Definition of "Net Neutrality" in first paragrah

In the first paragraph, "net neutrality" is defined as follows: Net neutrality is the principle that Internet service providers treat all data on the Internet equally, and not discriminate or charge differently by user, content, website, platform, application, type of attached equipment, or method of communication. The citation for this definition is, "The Net Neutrality Debate: Access to Broadband Networks" by Angele A. Gilroy published by the Congressional Research Service on June 22, 2018. Gilroy's definition can be found on page 2 in the "Summary" section of the article and is in two parts, quoted exactly thus, "The move to place restrictions on the owners of the networks that compose and provide access to the internet, to ensure equal access and nondiscriminatory treatment, is referred to as “net neutrality.” There is no single accepted definition of “net neutrality,” but most agree that any such definition should include the general principles that owners of the networks that compose and provide access to the internet should not control how consumers lawfully use that network, and they should not be able to discriminate against content provider access to that network." Note the first part Gilroy's definition requires a "...move to place restrictions..." on owners of internet networks. Gilroy also acknowledges the lack of cogent definition of "net neutrality" generally. In fact, if one were to read even Tim Wu's treatment of the issue one would be hard pressed to find a single, easily accessible definition; he talks of "ends" and "means" and other such platitudes. In both Gilroy's two part definition, however, and Tim Wu's overly long treatment, there is one overarching and simple theme that consistently runs through both threads; net neutrality includes the use of government regulation on owners to achieve a political policy. If one thinks about the phrase itself in light of what has been written and popularly available on the subject broadly, it's as if the phrase was essentially created by those who specifically seek government regulation of the internet.

Therefore, in order to be consistent with the source cited (Gilory) and the de facto father of the concept (Wu), the definition must include the imposition of government control through regulation. True, in the third sentence of the first paragraph, we see reference to the concept "sometimes" being "...enforced through government mandate." This seems a very weak qualifier. Pursuant to Gilroy and Wu, government regulation is an integral part of net neutrality. I propose that the definition at the start of the first paragraph be changed to better reflect the two part definition provided in the citation to include government regulation of the internet in order to supposedly achieve the non-discrimination in data type.Felacronom (talk) 21:22, 1 January 2019 (UTC)

Regarding Open Internet

The "Open Internet" section I noticed had appropriate citations for its statements up until about the last sentence. I noticed that in the last sentence of the paragraph, Thailand and the United Kingdom were used as an example of countries with internet police without providing any proof to back this statement up. There is information available for this subject, but are there any more solid citations by any chance? A more official source would be greatly appreciatedTony2227 (talk) 02:39, 21 February 2019 (UTC)

Excluding computer scientists and internet entrepreneurs from opponents

User:Mindmatrix tried to delete "computer scientists" and "internet entrepreneurs" from listed opponents of net neutrality in the lead section and criticism section, when

1. Such computer scientists and internet entrepreneurs are explicitly listed in the very same article.
2. "Computer scientists" and "internet entrepreneurs" are included among listed supporters of net neutrality in the lead section and support section.

Why? 160.39.235.157 (talk) 04:57, 25 February 2019 (UTC)

The “Net Neutrality” page on Wikipedia has around 204 references for various citations throughout the article. These citations cover information from the definition of net neutrality itself, to relevant topics that sit just outside the spotlight like what will happen to Netflix and Vimeo if net neutrality is lost. Multiple journals and official documents can also be found in the page’s list of references. Due to the article and topic subject being so large, it is clear that the number of citations for the page is appropriate. However, the quantity of citations does not mean that the source material is all reliable. Due to this topic being very media centered, outlets such as the “New York Times” show up in the reference list several times. This creates a problem because the New York Times is a news outlet that produces many opinion pieces written by biased writers. One example of an opinion piece posted by the New York Times would be David Brooks’ “A Nation of Weavers”, which came out on the 18th of February this year. Wired.com is another website that produces opinion pieces that is used in the Wikipedia reference section. As for plagiarism, the articles mentioned previously did not contain any copied material, and the article as a whole seemed to be absent of any sort of plagiarism. Quotes taken from certain individuals relevant to net neutrality such as Ajit Pai himself are cited to correctly display that they are in fact quotes. Quotes from other individuals are also listed appropriately. If this were not the case these edits more than likely would not be able to pass through the Wikipedia editors. The sources that the information is derived from on the net neutrality page consist mostly of online news outlets within the United States. CBC news, which is a Canadian news outlet, is also present within the references section, but outside sources are not the majority of sources. Official documents, while limited in number on the page, are sufficient in giving the relevant information for each section. The FTC or Federal Trade Commission FAQ was also used as a citation on the page. A common theme throughout this article is the underrepresentation of the side responsible for dismantling net neutrality. Most of the counter arguments come from statements by Ajit Pai, who is the main driving force behind taking down net neutrality. This does not bode well for the article, as it comes off as almost entirely biased. However, it is increasingly difficult to find any sources that support the destruction of net neutrality that are not behind its driving force to begin with. Despite all of this, there is no clear indication that the articles were written with a strong bias. Most of the statements regarding net neutrality were compilations of things mentioned by other news outlets and journals. Tony2227 (talk) 14:36, 26 February 2019 (UTC)

The “Net Neutrality” page on Wikipedia has around 204 references for various citations throughout the article. These citations cover information from the definition of net neutrality itself, to relevant topics that sit just outside the spotlight like what will happen to Netflix and Vimeo if net neutrality is lost. Multiple journals and official documents can also be found in the page’s list of references. Due to the article and topic subject being so large, it is clear that the number of citations for the page is appropriate. However, the quantity of citations does not mean that the source material is all reliable. Due to this topic being very media centered, outlets such as the “New York Times” show up in the reference list several times. This creates a problem because the New York Times is a news outlet that produces many opinion pieces written by biased writers. One example of an opinion piece posted by the New York Times would be David Brooks’ “A Nation of Weavers”, which came out on the 18th of February this year. Wired.com is another website that produces opinion pieces that is used in the Wikipedia reference section. As for plagiarism, the articles mentioned previously did not contain any copied material, and the article as a whole seemed to be absent of any sort of plagiarism. Quotes taken from certain individuals relevant to net neutrality such as Ajit Pai himself are cited to correctly display that they are in fact quotes. Quotes from other individuals are also listed appropriately. If this were not the case these edits more than likely would not be able to pass through the Wikipedia editors. The sources that the information is derived from on the net neutrality page consist mostly of online news outlets within the United States. CBC news, which is a Canadian news outlet, is also present within the references section, but outside sources are not the majority of sources. Official documents, while limited in number on the page, are sufficient in giving the relevant information for each section. The FTC or Federal Trade Commission FAQ was also used as a citation on the page. A common theme throughout this article is the underrepresentation of the side responsible for dismantling net neutrality. Most of the counter arguments come from statements by Ajit Pai, who is the main driving force behind taking down net neutrality. This does not bode well for the article, as it comes off as almost entirely biased. However, it is increasingly difficult to find any sources that support the destruction of net neutrality that are not behind its driving force to begin with. Despite all of this, there is no clear indication that the articles were written with a strong bias. Most of the statements regarding net neutrality were compilations of things mentioned by other news outlets and journals. Tony2227 (talk) 14:39, 26 February 2019 (UTC)

Regarding Open Internet

Draft for possible additions to Open Internet Section

DISCLAIMER! This is a school project for my Media Literacy Class (MCO 220 - 01). Not all of these edits or additions may be perfect, or necessary.

The last paragraph of the Open Internet section could have some more information on its subject. Here is a draft of what could be added:

"Other countries such as Russia, China, and North Korea also use similar tactics to Thailand in order to control the variety of internet media within their respective countries. In comparison to the United States or Canada for example, these countries have far more restrictive internet service providers. This approach is reminiscent of a Closed Platform system, as both ideas are highly similar. These systems all serve to hinder access to a wide variety of internet service, which is a stark contrast to the idea of an open Internet system."

Sources used: https://freedomhouse.org/report/freedom-net/2016/russia http://www.chogabje.com/board/view.asp?C_IDX=59852&C_CC=AZ https://www.hrw.org/reports/2006/china0806/3.htm https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/f672/bc06ea9b47994a0677f8eaa088a86699b525.pdf

As for the “Dumb Pipe” section, these are some simple critiques:

The second paragraph of the dumb pipe section has two statements that are without any sort of citation. An argument for the first sentence can be found in, “The end-to-end argument and application design: the role of trust” by David D Clark, Marjory S. Blumenthal. The second sentence has no basis for the statement it makes about MetroTech, Inc creating the term “dumb wave” and I have yet to find anything on this. In the first paragraph last sentence of Data Discrimination there is a broad statement about ISP customers switching ISPs due to data discrimination, but there is no citation. This statement is more of an opinion or idea and can’t really be cited. In Data Discrimination in the second paragraph, ISPs Terms of Service are mentioned without a citation. Perhaps the Xfinity Terms of Service could serve as a citation here? Here are some quick examples of sources that could be used to update or enrich the information in these two sections:

Data Discrimination: Schrage, M. (2014, November 02). Big Data's Dangerous New Era of Discrimination. Retrieved from https://hbr.org/2014/01/big-datas-dangerous-new-era-of-discrimination

Dumb Pipe: Dumb Networks, Not Just Dumb Pipes. (n.d.). Retrieved from https://www.lightreading.com/optical-ip/100g-ethernet/dumb-networks-not-just-dumb-pipes/a/d-id/745234

Tony2227 (talk) 16:29, 7 March 2019 (UTC)

Hello Tony, After analyzing your ideas for contribution to this article I have a few suggestions. Looking at some of your sources, I have found a more recent report regarding Russia’s “open internet,” https://freedomhouse.org/report/freedom-net/2017/russia. This is the same site, but with updated information. Aslo when looking at your text contributions for this section I would advise against using words like “far more” and “highly similar.” Although your information is accurate, these terms seem suggestive and it would be more neutral without “far” and “highly.” I have found a PDF file to support your argument for the first sentence of the “Dumb Pipe” section https://www.repository.law.indiana.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1585&context=fclj. If you believe that there is a statement in the article that is too broad I suggest trying to find some information that can be narrowed down and cited. As for adding citations to this section to make it more credible, I agree that the “ISP” and “Xfinity Terms of Use” could be helpful. That information can be found here: https://www.xfinity.com/policies, http://www.isp.com/termsofservice.asp. In general I think your contributions are valid and accurate. If you would like, I would encourage looking for the missing citations in this article. Twomey.shannon (talk) 22:06, 9 March 2019 (UTC)

"...but the House majority denied the bill a hearing.[64]"

In the "By Country" section, under "United States", it features the following statement:

"In 2018, a bill cleared the U.S. Senate, with Republicans Lisa Murkowski, John Kennedy and Susan Collins joining all 49 Democrats but the House majority denied the bill a hearing.[64]"

This statement would appear to benefit perhaps from an additional citation referencing the activity by the House in denying the hearing, as well as inclusion of some more descriptive language indicating the date at which this occurred. Rtwikim9765 (talk) 01:29, 12 January 2020 (UTC)

Regards to dumb pipe and potentially increased taxes sections

Just to let other fellow Wikipedians know that this is for a school project for my media literacy class and I am new to the world of Wikipedia, so the suggestions I am making may not be able to be executed. I noticed in the second paragraph under the “Dumb pipe” section that there are a few citations missing with backing up those sentences. I am currently trying my best effort finding reliable sources for those statements.

Also, I noticed that in the “Potentially increased taxes” section in the final sentence of that first paragraph, their may be a sign of close paraphrasing. Part of the sentence states that “Financial website Nerd Wallet did their own assessment and settled on a possible US$6.25 billion tax impact” Where in the source it says “Personal finance website Nerd Wallet did their own assessment and settled on a possible $6.25 billion impact”. I am currently working restructuring that part of the sentence to make it a more valid statement. I may be wrong about this so dismiss this if I am. Dandre12722 (talk) 19:49, 1 March 2020 (UTC)