Talk:Net neutrality in the United States/Archive 1

mgunn what are you doing?
Please do not merely revert. Explanations welcome. -- Ben 03:18, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

Mgunn's addition of pov and structure tags
A disagreement with the addition.

Net neutrality, particularly in the U.S., is a social policy issue, a new technology issue, and a corporate (de)regulation issue. I get concerned when it comes around to matters of
 * 1) speculative economics,
 * 2) misleading section titles,
 * 3) sentences that attract attention by being poorly put together, and as much as anything else,
 * 4) off-topic indulgence.

I believe these are common reasons for NPOV and structure tags, but I respectfully disagree with your usage of those tags here.

The article clearly needs better citations, and it may well benefit from better content. Nevertheless, as far these numbered points go, in my opinion, "Net neutrality in the US" contains much of the scope of the issue, and with a relatively concise style. Specifically, I think it currently compares favorably to the main net neutrality article on wikipedia and keeps up with most popular topic pages on the web. Therefore I have removed your NPOV and structure tags for the time being.

--Ben 06:45, 28 December 2006 (UTC)


 * This article systematically presents support of Network Neutrality as objective fact. Just a few examples:


 * "The new fees would nominally cover the cost of expanded high speed services, but functionally they also represent a marketing tactic to ensure continued economic dominance over the communications industry." Factually suspect and biased POV at best.


 * "In 2006, large amounts of money appear to have been spent in lobbying congress to prevent pro-network neutrality provisions from being passed into law, while anti-network neutrality law has also met with resistance and a lower amount of funding." I didn't realize Google and Microsoft were poor victims incapable of defending themselves? Again, factually suspect and biased POV at best.


 * The section, "Emergence of Net Neutrality as a unique regulatory principle" presents Network Neutrality as emerging as a logical conclusion to previous regulation. This idea is factually suspect and biased POV at best. The FCC has continually moved over hte past 20 years in the direction of DEREGULATION, which would allow tiered service.


 * "New regulations have tended to take the form of the re-writing of anti-trust and public interest laws in ways that de-emphasize previously required public services, allow for fewer and more centralized ownership of telecommunications services, and more strictly limited access to public resources." What public resources? what limits?


 * I don't think it's worth my time to edit all these things and fight these things out, but there are a number of POV problems.


 * -- Mgunn 07:33, 28 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Mgunn, I find your argument still lacking in basic consideration. Perhaps your examples are reactions from your personal point of view? If one is an expert on the topic, this can still be a legitimate reason to make an edit, but you seem to claim a practically objective heft, and without reference or any clear expertise in the political, technical, corporate, or social facets of the topic. Your identifications of false and prejudicial statements, a serious accusation, are also without reference. It's a cop out to suggest that lack of time is an acceptable reason for unreferenced debate of facts. Further, if you don't even have time to check the references presented to confirm or reject the basis of the four points you mention, I wonder about your opinion regarding ideas that you-- apparently easily-- claim are "factually suspect and biased POV at best."


 * Your first point regards the economic dominance of telecommunications companies. The statement made in the article is a fact, not an opinion. On the contrary, this introduction represents the current and most pervasive opinions on the topic. Both of these points are referenced.


 * Second. Google and Microsoft are not presented as poor and weak. It's not at all suggested anywhere in the article. On the contrary, you're putting words in the mouth of the line's author. Therefore I'm not convinced about the reasoning of your unilluminated-upon refrain that the line is "biased POV" and "factually suspect."


 * Third. The emergence section is something that is structurally *supposed* to be POV, as it is based on the opinions of a significant party in the debate. It is presented in contrast to structured claims from at least one other side. Also, your point about FCC favoring deregulation with its later rules and regulations is already included, and is not in itself a reason for the disinclusion or dismissal of major debate points in the article.


 * Fourth. Two things. 1. Your point about regulatory trends above suggests that you agree with the fact of the trend of "deregulation." 2. Assuming it is factual, your request for information about public resources is off topic, and the question of new limitations is a fact of the regulatory process. It's currently an unreferenced fact of the regulatory process, which is a problem, but not a structural or POV problem.


 * Please consider such things in the future before applying major lables.


 * -- Ben 16:14, 28 December 2006 (UTC)


 * May I ask what your expertise is? Thanks


 * -- Mgunn 16:46, 28 December 2006 (UTC)


 * I could ask the same of you. However, I'm content to remain semi-anonymous at this time.


 * I'm adding your recent line from the history page:


 * Mgunn, you said: "Didn't confront my points. If I'm so objectively wrong... then get someone else to revert me."


 * Excuse me!? Check.


 * We must be self-governing to some extent here. I'm sorry, but your merely quoting part of an argument in the multifaceted presentation of the debate is not justification for a POV tag, nor an article restructuring. I'll give you this, at least its better than claiming that the tag is justified by spontaneously realized unanimous opinion.


 * --Ben 17:53, 28 December 2006 (UTC)


 * I attempted to even-handedly address Mgunn's four objections above. The first appears to already have been dealt with, and for each of the other three I have added citations and/or further clarification. Please consider removing the NPOV tags.


 * --66.30.11.45 05:24, 4 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Excuse me, but you've done nothing here but to say you've done something, which you haven't. Okay, you say you attempted, but you failed. Seriously -- I'm not trying to ridicule you -- you just haven't said anything. Maybe you failed to "Save page" after attempting to "evenhandedly address Mgunn's objections", or maybe you failed to log in, so you're IP handle is claiming credit for your logged in handle? Or maybe you are here as part of a class project, where the purpose is not so much to improve the content of the encyclopedia by internal standards and in consensus with other editors regularly contributing to the page, but instead to accomplish a goal stated in your class group's planning session, within the timeframe of your class project, which specifically targeted this page for intervention? Showbaut 06:20, 6 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Showbaut, I'm glad you're watching the page and I'd like to help explain my edits (done as 66.30.11.45). Your link to the history page above is broken (it appears to have a | at the end of the URL where it doesn't belong) and it refers to the history of the talk page, not the main page. The history of the main page shows my edits, specifically these. As for your second point regarding the class project, you are entirely correct that my edits (and likely future edits to come) are related to an assignment. Unfortunately, you seem to insinuate a false dichotomy in which the objectives of this class assignment conflict with the values of wikipedia. This could not be further from the case. As you will see from the discussion on the page you linked to above, we hope to improve the content of the page and resolve the current NPOV dispute in the spirit of wikipedia dispute resolution (while also learning about how it works). Furthermore, we are doing so with the encouragement of a wikipedia admin. I hope that this alleviates your concerns about my/our motives and allows us to work together with the objective of improving this page. --Sjschultze 15:11, 6 January 2007 (UTC)


 * In the ways of this wiki, a more collaborative approach than advising me of an obvious keystroke error in a link I contributed would be to correct the link, then leave a note if it matters to you that I or others realize my keystroke error.


 * Your comment otherwise clarifies the ambiguity of your statement that you "evenhandedly address Mgunn's objections above." Did you address them above, or were the objections stated above? You now indicate that you meant to imply the latter. At the time I posted, it was my belief that I had tracked the user history of the IP number with which you signed your talk page comment, and found no other edits from that IP. Perhaps I somehow failed to complete that check, and based my comments entirely on a review of your talk page comments, where your comment could be parsed to indicate that you had addressed Mgunn's objections. It's also possible that I reviewed a cached version of the article page and history 40 minutes older than your talk comments, and your edits did not yet show in my browser.


 * If Mgunn is not satisfied that the neutrality concern has not been resolved, I assume Mgunn's concerns are expressed in good faith. I would prefer to monitor the discussion than to try to persuade one party or the other about the neutrality of the article. As a reader, I want to know if someone has an objection to the neutrality of the article. I read the page with an assumption that it represents a consensus opinion, with expressions of exceptions to the consensus encouraged in the context of the article. Hasty removal of such an expressed exception erodes my confidence in the integrity of the article as an consensus effort.


 * Mgunn now asks that you cite on the talk page what lines in the citations you offer support specific statements in the article. I concur that in a complex topic such as this, and especially in the context of a poorly structured and poorly worded article, explaining on this talk page what line in particular sources are intended to support a particular statement is helpful, if doubts remain. Otherwise, Mgunn and I are left guessing in an asynchronous, extended dialogue exactly what part of a lengthy citation is intended as relevant. It can be the difference in poring through 1,000s more words, or analyzing the specific words intended for this context. If you will cite here what line in the source supports the statement, we can avoid responding as if you intended some other part of the source to support the statement. Such misunderstanding of intent, as we have seen in this exchange, can be commonplace, inadvertant and time-consuming. If the writer clearly explains intent, we move ahead more quickly.


 * Encouragement of an administrator is not tantamount to a consensus, nor does it resolve my concerns about potential mixed motivations of those editing the article. Some administrators have derisive terms for users who edit in concert around a shared purpose. I won't use those terms, but in fairness, a half-dozen law students piling on one side of a dispute can leave the other side floundering to keep up, and impair a sincere contributor's effort to explore legitimate concerns in an effort to reach a genuine consensus. I will further address concerns about mixed motivations below. Generally, the dichotomy to which you refer is not necessarily false, nor do I imply the dichotomy is necessarily present. I suggest that it is potentially a factor, and worthy of examination. Your class instructions only require that you participate -- they do not imply a priority in which the goals of the encyclopedia take precedence over your academic goals. Showbaut 21:44, 6 January 2007 (UTC)


 * To clarify, we are not "a half-dozen law students piling on one side of a dispute." In fact, we're all acting independently and potentially can (and probably will) get involved on opposite sides. This is a "group" project in only the loosest sense. --Ats80 23:37, 6 January 2007 (UTC)


 * I should hope edits and comments, whomever they come from, would be judged by their content and not by the user who posted them. That said, may I comment on Mgunn's specific objections?
 * I checked the Washington Post article cited on the use of the fees, and it doesn't say that. Was there some other article that did? Do the fees only "nominally" cover the cost of services while actually being merely a market tactic? That's what the language suggests.
 * Are the figures given by SaveTheInternet.com fact? Do they have something to back it up? Could this article cite that instead of SaveTheInternet.com? Also, could the funding/lobbying sentence be less confusingly worded, e.g., "In 2006, large amounts of money appear to have been spent lobbying against net neutrality; lobbying has also occurred in favor of net neutrality, though with less funding." As currently written, it took me 3 or 4 readings to understand who was funding what.
 * How does the "Emergence of Net Neutrality" section suggest a "logical conclusion to previous regulation"? I didn't get that impression from reading the section. If anything, net neutrality seemed like a break with the trend based on the text.
 * Was this just a "cite your source" objection?
 * Any other specific POV issues?
 * --Wb83 15:33, 6 January 2007 (UTC)


 * The trustworthiness of editors has been a well-recognized standard in this project, cited in media articles about this project and in internal discussions of the project. Unlike other major publishing houses, editors' trustworthiness is not vetted before they are allowed to edit. At any publishing house, the various interests of a contributor are relevant to consideration of whether an author or editor is best qualified to work in a particular capacity. Examination of potentially conflicting interests is a necessary part of editorial assessment.


 * The potential conflict here could be between a desire to accomplish a benchmark during the timeframe designated by a class instructor, during the time you have available for that particular class, and the potentially more lengthy time required to address tedious concerns expressed in this talk page and in edit summaries. The direction of discussion on your class project's page indicated the goal is not reach a consensus among all involved that the article is neutral, but to get the neutrality dispute tag removed. The latter could include the former, but could also be accomplished without a consensus. I found no discussion of consensus processes on the class discussion page. I would hope to find somewhere in your class discussions consideration of the option that the dispute cannot be resolved to the satisfaction of all involved in the time available to you. Showbaut 21:44, 6 January 2007 (UTC)


 * As you seem to admit earlier, there is no "benchmark" to this assignment, no particular result we're supposed to get out of it, and no specific timeframe - in other words, we have no "goal" except to get involved in the first place. This "assignment" will also hardly impact our assessments in the course, so there really is no conflict of interest - if we can help, we will, if not, well, we tried. Again, to be perfectly clear, there is no goal or requirement to achieve any particular result because of our "intervention" - simply getting involved is enough. Also, just because you don't see anything on the web page about "consensus processes" doesn't mean we didn't cover them (we did, and had several "Wikipedians" come in to speak with us about them). If you just have an innate distrust of a bunch of Harvard Law students stomping on your playground, that's one thing, but otherwise it's unfair to mischaracterize what we're trying to do here as a way to detract from the substance we (potentially) bring to the table. --Ats80 23:35, 6 January 2007 (UTC)


 * On Wb83's #3, I believe the typical answer is twofold:
 * First, that net neutrality follows a long legacy of common carrier regulation that is essentially the same idea. Here is Tim Wu on the subject:
 * "But the term, while somewhat new, stands for a lot of old idea. The concept of a “common carrier,” dating from 16th century English common law, captures many similar concepts. A common carrier, in its original meaning, is a private entity that performs a public function (the law was first developed around port authorities). Furthermore, in networking, the “end-to-end” principle of network design is also a close cousin, if not the direct ancestor of network neutrality. David Isenberg’s well known “dumb pipe paper” is more or less the same idea. Tim Wu source here"
 * Second, they argue that net neutrality historically existed as a regulatory fact before the FCC re-classified broadband as an information service under Title I of the Telecommunications Act of 1996 rather than Title IV (cable) and Title II (DSL). (At the time, AT&T agreed to voluntarily abide by neutrality standards through August 2006) --Sjschultze 16:12, 6 January 2007 (UTC)


 * I don't enjoy doing this, but I will. Tim Wu's Web site (cited above) is "a homemade website with photos, articles and lots of random stuff." Unless his comments appeared in a reputable publication, they carry no more weight than any other personal comment entered in this dicussion.


 * Is the "well-known" (by whom?) David Isenberg paper to which you refer "The Rise of the Stupid Network" Computer Telephony, August 1997, pg 16-26, ? It seems to carry a bit more weight, but I'm not convinced it represents a scholarly consensus rather than an advocacy view.


 * Generally, many of the sources cited in the article clearly represent advocacy views. Advocate's claims are germaine, but should not be represented as facts, or as the basis for factual claims. As Wb83 offers, advocate's conclusions and accounts of facts can be distinguished from conclusions and facts offered by objective researchers. Attention to clarifying the biases of sources can lay a foundation for organizing the text to clearly explain various sides in the debate over "network neutrality" described by this article. Showbaut 22:38, 6 January 2007 (UTC)


 * The citation that Wb83 refers to in #2 seems to be a pretty good example of this problem. Yaron K. has already changed the wording to make the citing sentence more clear (and also to avoid comparing the magnitude of lobbying spending on both sides). I just replaced the citation to SaveTheInternet.com with one to a Bloomberg News article, which is cited internally by the advocacy site. SaveTheInternet apparently nets 2005 lobbying spending by the two classes of industry players -- the telecoms ($71M) and the internet services companies ($20M) -- and then compares the net (about $50M) with their own modest spending of a couple of hundred thousand. This seems pretty misleading to me. There does seem to be some evidence for the original claim that the telecoms spent more, but I don't know how to work that in.


 * On an unrelated note, I'm curious what Showbaut thinks about the 'half-dozen law student' problem in light of some of the responses above. Is it still a serious problem? Or merely annoying? Didalem 04:02, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Merge back
I think this split was improper, as the debate is largely centered in the U.S.. Merge back into the main. -Ste|vertigo 03:37, 8 January 2007 (UTC)


 * I think I agree - there's a lot of information repeated in both articles. Unfortunately it'll take a good amount of work to do the merge... Yaron K. 14:43, 25 January 2007 (UTC)


 * But if the debate and the law here is only about the applicability of NN within the US, why should it be added to the main NN article? Isn't that one of the advantages of separating them like this, and aren't both articles already at the wikipedia's guideline limit for articles? Looking at the two articles there isn't truly that much overlap in percentage terms. But there would be a huge problem with the introduction of the main article if you merge them back, it ends up simply too big, about twice what it is at the moment. In practice the introduction then thrashes back and forth as editors oversummarise it to try to fit, and fail. There's just no way to get two pints in a one pint pot.WolfKeeper 08:53, 27 February 2007 (UTC)


 * If you really don't like the current split the option would be to split it again some other way. How could we do that that would be better?WolfKeeper 08:53, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

proponents section redundancy
In the proponents section of against network neutrality there is some repitition. Opposition to network neutrality regulations generally comes from large communication carriers, manufacturers of network equipment such as Cisco, free-market advocacy organizations such as the Cato Institute, other high-tech trade groups such as the National Association of Manufacturers, and pro-business and pro-minority advocacy organizations such as the National Black Chamber of Commerce and LULAC. ... Non-profit pro free-market organizations, including the Freedom Works Foundation, National Black Chamber of Commerce, Progress and Freedom Foundation, New American Century (also referred to as PNAC), and the Ludwig von Mises Institute oppose neutrality regulations.[22][23][24][25]

Finally, network equipment manufacturers such as Cisco, 3M, and the National Association of Manufacturers believe neutrality regulations are premature.

notice the repition of Cisco and National Black Chamber of Commerce

--Killraine 04:33, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Contradiction?
"these bills would also have prohibited Internet Service Providers from offering service plans (known as 'tiered service') priced according to the user's choice of Quality of Service levels: '[Broadband service providers may] only prioritize ...based on the type of content, applications, or services and the level of service purchased by the user, without charge for such prioritization;' is a typical provision"

The quotation appears to contradict the assertion. Am I missing something? 32.132.99.180 02:41, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

Needs a rewrite
What is network neutrality? A good article summarizes its subject in the first sentence. Right now this article begins with, "Network neutrality in the U. S. is a contentious issue." I reiterate: What is network neutrality? Morganfitzp (talk) 00:57, 19 October 2008 (UTC)


 * What you need is an article defining network neutrality. Hmm. Where could you find such an article? It's certainly a puzzle. If something defining network neutrality could be found then you would expect to find a reference to it in the first couple of sentences.- (User) Wolfkeeper (Talk) 01:05, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

Net Neutrality template
I have created a net neutrality template based on those already in the n.n. articles. The template can be edited at --SasiSasi (talk) 23:59, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

Pricing Models paragraph
This paragraph, written in good faith about important issues, just needs a little tweaking so that non-technical readers can grasp it more easily (e.g. "YOY" isn't readily obvious for "Year on Year"), and also in a slightly more neutral, encyclopaedic tone so that someone who opposes the big carriers' position would have to accept it as readily (if perhaps grudgingly) as someone on the other side."The rate of growth that wireless network traffic is presenting to the core of the internet is exacerbating the issue of the carriers needing to charge for premium access. The growth of consumtion is growing at a 50% YOY clip, while revenue is measuring a 3-4% increase for most of these carriers AT&T Traffic Scale. This network expansion requires them to make significant capital investments that must be sourced from somewhere. Tools and cooperative iniatives, such as the [M-lab] from Google should prove helpful in deciphering the traffic controls and network visibility that carrier,consumers, and policy makers need to find a common ground for the future of the internet Google M-Lab--Wtraylor (talk) 05:09, 6 February 2009 (UTC)-- --Wtraylor (talk) 05:22, 6 February 2009 (UTC)" [And of course signatures belong on this page rather than on the article itself, which—unlike this page—can change word by word and line by line so that there is no one single author of anything.] —— Shakescene (talk) 08:49, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

opposition section
this paragraph needs quite a bit of cleanup and accuracy checking:

For example, fair queuing would actually be illegal under several proposals[which?] as it requires prioritization of packets based on criteria other than that permitted by the proposed law.[citation needed][dubious – discuss] Quoting Bram Cohen, the creator of BitTorrent,"I most definitely do not want the Internet to become like television where there's actual censorship... however it is very difficult to actually create network neutrality laws which don't result in an absurdity like making it so that ISPs can't drop spam or stop... attacks."[48] The Internet Freedom Preservation Act of 2009 excludes reasonable network management from regulation, although because it doesn't contain any language or technical specifications to describe such management schemes, it remains unclear the degree of autonomy network operators would have in managing traffic.[49]

I just read the Internet Freedom Preservation Act, the Information Freedom Preservation Act of 2008, and the Internet Freedom Preservation Act of 2009, and they all seem to attempt to address the concerns about outlawing legitimate uses of packet prioritization for network management. Also note that the bill says the FCC will further define "reasonable network management". Perhaps this was a prior concern, but it seems to be dealt with in more current versions of proposed law. Recommend the paragraph be worded more like this:

Concerns have been raised regarding whether or not network management enabling technologies such as fair queueing would be legal under proposed laws. Bram Cohen, the creator of BitTorrent: "I most definitely do not want the Internet to become like television where there's actual censorship... however it is very difficult to actually create network neutrality laws which don't result in an absurdity like making it so that ISPs can't drop spam or stop... attacks."[48] The Internet Freedom Preservation Act of 2009 appears to address such concerns by excluding "reasonable network management" from regulation, and caveats an ISP may block, discriminate against, impair, degrade, or prioritize traffic for the purpose of network management. The bill leaves it up to the FCC to further define "reasonable network management" through regulations.

Also note that the Internet Freedom Preservation Act of 2009 needs to be added to the references and to the table - the text of the bill is here: http://www.freepress.net/files/H.R.3458-7-31-09_1.pdf

--Sawall (talk) 18:31, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

April 2010: Court rules against FCC dominion
"The Federal Communications Commission does not have the legal authority to slap Net neutrality regulations on Internet providers, a federal appeals court ruled Tuesday. A three-judge panel in Washington, D.C. unanimously tossed out the FCC's August 2008 cease and desist order against Comcast, which had taken measures to slow BitTorrent transfers before voluntarily ending them earlier that year." Those editing this important Article can add something. Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 10:06, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

Delineating different ISP activities and responses to them
I find that most discussions of network neutrality mix activities of many different types. It would be valuable to disentangle the debates and make a list of the activities that are objected to, and the various legal remedies that network neutrality advocates call for. I've made a stab in a separate wiki:

http://commons.oreilly.com/wiki/index.php/Network_Neutrality:_Distinctions_and_Controversies

The material is under a Creative Commons license and whatever parts are favored by the community could easily be ported to Wikipedia. Andrew Oram, Editor, O'Reilly Media, http://praxagora.com/andyo/ 01:21, 15 September 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by AndrewOram (talk • contribs)

95-0
Perhaps not this particular piece but the facts contained therein may be appropriate for this page: ‘Net Neutrality Protectors’ Swept Away by Midterm Wave. Net neutrality supporters, 95 of them, lost in the 2010 elections. All of them lost. 95-0.

COI note: I won't likely contribute here because I just blogged about this issue and this ref, though in a certain context otherwise unrelated to net neutrality. That said, I bring the article to everyone's attention because it may contain information relevant to this Wiki page. --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling (talk) 08:25, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

Free Press net neutrality coup
"The Net Neutrality Coup; The Campaign to Regulate the Internet was Funded By a Who's Who of Left-Liberal Foundations," by John Fund, Wall Street Journal, 21 December 2010. --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling (talk) 20:55, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

Article review for TC 850 by Alison
Be careful of a personal feeling and pulling away from the encyclopedia concept. You need references to stick with that, make sure you are using those references. Great deal of information about net neutrality. You have a large number of references, that's really good. net neutrality is a big topic right now so having references is good. Make sure they are used.

The neutral point of view can be tricky from a standard term paper. Having references is important for this. It sounds like you have a lot of good points but maybe missed the references to support them, making the article a bit lopsided at times.

It is hard to write facts that you already know. When it is a fact that you just happen to know and when do you reference? Looks like many of your facts are cited, just make sure your information is citable.

I liked the article overall. I have studied net neutrality in the past, and this article helped me understand a bit more about it. Great job, and the sectioning was easy to follow. Perhaps more sectioning would be good. There are areas that have bullet points and quote sections, but some areas seem to just go on.

The table is good a article breaker. As a reader, it was nice to have a table to reference to help understand in the middle. Make sure to do a spelling and grammar check. Simple mistakes can really distract a reader. Football1502 (talk) 00:39, 2 May 2011 (UTC) Football1502

Move discussion in progress
There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:Network neutrality which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RMCD bot 16:13, 25 December 2012 (UTC)

redundance
Intro remains wishy washy, should be terse.

People have written about positions against net neutrality in the "opinions against legislation section". I think the section "positions" is already the place for overview of pro and con. The "legal history section" also duplicates the history section in my opinion. I will cut redundancy.

Many citations (of "plans to..." etc) are outdated and need either newer proof that the plans were executed or deleting. Four links are dead and need to be fixed, see Link rot. --Wuerzele (talk) 00:58, 20 January 2014 (UTC)

Information bias
As linked here. Pertaining to Support of net neutrality, Opposition to net neutrality, the latter being more descriptive and redundant as "Opponents [of net-neutrality] argue that (1) net neutrality regulations severely limit the Internet's usefulness, (2), (4), (5)." is untrue. Opponents of net-neutrality explain the opposite. Both should sections should be well-written and equally informative. AychAych --(talk) 15:41, 19 July 2014 (UTC)

Try this 'on' as an example... LEAKED: The Internet Must Go, John Wooley CaribDigita (talk) 04:11, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

Rasmussen Reports
Noticed the addition of this from Rasmussen Reports: 61% of American adults disagree that the FCC should regulate the internet like radio and television, and think the internet should "remain open without regulation and censorship".

The questions which this headline and the link above are based on are available here. The one in question appears to be Should the Internet remain “open” without regulation and censorship or should the Federal Communications Commission regulate the Internet like it does radio and television?.

To me the question is seriously flawed. Take a quick glance at the "Open Internet" section of the current article to see one of the problems. The word "open", used with "internet" is not typically an "openness" in the free market capitalism sense of "open". Advocates for an open internet, as our article says, tend to support net neutrality and support regulation to preserve the open internet. This question sets "open" in opposition to "regulation". It also places it in opposition to its more obvious antonym: censorship. This is the other big problem. Advocates of net neutrality advocate regulation to prevent censorship, but here regulation is more or less equivalent to censorship (or one a component of the other). In order for someone to say "no" to this they're forced to support censorship and oppose "openness," whereas common understanding of net neutrality would assume the opposite answer for the same stance.

Anyway, this is my own analysis and thus I'm not suggesting adding any of this to the article. Nor did I remove the passage including the report. The question is whether it's a reliable source and how to present it so that the language is consistent throughout the article. --&mdash;  Rhododendrites talk  \\ 07:07, 29 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Follow-up: This is a couple weeks old now. I removed it as misleading per above, without prejudice to readding it if another way of presenting it is brought up here. --&mdash;  Rhododendrites talk  \\ 04:28, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

lede rewrite
The lede is grotesquely swollen and incoherent from numerous me-too-additions. (Why do so many believe their latest news read needs to go in the lead... ?)

I will rewrite according to 'lede follows body' and stuff every reference that's not in the body already into the body as well. To help avoid edit conflicts, please do not edit the lede page while the message is displayed.--Wuerzele (talk) 18:41, 26 February 2015 (UTC)
 * so whats the reason for this  edit here? your edit summary "no emphasis of descriptives per Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style/Lead_section#First_sentence" does not explain this. --Wuerzele (talk) 06:26, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

Merge discussion
Should the contents of Net neutrality be merged into this article? It seems like the content fits in this article more than it does in Net Neutrality, which should represent a more international view. Thanks, Tony Tan98  ·  talk  02:39, 3 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Yes: The current content in the general Net Neutrality article appears to be exclusively US & s/b transferred to Net neutrality in the United States.  It would be useful if material could be substituted covering discussions in other jurisdictions -- after all, the WWW was invented in Europe! D A Patriarche, BSc (talk)  (talk) 23:22, 3 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Yes, this article should present a worldwide view as much as possible. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 06:00, 4 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Yes, agree.--Wuerzele (talk) 05:37, 28 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Agree. This article must what it takes to add to Net Neutrality and not the one's of individual countries. --Jaaron95 (talk) 05:41, 13 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Agree. The Internet access and History of the Internet articles have similar problems. --Jeff Ogden (W163) (talk)
 * Agree. The article should, in my opinion, express a universal international view of the concept. -- TOW  19:08, 15 April 2015 (UTC)

✅, I did the merge. --Jeff Ogden (W163) (talk) 02:27, 19 April 2015 (UTC)

Blacklisted Links Found on Net neutrality in the United States
Cyberbot II has detected links on Net neutrality in the United States which have been added to the blacklist, either globally or locally. Links tend to be blacklisted because they have a history of being spammed or are highly inappropriate for Wikipedia. The addition will be logged at one of these locations: local or global If you believe the specific link should be exempt from the blacklist, you may request that it is white-listed. Alternatively, you may request that the link is removed from or altered on the blacklist locally or globally. When requesting whitelisting, be sure to supply the link to be whitelisted and wrap the link in nowiki tags. Please do not remove the tag until the issue is resolved. You may set the invisible parameter to "true" whilst requests to white-list are being processed. Should you require any help with this process, please ask at the help desk.

Below is a list of links that were found on the main page:


 * http://www.change.org/petitions/save-the-internet-2
 * Triggered by  on the local blacklist

If you would like me to provide more information on the talk page, contact User:Cyberpower678 and ask him to program me with more info.

From your friendly hard working bot.—cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 16:56, 11 August 2015 (UTC)

Blacklisted Links Found on Net neutrality in the United States
Cyberbot II has detected links on Net neutrality in the United States which have been added to the blacklist, either globally or locally. Links tend to be blacklisted because they have a history of being spammed or are highly inappropriate for Wikipedia. The addition will be logged at one of these locations: local or global If you believe the specific link should be exempt from the blacklist, you may request that it is white-listed. Alternatively, you may request that the link is removed from or altered on the blacklist locally or globally. When requesting whitelisting, be sure to supply the link to be whitelisted and wrap the link in nowiki tags. Please do not remove the tag until the issue is resolved. You may set the invisible parameter to "true" whilst requests to white-list are being processed. Should you require any help with this process, please ask at the help desk.

Below is a list of links that were found on the main page:


 * http://www.change.org/petitions/save-the-internet-2
 * Triggered by  on the local blacklist

If you would like me to provide more information on the talk page, contact User:Cyberpower678 and ask him to program me with more info.

From your friendly hard working bot.—cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 00:33, 14 August 2015 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 3 one external links on Net neutrality in the United States. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20080305105030/http://neutralitylaw.com:80/ to http://neutralitylaw.com
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20070109101842/http://www.freepress.net:80/docs/wu_lessig_fcc.pdf to http://www.freepress.net/docs/wu_lessig_fcc.pdf
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20120928201632/http://www.computerhistory.org/events/index.php?id=1162920599 to http://www.computerhistory.org/events/index.php?id=1162920599

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

Cheers.—cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 17:37, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

Updating article to reflect recent events (February 2017)
I am going to update the article to reflect recent events considering the amount of interest in social media and media sources most often used by Americans. I will start by placing some content in the lede into the section on history or regulations. I am hoping to work with consensus on the talk page. I prefer talk page discussions prior to deletions. If content and source are outdated, I may replace the content and leave the source.Oceanflynn (talk) 18:15, 7 February 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 8 external links on Net neutrality in the United States. 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:
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://neutralitylaw.com/
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://news.cnet.com/2100-1028_3-6077007.html?part=rss&tag=6077007&subj=news
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://wyden.senate.gov/media/2006/03022006_net_neutrality_bill.html
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.house.gov/upton/press/press-03-30-06a.html
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.hillnews.com/thehill/export/TheHill/Business/050306_finance.html
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://news.zdnet.com/2100-9595_22-6051062.html?tag=nl
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090105234015/http://handsoff.org/hoti_docs/aboutus/members.shtml to http://handsoff.org/hoti_docs/aboutus/members.shtml
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://web.si.umich.edu/tprc/papers/2006/561/TPRC2006_Lehr%20Sirbu%20Peha%20Gillett%20Net%20Neutrality%20Arms%20Race.pdf

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

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 18:05, 30 June 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Net neutrality in the United States. 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:
 * Added tag to http://www.im.uni-karlsruhe.de/Upload/Publications/3037fd45-29c8-4dcf-a417-850222ea771e.pdf%3A
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140714124828/http://www.opencongress.org/bill/hr3458-111/show to http://www.opencongress.org/bill/hr3458-111/show
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090813163639/http://markey.house.gov/images/PDFs/netneutralitybill.pdf to http://markey.house.gov/images/PDFs/netneutralitybill.pdf
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20061212195107/http://cdn.moveon.org/content/pdfs/MoveOnChristianCoalition.pdf to http://cdn.moveon.org/content/pdfs/MoveOnChristianCoalition.pdf
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080919065427/http://www.savetheinternet.com/%3Dpress11 to http://www.savetheinternet.com/%3Dpress11

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

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 20:54, 3 July 2017 (UTC)

Article fails to mention Net Neutrality Rules from before 2015, which is strange since Wikipedia has an entire article on ones adopted in 1970
The "computer Inquiries"

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FCC_Computer_Inquiries — Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.10.9.50 (talk) 00:33, 16 December 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 7 external links on Net neutrality in the United States. 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:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130617052424/http://www.networkworld.com/news/2009/102209-fcc-net-neutrality.html to http://www.networkworld.com/news/2009/102209-fcc-net-neutrality.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110717035844/http://www.thesunnews.com/2010/12/22/1881959/fcc-adopts-web-rules.html to http://www.thesunnews.com/2010/12/22/1881959/fcc-adopts-web-rules.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20081227100511/http://dig.csail.mit.edu/breadcrumbs/node/144 to http://dig.csail.mit.edu/breadcrumbs/node/144
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20081227100511/http://dig.csail.mit.edu/breadcrumbs/node/144 to http://dig.csail.mit.edu/breadcrumbs/node/144
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060424065626/http://static.publicknowledge.org/pdf/nn-letter-20060301.pdf to http://static.publicknowledge.org/pdf/nn-letter-20060301.pdf
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120928201632/http://www.computerhistory.org/events/index.php?id=1162920599 to http://www.computerhistory.org/events/index.php?id=1162920599
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080810031959/http://foureyedmonsters.com/neutrality/ to http://foureyedmonsters.com/neutrality/

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

These 10 year old sources are great, but why, are they trying to be pruned? NN is not as simple as it was once in 2006. I can see what they are doing. They got rid of all actual discussion. They are now trying to simplify the discussion to 1990. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 73.137.94.180 (talk) 07:08, 17 December 2017 (UTC)

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 14:45, 20 September 2017 (UTC)

Bias
How so? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Notabimbo (talk • contribs) 00:56, 19 December 2017 (UTC)

Questioning ISP table in "Positions" section
The removed content is as follows: I have removed the table that lists various ISPs as either supporting or opposing the preservation of net neutrality. It necessarily requires a level of unconditioned trust towards the ISPs' word. Is it accurate to say that Comcast is "mixed" on net neutrality and AT&T "supports" net neutrality when they've invested the most time lobbying to repeal it? The accuracy of this table is in question and it may mislead the reader.

If you disagree with the removal of this content and wish to see it added back, please do post your thoughts below. BrendonTheWizard (talk) 17:57, 17 December 2017 (UTC)
 * "when they've invested the most time lobbying to repeal it?" — BrendonTheWizard, but this is old information, 2005-2013. AT&T was against net neutrality until 2010. "These principles, which were laid out in the FCC’s 2010 Open Internet Order and fully supported by AT&T, are clearly articulated on our website and are fully enforceable against us." Federal Chancellor (NightShadow) (talk) 22:34, 17 December 2017 (UTC)


 * My apologies, but that doesn't substantively address the concerns I raised. You are right that in 2010 AT&T officially stated that they're no longer against net neutrality and pledged to not block, throttle, censor, etc. Then they did it anyways in 2012. They also subtly lobbied congress whilst pretending to support it during the 2017 comment process. They also fiercly lobbied against the 2015 adoption of net neutrality. This table necessarily requires that we take their word above their actions, which is highly misleading. BrendonTheWizard (talk) 03:51, 18 December 2017 (UTC)


 * Its a quagmire. We are faced with either evaluating their actions vs. their words (violating WP:NPOV) or publishing whatever their PR departments want us to publish. I say we nuke the table. --Guy Macon (talk) 00:46, 22 December 2017 (UTC)

Violations
I just removed some recently added claims that are not supported by the refs provided.

Net neutrality became a law on February 26, 2015, was repealed on December 14, 2017.

You can't "violate" a law that hasn't been written yet.

The "Verizon blocks mobile-tethering apps" ref is from 2012. It also concerns the FCCs C Block rules, not Net Neutrality

The "Verizon blocks pro-life campaign messages" ref is from 2007, and involved cell phone text messages, not the Internet.

The "ISP Madison River blocking VOIP service Vonage" ref is from 2005, and involves a violation of the Communications Act of 1934, not net neutrality.

The "Comcast blocking P2P applications like BitTorrent" ref is from 2008, involved a violation of the Communications Act of 1934, not net neutrality, and was overturned on appeal. See Comcast Corp. v. FCC

The "AT&T blocking Apple's Facetime on mobile devices" ref is from 2012, and the FCC did not find a violation. See https://transition.fcc.gov/cgb/oiac/Mobile-Broadband-FaceTime.pdf

The ""Peering dispute' between Netflix and Comcast, TWC, AT&T and Verizon" ref is particulary misleading. The actual ref says "You mean that Order where they have a lengthy discussion about CDNs and all this other crap and explain why issues involving CDNs and interconnection are NOT covered in the Network Neutrality Rule they adopted because network neutrality is not about “treating all bits equally” or some other dumb ass reductio ad absurdum? And wasn’t that reasoning totally affirmed by the D.C. Circuit in Verizon v. FCC as supported by the evidence and rational and all?" So in this case the ref (which, BTW is simply an editorial opinion) opines that the peering dispute was not a violation. --Guy Macon (talk) 17:44, 26 December 2017 (UTC)


 * This may sound harsh, but the basis from which you removed this content was objectively and factually incorrect and your argument is a blatant example of WP:SOAP. Net neutrality in the United States was not as young as 2015; the exact phrasing "net neutrality" and the principles on which it was founded (no blocking, throttling, etc) has been used in the FCC's documents for ages. Likewise, to say that these are violations of the Communications Act of 1934 but not net neutrality is, and I mean this in the most literal inoffensive definition possible, just ignorant. Net neutrality as it existed in the United States was the classification of ISPs under Title I and Title II of the Communications Act of 1934. Again, my sincerest apologies if I am being unduly harsh, but to preface your argument with "You can't "violate" a law that hasn't been written yet" demonstrably proved that you aren't familiar with the timeline of net neutrality in the US; the principles of net neutrality have - both in word and in practice - legally applied to the internet since the 90s because of the Telecommunications Act of 1934. In fact, the article itself details the timeline of the legislation that regulated the internet based on the principles of net neutrality, legislation which can be - and was - violated. BrendonTheWizard (talk) 09:57, 29 December 2017 (UTC)


 * Pure historical revisionism.


 * As our article clearly states, "Until 2015, there were no clear legal protections requiring net neutrality. In 2015, the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) reclassified broadband as a Title II communication service with providers being "common carriers", not "information providers", in a party-line 3–2 vote."


 * The FCC rescind the net neutrality rules passed by the agency under President Obama. The Obama era rules reclassified internet service from a Title I information service to a more heavily regulated Title II telecommunications service, essentially treating it like the phone system.


 * If you disagree with the claim that until 2015, there were no clear legal protections requiring net neutrality, try removing that claim from the article. Until you do that, don't removing my edits using the argument that there were clear legal protections requiring net neutrality prior to 2015.


 * Removal reverted. If you insist on pushing this historical revisionism, I will be happy to post an RfC concerning the claim that "Until 2015, there were no clear legal protections requiring net neutrality" --Guy Macon (talk) 21:39, 29 December 2017 (UTC)


 * Explaining the relationship of the Communications Act of 1934 and the internet as provided in the article is historic revisionism? Even before the reclassification to Title II as common carriers in 2015, the article unambiguously details how ISPs were regulated under Title I and the FCC has issued conditions under which the ISPs must meet on multiple instances long before 2015 such as those found in the 2008 auction of the spectrum which required that Consumers should be able to download and use any software application, content, or services they desire; - in other words, the FCC would not allow the blocking of content and to do so would be a violation of their agreement. From 2010 onward, the Open Internet Order which detailed the neutrality principles was passed and enforced. It was not Title II common carrier net neutrality, but it defined and enforced neutrality in the United States. These are principles that can - and were - violated. Note that in each of these enforced regulations, including but not limited to the Title II order of 2015, the prevention of blocking is and always has been one of the core principles of neutrality, and the 2012 blocking by Verizon was in direct violation of the FCC's 6 principles of net neutrality. If anything, to claim that these rules and principles did not exist before the Obama-era regulation is clear historic revisionism because it is factually wrong. I encourage you to start a formal RfC if you would like to reach a consensus in favor of removing this content, but to keep this content removed from the article prior to a consensus reaffirming your decision to remove it would not be acceptable and if edit warring persists we will need a third voice or administrator to resolve this. BrendonTheWizard (talk) 22:54, 29 December 2017 (UTC)


 * Please explain why you just re-added "violations" from 2005, 2007, and 2008 (plus one "violation" that the FCC said was not a violation) while citing a 2010 regulation. Yopu appear to believe that any blocking of anything is a violation of net neutrality. You also have not explained why your edits go comletely against the lead of the article, which says ""Until 2015, there were no clear legal protections requiring net neutrality."


 * WERE THERE OR WERE THERE NOT CLEAR LEGAL PROTECTIONS REGARDING NET NEUTRALITY PRIOR TO 2015??


 * It is a simple questiion. Why won't you answer it? --Guy Macon (talk) 03:53, 30 December 2017 (UTC)


 * Several issues have been raised by your response. The first is the assertion that because certain items listed - such as those the FCC found to not be a violation - are obviously not violations, that it would be beneficial to remove all of the listed violations, including those in which there was enforceable legislation to be violated, even before the reclassification of ISPs as common carriers. In other words, there is a legitimate discussion to be had on a case by case instance, but a sweeping removal of all of the items listed is inaccurate and unwarranted. Moving on to your next sentence, "Yopu appear to believe that any blocking of anything is a violation of net neutrality." If that is to say that you believe the blocking of content by an ISP is not a violation of net neutrality, you are simply incorrect. Going back to 2004, the chairman of the FCC declared the first of the four principles of net freedom as it was called was Freedom to access content. You would be right to say that it is not legally reprehensible to violate this principle at the time, but instances in which this principle was violated directly resulted in the legal enforcement of these principles that followed. Upon the adoption of the 2010 order, blocking by ISPs was established as a violation of the neutrality principles. Moving on to your third sentence, "Until 2015, there were no clear legal protections requiring net neutrality" is misleading but not entirely wrong; the principles that define net neutrality itself have been both suggested by the FCC and mandated by the FCC prior to 2015. Before 2015, ISPs were not under Title II common carrier classification, but that does not mean that their neutrality principles and net freedom principles which, precisely like the finalized principles of net neutrality, mandate that content is not blocked by ISPs, were inapplicable before 2015. The lead should clarify that before 2015, ISPs were not listed as common carriers (as it does later on). Your final two sentences are simply restating your third, so I will not reply to them individually because I've already addressed them. BrendonTheWizard (talk) 23:11, 30 December 2017 (UTC)

Merge from Repeal of net neutrality in the United States
I don't think we need a separate article on the repeal.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 15:31, 20 December 2017 (UTC)
 * No opinion yet The editor that started the article notes that it is incomplete, so I'll allow time before I make a decision on whether to keep or merge their article. I've done most of the writing for this article's repeal section, focusing primarily on the legal aftermath of the FCC's decision. Currently, their article only includes information on previous lawsuits and a brief mention of the 2017 FCC vote, meaning it lacks any information on the repeal itself. As of right now, I believe their article was published prematurely and it likely should have started as a draft. However, I believe it is very possible to write a full-length article on the subject. The repeal has many aspects to it including actions taken before its repeal, protests from the repeal, the aftermath of the repeal, previous legal battles in which net neutrality was threatened in the US, etc. If it's still a stub by January then we can absolutely merge the article, but I'll see if I can help them write the article. BrendonTheWizard (talk) 16:42, 21 December 2017 (UTC)
 * I welcome any help in expanding the article. I obviously agree a full length article on this event is possible and beneficial. I simply lack experience in writing anything except biographies. I am also a very slow writer. አቤል ዳዊት (Janweh64) (talk) 00:32, 22 December 2017 (UTC)


 * Until merged this article is nothing more than a stubb. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 176.87.87.239 (talk) 04:50, 8 January 2018 (UTC)


 * Merge - No meaningful content. FallingGravity 21:58, 17 January 2018 (UTC)


 * Changing !vote to Merge - I'm sorry, but while I still believe there is potential to create an article on the repeal if we were to go in depth on various topics such as the protests, the legal aftermath, the positions of legislators on whether or not to invoke the power of congressional review, and other noteworthy subjects, the creator of the article has not made any edits to it since originally posting this and if I were to add my edits to the repeal section of this article to his article it would simply be a content fork which would then become most of his article whilst remaining a stub. As of right now, it seems that the article was forgotten as it hasn't been developed since its creation a month ago I encourage the article's creator or other editors to start a draft of the article instead, so we can produce a quality article before prematurely publishing one. With what little content we have at the moment, it may benefit the reader to contain all relevant information on this article for now. BrendonTheWizard (talk) 03:32, 22 January 2018 (UTC)

Changing status 2018-01-05
Per https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2018/01/fcc-releases-final-net-neutrality-repeal-order-three-weeks-after-vote/, the FCC's work on "Restoring Internet freedom" was published in the US Code of Federal Regulations on 2018-01-04. I'm therefore deleting the following from the lede to this article, as this latest FCC action seems to negate this, and the lede otherwise seems to read fine without this:


 * Until 2015, there were no clear legal protections requiring net neutrality. In 2015, the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) reclassified broadband as a Title II communication service, with providers being "common carriers", not "information providers", in a party-line 3–2 vote.

DavidMCEddy (talk) 21:12, 5 January 2018 (UTC)


 * I'm not opposed to you removing the statement Until 2015, there were no clear legal protections requiring net neutrality. as we've discussed in great detail why that was misleading. That being said, I think it is still noteworthy to include the 2015 decision to reclassify broadband as a Title II communication service. BrendonTheWizard (talk) 03:36, 22 January 2018 (UTC)


 * I am opposed to removing the statement Until 2015, there were no clear legal protections requiring net neutrality. Yes, this was discussed in great detail. No we did not reach a consensus that the statemet is misleading. --Guy Macon (talk) 19:45, 23 January 2018 (UTC)


 * I think it should be removed. It's clearly misleading, as the above discussion reveals. It'd be good to rewrite the lead to try and give a better summary of the convoluted legal history of net neutrality in the US, but until then it's best to get rid of that line about clear legal protections, since on its own it implies that there were no legal protections at all, which is quite false. Even taken literally it might be false, since many of the former regulatory regimes were clear while they were active, even if they were later overturned in court. Red Rock Canyon (talk) 21:35, 23 January 2018 (UTC)


 * I strongly disagree with your assertion that "there were no clear legal protections" implies "there were no legal protections at all". Words have meanings. I also strongly disagree with your assertion that three comments can be characterized with "as the above discussion reveals". Consensus discussions should consist of posting sourced evidence and valid arguments, not repeated claims without evidence that a consensus already exists. --Guy Macon (talk)

"Clear legal protections" in the lead
Currently the lead contains the statement, "Until 2015, there were no clear legal protections requiring net neutrality." This is both false and misleading, and should be removed. Here are some sources contradicting that statement.

Wired, 12/2017 - edited link: On February 8, 2004, then-FCC chair Michael Powell, a Republican appointee, gave a speech in Boulder, Colorado, titled “Four Internet Freedoms” (modeled after FDR’s “Four Freedoms”). Noting the rise of restrictions on broadband usage, Powell declared that users of the internet should have: Freedom to access content, Freedom to use applications ,Freedom to attach personal devices, Freedom to obtain service plan information. Powell soon gave these user “rights” legal force. In 2005, a small phone company and DSL provider in North Carolina named Madison River began blocking Vonage, then a popular voice-over-IP program. Powell fined Madison River and ordered it to stop blocking. Through these actions the FCC transformed the basic net neutrality rules into a legally binding regime. Cnet, 3/2005: The Federal Communications Commission said Thursday [March 3, 2005] that Madison River Communication will "refrain from blocking" VoIP, or voice over Internet Protocol, calls and will pay a $15,000 fine to the government. "We saw a problem, and we acted swiftly to ensure that Internet voice service remains a viable option for consumers," FCC Chairman Michael Powell said in a statement. The consent decree prevents Madison River from VoIP blocking for 30 months. The Guardian, 12/2017: Over the last 15 years, both Republican and Democratic FCC chairs have supported and enforced the principles of net neutrality, believing it to be important for protecting open markets on the internet. Donald Trump’s FCC, headed by the former Verizon lawyer Ajit Pai, plans to break with convention, arguing that it is unnecessary regulation that is preventing ISPs from making money to fund new broadband infrastructure – something the ISPs themselves have denied when speaking to their investors. Los Angeles Times, 3/2017: An Associated Press report in late 2007 claimed that Comcast Corp. was blocking some customers from using BitTorrent's popular software to download online videos. Public-interest groups complained to the FCC. And they got action. By a 3-2 vote, the Republican-controlled agency found that the cable company had tried to cripple online video sites that competed with its on-demand service. The move violated the FCC’s four Internet freedoms. There were legal protections for net neutrality a decade before 2015, and they were enforced. The legal history of net neutrality in the United States is convoluted, with three regimes of enforcement briefly interrupted by lawsuits. In 2010, the Supreme Court held that the FCC could not force Comcast to stop throttling torrent data unless they issued formal regulations. Then the FCC did issue formal regulations, and continued to enforce net neutrality as they had been doing before the lawsuit. In 2014, the Supreme Court held that the previous regulations could only apply to common carriers, and in 2015 the FCC redefined ISPs as common carriers in order to continue enforcing net neutrality rules. This history is not summarized well in the lead. The sentence "until 2015, there were no clear legal protections requiring net neutrality" is just plain false by itself, and misleading. There were legal protections prior to 2015, and they were clear at the time, even if they were overturned years later. Also, the way the lead is written now, this line, standing on its own without any context for past regulatory regimes, gives the mistaken impression that there were no legal protections at all prior to 2015. The lead in general is a bit of a mess (doesn't define "net neutrality", the history is muddled, bizarrely mentions lobbying in 2005 and 2006 in the second line, etc.) but this is the worst line in it. Red Rock Canyon (talk) 16:12, 24 January 2018 (UTC)


 * Your first reference returns a "page not found" error. Please correct it so that I can check the reference.


 * The assertion you think that your second reference supports directly contradicts the existing Net neutrality in the United States page which is quite clear on the topic:


 * "In early 2005, in the Madison River case, the FCC for the first time showed the willingness to enforce its network neutrality principles by opening an investigation about Madison River Communications, a local telephone carrier that was blocking voice over IP service. Yet the FCC did not fine Madison River Communications. The investigation was closed before any formal factual or legal finding and there was a settlement in which the company agreed to stop discriminating against voice over IP traffic and to make a $15,000 payment to the US Treasury in exchange for the FCC dropping its inquiry. Since the FCC did not formally establish that Madison River Communications violated laws and regulation, the Madison River settlement does not create a formal precedent, though established that it would take enforcement action in such situations.


 * Your third citation ignores what the same article says earlier:


 * " 'The FCC’s rushed and technically incorrect proposed order to repeal net neutrality protections without any replacement is an imminent threat to the internet we worked so hard to create. It should be stopped,' said the technology luminaries in an open letter to lawmakers with oversight of the Federal Communications Commission on Monday. The letter refers to the FCC’s proposed Restoring Internet Freedom Order, which removes net neutrality protections introduced in 2015"


 * Your fourth citation once again ignores what the same article says earlier:


 * "For broadband companies and free-market conservatives, net neutrality became code for a government meddling in the vibrant Internet economy. [...] It’s in the spotlight again as the chairman of the Federal Communications Commission wants to dismantle tough net neutrality regulations enacted in 2015. Ajit Pai, a Republican appointed to head the FCC by President Trump after his inauguration, is pushing the agency to repeal the tough regulatory oversight for Internet service providers that Democrats approved in 2015 over the objections of the broadband industry."


 * It also directly contradicts the existing Net neutrality in the United States page which is quite clear on the topic:


 * "The case highlighted whether new legislation is needed to force Internet providers to maintain network neutrality, i.e., treat all usages of their networks equally. ... Towards the end of 2009, FCC Chair Julius Genachowski announced at the Brookings Institution a series of proposals that would prevent telecommunications, cable and wireless companies from blocking certain information on the Internet, for example, Skype applications. In September 2009, he proposed to add two rules to its 2005 policy statement, viz., the nondiscrimination principle that ISPs must not discriminate against any content or applications, and the transparency principle, requiring that ISPs disclose all their policies to customers. He argued that wireless should be subject to the same network neutrality as wireline providers. In October 2009, the FCC gave notice of proposed rule making on net neutrality. In two rulings, in April and June 2010 respectively, both of the above were rejected by the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit in Comcast Corp. v. FCC. On April 6, 2010, the FCC's 2008 cease-and-desist order against Comcast to slow and stop BitTorrent transfers was denied. The U.S. Court of Appeals ruled that the FCC has no powers to regulate any Internet provider's network, or the management of its practices:  '[the FCC] 'has failed to tie its assertion' of regulatory authority to an actual law enacted by Congress' , and in June 2010, it overturned (in the same case) the FCC's Order against Comcast, ruling similarly that the FCC lacked the authority under Title One of the Communications Act of 1934, to force ISPs to keep their networks open, while employing reasonable network management practices, to all forms of legal content. In May 2010, the FCC announced it would continue its fight for net neutrality."


 * You are clearly cherry-picking sources, trying to find anything that supports your assertions while not bothering to tell us that the same sources refute your assertions. You are also ignoring well-sourced existing content on the Net neutrality in the United States page. --Guy Macon (talk) 17:41, 24 January 2018 (UTC)


 * I edited the link. It works for me. You're missing the nuance. For one thing, the Madison River case ended in a consent agreement before the formal proceedings were completed - that very line shows that the FCC threatened to take action against Madison River, and Madison River agreed to stop blocking VOIP service and to pay a penalty. Basically, the FCC identified a problem, threatened legal action, and the company agreed to settle the issue before the legal action was finished. And yes, the 2017 regulation overturned protections introduced in 2015. But there were other protections before 2015. None of those lines you quoted contradict that. Red Rock Canyon (talk) 17:56, 24 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Link still bad. Confirmed on Firefox, Google Chrome, Internet Explorer, and Microsoft Edge. --Guy Macon (talk) 00:55, 25 January 2018 (UTC)|
 * That's odd. It still works for me. Try googling "Wired HOW THE FCC'S NET NEUTRALITY PLAN BREAKS WITH 50 YEARS OF HISTORY" and hopefully you'll be able to see it. Red Rock Canyon (talk) 02:40, 25 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Incidentally, where is the source that supports the statement "Until 2015, there were no clear legal protections requiring net neutrality"? Red Rock Canyon (talk) 18:01, 24 January 2018 (UTC)

"In the wake of the net neutrality debate, a longstanding bi-partisan policy to leave the Internet largely to regulation by the engineering groups who built and maintain it has been decimated.

That, in any case, is the view of the current FCC Chairman, Ajit Pai, who dissented strongly, while a Commissioner, from the 2015 Order and who has promised since being named Chairman of the agency earlier this year to restore Internet governance to the state it was in for the twenty years prior to 2015.

During that period, a bi-partisan consensus of Congress, the White House and the FCC stayed out of the Internet regulation business, following the command of a 1996 law to encourage broadband deployment by leaving it 'unfettered by Federal or State regulation.'

The results speak for themselves, including trillions of dollars of new economic value, much of it built by U.S.-based Internet companies.

'''Throughout that time, there were, contrary to popular myth, no enforceable net neutrality rules. The FCC did not police ISP network management practices, or prohibit specific conduct.'''

That was left to the Federal Trade Commission, using general consumer protection and anti-competition laws. Prior to 2015, the FTC pursued over a hundred complaints against ISPs and others in the Internet ecosystem.

In fact, the 2015 Order explicitly cut off the FTC’s jurisdiction over broadband companies, one of the many negative side-effects Pai’s proposal would reverse.

As I’ve written before, the net neutrality fight long ago stopped being about how to regulate network management principles prohibiting blocking, throttling, or otherwise discriminating against some packets for anti-competitive reasons.

Whether its most ardent advocates know it or not, support for net neutrality rules was hijacked into a proxy referendum on whether U.S. information infrastructure should remain privately funded and operated or nationalized, either as a government service or a quasi-governmental public utility." --Source: Forbes: Dear Aunt Sadie, Please Step Back From The Net Neutrality Ledge

" Before 2015, many internet businesses in the U.S. discriminated against or blocked customers from particular legal uses of the internet. In 2007 Comcast illegally blocked its customers from sharing files between themselves. In 2009, AT&T blocked access to Skype and FaceTime apps on its network. In 2011, MetroPCS blocked its customers from streaming Netflix and all other streaming video except YouTube (possibly due to a secretly negotiated deal). In 2012, Verizon disabled apps that let customers connect computers to their mobile data service. There were many other violations of the principle of net neutrality, too.

'''Customers and regulators tried to control these discriminatory practices over many years of public deliberation and multiple court cases. In 2015, under the Obama administration, the FCC finalized the Open Internet Order, a set of rules barring internet service providers from speeding up or slowing down traffic based on its content or whether the companies posting it had paid extra to the company delivering the data.' It was far from perfect—but nonetheless a giant leap forward." --Source: Scientific American: With FCC Net Neutrality Ruling, the U.S. Could Lose Its Lead in Online Consumer Protection''

"In a speech at the Newseum today, FCC Chairman Ajit Pai shared some details about his plan to repeal and replace U.S. net neutrality protections enacted in 2015. These rules were adopted after more than a decade long battle to protect net neutrality, and after a massive amount of input by US citizens. Pai’s approach [reverting to pre-2015 rules] would leave internet users and innovators with no protections.

FCC Chairman Pai seeks to shift the source of the authority for the Net Neutrality rules away from “Title II” (where it now sits) and back to a weaker “Title I” classification for Internet Service Providers because it is 'more consistent with the facts and the law. We disagree – and we aren’t the only ones. So did the D.C. Circuit Court on three occasions, along with the late Justice Scalia, in the same 2005 Supreme Court case Pai cited. In that case Justice Scalia described what Pai has now chosen as his path, the classification of ISPs under Title I, 'an implausible reading of the statute.' " --Source: Mozilla Foundation: Mozilla is Ready to Fight: FCC Chairman Announces Plans to Reverse U.S. Net Neutrality Protections

"Federal regulators voted Thursday to eliminate a two-year-old rule that classified internet access as a basic utility, a controversial move that will give broadband providers more leeway to sell different tiers of internet service but which critics say will leave consumers and web startups at the mercy of the big telecommunications companies.

In a partisan vote repealing net-neutrality protections, the FCC has lifted restrictions that prevented internet service providers (ISPs) from blocking certain websites or from charging companies and customers more for internet 'fast lanes.' " --Source: Business Insider: FCC votes 3-2 to repeal net neutrality

"when the FCC reclassified broadband service as common carriage in the 2015 Open Internet Order, providing the legal basis for the net neutrality rules, it eliminated FTC jurisdiction over those services. After all, broadband was now going to be governed by strong net neutrality rules." --Source: The Washington Post: The false promise behind the FCC’s net neutrality repeal plan

"February 26, 2015: Today's FCC decision will protect innovation and create a level playing field for the next generation of entrepreneurs–and it wouldn't have happened without Americans like you." --Source: Statement by Barack Obama

"Pai’s decision to kill the hard-won net neutrality rules, which have only been in effect since 2015, is sure to be challenged in court by public interest groups, which have been preparing their cases since the FCC released its draft of the rules the week of Thanksgiving" --Source: [http://www.slate.com/blogs/future_tense/2017/12/14/the_fcc_has_officially_voted_to_kill_net_neutrality_now_what.html Slate: ''Net Neutrality Is Over. Now What?'']

"The Open Internet principles (as the FCC has always referred to net neutrality) long predate the 2015 Order. When a court found in 2010 that the FCC lacked authority to enforce them, the agency formalized them as rules. The same court rejected that effort in 2014, however, concluding that the agency had failed to identify a source of legal authority from Congress, precipitating the 2015 Order.

Thus, for most of the history of the commercial internet, there have never been formal net neutrality rules. Still, during a decade of largely inside-the-Beltway squabbling, the FCC has only once identified a violation of the principles that might have been barred by any version of its rules.

That may be in large part because, even without the FCC, the kinds of behavior net neutrality prohibits are either counter-productive for broadband providers to engage in or are already illegal under anti-competition laws actively enforced by the Federal Trade Commission." --Source: Harvard Business Review: The Tangled Web of Net Neutrality and Regulation

"Senior FCC officials also provided some more details on the rollback of federal net neutrality rules. For the most part, all consumer protections in the 2015 net neutrality order are being eliminated. That goes beyond the core net neutrality rules that outlaw blocking, throttling, and paid prioritization.

For example, rules requiring disclosure of hidden fees and data caps will be overturned. The FCC will relinquish its role in evaluating whether ISPs can charge competitors for data cap exemptions and will no longer oversee interconnection disputes that harm Internet service quality. For a longer list of what's being eliminated, check out this previous article from July. As we wrote then, numerous consumer protections rely on the FCC's Title II common carrier authority to regulate broadband providers, and those rules will go away as a consequence of Pai's plan to eliminate the Title II classification." --Source: Ars Technica: FCC will also order states to scrap plans for their own net neutrality laws

" The latest vote by President Trump's FCC under chairman Ajit Pai removes Title II common carrier classification from ISPs and reclassifies them under Title I of the Communications Act as information services [...] This means that ISPs are now essentially free to engage in zero-rating, paid prioritization, throttling of competitive services, and a la carte pricing for faster delivery of certain kinds of traffic—provided the ISPs issue a public statement." --Source: Tech Republic: Net neutrality: What's next after the FCC regulation repeal?

"First approved by the FCC in 2015, the net neutrality rules require internet service providers like Comcast and Verizon to treat all online content the same. Providers are barred from deliberately speeding up or slowing down traffic from specific websites, and from putting their own content at an advantage over rivals.

The Republican-led FCC voted to overturn the rules last month. Ajit Pai, the FCC chairman appointed by President Trump, pitched the repeal as a way stop the federal government from “micromanaging the internet.”

The FCC’s decision to overturn these protections has been championed by the telecom industry, but widely criticized by technology companies and consumer advocacy groups." --Source: KTLA: California, 21 Other States File Suit to Stop FCC Repeal of Net Neutrality

"On Thursday, the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) voted to break apart net neutrality laws, which were enacted in 2015 under the Obama administration and require internet service providers to treat web traffic equally.

Without net neutrality, service providers like Verizon, Comcast and AT&T could either block certain websites or charge consumers to access content, granting companies the ability to basically outbid each other for access to the internet. '''By nixing the net neutrality rules, the FCC will no longer police high-speed internet delivery like a utility. Instead, these service providers can create 'fast lanes' for companies that pay money to deliver content faster'." --Source: Adweek: The FCC Is Ending Net Neutrality Laws, Presenting New Concerns for Brands and Tech Companies''

It is kind of hard to argue with the Harvard Business Review saying "Thus, for most of the history of the commercial internet, there have never been formal net neutrality rules" and "during a decade of largely inside-the-Beltway squabbling, the FCC has only once identified a violation of the principles that might have been barred by any version of its rules". Sources don't get much better than that.

Basically, you are arguing that prior to 2015, there were clear legal protections requiring net neutrality, which implies that the recent repeal of the 2015 rules will leave us in a state where the US government has the authority to punish violations of net neutrality principles.

Multiple reliable sources say that prior to 2015, there were not clear legal protections requiring net neutrality, which implies that the recent repeal of the 2015 rules will have to be undone in order to leave us in a state where the US government has the authority to punish violations of net neutrality principles. That's a verifiable fact supported by multiple reliable sources regardless of whether you or I think that US government should have the authority to punish violations of net neutrality principles. --Guy Macon (talk) 00:55, 25 January 2018 (UTC)


 * You aren't understanding what I'm saying. I'm saying there were legal protections and they were enforced through regulatory action. That Scientific American piece you linked confirms that - all of the violations prior to 2015 they list were contested by the FCC, in the name of protecting net neutrality. There's the Comcast case which I discussed above, and from clicking on the other links in that sentence, I find: "Bowing to openness pressure from the FCC, AT&T renounced on Tuesday its opposition to internet telephone calls that use the iPhone's 3G data connection [from 2009]" and "The Federal Communications Commission on Tuesday rapped Verizon Wireless on the knuckles for maneuvering to block its customers from accessing certain mobile apps. Verizon agreed to pay $1.25 million to end the agency's probe of Verizon's efforts to prevent its customers from getting hold of so-called 'tethering' apps [from 2012]".
 * After a number of years those protections were declared illegal in court. That does not mean they never existed in the first place. Then new legal protections were introduced. Now that those new protections are overturned, we are back to a state without any clear legal protections — the state we were in for the year after the previous legal protections had been overturned, but before the new ones had been implemented. Saying "now that the 2015 regulations are overturned, there are no clear legal protections" (what most of your sources say) does not imply "until 2015 there were no clear legal protections". The sources that do say that, the Harvard Business Review and Forbes, are both opinion pieces by the same author, Larry Downes. I'm not convinced that his opinion is definitive on this subject.
 * Anyways, if you want to split hairs and say that the different regulatory regimes that existed prior to 2015 were not "clear legal protections" but rather "regulatory protections" or "legal protections" (without "clear") or some such thing, fine. But having "Until 2015 there were no clear legal protections for net neutrality" as the second sentence of article gives a very misleading impression about the complex regulatory landscape that existed prior to 2015. Without any context, it implies that there were no protections whatsoever. The lead should summarize the article, and that's a very bad summary.
 * Also, if you're going to collpase sections of the talk page in a somewhat "neutral" manner, then perhaps should title my citations "Long list of citations disputing the claim that "Until 2015, there were no clear legal protections requiring net neutrality"", or retitle yours "Extended Content 2". Red Rock Canyon (talk) 02:40, 25 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Collapse title changed, with apologies. The Harvard Business Review says "Thus, for most of the history of the commercial internet, there have never been formal net neutrality rules". Note that this is a direct statement by a reliable source, not WP:OR and Synth. Do you have any sources that directly state that this is not a true depiction of the history of net neutrality? If so we can add language reflecting what your sources say.


 * You can claim that "Until 2015 there were no clear legal protections for net neutrality" implies that there were no protections whatsoever as many times as you wish, but so far nobody has agreed with you. I suggest an RfC if you honestly believe that there is a consensus for that particular claim.


 * Again, while I personally oppose increased government control of the Internet, the argument that until 2015, there were no clear legal protections requiring net neutrality and that for most of the history of the commercial internet, there have never been formal net neutrality rules is an argument used by supporters of increased government control of the Internet. Setting aside my personal preferences on the issue, the sources support the opponents in this case, and I care a lot more about Wikipedia following the sources than I care about Wikipedia agreeing with my personal opinions. --Guy Macon (talk) 03:05, 27 January 2018 (UTC)

Needs Fixing
The first paragraph has many formatting mistakes and is unreadable, could someone fix it? I know this may not be the right place to alert editors but I don't know how else to report an entry that needs to be fixed. Thanks. Altbecca (talk) 02:14, 27 January 2018 (UTC)altbecca


 * Could you be specific about where you believe you are seeing formatting errors? --Guy Macon (talk) 03:07, 27 January 2018 (UTC)

New article on "Attempted legislation on net neutrality in the United States"?
I recommend we create a new article on "Attempted legislation on net neutrality in the United States" to contain all the contents of the section of this article with that title, then replace that section with a pointer to the separate article and a very brief summary giving the number of bills proposed and not adopted in the time period considered in that article.

What do you think?

I don't know when I can get to it, but I wanted to mention it here to let others respond to this proposal. If I don't hear substantive objections in a few days, I may do it -- unless someone else does it first ;-) DavidMCEddy (talk) 19:54, 6 February 2018 (UTC)


 * I just created Attempted net neutrality legislation in the United States.
 * Next: Replace Net neutrality in the United States with a pointer to this new article with a very brief summary.  DavidMCEddy (talk) 21:04, 11 February 2018 (UTC)


 * Done. DavidMCEddy (talk) 21:11, 11 February 2018 (UTC)

When do the changes in FCC 17-166 published 2018-01-04 become effective?
Can anyone help us understand the next steps?

On 2018-01-04 the FCC published 17-166.

When do these changes actually take effect?

I've heard that it's something like 60 days after publication in the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR). I compared FCC 17-166 with the current 47 CFR § 1.49(f)(1)(i) and found that that paragraph currently ends with "formal complaint proceedings under Open Internet rules §§8.12 through 8.17", deleted by FCC 17-166. This raises three questions in my mind:


 * 1) When will these changes be published in the CFR?
 * 2) How can I tell when they are published, other than checking 47 CFR 1.49(f)(1)(i) repeatedly?
 * 3) Do these changes become effective 60 days after 208-01-04 or after publication in the CFR -- and where can I find documentation of that?

Thanks, DavidMCEddy (talk) 20:41, 6 February 2018 (UTC)


 * I fully agree that we should document when the changes take effect, but from a practical standpoint, the FCC is not going to take action against anyone for violating a regulation that they voted to repeal, regardless of the when the repeal actually takes effect. --Guy Macon (talk) 22:54, 11 February 2018 (UTC)


 * Agreed. (Duh!)
 * I think it would still be nice to know these details. I think they are relevant to the story -- emotionally if not practically.  DavidMCEddy (talk) 23:16, 11 February 2018 (UTC)

External links modified (February 2018)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Net neutrality in the United States. 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:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20050114170542/http://www.utexas.edu/law/journals/tlr/abstracts/Volume%2060/Fowler.htm to http://www.utexas.edu/law/journals/tlr/abstracts/Volume%2060/Fowler.htm
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://dig.csail.mit.edu/breadcrumbs/node/144
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070208054126/http://cas-research-brief-0614.info/ to http://cas-research-brief-0614.info/

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

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 08:40, 16 February 2018 (UTC)

comment by 2601:283:4002:6ee0:20aa:ad93:7742:f9f4
User "2601:283:4002:6ee0:20aa:ad93:7742:f9f4" added to the "Further reading" section:  This may or may not be accurate, but without a source it seems inappropriate for this article -- though it may be appropriate on this talk page. I therefore added this comment here while deleting it from the main article. DavidMCEddy (talk) 02:10, 2 March 2018 (UTC)

Wikipedia banner about U.S. net neutrality?
A proposal of possible interest to editors here has been made at the Village Pump. -- econterms (talk) 20:26, 6 May 2018 (UTC)


 * The same proposal resulted in no consensus a month ago. See Village pump (proposals)/Archive 147. --Guy Macon (talk) 21:10, 6 May 2018 (UTC)

CRA: 60 legislative days
I believe the following is not exactly correct: "If the challenge is not passed by the House of Representatives and signed by the President before the net neutrality rules formally end on June 11, 2018 the measure fails."

Under the Congressional Review Act (CRA), congress has 60 legislative days to overrule this before it becomes law. A "legislative day" is defined as the time between adjournments in the US Senate. I know that Rosenworcel said it would take effect June 11. I don't know if that's exactly correct or not, but I know that's NOT the end date of the deliberation period under the CRA. I will edit the text to insert the ambiguity I know. If you know something more, please provide a better citation.

Also, the role of the courts in this case is interesting: Under the Administrative Procedure Act (United States) of 1946, 'agency decisions must be supported by "substantial evidence"'. I am not an attorney, but this case could help define what is meant by "substantial evidence":


 * The evidence to support this decision seems far from "substantial" by any standard (non judicial) definition of that term, as noted by many opponents of this decision. If the courts agree with standard definitions of the word "substantial", they will overrule this decision.
 * Conversely, if the courts allow this decision to stand, it sets a low bar for "substantial evidence", and the FCC under a future administration could easily overturn this ruling. My research on this subject suggests that the world's leading expert on the issues involved here may be Eli Noam.  I have not seen him comment directly on this FCC ruling, but it's my impression from my superficial review of his research in this area is that it would be easy for a future FCC to read Noam's research -- and similar research by others -- as providing "substantial evidence" that this decision harms consumers, small businesses, the entire economy, etc., and should be overturned.  DavidMCEddy (talk) 22:04, 17 May 2018 (UTC)


 * Good catch on the date. Regarding what you wrote above, the APA, like the CRA, appears to be limited to overturning a regulation, and has no authority to force an agency to create a regulation, even if it previously made the regulation then later repealed it. There us a similar situation with the presidential veto; a president can veto a congressional law (and with enough votes congress can override the veto) but a veto cannot force congress to make a law or undo a repeal of a law. Does anyone have a single example of APA or CRA being used to force an agency to adopt a regulation it doesn't want to adopt? Has there even been a single unsuccessful attempt?


 * In the process of repealing the Obama-era net neutrality rules the FCC did create a new regulation -- the transparency rule. The transparency rule added disclosures for blocking access to content, applications or providers, throttling; prioritization of affiliated content and paid prioritization. So as far as I can tell, either act has the power to nullify the transparency rule, but neither has the power to re-instate net neutrality. A google search on [ net neutraility cra symbolic ] or [ net neutraility cra theater ] returns a lot of information on this.


 * Of course Congress is free to draft and pass a new law that is identical to the regulation that the FCC repealed. --Guy Macon (talk) 22:43, 17 May 2018 (UTC)


 * Correct. And thanks for your work on this.
 * If the courts do NOT overrule "Restoring Internet freedom", then either a future FCC or a future congress could do so -- though an actual act of congress would likely have fewer problems in the courts. DavidMCEddy (talk)

Forced redirect Title II of the Communications Act to this Net Neutrality article has no basis in fact
Title II of the Communications Act is not synonymous with Net Neutrality. The concept of "net neutrality" did not exist when Title II was created. Net neutrality and Title II are not equivalent.

There is no basis in fact for the forced redirect of Title II of the Communications Act to this Net Neutrality article. Therefore, it is wrong for Wikipedia to force this redirect.

I ask for impartiality and that Wikipedia would stop this redirect and either restore the original Title II article or allow that article to be developed by the community.

Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bhayworth1978 (talk • contribs) 19:35, 12 June 2018 (UTC)


 * Bhayworth1978 is talking about the redirect at Title II of the Communications Act of 1934. I just changed it. It was redirecting to Net neutrality in the United States. It now redirects to Communications Act of 1934. --Guy Macon (talk) 22:27, 12 June 2018 (UTC)

When an article has 326 citations...
...This is often a sign that there are strong disagreements regarding the subject of the article, that each side has been adding material with citations, only to have the other side attempt to "balance" the section with their own material with citations. This happens when both sides know the rules, so there is no incivility or unsourced claims as you often see when newbies have strong feelings about the subject of an article, but still, the end result is an article with an article has 326 citations. Meanwhile, our article on Theory of relativity has 24 citations, Dred Scott v. Sandford has 42, and Freedom of speech in the United States has 77 -- many of which cite different pages of the same work.

It's pretty clear that everyone involved wants to improve the article and "gets it" regarding WP:V, WP:RS, and WP:NPOV. It's just that the end result is 326 citations.

One possible solution: split off a timeline article and an arguments for and against article, and make this article just contain the facts without mixing in the pro and con arguments. --Guy Macon (talk) 15:18, 19 May 2018 (UTC)


 * Agreed. Too many.  It could make sense to split off some of all of the state-level actions and proposed actions, too.  This article could focus on the national/federal level. -- econterms (talk) 16:00, 19 May 2018 (UTC)


 * I don't agree with the assertion that having hundreds of sources is an inherently bad thing, as I spent many an hour reinforcing content in this article with sources to ensure that the article was ready for the In The News section. However, the article is large enough that I wouldn't be entirely opposed to splitting off several other articles from this one as it's currently a very long read. Brendon the Wizard  ✉️ ✨ 18:43, 6 August 2018 (UTC)


 * Being listed in the "In the news" section is a reason to avoid problems like overciting, not a reason to introduce them.


 * Having 326 citations is an inherently bad thing. If multiple citations say essentially the same thing, then they should be trimmed to the one or two best sources. If they all say substantively different things, then the article needs to be huge to properly cover all of the different things in those 326 citations, and this article is not huge. --Guy Macon (talk) 19:56, 6 August 2018 (UTC)


 * If what you're saying is true, this would've been posted swimmingly. It was found that this article was severely lacking in sources due and had dozens of citations needed. That's why they pulled it from ITN before I turned every "citation needed" tag into a valid citation. If this article has a lot of sources but it's not huge, then there's no problem. If the article is huge, then we can split it off. Being thoroughly sourced is not itself a problem, and combing through them to make sure that sentences don't have several citations on them doesn't improve the article in any way. Brendon the Wizard  ✉️ ✨ 21:12, 6 August 2018 (UTC)


 * I disagree with your opinion and agree with the opinion of the author of Citation overkill. --Guy Macon (talk) 01:57, 7 August 2018 (UTC)


 * Have you read Citation overkill? I read through the Citation Overkill essay, then I checked the article, and I genuinely can't figure out how you think this is an example of it. Most paragraphs have only one or two citations for the entire paragraph, with some paragraphs having 1-2 citations per sentence. I did, however, find one single isolated sentence with five citations. On that one particular sentence alone, sure, you can say that should be reduced to less than five. However, having citations for most sentences in a paragraph isn't even close to Citation overkill. Essays and policies shouldn't be cited before reading them... Brendon the Wizard  ✉️ ✨ 06:01, 7 August 2018 (UTC)


 * Please don't accuse me of failing to read the essay I cited. That's insulting. Citation overkill says A good rule of thumb is to cite at least one inline citation for each section of text that may be challenged or is likely to be challenged, or for direct quotations. By my count this article has roughly thee times that. --Guy Macon (talk) 17:29, 7 August 2018 (UTC)


 * At least one inline citation for each section of text that may be challenged, is likely to be challenged, or for direct quotations? You do realize "at least" is not synonymous with "no more than", right? In fact, the whole quote states at least one for text that may be challenged (considering that any and all unsourced material is to be challenged, this makes sense), two or three may be preferred for two reasons (1. for controversial material 2. to prevent link rot ), but more than three should generally be avoided and if four or more are needed, consider merging sources. Again, though I'm not accusing you of anything, the only two scenarios I can think of for how you could come to the conclusion that this is an example of citation overkill are 1. if you didn't read the whole thing 2. if you accidentally overlooked important points and misinterpreted it to assume that >1 citation on a sentence is overkill or that controversial sentences are the only sentences when you would want 2 to 3. Brendon the Wizard  ✉️ ✨ 18:51, 7 August 2018 (UTC)


 * This is a subject with a complex history, multiple facets, and notable opinions from several sides. The number of citations is never overwhelming, and is clearly necessary to support the information in the article. Maybe some could be removed and maybe the article could be further broken up, but overall, it's a good summary and quite readable, and the large number of citations is an asset, not a problem. Red Rock Canyon (talk) 21:50, 7 August 2018 (UTC)


 * Strongly agreed. Brendon the Wizard  ✉️ ✨ 23:44, 7 August 2018 (UTC)

Merge Net neutrality by country to here
There is a long WP:FORK of content on this article's topic at Net neutrality by country. That article got 900 views in the last month whereas this one got 13,000. It would be ideal to merge that content to here and keep the coverage short there while linking to here. Bluerasberry (talk) 14:56, 10 January 2019 (UTC)


 * Certainly support the concept; we have a whole separate article that goes into the details. The question is basically to what level we describe this in the country list, likely noting it has been a struggle for X years, complexed by changing adminstrations and still remains a question in the courts. I would figure a good summary is about 2 para long, explaining the basic conflict (whether a title I or II) and some core history. --M asem (t) 17:57, 10 January 2019 (UTC)


 * That sounds like a good idea. I think we could use the final two paragraphs of the lead of this article as a foundation for the section in that article (with a few changes). Basically one paragraph giving the history and another describing the current state of affairs. Red Rock Canyon (talk) 01:12, 21 October 2019 (UTC)

Incorrect citations
I've noticed that a couple cases have been incorrectly cited as source. Citing the case number of an opinon is not acceptable, because a case that hasn't been published in a reporter is not binding precedent under federal rules of civil procedure. therefore, the citation of UNITED STATES TELECOM ASSOCIATION v.FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION ANDUNITED STATES OF  AMERICA needs a reference citation to the reporter citation, not the case number in order to verify that it was a published opinion and is binding precedent at law. 2600:8804:5500:68E:E896:A9E2:EE15:AA09 (talk) 03:37, 12 January 2020 (UTC)

Communications Act
In my quest to uncover the many and various things that the term "information services" can mean in different contexts, I ran into this article. As the definitions are actually covered by the Communications Act of 1934, I added a section in that article, lifting some of the info from this one for convenience. I do not pretend to understand anything about US law (nor the detail re the net neutrality saga), but if anyone wants to look over what I've done and correct anything that I've not represented clearly, that would be good. Laterthanyouthink (talk) 01:58, 8 March 2021 (UTC)

What happened after the repeal?
Did anything bad happen as a result of the FCC's repeal of the Open Internet Order?

If nothing bad happened, I guess all the acrid contentiousness over this issue was needless.

But if something bad happened, it should be documented in this article.

In the interest of NPOV, I should also ask, did anything good happen as a result of the repeal? 2601:281:D47F:AE60:8519:635C:A65A:E4EE (talk) 19:07, 19 September 2021 (UTC)

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment
This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 15 October 2018 and 12 December 2018. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Keywielder01.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 05:08, 17 January 2022 (UTC)