From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents 1 proponents section redundancy 2 mgunn what are you doing? 3 Mgunn's addition of pov and structure tags 4 Merge back 5 Contradiction?

[edit] 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)

[edit] mgunn what are you doing?

Please do not merely revert. Explanations welcome. -- Ben 03:18, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] 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?

1. 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.
2. 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.
3. 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.
4. 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, [1][2]? 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)