Talk:US Congress drafting bill that may affect Internet freedoms

This is slightly confusing, but certainly intreasting. Bawolff ☺☻ 01:14, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

Was their any previous provissions to stop people from 'interfering'. Bawolff ☺☻ 01:17, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

NPOV and sources

Really good start on the article as far as background goes, but I seem to detect an implicit bias in the language that needs addressing.

The brilliance of this end-to-end network is that the intelligence resides at the edge of the network; the wires in between simply pass information between individual users. The network’s only job is to move data — not to stifle user innovation by selecting which services to privilege with higher speeds.

Says who? Not that I disagree with it, I totally agree, but this looks like someone said it. There needs to be a source for this assertion to back it up.

A recent poll done by The Consumer Federation of America shows that the Internet has taken on an important role in the daily life of Americans. With two-thirds reporting it is important for personal communications and researching products, over half said it is important for getting news, about 40 percent cited online banking, e-commerce, and retrieving government information as significant ways in which they used the internet. They expressed a great deal of concern about discriminatory practices of communications network operators.

Again, source. Or a news story that covers this.

Here are a few examples of what network executives are asking for:

“The Internet can’t be free … for a Google or Yahoo or Vonage or anybody to expect to use these pipes free is nuts.” AT&T’s Ed Whitacre

BellSouth’s William Smith told reporters that he would like to turn the Internet into a “pay-for-performance marketplace” where his company could charge for the “right” to have certain services load faster than others.

Verizon CEO Ivan Seidenberg says that Web applications need to “share the cost” of the broadband services already paid for by consumers. “We need to pay for the pipe.”

This sounds like it's casting the quotes of the CEOs in a negative light. Again, what's the other side of the issue?

In summary, this has the feel of a blog entry (I keep one on the side outside of WN, so I know), or something that would go on the opinion/editorial page. Wikinews is neither. Please address these concerns before publishing. KeithH 05:58, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

The first paragraph says the U.S. congress doesn't know where it's going with this. Where is it going with this? interesting. -Edbrown05 07:44, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

FCC

A U.S. federal communications commission... I've found their rulings and history to be pretty decent. I'm sure there's room for disagreement on that, but if any U.S. federal agency has got their shit together, I'd have to say this is one of them. -Edbrown05 07:14, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

I believe I addressed your concerns

I have gone ahead and added sources and rewritten some areas that may have been confusing. I think that i have specifically covered all of your concerns. i changed the date to today because this story would be lost if puplished on the 18th. It is certainly an ongoing issue.

i did not log in when i originally wrote this story but i am now. Isles 19:09, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

Cleanup tag

I've added this cleanup tag, and removed a lot of POV from this article. The main reasons I see with this article are the following:

• No attribution for many claims, such as stating that:

Quote

---

Companies like, Google, Microsoft, Yahoo, eBay, Amazon.com and Skype share much of common causes concern and have been pressing Congress for strict laws requiring Net neutrality. The bill as it now reads leaves the practical decisions up to the Federal Communications Commission (FCC). This concerns many people because of the wide spread perception that they have had a decidedly pro-business stance in the past few years. [1]

• Inclusion of unnecessary long quotes, only meant to portray a POV:

Quote

---

AT&T CEO Edward Whitacre has been saying since 2005 that:“The Internet can’t be free … for a Google or Yahoo or Vonage or anybody to expect to use these pipes free is nuts.” “How do you think they’re going to get to customers? Through a broadband pipe. Cable companies have them. We have them. Now what they would like to do is use my pipes free, but I ain’t going to let them do that because we have spent this capital and we have to have a return on it. So there’s going to have to be some mechanism for these people who use these pipes to pay for the portion they’re using. Why should they be allowed to use my pipes?”

• No specifics on many claims:

Quote

---

Currently phone and cable lobbyists who own the broad band networks are calling on the federal government to permit them to operate Internet and other digital communications services as private networks.

Quote

---

They expressed a great deal of concern about discriminatory practices of communications network operators.

• No unbiased definition for "net neutrality". Those who are unframiliar with the term will probably find this to be a hard article to read.
• Feel of a blog: the statements above, and many of the statements I deleted in the previous revision earlier to the most current of this timestamp, makes this article feel like it were on a blog. There is very little to no counterweight to this article, and is therefore unbalanced. As per WN:NPOV:

Quote

---

Writing objectively can be conceived as representing disputes, characterizing them, rather than engaging in them.

I feel this article is trying to "fuel the flames" with this article, rather than represent all sides fairly. My support for this is specifically the long, unnecessary quotes, the generalization of one person's view on companies without providing specific examples, the inclusion of political organizations like Democracy Now, and all without any counterweight. These are the issues I see with this article at this time - this article needs to be cleaned up to conform to the WN:NPOV policy. --MrMiscellanious (talk) – 17:11, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

"the inclusion of political organizations like Democracy Now" There is nothing wrong with political organizations "and all without any counterweight." What about Fred Upton (R), AT&T CEO Edward Whitacre, Walt Disney's Robert Iger. To exclude NGO:s and alternative to mainstream news is definitly povpushing if there is quotations from Corporate America and US government agencys. So I just like to reminde you that your pov is shining through little here. I will take a look and see if I can adress some of your objections. international 18:53, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

That is not counterweight to the Dem Now. A counterweight would be another group on the other side. The representatives are from both sides of the fence, but there isn't specific details on the corporations to determine what any companies stated. I appreciate your attempt to acknowledge my concerns, but if you do not wish to do it respectfully, I will ask you to not do it at all. --MrMiscellanious (talk) – 18:59, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

Democracy Now is a couterweight to comersial interest. If you find "another group" feel free to add its view on the issue. Though in this article I wont fight against you about this as the article can go without it. But your statement I refered to abowe it principally important as it is your pov and not a wikinews policy. And I advise you to wait for som input to build concencus before you revert the Democtaty Now part. international 20:23, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

Democracy's Now definition makes a statement. Aside from this, only one of my concerns has been addressed. I am re-adding the tag, and reverting the Dem Now addition. It simply is not neutral. --MrMiscellanious (talk) – 20:31, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

No, Democracy's Now is not neutral, and dont supposed to be it. This edit and comment by you either show that you dont understand our NPOV policy or acting povpushing. Not good at all. Dont waste my time with nonsence! international 20:43, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

I agree with International. There is no reason at all to delay this article; no actionable objections remain. Neutralizer 21:19, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

Neutralizer 21:31, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

A lot of talk about point of view

I am not sure what i have to say actually matters much anymore but I do have a point of view. And you do too, we all do. I am not sure if human thought is even possible without bias. I tried with this story to present both sides of the issue. The long qoutes were actually what they said. And the point was to have a longer qoute. I can't help that they express themselves in these rather blatent terms. If you don't think the heads of corparation have a point of view on things i am surprised. I was trying to capture the flavor of this very contentios issue. The story as it now reads is sterile, and flavorless. I assumed that readers would be interested in a longer version of this story , would like to hear what corprate heads are saying and what respected consumer organisations like common causes concerns were. As to the Democracy Now qoute I do not see how it differs from the deffiniton in your source other then in previty. Network neutrality is the concept that everyone, everywhere, should have free, universal and non-discriminatory access to all the Internet has to offer.

Isn't that in fact a correct definition of the concept?

We have to assume some intelligence in the reader and an ability to discern the validity of information and decide about sources themselves. Isles 13:11, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

• I appreciate your efforts on attempting, but please also attempt to address what others may see as bias, even if you don't necessarily agree with them. --MrMiscellanious (talk) – 19:29, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

Nothing Article

What a totally nothing article. It gives no real information as to what the issues are. What is the reason behind it? What is it really trying to achive?

This is sadly typical of wikinews.

This kind of crap gets on my nerves... this used to be a news story. -Edbrown05 05:48, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

MrM ripped the guts out of this story here after suggesting the story has a blog feel to it, while tenaciously hanging onto misformed notions of NPOV. The behavior limits this wiki by eliminating substantial efforts by its contributors, and causes harm to the community. MrM should is causing substantial site disruption and should be removed from the community. -Edbrown05 06:15, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

In all fairness to MrM, I was the one who originally brought up the "reads like a blog entry" issue. I'm working on a somewhat neutral characterization of the debate as it stands. Hopefully this should resolve those concerns. KeithH 06:26, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

OK, done. Take a look. Any feedback welcome. KeithH 06:48, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

Ed, I hope that you never make a statement that says I failed to collaborate - because this is what happens when I explain my edits and objections. Criticism, reverts and dismissals. That's all that ever happens. So, if I ever see you say that I refuse to collaborate, I will point to this article and this talk page as an example of where you have dismissed any and all objections that I have had - even when they're commented in the article, explained why they're violations, and post a detailed and lengthly explanation on the talk page - and yet, you still complain. So, tell me what I'm doing wrong. I edit, I explain, I collaborate. You claim I rip guts out, and are causing disruption by making substantial edits. I don't understand your claims, I don't understand why you are making them, all I'm asking you is to stop making them. --MrMiscellanious (talk) – 19:28, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

Why dont you ask yourself why, why are all these (not just Ed) comlain at your way of edit and collaborate instead of act out of a defensive position. Be more gentle, build concesus before you do these things that piss wikinewsies off. international 19:41, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

This is typical of you. Try to change the subject, and further ignore my objections. Well, they stand. And as another little note, I will never ask permission to edit here. No one has to, and for you to suggest that I, or any other users, need to is deeply troubling. --MrMiscellanious (talk) – 19:45, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

Present story

This version while better then MrM's is sort of choppy and indistinct. I miss the Iger qoute which is sourced but now missing. And I do not belive that ed whitacre reversed his previous statement he just added this appaerntly contridictory one. I see the two as rather diffrent from eachother. This does point to a prevelant problem with wikinews. Pardon my newcomer critique, but the stories have a tendency to be short and flat. I assume the purpose of the whole project is to produce news that has some depth and interest outside of the "news bubble" of the large media corps. (?) It is certainly what brought me to it. I would be interested in engaging in a dialogue about this, because I have contributed some time to this project and am wondering if it is worth my continueing to do so. Isles 13:35, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

So am I, wondering if it is worth continuing to do so, if MrM is allowed to collaborate with this agressive editor/administrator style.

I can't shake the highly respected and popular, and now former editor/administrator Davodd's comments, when he decided to leave Wikinews for good.

While I know Davodd wasn't refering to me, currently a panel member of ArbCom who is looking into disputes brought against MrMiscellanious, I now feel like a bully asking MrMiscellanious to leave.

I suppose it was around 6-months ago that MrM recieved my support in his nomination for adminship, where I entered the comment in support of his nomination that went something in the spirit of this:

"Support. Anybody who expresses their opinion is alright in my book."

How wrong that support was when the rejoiner comments by MrM above make no sense to me.

I made no allegation in the section above that MrM failed to collaborate (although he should, completely, by leaving the community). And International never suggested that MrM needed permission to edit within this community.

What is called for, is a behavior modification on MrM's part. I called for that during the 2nd time it came for a vote on his prior "request for deAdmintration". While the community has found reason to support MrM through those request, meanwhile MrM ruthlessly applies policy to defend himself and his actions in what I have come to believe is a contortion of what the policies are in place for. Certainly it's a loss to you Isles, judging by your preceding comments. -Edbrown05 02:41, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

• And I refuse your recommendation, Ed, just as you have refused any and all recommendations that I have ever made on this wiki. I hope you now have realized the importance of WN:NPOV policy here, but I fear you are still stating that "NPOV is an ideal, not a requirement." For these reasons, I decline with the utmost disrespect pointed towards you, just as you have done to me. --MrMiscellanious (talk) – 02:48, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

Would that be that you have no respect, or that you disrespect me?

NPOV is a requirement too, but its a requirement meant to facilitate the one true requirement of delevering the news. -Edbrown05 03:02, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

• I have no respect for those who won't follow WN:NPOV. --MrMiscellanious (talk) – 03:04, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

I respect news, you contradict that by saying, "NPOV is the wiki's utmost responsibility. New news comes second."

So what do you want, neutal-point-of-view pushing of yours (?) or news stories of others (?) -Edbrown05 03:23, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

"NPOV is the wiki's utmost responsibility. New news comes second." --MrMiscellanious (talk) – 19:05, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

Isles, I personally think your point is well taken. Our adherence to NPOV does tend to give articles that have a "just the facts" feel to them. That's a strength to some, a drawback to others. That said, I don't think a neutral point of view and an article with depth is mutually exclusive, as long as you're willing to help dig deeply on both sides of the fence. So grab a shovel and dig! Just be willing to collaborate and understand others' POVs. --KeithH 06:29, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

Bill passed

The House passed the bill 42-12. So much for the prospects of continuing to have wikinews getting the same treatment as the big news outlets when it comes to bandwidth on the ISP side. --vonbergm 03:54, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

• Please keep all political statements on your userspace, or elsewhere not in the mainspace. WN:NOT #2: "Wikinews is not a soapbox, chatroom, or discussion forum." --MrMiscellanious (talk) – 21:33, 28 April 2006 (UTC)