Editing Net neutrality (section)

==Definition and related principles==
===Internet neutrality===
Network neutrality is the principle that all Internet traffic should be treated equally.<ref>{{cite news|url=https://www.macworld.com/article/132075/2008/02/netneutrality1.html|title=Inside Net Neutrality: Is your ISP filtering content?|access-date=26 December 2008|last=Honan|first=Matthew|date=12 February 2008|work=MacWorld|url-status=live|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20081218093225/http://www.macworld.com/article/132075/2008/02/netneutrality1.html|archive-date=18 December 2008}}</ref> According to [[Columbia Law School]] professor [[Tim Wu]], a public information network will be most useful when this is the case.<ref name="wu-def">{{cite web|url=http://timwu.org/network_neutrality.html|title=Network Neutrality FAQ|access-date=26 December 2008|last=Wu|first=Tim|author-link=Tim Wu|url-status=live|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20081216141832/http://timwu.org/network_neutrality.html|archive-date=16 December 2008}}</ref>

Internet traffic consists of various types of digital data sent over the Internet between all kinds of devices (e.g., data center servers, personal computers, [[mobile device]]s, [[video game console]]s, etc.), using hundreds of different transfer technologies. The data includes email messages; [[HTML]], [[JSON]], and all related web browser [[MIME]] content types; text, word processing, spreadsheet, database and other academic, business or personal documents in any conceivable format; [[Digital audio|audio]] and [[Digital video|video]] files; [[streaming media]] content; and countless other formal, proprietary, or ad-hoc [[file format|schematic formats]]—all transmitted via myriad [[Communication protocol|transfer protocols]].

Indeed, while the focus is often on the ''type'' of digital content being transferred, network neutrality includes the idea that if all such ''types'' are to be treated equally, then it follows that any ostensibly arbitrary choice of ''protocol''—that is, the technical details of the actual communications transaction itself—must be as well. For example, the same digital video file could be accessed by viewing it live while the data is being received ([[HTTP Live Streaming|HLS]]), interacting with its playback from a remote server ([[Dynamic Adaptive Streaming over HTTP|DASH]]), by receiving it in an email message ([[SMTP]]), or by downloading it from either a website ([[HTTP]]), an [[FTP]] server, or via [[BitTorrent]], among other means. Although all of these use the Internet for transport, and the content received locally is ultimately identical, the interim data traffic is dramatically different depending on which transfer method is used. To proponents of net neutrality, this suggests that prioritizing any one transfer protocol over another is generally unprincipled, or that doing so penalizes the free choices of some users.

In sum, net neutrality is the principle that an ISP be required to provide access to all sites, content, and applications at the same speed, under the same conditions, without blocking or giving preference to any content. Under net neutrality, whether a user connects to Netflix, Wikipedia, YouTube, or a family blog, their ISP must treat them all the same.<ref>{{Cite web|url=https://www.thestreet.com/technology/what-is-net-neutrality-14816850|title=What Is Net Neutrality and Why Is it Important?|first=Eric|last=Reed|website=TheStreet|access-date=27 June 2019|archive-date=30 May 2019|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20190530193021/https://www.thestreet.com/technology/what-is-net-neutrality-14816850|url-status=live}}</ref> Without net neutrality, an ISP can influence the quality that each experience offers to end users, which suggests a regime of [[pay-to-play]], where content providers can be charged to improve the exposure of their own products versus those of their competitors.<ref name="auto3">{{Cite web|url=https://www.popsci.com/net-neutrality-is-under-attack-heres-why-we-need-to-protect-it/|title=Net neutrality is under threat (again). Here's why you should care|date=18 March 2019|access-date=13 October 2020|archive-date=17 October 2020|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20201017131506/https://www.popsci.com/net-neutrality-is-under-attack-heres-why-we-need-to-protect-it/|url-status=live}}</ref>

===Open Internet===
Under an ''open Internet'' system, the full resources of the Internet and means to operate on it should be easily accessible to all individuals, companies, and organizations.<ref>{{Cite web|url=https://www.brookings.edu/blog/unpacked/2017/09/15/what-is-the-open-internet-rule|title=What is the Open Internet Rule?|last=Wheeler|first=Tom|date=15 September 2017|website=Brookings|access-date=27 October 2017|url-status=live|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20171028201703/https://www.brookings.edu/blog/unpacked/2017/09/15/what-is-the-open-internet-rule/|archive-date=28 October 2017}}</ref> Applicable concepts include: net neutrality, [[open standard]]s, [[Transparency (telecommunication)|transparency]], lack of [[Internet censorship]], and low [[barriers to entry]]. The concept of the open Internet is sometimes expressed as an expectation of [[Technological decentralization|decentralized technological power]], and is seen by some observers as closely related to [[open-source software]], a type of software program whose maker allows users access to the code that runs the program, so that users can improve the software or fix [[bug (computing)|bugs]].<ref>{{cite web|url=http://gigaom.com/2012/03/23/open-vs-closed-what-kind-of-internet-do-we-want|title=Open vs. closed: What kind of internet do we want?|website=GigaOm|author=Ingram, Mathew|date=23 March 2012|access-date=8 June 2014|url-status=live|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20140528071158/http://gigaom.com/2012/03/23/open-vs-closed-what-kind-of-internet-do-we-want/|archive-date=28 May 2014}}</ref> Proponents of net neutrality see neutrality as an important component of an ''open Internet'', wherein policies such as equal treatment of data and open [[web standards]] allow those using the Internet to easily communicate, and conduct business and activities without interference from a third party.<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.ec.europa.eu/digital-agenda/about-open-internet|title=About the Open Internet|website=European Commission|access-date=23 April 2014|url-status=live|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20140424065845/http://ec.europa.eu/digital-agenda/about-open-internet|archive-date=24 April 2014}}</ref>

In contrast, a ''closed Internet'' refers to the opposite situation, wherein established persons, corporations, or governments favor certain uses, restrict access to necessary [[web standards]], [[Traffic shaping|artificially degrade]] some services, or explicitly [[Internet censorship|filter out content]]. Some countries such as [[Thailand]] block certain websites or types of sites, and monitor and/or censor Internet use using [[Internet police]], a specialized type of [[law enforcement]], or [[secret police]].<ref>{{Cite web|url=http://2bangkok.com/blocked.shtml|title=Website Censorship in Thailand – 2008–2011 {{!}} 2Bangkok.com|last=admin|website=2bangkok.com|language=en-US|access-date=2019-02-14|archive-date=27 June 2006|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20060627183638/http://www.2bangkok.com/blocked.shtml|url-status=live}}</ref> Other countries such as Russia,<ref>{{Cite web|url=https://freedomhouse.org/report/freedom-net/2016/russia|title=Russia|date=10 November 2016|website=freedomhouse.org|language=en|access-date=2019-03-22|archive-date=24 January 2020|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20200124081915/https://freedomhouse.org/report/freedom-net/2016/russia|url-status=dead}}</ref> China,<ref>{{Cite web|url=https://www.hrw.org/reports/2006/china0806/3.htm|title="Race to the Bottom": Corporate Complicity in Chinese Internet Censorship: II. How Censorship Works in China: A Brief Overview|website=www.hrw.org|access-date=2019-03-22|archive-date=22 April 2015|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20150422063645/http://www.hrw.org/reports/2006/china0806/3.htm|url-status=live}}</ref> and [[North Korea]]<ref>{{Cite web|url=http://www.chogabje.com/board/view.asp?C_IDX=59852&C_CC=AZ|title=국경없는 기자회 '북한 언론자유 세계 최악 수준'|website=www.chogabje.com|access-date=2019-03-22|archive-date=25 February 2021|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20210225201734/http://www.chogabje.com/board/view.asp?C_IDX=59852&C_CC=AZ|url-status=live}}</ref> also use similar tactics to Thailand to control the variety of Internet media within their respective countries. In comparison to the United States or Canada for example, these countries have far more restrictive Internet service providers. This approach is reminiscent of a [[closed platform]] system, as both ideas are highly similar.<ref>{{Cite journal|last=Tåg|first=Joacim|date=April 2008|title=Open Versus Closed Platforms|url=https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/f672/bc06ea9b47994a0677f8eaa088a86699b525.pdf|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20190322010231/https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/f672/bc06ea9b47994a0677f8eaa088a86699b525.pdf|url-status=dead|archive-date=2019-03-22|journal=Open Versus Closed Platforms|volume=209|pages=18|s2cid=33240943}}</ref> These systems all serve to hinder access to a wide variety of Internet service, which is a stark contrast to the idea of an open Internet system.

===Dumb pipe===
The term ''[[dumb pipe]]'' was coined in the early 1990s and refers to water pipes used in a city water supply system. In theory, these pipes provide a steady and reliable source of water to every household without discrimination. In other words, it connects the user with the source without any intelligence or decrement. Similarly, a ''dumb network'' is a network with little or no control or management of its use patterns.<ref>L.DE MUYTER, Y. DESMEDT, "Net Neutrality-from Catch-all to Catch-22" (2012) in A. STROWEL, Net Neutrality in Europe/ La neutralité de l'InternetInternet en Europe, Bruylant, Brussels, 2013, p.57</ref>

Experts in the [[High tech|high-technology field]] will often compare the dumb pipe concept with [[smart pipe]]s and debate which one is best applied to a certain portion of Internet policy. These conversations usually refer to these two concepts as being analogous to the concepts of open and closed Internet respectively. As such, certain models have been made that aim to outline four layers of the Internet with the understanding of the dumb pipe theory:<ref name="Thierer">Thierer, Adam. (2006) Are "Dumb Pipe" Mandates Smart Public Policy? Vertical Integration, Net Neutrality, and the Network Layers Model. In: Lenard T.M., May R.J. (eds) Net Neutrality or Net Neutering: Should Broadband Internet Services be Regulated. Springer, Boston, MA</ref>
* Content Layer: Contains services such as communication as well as entertainment videos and music.
* Applications Layer: Contains services such as e-mail and web browsers.
* Logical Layer (also called the Code Layer): Contains various Internet protocols such as [[TCP/IP]] and [[HTTP]].
* Physical Layer: Consists of services that provide all others such as cable or wireless connections.

===End-to-end principle===
The [[end-to-end principle]] of [[network design]] was first laid out in the 1981 paper ''End-to-end arguments in system design'' by [[Jerome H. Saltzer]], [[David P. Reed]], and [[David D. Clark]].<ref name="SRC1981">Saltzer, J. H., D. P. Reed, and D. D. Clark (1981) "End-to-End Arguments in System Design". In: Proceedings of the Second International Conference on Distributed Computing Systems. Paris, France. 8–10 April 1981. IEEE Computer Society, pp. 509–512.</ref> The principle states that, whenever possible, [[communications protocol]] operations should be defined to occur at the end-points of a communications system, or as close as possible to the resources being controlled. According to the end-to-end principle, protocol features are only justified in the lower layers of a system if they are a performance optimization; hence, [[Transmission Control Protocol|TCP]] retransmission for reliability is still justified, but efforts to improve TCP reliability should stop after peak performance has been reached.

They argued that, in addition to any processing in the intermediate systems, reliable systems tend to require processing in the end-points to operate correctly. They pointed out that most features in the lowest level of a communications system impose costs for all higher-layer clients, even if those clients do not need the features, and are redundant if the clients have to re-implement the features on an end-to-end basis. This leads to the model of a minimal [[dumb network]] with smart terminals, a completely different model from the previous paradigm of the smart network with [[dumb terminal]]s. Because the end-to-end principle is one of the central design principles of the Internet, and because the practical means for implementing data discrimination violate the end-to-end principle, the principle often enters discussions about net neutrality. The end-to-end principle is closely related and sometimes seen as a direct precursor to the principle of net neutrality.<ref>{{cite news |url=https://www.theatlantic.com/technology/archive/2014/04/the-best-writing-on-net-neutrality/361237/ |title=Net Neutrality: A Guide to (and History of) a Contested Idea |work=[[The Atlantic]] |author1=Alexis C. Madrigal |author2=Adrienne LaFrance |name-list-style=amp |date=25 April 2014 |access-date=5 June 2014 |quote=This idea of net neutrality...[Lawrence Lessig] used to call the principle e2e, for end to end |url-status=live |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20140531073108/http://www.theatlantic.com/technology/archive/2014/04/the-best-writing-on-net-neutrality/361237/ |archive-date=31 May 2014}}</ref>

===Traffic shaping===
[[Traffic shaping]] is the control of [[computer network]] traffic to optimize or guarantee performance, improve [[Network latency|latency]] (i.e., decrease Internet response times), or increase usable [[Bandwidth (computing)|bandwidth]] by delaying [[Packet (information technology)|packets]] that meet certain criteria.<ref>[[:rfc:2475#section-2.3.3.3|IETF RFC 2475]] "An Architecture for Differentiated Services" section 2.3.3.3 – definition of "Shaper"</ref> In practice, traffic shaping is often accomplished by [[Bandwidth throttling|throttling]] certain types of data, such as [[streaming video]] or [[peer-to-peer file sharing|P2P]] file sharing. More specifically, traffic shaping is any action on a set of packets (often called a stream or a flow) that imposes additional delay on those packets such that they conform to some predetermined constraint (a contract or traffic profile).<ref>{{cite web |url=http://www.itu.int/rec/T-REC-I.371-200403-I/en |title=ITU-T I.371: Traffic control and congestion control in B-ISDN |author=tsbmail |access-date=14 September 2014 |url-status=live |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20141220063807/http://www.itu.int/rec/T-REC-I.371-200403-I/en |archive-date=20 December 2014}}</ref> Traffic shaping provides a means to control the volume of traffic being sent into a [[computer network|network]] in a specified period ([[bandwidth throttling]]), or the maximum rate at which the traffic is sent ([[rate limiting]]), or more complex criteria such as [[generic cell rate algorithm]].

===Over-provisioning===
If the core of a network has more bandwidth than is permitted to enter at the edges, then good quality of service (QoS) can be obtained without policing or throttling. For example, telephone networks employ admission control to limit user demand on the network core by refusing to create a circuit for the requested connection. During a [[natural disaster]], for example, most users will get a [[circuit busy]] signal if they try to make a call, as the phone company prioritizes emergency calls. Over-provisioning is a form of [[statistical multiplexing]] that makes liberal estimates of [[Peak demand|peak user demand]]. Over-provisioning is used in private networks such as [[WebEx]] and the [[Abilene Network|Internet 2 Abilene Network]], an American university network. David Isenberg believes that continued over-provisioning will always provide more capacity for less expense than QoS and [[deep packet inspection]] technologies.<ref>{{cite web |url=http://isen.com/blog/2007/07/research-on-costs-of-net-neutrality.html |title=Research on Costs of Net Neutrality |access-date=26 December 2008 |last=Isenberg |first=David |date=2 July 2007 |website=isen.com |url-status=live |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20081216143441/http://isen.com/blog/2007/07/research-on-costs-of-net-neutrality.html |archive-date=16 December 2008}}</ref><ref>{{cite news |url=https://arstechnica.com/articles/culture/Deep-packet-inspection-meets-net-neutrality.ars/3 |title=Deep packet inspection meets 'Net neutrality, CALEA |access-date=26 December 2008 |last=Anderson |first=Nate |date=25 July 2007 |work=Ars Technica |url-status=live |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20081216142243/http://arstechnica.com/articles/culture/Deep-packet-inspection-meets-net-neutrality.ars/3 |archive-date=16 December 2008}}</ref>

===Device neutrality===
[[Device neutrality]] is the principle that to ensure freedom of choice and freedom of communication for users of network-connected devices, it is not sufficient that network operators do not interfere with their choices and activities; users must be free to use applications of their choice and hence remove the applications they do not want. Device vendors can establish policies for managing applications, but they, too, must be applied neutrally.{{Citation needed|date=May 2024}}

An unsuccessful bill to enforce network and device neutrality was introduced in Italy in 2015 by [[Stefano Quintarelli]].<ref>{{cite web |url=https://www.hermescenter.org/net-neutrality-device-neutrality/ |title=After Net Neutrality, Device Neutrality |access-date=20 March 2018 |date=4 December 2017 |website=hermescenter.org |url-status=dead |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20180102212402/https://www.hermescenter.org/net-neutrality-device-neutrality/ |archive-date=2 January 2018 }}</ref> The law gained formal support at the European Commission<ref>{{cite web |date=25 January 2018 |title=Draft law laying down measures concerning the provision of Internet services for the protection of competition and freedom of access for users (under 'Contributions') |url=http://ec.europa.eu/growth/tools-databases/tris/en/search/?trisaction=search.detail&year=2017&num=498#contrib |url-status=dead |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20180320230706/http://ec.europa.eu/growth/tools-databases/tris/en/search/?trisaction=search.detail&year=2017&num=498#contrib |archive-date=20 March 2018 |access-date=20 March 2018 |website=ec.europa.eu}}</ref> from BEUC, the [[European Consumer Organisation]], the [[Electronic Frontier Foundation]] and the [[Hermes Center for Transparency and Digital Human Rights]].{{Citation needed|date=May 2024}} A similar law was enacted in South Korea.<ref>{{cite web |url=http://www.kimchang.com/frame2.jsp?lang=2&b_id=88&m_id=81&mode=view&idx=17195 |title=Amended Enforcement Decree of the Telecommunications Business Act Now Effective |access-date=20 March 2018 |date=20 July 2017 |website=kimchang.com |archive-date=21 March 2018 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20180321130314/http://www.kimchang.com/frame2.jsp?lang=2&b_id=88&m_id=81&mode=view&idx=17195 |url-status=live }}</ref> Similar principles were proposed in China.<ref>{{cite web
 |url=http://www.kwm.com/en/cn/knowledge/insights/chinas-m-i-i-t-to-expand-oversight-over-mobile-phone-apps-20160108
 |title=China's M.I.I.T. Proposes Broad Regulatory Oversight over Pre-Installed Mobile Phone/Device Applications
 |access-date=5 May 2018
|website=kwm.com
 |archive-date=5 May 2018
|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20180505134743/http://www.kwm.com/en/cn/knowledge/insights/chinas-m-i-i-t-to-expand-oversight-over-mobile-phone-apps-20160108
 |url-status=live
 }}</ref> The French telecoms regulator ARCEP has called for the introduction of device neutrality in Europe.<ref>{{cite news |url=https://www.mobileworldlive.com/featured-content/top-three/regulator-slams-devices-as-weak-link-for-net-neutrality/ |title=Regulator slams devices as weak link for net neutrality |access-date=20 March 2018 |date=16 February 2018 |website=mobileworldlive.com |archive-date=21 March 2018 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20180321063219/https://www.mobileworldlive.com/featured-content/top-three/regulator-slams-devices-as-weak-link-for-net-neutrality/ |url-status=live }}</ref>

The principle has been incorporated in the EU's [[Digital Markets Act]] (Articles 6.3 an 6.4)<ref>{{Cite web |title=L_2022265EN.01000101.xml |url=https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/HTML/?uri=CELEX%3A32022R1925 |access-date=2023-12-12 |website=eur-lex.europa.eu}}</ref>{{Primary source inline|date=May 2024}}

=== Invoicing and tariffs ===
ISPs can choose a balance between a base subscription tariff (monthly bundle) and a pay-per-use (pay by MB metering). The ISP sets an upper monthly threshold on data usage, just to be able to provide an equal share among customers, and a fair use guarantee. This is generally not considered to be an intrusion but rather allows for a commercial positioning among ISPs.{{Citation needed|date=May 2024}}

=== Alternative networks ===
Some networks like [[public Wi-Fi]] can take traffic away from conventional [[Telecommunications network|fixed]] or [[mobile network]] providers. This can significantly change the end-to-end behavior (performance, tariffs).{{Citation needed|date=May 2024}}