On 11/30/2014 11:08 AM, MZMcBride wrote: > I think it's difficult to argue that Wikipedia Zero is > not, at least in the strictest sense, a violation of net neutrality.
That's perfectly true, but because the traditional definition of "net neutrality" (and, by extension, the definition of what violates it) is by and large overly simplistic and unrealistic. Factors that should be taken into account but aren't include the nature of the preferential treatment, its exclusivity (or lack thereof), conflict of interest, and competitive landscape. One would be hard pressed to argue that giving non-exclusive free access to a public good to a population in need is harmful (beyond slippery slope arguments), just as it would be clear that a media conglomerate giving exclusive free access from an ISP they own to their media is clearly wrong. What makes Wikipedia Zero clearly okay, IMO, is that *any* provider is welcome to approach us and set it up; and we require nor demand any sort of exclusivity. Whether they chose to do so is obviously driven by their business objectives (publicity, competitive advantage, and so on) -- but their business decision affects them and only them. They cannot hinder their competition from doing so or not as they will, nor gain an advantage they cannot get as well. So it's clearly neutral in the "equally available" sense of the term. And it remains neutral in the "competition" sense of the term since they are welcome to zero-rate any other service they wish alongside ours. And, finally, it's also neutral from a conflict-of-interest point of view. The Wikimedia Foundation (and movement, for that matter) has no stake in the competitive landscape of telco providers, and and they have no interest in Free online encyclopedias. They gain nothing by favoring us over other educational resources, and we favor no provider over another (albeit our immediate efforts do seem directed mostly at those where the population would benefit the most - which is reasonable). So yeah, this is probably not "net neutrality" as it is generally defined - but I would argue it means that the definition itself is inadequate. -- Marc _______________________________________________ Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines Wikimediaemail@example.com Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>