2-3 short remarks to your arguments, Marc: First it's kind of interesting that net neutrality which is very clear in its definition becomes "overly simplistic and unrealistic" and "inadequate" the moment it collides with an organisations own interests. Isn't that quite an coincidence? ;)
Principles of a free and open web are to be acknowledged by Websites with good causes the same way they are to be respected by Websites with more commercial causes. Wikipedia Zero is a brand product, in its last consequence it belongs to the WMF, it is not public good. Second, well, of course all providers are happy to use Wikipedia (Zero) as a door opener to get the customer used to different treatment of data (which is a clear violation of net neutrality). Why? Well, they all know, that they are selling "dump pipes" and the "dump pipe"-Business (incl. mobile) needs to develop new way of making money out of it. So therefore, they have to establish a world where different data can be treated differently (money-wise) - and here Wikipedia comes in well-handy. It's an established brand with maximum of "positive karma", run by the people, for the people - it's a wet dream for every marketing executive of any provider. Using Wikipedia Zero isn't primarily for making a different against the competition, but to get people used to unequal handling of data. Therefore Wikipedia Zero, apart from all the good intentions it was started with, was to reconsidered. Net neutrality is under attack globally. Every country where net neutrality will be already diminished in an early state of broad (mobile) use is lost for a really free and open web. This shouldn't be something supported by the movement. Of course, we have to think about good and practical ideas how to spread free knowledge, but we shouldn't put our cause in collision with a much more deeper principle of a web where the rules of the market aren't superior to everything. best regards Jens Best 2014-11-30 18:14 GMT+01:00 Marc A. Pelletier <m...@uberbox.org>: > 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 > Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org > <https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/guidelineswikimedi...@lists.wikimedia.org> > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, > <mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe> > _______________________________________________ Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>
