[Advocacy Advisors] Wikipedia Zero and net neutrality

Fri Jul 25 17:20:10 UTC 2014

Hi Yana, Hi interested Advocacy Advisors,

EFF, Electronic Frontier Foundation, released a clear statement on Net
Neutrality and the Global Digital Divide.

https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2014/07/net-neutrality-and-global-digital-divide

What are the new developments on our position? Will we have a discussion
about that at Wikimania?

Best regards,

Jens Best

2014-05-31 18:19 GMT+02:00 Yana Welinder <ywelinder at wikimedia.org>:

> Hi Jens,
>
> Thanks for following these developments.
>
> I just wanted to clarify that the newer Wikipedia Zero partnership for
> some time now have provided the full Wikipedia site (m.wikipedia) free of
> data charges.  We're also phasing out the reduced version (z.wikipedia)
> from the older partnerships. And you're absolutely right that the solution
> is reach out to more partners that stand for free knowledge. That's what we
> are doing. :)
>
> As for improving our arguments: unfortunately, this is no longer a
> hypothetical issue, so we cannot discuss our legal position on a public
> mailing list. But I want to assure you that we are working on it.
>
> Best,
> Yana
>
>
> On Sat, May 31, 2014 at 5:54 AM, Jens Best <jens.best at wikimedia.de> wrote:
>
>> News from Chile
>>
>> Chile’s Subsecretaria de Telecomunicaciones just decided that zero-rating
>> is a promotion tool which is against net neutrality. Therefore all
>> zero-rated-related marketing deals have to stop at the 1st of June.
>> According to a WMF-list in Chile no provider has been offering Wikipedia
>> Zero. Also I'm not sure if this dismissal reflects only on zero-rated
>> offers where payment of money is done by the content provider. So it still
>> needs to be checked how/if this decision is influencing our intent to
>> spread Wikipedia Zero.
>>
>> All in all it shows that we have to improve our arguments in a broader
>> scale if we don't want to get caught by promoting Free Knowledge" but in
>> fact 'only' pushing the use of a reduced version of one (very well known
>> and superb) website which stand exemplary for this idea. We are caught in a
>> dilemma which imho only can be solved when reaching out to more partners
>> which stand for Free Knowledge and Free Education. Not sure how this could
>> work, but fortunately that never was a reason to stop.
>>
>> News from Chile:
>>
>>
>> http://qz.com/215064/when-net-neutrality-backfires-chile-just-killed-free-access-to-wikipedia-and-facebook/
>>
>>
>> http://www.subtel.gob.cl/noticias/138-neutralidad-red/5311-ley-de-neutralidad-y-redes-sociales-gratis?_ga=1.143290485.1915805894.1400742323
>>
>> Overview Wikipedia Zero:
>>
>> https://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Mobile_partnerships
>>
>>
>> 2014-04-26 7:00 GMT+02:00 John Mark Vandenberg <jayvdb at gmail.com>:
>>
>> I have to agree with Jens and Dimi here that this op-ed is wading into
>>> possibly dangerous waters, and appreciate that the WMF has sought
>>> feedback on this before launching.
>>>
>>> I am rolling my eyes a bit to see this op-ed draft suggesting that the
>>> negatives havent been considered. ("unintended consequences";
>>> "unintentionally hamper the free flow of information they seek to
>>> protect", etc) They have been talked about to death!  The problem is
>>> deciding which 'information' to protect, and often the verdict is that
>>> it is better to keep carriers and/or governments out of the
>>> information flow protection game, unless it is very transparent, *but*
>>> the purist model of net neutrality (which eliminates 'free' services)
>>> is usually viewed as stifling innovation and governments tend to avoid
>>> limitations on industry offering free services to customers.  There
>>> was a vibrant session about it at the last Internet Governance Forum
>>> (did WMF staff attend the last one? Will you attend the next one?).
>>> It is good to see you (Yana) is a member of the Dynamic Coalition on
>>> Network Neutrality. [1]
>>>
>>> If the WMF wants to put out a quick response to the developments in
>>> Brazil, it would be less abrasive to focus on congratulating those
>>> involved in drafting for making a strong stand on privacy but not
>>> eliminating the ability for ISPs to provide free services like
>>> Wikipedia Zero.  Irrespective of whether they are offering Facebook,
>>> Twitter, Wikipedia, or Google, free access to content (esp. large
>>> platforms) helps people participate online.  Free content can be
>>> anti-competitive, but can be dealt with by laws better tailored to
>>> that problem.
>>>
>>> I would think that it would be remiss of the WMF to put out an Op-Ed
>>> now on net neutrality that doesnt take into account the very recent
>>> developments in the EU policy in this area.[2]  It seems like the
>>> civil rights organisations in the EU are quite happy with the result,
>>> and it would be a shame if WMF was promoting a view that was in
>>> conflict with that.  I am not fully across the detail of that;
>>> hopefully someone else can give a summary of the EU situation.  If the
>>> EU's decision doesnt prevent Wikipedia Zero, and it appears that it
>>> doesnt, then this is another opportunity to thank the relevant
>>> organisations for crafting a sensible approach, and encourage other
>>> Net Neutrality lawmakers to do the same.
>>>
>>> I am surprised to see this op-ed painting the Dutch law in a bad light
>>> without some concrete examples to back up the concerns. ("However the
>>> Dutch law would also prohibit ISPs from providing free access to
>>> certain sites, as they would technically be charging different rates
>>> (in this case, nothing) for different services.")  Yes, some types of
>>> Internet access packages are now illegal in the Netherlands, but Dutch
>>> Internet providers have continued bundling free services into their
>>> Internet access products, including free video content (e.g. Sizz),
>>> without much concern by the regulator.  Even traffic management
>>> (shaping/blocking) of video content, which is arguable the primary
>>> purpose of the law, was given the tick of approval by the regulator
>>> when the Internet provider provided justification for it based on
>>> their infrastructure having limited capacity and claiming that video
>>> traffic degrades the performance of the internet for all users of
>>> their network. [3]  Either free services does not appear to be what
>>> the Dutch law was intended to prevent, or that is how the regulator is
>>> interpreting the law in some circumstances, and that the regulator is
>>> slowly evolving.
>>>
>>> Is the Wikimedia Foundation aware of actual problems with the Dutch
>>> system wrt zero-rating of content?  Has Wikimedia Foundation received
>>> legal advice that would suggest that Wikipedia Zero would run afoul of
>>> the Dutch laws?  Or Chilean laws? etc?
>>>
>>> Also the op-ed currently comes across as the WMF fearing some
>>> developing countries are going to adopt the Dutch model as-is without
>>> bothering to consider the repercussions it would have to the
>>> telecommunications market in their own country.  Maybe some fine
>>> tuning can remove the rough edges on that, or maybe others think it
>>> has an appropriate amount of sharpness for an op-ed.
>>>
>>> If Wikimedia is going to ask for an exception for Wikipedia Zero, and
>>> mention a few other worthy causes, putting forward that proposition
>>> needs to be accompanied by a very clear position on where that
>>> convoluted line should be drawn, who is in and who is out, how and
>>> why.
>>>
>>> Wikimedias own position is conflicted in several ways; any advocacy
>>> needs to have good answers to the following complexities, and probably
>>> others that I havent thought of.
>>>
>>> Why should 'Wikipedia Zero' be exempt, and Wikisource or Wiktionary
>>> not be exempt?  How about Wikiquote?  What about Wikivoyage?  Or
>>> Wikidata? (When I briefly looked at the XL offering of Wikipedia Zero
>>> in Indonesia, I think the sister projects were also zero-rated, but I
>>> might be mistaken - it was a while ago)  If they all qualify, why not
>>> the Museum van het Nederlandse Uurwerk Wiki?  Or the now online-only
>>> of Encyclopædia Britannica?  Or JSTOR?  Or Google Books public domain
>>> books?  etc. etc.  Or Flickr and Youtube's Creative Commons licensed
>>> content?
>>>
>>> Wikimedia Foundation is non-profit, but the content is not
>>> "non-commercial".  Jan has touched on the 'non-commercial' problem a
>>> bit in his email.  If 'Wikipedia Zero' is deemed exempt from Net
>>> Neutrality, why wouldnt a for-profit providing Wikipedia content (sans
>>> trademarks) also be also exempt?  What if they cover costs with
>>> adverts?  Be careful what you ask for, I guess.
>>>
>>> The Wikipedia Zero program is usually, whether intentional or not,
>>> favouring only one internet provider in each country / region.  Only
>>> in Bangladesh and Kenya is there more than one provider that is part
>>> of the Zero program.  In 22 of 24 countries where Zero is available,
>>> only one provider is part of the program. [4]
>>>
>>> Wikipedia Zero has two instances of favouring only one web browser.
>>> In each case this is Opera Mini.[4]  Knowing the capabilities of Opera
>>> Mini, this is not surprising as they bring a lot to the table that is
>>> complementary to Wikipedia Zero, but again it looks bad!
>>>
>>> In almost half of the Wikipedia Zero deployments, only a small number
>>> of languages are supported.  For example, why is free knowledge in
>>> Russian only accessible in Russian and English, but not free in in all
>>> of the other official languages of the Russian Federation, and the
>>> unofficial languages, and especially the endangered languages of
>>> Russia? [4]  This is especially problematic as legislation is
>>> increasingly requiring service providers cater to minorities,
>>> providing *equivalent* levels of service.
>>>
>>> These existing Zero partnerships are the result of opportunities
>>> capitalised on with limited resources, are beneficial to both parties,
>>> and improve public access to information, but combined they all paint
>>> a picture of Wikipedia Zero not being net neutral, or browser neutral,
>>> or language neutral, etc etc.
>>>
>>> Alternatives to opposing pure net neutrality also exists.  Wikimedia
>>> is essentially saying that Wikipedia should be treated as a
>>> 'universial service'.  To reflect on the Refugees United example used
>>> in the draft op-ed, while there are some Internet providers
>>> zero-rating *Internet* traffic to http://m.refunited.org/ , the main
>>> access method for Refugees United is their USSD (Unstructured
>>> Supplementary Service Data) service, toll-free lines and SMS.  Those
>>> access methods are not part of the Net Neutrality discussions. (Before
>>> using Refugees United as an example in the op-ed, it would be good to
>>> check how much of their user base is accessing their services using
>>> zero-rated *Internet*.  If it is low, it may be a bad example to run
>>> with.)  Wikimedia now has a USSD service, in beta deployed in Africa
>>> IIRC.  It may not be the ideal access method for Wikipedia content, as
>>> it has low bandwidth making it unsuitable for multimedia, but it is a
>>> way to provide a universal level of access to the information in
>>> Wikipedia.  Wikipedia Zero has had similar types of limitations
>>> imposed on the service.
>>>
>>> Another option is to distribute Wikipedia with phones and as large
>>> content bundles, like the Smart Health app is 15Meg pre-installed on
>>> all Samsung devices in eight countries of Africa now, and the app and
>>> updates are zero-rated data from Google Play.  If Wikimedia is
>>> advocating for zero-rating of Wikipedia content bundles updated
>>> periodically (e.g. every three months), pure Net Neutrality advocates
>>> are not going to be worried about a gorilla dancing at the top of a
>>> slippery slope.  I would expect that mobile operators providing
>>> zero-rating of app store downloads is going to be seen as a good thing
>>> (almost) universally, at least for app security updates or for content
>>> bundles that have become outdated with the passage of time, such as
>>> constantly evolving (improving?!) Wikipedia articles.  No doubt there
>>> will be some zealots demanding that they should be able to download
>>> 1Gb updates of English Wikipedia for free at maximum speeds while
>>> zooming across the Netherlands on the Dutch rail network, but their
>>> regulator is probably not interested. ;-)
>>>
>>> 1. http://www.networkneutrality.info/members.html
>>> 2.
>>> https://theconversation.com/europe-votes-for-a-neutral-net-but-what-does-that-mean-25252
>>> 3. http://policyreview.info/articles/news/proof-pudding-eating/232
>>> 4.
>>> https://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Mobile_partnerships#Where_is_Wikipedia_free_to_access.3F
>>>
>>> --
>>> John Vandenberg
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> Advocacy_Advisors mailing list
>>> Advocacy_Advisors at lists.wikimedia.org
>>> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/advocacy_advisors
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> --
>> Jens Best
>> Präsidium
>> Wikimedia Deutschland e.V.
>> web: http://www.wikimedia.de
>> mail: jens.best <http://goog_17221883>@wikimedia.de
>>
>> Wikimedia Deutschland - Gesellschaft zur Förderung Freien Wissens e.V.
>> Eingetragen im Vereinsregister des Amtsgerichts
>> Berlin-Charlottenburg unter der Nummer 23855 B. Als gemeinnützig
>> anerkannt durch das Finanzamt für Körperschaften I Berlin,
>> Steuernummer 27/681/51985.
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Advocacy_Advisors mailing list
>> Advocacy_Advisors at lists.wikimedia.org
>> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/advocacy_advisors
>>
>>
>
>
> --
> Yana Welinder
> Legal Counsel
> Wikimedia Foundation
> 415.839.6885 ext. 6867
>  @yanatweets <https://twitter.com/yanatweets>
>
> NOTICE: As an attorney for the Wikimedia Foundation, for legal/ethical
> reasons I cannot give legal advice to, or serve as a lawyer for, community
> members, volunteers, or staff members in their personal capacity. For more
> on what this means, please see our legal disclaimer
> <https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_Legal_Disclaimer>.
>
> _______________________________________________
> Advocacy_Advisors mailing list
> Advocacy_Advisors at lists.wikimedia.org
> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/advocacy_advisors
>
>

-- 
--
Jens Best
Präsidium
Wikimedia Deutschland e.V.
web: http://www.wikimedia.de
mail: jens.best <http://goog_17221883>@wikimedia.de

Wikimedia Deutschland - Gesellschaft zur Förderung Freien Wissens e.V.
Eingetragen im Vereinsregister des Amtsgerichts
Berlin-Charlottenburg unter der Nummer 23855 B. Als gemeinnützig
anerkannt durch das Finanzamt für Körperschaften I Berlin,
Steuernummer 27/681/51985.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/advocacy_advisors/attachments/20140725/8a5c9037/attachment-0001.html>