Jens BestTo sum it up for today, we have to have some exchange of thoughts about i.e. senseful limitations of and global regulations for zero-rating non-commercial tools and what role Wikipedia Zero will play in this discussion. If Wikipedia Zero should be the spearhead for zero-rating "open internet"-related non-commercial tools which are "for a good cause" then there has to be more talk with the whole internet movement about this - otherwise all this could look more like a not so well-thought argumentation for keeping especially Wikipedia Zero out of the net neutrality principle. This appearance should be avoided. A community discussion about that should definitely be prior to any maybe misleading statements by the foundation.All these and many more text-, audio- or video-based non-commercial tools, and I quote you on that, create "more opportunities for creative services that empower users, raise standards of living, and bring transparency and accountability to government through free delivery of information." - If we wanna stand for a well-argued point of view on that, it's not enough to mention some (non-commercial) health apps which surely deserves the same treatment than a Free-Knowldege-tool like Wikipedia Zero.Where can we draw the line in the future? What about video-based free education? Maybe even free non-commercial education videos on youtube or another commercial video platform (or cc-licenced videos on wikiversity)?So how can non-commercial data helping to better the world by being excluded in the future out of the very clear principles of net neutrality without creating an overly complex global discussion or even get Wikipedia misused by mobile/cloud providers as an "icebreaker" making people getting used to zero-rated "special deals"?Exceptions are often the first crack in principles which should be hold in respect. Clearly there is a conflict of interest rising on the horizon for the Free Knowledge Movement. You mention correctly that Wikipedia Zero isn't the only data which is transported zero-rated. Besides other non-commercial tools for free knowledge or different life improving aspects there are also commercial deals between providers and content producers (i.e. in Germany you get Spotify zero-rated by Deutsche Telekom when signing a special deal. A clever marketing-tricky way to destroy net neutrality).Hi Yana,that was a quick response, but then again it was well expected that the Marco Civil da Internet would be passed by the Brazilian Senado Federal today.
Should it be zero-rated in every country? Also in many European countries many people can't afford a proper data-tariff or even a "smart" phone. Isn't it also a shame that these people can't have free access to Free Knowledge and other non-commercial life-improving tools?
If we, to quote you again, "continue to develop a position on Wikipedia Zero", of course, we will inevitably present a public advocacy position on net neutrality thereby. So let's talk about it.
best regards
--
Präsidium - Board of Trustees
Wikimedia Deutschland e.V.
web: http://www.wikimedia.de
mail: jens.best@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 27/681/51985.2014-04-23 3:58 GMT+02:00 Yana Welinder <ywelinder@wikimedia.org>:_______________________________________________Hi all,Earlier today, the Senate in Brazil passed the Marco Civil bill, that has some ambiguous provisions on net neutrality. It was passed on urgent basis in anticipation of NetMundial, a meeting on internet governance that will be held in Brazil tomorrow and Thursday.We have prepared an op-ed (see below) explaining how certain types of net neutrality laws impact Wikipedia Zero, and we will try to get it published around the closing of NetMundial. The purpose of this op-ed is to make sure that there is an accurate portrayal of Wikipedia Zero in the net neutrality debate, particularly in countries that are relevant to this project.While we don't plan to take a direct advocacy position on net neutrality at this point, we will continue to develop a position on Wikipedia Zero. We would therefore like to hear your thoughts on this topic.Best,Yana---
Free Access to Knowledge Should Not Be a Net Neutrality Issue
In recent months, lawmakers around the world have been considering net neutrality rules that aim to preserve the Internet’s original promise as an open forum. But certain provisions of net neutrality laws could threaten the free spread of information in surprising ways. In particular, such provisions could prevent non-commercial initiatives like Wikipedia Zero from providing truly free access to the online encyclopedia in the Global South. Legislators must be careful to avoid these unintended consequences.
Net neutrality advocates are right to be concerned that forcing users to pay for faster data delivery could easily push small and non-commercial publishers and content creators out of the market. Since its inception, a key tenet of the Internet has been equal treatment of data from all sources: Internet service providers must deliver content from blogs or startups with the same speed as content from major media companies or huge tech firms. Allowing Internet service providers to charge more for faster delivery of certain kinds of content would favor players with deep pockets, who could then muscle out smaller competitors. But to date the discussion has largely ignored a potential pitfall: might certain provisions of net neutrality laws unintentionally hamper the free flow of information they seek to protect?
Just consider the net neutrality law passed by the Netherlands in 2012, sometimes presented as a model for legislation elsewhere. The Dutch Telecommunications Act aims to enforce net neutrality, in part, by prohibiting ISPs from charging subscribers different rates based on the services they access, for example VoIP or instant messaging. 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.
It’s worth noting that not all net neutrality rules include these provisions: the FCC's previous Open Internet Rules, for example, simply focused on prohibiting blocking and unreasonable discrimination against content providers. Similarly, the current version of the pending Marco Civil bill in Brazil does not prohibit paid or free Internet connection as long as ISPs do not monitor, filter, or block the content of data packets. But the Dutch law, and any laws modeled on it, might interfere with initiatives that rely on zero-rated data, like the “Wikipedia Zero” program across the Global South, which essentially aims to have all carriers in a given country zero-rate Wikipedia so it can become a true public good, with unfettered access for everyone.
When carriers commit to waiving data fees, Wikipedia Zero can provide schoolchildren with a virtual encyclopedia in places where they don’t have access to books or libraries, spread practical knowledge about agriculture, sanitation, and wellness, and deliver outside information to people living under repressive regimes. Eventually Wikipedia Zero will extend to free editing of entries as well, empowering users in developing countries with a platform for free speech.
Wikipedia Zero isn’t the only free service that could suffer from specific provisions of some net neutrality laws. The Refugees United mobile app allows victims of political upheavals and natural disasters to find lost family members and friends free of cost, also relying on zero-rated data. And Mobilium Africa’s Smart Health app, launched in September 2013, aims to educate Android users in Africa about HIV, tuberculosis, and malaria, including prevention, symptoms, and treatment, for free.
These initiatives are just the beginning: as the cost of mobile handsets falls and mobile penetration rises across the developing world, there will be even more opportunities for creative services that empower users, raise standards of living, and bring transparency and accountability to government through free delivery of information. Yet all these current and future initiatives could be undone by a few lines of legislation – inadvertently thwarting free access to information in the name of the free Internet.
Net neutrality is undoubtedly a major concern. As lawmakers craft new rules they must take care not to unintentionally hinder the very cause they are trying to advance. Net neutrality rules should focus on enshrining the “end-to-end” principle, which states that Internet service providers do not distinguish between data flowing over the network based on its application or content. Net neutrality rules should not prevent the zero-rating of non-commercial initiatives, like Wikipedia Zero, that do not pay for any preferential treatment and do not interfere with the open Internet.
--
Yana WelinderLegal Counsel
Wikimedia Foundation
415.839.6885 ext. 6867
NOTICE: For legal reasons, I may only serve as a lawyer for the Wikimedia Foundation. This means I may not give legal advice to, or serve as a lawyer for, community members, volunteers, or staff members in their personal capacity.
Advocacy_Advisors mailing list
Advocacy_Advisors@lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/advocacy_advisors
_______________________________________________
Advocacy_Advisors mailing list
Advocacy_Advisors@lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/advocacy_advisors