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.