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. *
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.
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).
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"?
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?
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)?
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.
To 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.
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
Jens Best
Hi Jens,
Thanks for your thoughtful email.
I'd love if we could respond to Marco Civil (or anything else) that quickly. :) We have been working on this for quite some time, researching the topic and consulting with net neutrality scholars to make sure that we had a nuanced position on this question. The op-ed is not so much a response to Marco Civil, as it is a response to the fact that net neutrality rules are starting to be considered by countries that are relevant to Wikipedia Zero. We have been approached by advocacy groups about how we see Wikipedia Zero in the net neutrality debate. This piece would be our response. It also seeks to clarify how Wikipedia Zero is different from various sponsored data programs, as we've heard that the project is sometimes misrepresented and used as an argument for other types of exceptions.
As to where to draw the line, I don't think we would want to limit a non-commercial exception to Wikipedia Zero and the health app. They were just presented as concrete examples of non-commercial initiatives. But I'm also not sure why we would want to draw the line at video based educational material. That is really not the kind of thing that the net neutrality principle was intended to protect against.
Thanks, Yana
On Tue, Apr 22, 2014 at 8:27 PM, Jens Best jens.best@wikimedia.de wrote:
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.
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).
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"?
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?
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)?
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.
To 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.
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
Jens Best
-- Präsidium - Board of Trustees 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.
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 Welinder Legal 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
Hi Yana,
I'm too don't think that a line of limitation could be drawn i.e. at video-based non-commercial material. But this is the exact problem of your actual argumentation. By mentioning a few health apps it's not really becoming clear that the true challenge of possibly bringing Wikipedia Zero and net neutrality into an however argumented alliance lies in a more complex and yet to be started discussion which would go far beyond the edges of the Wikimedia Movement.
In the acknowledgement of the fact, that Wikipedia Zero is a crack in the principle of net neutrality as long as there is no discussion about totally excluding ALL non-commercial "good cause" content and make it zero-rated. Right now, to make this clear, Wikipedia Zero, apart all its good intentions, stays a questionable violation of the net neutrality principles.
When Wikipedia Zero and some surely helpful health apps are excluded you opening up a wide field of possible content which should also be zero-rated by all providers. I'm sure that this discussion will create a lot of resistance and counter-arguments from many different stakeholders. Are we prepared for this? Do we have support for this new and possibly great idea of making all open content zero-rated? Who in the international open web movement and beyond could support this idea? Which would be valuable arguments against it? And which stakeholders will bring them with what intensions?
I'm, like you, convinced that we have to have this discussion, and that Wikipedia Zero can be a good example for leading the case. But right now I don't see much broad support for this case, so it could stay the impression that Wikimedia is trying to cleverly argue only for its own non-commercial product, Wikipedia Zero. It's an endeavour in a very sensitive field which is central to many parts of the Open Web movement.
I'm right now not convinced that WMF presents a well-thought strategy to start this process. Net neutrality is still under heavy attack by a variety of stakeholders around the world. It is actually right now taken out of the declaration process at NetMundial in Brazil against the will of the civil society. So, with all good faith in the great idea of bringing Free Knowledge to as many people as possible, we should be very very careful not treading on principles which assure the very basic groundwork of everything an Open and Free Web relys on.
Looking forward to a broader discussion on that subject.
best regards
Jens Best
2014-04-23 7:11 GMT+02:00 Yana Welinder ywelinder@wikimedia.org:
Hi Jens,
Thanks for your thoughtful email.
I'd love if we could respond to Marco Civil (or anything else) that quickly. :) We have been working on this for quite some time, researching the topic and consulting with net neutrality scholars to make sure that we had a nuanced position on this question. The op-ed is not so much a response to Marco Civil, as it is a response to the fact that net neutrality rules are starting to be considered by countries that are relevant to Wikipedia Zero. We have been approached by advocacy groups about how we see Wikipedia Zero in the net neutrality debate. This piece would be our response. It also seeks to clarify how Wikipedia Zero is different from various sponsored data programs, as we've heard that the project is sometimes misrepresented and used as an argument for other types of exceptions.
As to where to draw the line, I don't think we would want to limit a non-commercial exception to Wikipedia Zero and the health app. They were just presented as concrete examples of non-commercial initiatives. But I'm also not sure why we would want to draw the line at video based educational material. That is really not the kind of thing that the net neutrality principle was intended to protect against.
Thanks, Yana
On Tue, Apr 22, 2014 at 8:27 PM, Jens Best jens.best@wikimedia.de wrote:
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.
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).
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"?
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?
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)?
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.
To 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.
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
Jens Best
-- Präsidium - Board of Trustees 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.
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 Welinder Legal 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
Advocacy_Advisors mailing list Advocacy_Advisors@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/advocacy_advisors
Hi Yana,
I know this is a tricky issue and we really appreciate you sharing this and we know discussing advocacy positions in public isn't always an easy thing to do.
As you might now we have the Big Fat Brussels Meeting Vol. 2 [1] these days and we took some time to talk about it.
While we all love Wikipedia Zero and we sure want to protect it, we feel like the proposed op-ed might not explain the unique nature of Wikipedia and Free Knowledge as well as it could. Futhermore, we're worried it might invite simplified interpretations of our position that do not reflect our vision, mission and goals.
I tried to summarise some of the arguments we discussed today and here's the best digest I can give you at this point:
- Given the current active net neutrality debate in Europe, the US and Brazil the moment is really sensitive. This means that us publishing something will be preceived as advocacy and use by friends and foes alike. - The "non-commercial" element of our position is not specified. What do we mean by it? Commercial services can be used non-commercially and vice-versa. We allow everyone to use our content commercially. That is what makes us special. Arguing "non-commercial" here can be very confusing. - If Encarta Encyclopedia had done such deals before Wikipedia existed we might have never had a chance to succeed the way we did. Isn't there a risk of monopolising knowledge here? There is a reason we chose to provide data dumps that everyone can use to fork. - The tone of the statment is almost like saying: "We believe in net neutrality but we don't think it should apply to Wikimedia projects".
It might be wise to think harder about what makes us different from everyone else on the open internet and concentrate on that.
Again, thanks for engaging in this discussion on this list!
Greeting from (unusually dry) Brussels, [2]
Dimi
[1]https://etherpad.wikimedia.org/p/BrusselsMeeting201404 [2] https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Big_Fat_Brussels_Meeting_April_2014....
2014-04-24 1:29 GMT+02:00 Jens Best jens.best@wikimedia.de:
Hi Yana,
I'm too don't think that a line of limitation could be drawn i.e. at video-based non-commercial material. But this is the exact problem of your actual argumentation. By mentioning a few health apps it's not really becoming clear that the true challenge of possibly bringing Wikipedia Zero and net neutrality into an however argumented alliance lies in a more complex and yet to be started discussion which would go far beyond the edges of the Wikimedia Movement.
In the acknowledgement of the fact, that Wikipedia Zero is a crack in the principle of net neutrality as long as there is no discussion about totally excluding ALL non-commercial "good cause" content and make it zero-rated. Right now, to make this clear, Wikipedia Zero, apart all its good intentions, stays a questionable violation of the net neutrality principles.
When Wikipedia Zero and some surely helpful health apps are excluded you opening up a wide field of possible content which should also be zero-rated by all providers. I'm sure that this discussion will create a lot of resistance and counter-arguments from many different stakeholders. Are we prepared for this? Do we have support for this new and possibly great idea of making all open content zero-rated? Who in the international open web movement and beyond could support this idea? Which would be valuable arguments against it? And which stakeholders will bring them with what intensions?
I'm, like you, convinced that we have to have this discussion, and that Wikipedia Zero can be a good example for leading the case. But right now I don't see much broad support for this case, so it could stay the impression that Wikimedia is trying to cleverly argue only for its own non-commercial product, Wikipedia Zero. It's an endeavour in a very sensitive field which is central to many parts of the Open Web movement.
I'm right now not convinced that WMF presents a well-thought strategy to start this process. Net neutrality is still under heavy attack by a variety of stakeholders around the world. It is actually right now taken out of the declaration process at NetMundial in Brazil against the will of the civil society. So, with all good faith in the great idea of bringing Free Knowledge to as many people as possible, we should be very very careful not treading on principles which assure the very basic groundwork of everything an Open and Free Web relys on.
Looking forward to a broader discussion on that subject.
best regards
Jens Best
2014-04-23 7:11 GMT+02:00 Yana Welinder ywelinder@wikimedia.org:
Hi Jens,
Thanks for your thoughtful email.
I'd love if we could respond to Marco Civil (or anything else) that quickly. :) We have been working on this for quite some time, researching the topic and consulting with net neutrality scholars to make sure that we had a nuanced position on this question. The op-ed is not so much a response to Marco Civil, as it is a response to the fact that net neutrality rules are starting to be considered by countries that are relevant to Wikipedia Zero. We have been approached by advocacy groups about how we see Wikipedia Zero in the net neutrality debate. This piece would be our response. It also seeks to clarify how Wikipedia Zero is different from various sponsored data programs, as we've heard that the project is sometimes misrepresented and used as an argument for other types of exceptions.
As to where to draw the line, I don't think we would want to limit a non-commercial exception to Wikipedia Zero and the health app. They were just presented as concrete examples of non-commercial initiatives. But I'm also not sure why we would want to draw the line at video based educational material. That is really not the kind of thing that the net neutrality principle was intended to protect against.
Thanks, Yana
On Tue, Apr 22, 2014 at 8:27 PM, Jens Best jens.best@wikimedia.dewrote:
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.
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).
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"?
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?
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)?
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.
To 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.
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
Jens Best
-- Präsidium - Board of Trustees 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.
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 Welinder Legal 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
Advocacy_Advisors mailing list Advocacy_Advisors@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@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/advocacy_advisors
Hi Dimi,
Thanks for raising this topic at the Brussels meeting and for your summary of the arguments. I really appreciate the feedback. Please see my comments to each point below.
- Given the current active net neutrality debate in Europe, the US and
Brazil the moment is really sensitive. This means that us publishing something will be preceived as advocacy and use by friends and foes alike.
While it is possible that portions of the op-ed could be taken out of
context and used by net neutrality opponents, there is a greater risk that the same people could use Wikipedia Zero as an argument against net neutrality in a broader sense. If we allow others to frame the narrative around Wikipedia Zero, they won't focus on the free knowledge mission that drives the project and makes it different from other projects in the net neutrality debate. We really need to communicate clearly that the purpose of Wikipedia Zero is to serve the public rather than any particular company. The op-ed is written in a way to make it difficult for our foes to use it and we've now revised it slightly to make it even more so.
- The "non-commercial" element of our position is not specified. What
do we mean by it? Commercial services can be used non-commercially and vice-versa. We allow everyone to use our content commercially. That is what makes us special. Arguing "non-commercial" here can be very confusing.
"Non-commercial" is used to describe the zero-rating and not Wikipedia
more broadly. You are right that there is more to Wikipedia, including its freely licensed content that allows the content to be re-used by commercial as well as non-commercial projects. Given that this is only an op-ed about Wikipedia Zero, we can't get into the intricacies of Wikipedia. But we can formulate a more nuanced position about both Wikipedia Zero and our free licenses to be posted on wiki. And we would love for this group to help us with that.
- If Encarta Encyclopedia had done such deals before Wikipedia existed
we might have never had a chance to succeed the way we did. Isn't there a risk of monopolising knowledge here? There is a reason we chose to provide data dumps that everyone can use to fork.
Generally, I don't think that getting free access to knowledge to areas
that don't have any access will monopolize knowledge. Rather it will provide people with information about the world, which they can use to seek out more knowledge. Indeed, the structure of Wikipedia facilitates further exploration by providing direct links to other sources of information, including reference materials.
The main purpose of Wikipedia Zero is to reduce barriers to accessing free knowledge. But to the extent that Wikipedia Zero also promotes Wikipedia, it is only one in a long line of initiatives to do so. Initiatives like editathons, offline distributions of Wikipedia, and Wikipedia-only apps may all potentially make it more difficult for projects to compete with Wikipedia. That does not mean that Wikipedia-focused initiatives are anti-competitive or violate net neutrality -- we continue to freely license Wikipedia, open source our infrastructure, and take many other approaches to distributing free knowledge in an open way.
- The tone of the statment is almost like saying: "We believe in net
neutrality but we don't think it should apply to Wikimedia projects".
I appreciate you pointing this out and we've now tweaked the op-ed
slightly to avoid that tone. But the general message is that we think that net neutrality is incredibly important. The argument is that net neutrality should focus on things that pose a real threat to the free and open internet and not be misinterpreted to interfere with free access to knowledge when it is offered as a public good.
Best, Yana
2014-04-24 1:29 GMT+02:00 Jens Best jens.best@wikimedia.de:
Hi Yana,
I'm too don't think that a line of limitation could be drawn i.e. at video-based non-commercial material. But this is the exact problem of your actual argumentation. By mentioning a few health apps it's not really becoming clear that the true challenge of possibly bringing Wikipedia Zero and net neutrality into an however argumented alliance lies in a more complex and yet to be started discussion which would go far beyond the edges of the Wikimedia Movement.
In the acknowledgement of the fact, that Wikipedia Zero is a crack in the principle of net neutrality as long as there is no discussion about totally excluding ALL non-commercial "good cause" content and make it zero-rated. Right now, to make this clear, Wikipedia Zero, apart all its good intentions, stays a questionable violation of the net neutrality principles.
When Wikipedia Zero and some surely helpful health apps are excluded you opening up a wide field of possible content which should also be zero-rated by all providers. I'm sure that this discussion will create a lot of resistance and counter-arguments from many different stakeholders. Are we prepared for this? Do we have support for this new and possibly great idea of making all open content zero-rated? Who in the international open web movement and beyond could support this idea? Which would be valuable arguments against it? And which stakeholders will bring them with what intensions?
I'm, like you, convinced that we have to have this discussion, and that Wikipedia Zero can be a good example for leading the case. But right now I don't see much broad support for this case, so it could stay the impression that Wikimedia is trying to cleverly argue only for its own non-commercial product, Wikipedia Zero. It's an endeavour in a very sensitive field which is central to many parts of the Open Web movement.
I'm right now not convinced that WMF presents a well-thought strategy to start this process. Net neutrality is still under heavy attack by a variety of stakeholders around the world. It is actually right now taken out of the declaration process at NetMundial in Brazil against the will of the civil society. So, with all good faith in the great idea of bringing Free Knowledge to as many people as possible, we should be very very careful not treading on principles which assure the very basic groundwork of everything an Open and Free Web relys on.
Looking forward to a broader discussion on that subject.
best regards
Jens Best
2014-04-23 7:11 GMT+02:00 Yana Welinder ywelinder@wikimedia.org:
Hi Jens,
Thanks for your thoughtful email.
I'd love if we could respond to Marco Civil (or anything else) that quickly. :) We have been working on this for quite some time, researching the topic and consulting with net neutrality scholars to make sure that we had a nuanced position on this question. The op-ed is not so much a response to Marco Civil, as it is a response to the fact that net neutrality rules are starting to be considered by countries that are relevant to Wikipedia Zero. We have been approached by advocacy groups about how we see Wikipedia Zero in the net neutrality debate. This piece would be our response. It also seeks to clarify how Wikipedia Zero is different from various sponsored data programs, as we've heard that the project is sometimes misrepresented and used as an argument for other types of exceptions.
As to where to draw the line, I don't think we would want to limit a non-commercial exception to Wikipedia Zero and the health app. They were just presented as concrete examples of non-commercial initiatives. But I'm also not sure why we would want to draw the line at video based educational material. That is really not the kind of thing that the net neutrality principle was intended to protect against.
Thanks, Yana
On Tue, Apr 22, 2014 at 8:27 PM, Jens Best jens.best@wikimedia.dewrote:
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.
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).
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"?
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?
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)?
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.
To 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.
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
Jens Best
-- Präsidium - Board of Trustees 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.
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 Welinder Legal 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
Advocacy_Advisors mailing list Advocacy_Advisors@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@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
Hi Yana,
maybe if I make the point short and simple, we can arrive at the center of the discussion:
FCC: "We believe in net neutrality but we don't think it should apply to Netflix." WMF: "We believe in net neutrality but we don't think it should apply to Wikimedia projects."
Right now, Wikipedia Zero and some other "good cause" apps are zero-rated because their civil society lobbyists made deals with some providers. Providers which have surely their own agenda for which they will use the "net neutrality exeption" which is established by Wikipedia Zero. There is no Internet Governance Rule which says "Free data has to transported for free."
This point is clear and trying to "control" the developing narrative is just wishful thinking with such a not-well-thought statement. We need alliances before this narrative will get out of control. The actual statement (even with small improvements) will just help to start a discussion we don't wanna have right now.
The point Dimi and I trying to make is that by not thinking this through we will get a not very helpful discussion with questions and startements like the following:
"Why should donation-financed data be transported zero-rated only because "it is made by the people for the people"? "Shouldn't not all public data be zero-rated?" "What are the standards and rules on that an organisation, a state or a developer can ask for being zero-rated?" "Shouldn't also commercial tools which have a clear social entrepreneur attitude be zero-rated?" "If the big Wikipedia gets zero-rated many little initiatives could have a disadvantage in the market of attention." "The website of Greenpeace should also be zero-rated."
Providers will go ballistic when the discussion goes that way and then we will end up with the discovery that these providers never really understood the "icebreaking" role of Wikipedia Zero, meaning that all non-commercial data will result in no more money for the pipe and transmitter providers. They will very quickly remind us, that the "deal" was for Wikipedia Zero and for Wikipedia Zero only. And then we will have to decide which side we take.
So.
I like the idea that free data should be free for the people, also when it comes to question of transporting it. But how could we make such an undertaking happen? And if we can't, aren't we just betraying net neutrality and disguising it with some nice NGO-PR-wording?
Best regards
Jens
2014-04-25 8:18 GMT+02:00 Yana Welinder ywelinder@wikimedia.org:
Hi Dimi,
Thanks for raising this topic at the Brussels meeting and for your summary of the arguments. I really appreciate the feedback. Please see my comments to each point below.
- Given the current active net neutrality debate in Europe, the US
and Brazil the moment is really sensitive. This means that us publishing something will be preceived as advocacy and use by friends and foes alike.
While it is possible that portions of the op-ed could be taken out of
context and used by net neutrality opponents, there is a greater risk that the same people could use Wikipedia Zero as an argument against net neutrality in a broader sense. If we allow others to frame the narrative around Wikipedia Zero, they won't focus on the free knowledge mission that drives the project and makes it different from other projects in the net neutrality debate. We really need to communicate clearly that the purpose of Wikipedia Zero is to serve the public rather than any particular company. The op-ed is written in a way to make it difficult for our foes to use it and we've now revised it slightly to make it even more so.
- The "non-commercial" element of our position is not specified. What
do we mean by it? Commercial services can be used non-commercially and vice-versa. We allow everyone to use our content commercially. That is what makes us special. Arguing "non-commercial" here can be very confusing.
"Non-commercial" is used to describe the zero-rating and not Wikipedia
more broadly. You are right that there is more to Wikipedia, including its freely licensed content that allows the content to be re-used by commercial as well as non-commercial projects. Given that this is only an op-ed about Wikipedia Zero, we can't get into the intricacies of Wikipedia. But we can formulate a more nuanced position about both Wikipedia Zero and our free licenses to be posted on wiki. And we would love for this group to help us with that.
- If Encarta Encyclopedia had done such deals before Wikipedia
existed we might have never had a chance to succeed the way we did. Isn't there a risk of monopolising knowledge here? There is a reason we chose to provide data dumps that everyone can use to fork.
Generally, I don't think that getting free access to knowledge to areas
that don't have any access will monopolize knowledge. Rather it will provide people with information about the world, which they can use to seek out more knowledge. Indeed, the structure of Wikipedia facilitates further exploration by providing direct links to other sources of information, including reference materials.
The main purpose of Wikipedia Zero is to reduce barriers to accessing free knowledge. But to the extent that Wikipedia Zero also promotes Wikipedia, it is only one in a long line of initiatives to do so. Initiatives like editathons, offline distributions of Wikipedia, and Wikipedia-only apps may all potentially make it more difficult for projects to compete with Wikipedia. That does not mean that Wikipedia-focused initiatives are anti-competitive or violate net neutrality -- we continue to freely license Wikipedia, open source our infrastructure, and take many other approaches to distributing free knowledge in an open way.
- The tone of the statment is almost like saying: "We believe in net
neutrality but we don't think it should apply to Wikimedia projects".
I appreciate you pointing this out and we've now tweaked the op-ed
slightly to avoid that tone. But the general message is that we think that net neutrality is incredibly important. The argument is that net neutrality should focus on things that pose a real threat to the free and open internet and not be misinterpreted to interfere with free access to knowledge when it is offered as a public good.
Best, Yana
2014-04-24 1:29 GMT+02:00 Jens Best jens.best@wikimedia.de:
Hi Yana,
I'm too don't think that a line of limitation could be drawn i.e. at video-based non-commercial material. But this is the exact problem of your actual argumentation. By mentioning a few health apps it's not really becoming clear that the true challenge of possibly bringing Wikipedia Zero and net neutrality into an however argumented alliance lies in a more complex and yet to be started discussion which would go far beyond the edges of the Wikimedia Movement.
In the acknowledgement of the fact, that Wikipedia Zero is a crack in the principle of net neutrality as long as there is no discussion about totally excluding ALL non-commercial "good cause" content and make it zero-rated. Right now, to make this clear, Wikipedia Zero, apart all its good intentions, stays a questionable violation of the net neutrality principles.
When Wikipedia Zero and some surely helpful health apps are excluded you opening up a wide field of possible content which should also be zero-rated by all providers. I'm sure that this discussion will create a lot of resistance and counter-arguments from many different stakeholders. Are we prepared for this? Do we have support for this new and possibly great idea of making all open content zero-rated? Who in the international open web movement and beyond could support this idea? Which would be valuable arguments against it? And which stakeholders will bring them with what intensions?
I'm, like you, convinced that we have to have this discussion, and that Wikipedia Zero can be a good example for leading the case. But right now I don't see much broad support for this case, so it could stay the impression that Wikimedia is trying to cleverly argue only for its own non-commercial product, Wikipedia Zero. It's an endeavour in a very sensitive field which is central to many parts of the Open Web movement.
I'm right now not convinced that WMF presents a well-thought strategy to start this process. Net neutrality is still under heavy attack by a variety of stakeholders around the world. It is actually right now taken out of the declaration process at NetMundial in Brazil against the will of the civil society. So, with all good faith in the great idea of bringing Free Knowledge to as many people as possible, we should be very very careful not treading on principles which assure the very basic groundwork of everything an Open and Free Web relys on.
Looking forward to a broader discussion on that subject.
best regards
Jens Best
2014-04-23 7:11 GMT+02:00 Yana Welinder ywelinder@wikimedia.org:
Hi Jens,
Thanks for your thoughtful email.
I'd love if we could respond to Marco Civil (or anything else) that quickly. :) We have been working on this for quite some time, researching the topic and consulting with net neutrality scholars to make sure that we had a nuanced position on this question. The op-ed is not so much a response to Marco Civil, as it is a response to the fact that net neutrality rules are starting to be considered by countries that are relevant to Wikipedia Zero. We have been approached by advocacy groups about how we see Wikipedia Zero in the net neutrality debate. This piece would be our response. It also seeks to clarify how Wikipedia Zero is different from various sponsored data programs, as we've heard that the project is sometimes misrepresented and used as an argument for other types of exceptions.
As to where to draw the line, I don't think we would want to limit a non-commercial exception to Wikipedia Zero and the health app. They were just presented as concrete examples of non-commercial initiatives. But I'm also not sure why we would want to draw the line at video based educational material. That is really not the kind of thing that the net neutrality principle was intended to protect against.
Thanks, Yana
On Tue, Apr 22, 2014 at 8:27 PM, Jens Best jens.best@wikimedia.dewrote:
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.
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).
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"?
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?
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)?
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.
To 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.
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
Jens Best
-- Präsidium - Board of Trustees 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.
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 Welinder Legal 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
Advocacy_Advisors mailing list Advocacy_Advisors@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@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
-- Yana Welinder Legal Counsel Wikimedia Foundation 415.839.6885 ext. 6867
NOTICE: This message might have confidential or legally privileged information in it. If you have received this message by accident, please delete it and let us know about the mistake. 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
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-tha... 3. http://policyreview.info/articles/news/proof-pudding-eating/232 4. https://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Mobile_partnerships#Where_is_Wikipedia_...
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-ac...
http://www.subtel.gob.cl/noticias/138-neutralidad-red/5311-ley-de-neutralida...
Overview Wikipedia Zero:
https://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Mobile_partnerships
2014-04-26 7:00 GMT+02:00 John Mark Vandenberg jayvdb@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. ;-)
https://theconversation.com/europe-votes-for-a-neutral-net-but-what-does-tha... 3. http://policyreview.info/articles/news/proof-pudding-eating/232 4. https://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Mobile_partnerships#Where_is_Wikipedia_...
-- John Vandenberg
Advocacy_Advisors mailing list Advocacy_Advisors@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/advocacy_advisors
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@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-ac...
http://www.subtel.gob.cl/noticias/138-neutralidad-red/5311-ley-de-neutralida...
Overview Wikipedia Zero:
https://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Mobile_partnerships
2014-04-26 7:00 GMT+02:00 John Mark Vandenberg jayvdb@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. ;-)
https://theconversation.com/europe-votes-for-a-neutral-net-but-what-does-tha... 3. http://policyreview.info/articles/news/proof-pudding-eating/232 4. https://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Mobile_partnerships#Where_is_Wikipedia_...
-- John Vandenberg
Advocacy_Advisors mailing list Advocacy_Advisors@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@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/advocacy_advisors
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-divi...
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@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@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-ac...
http://www.subtel.gob.cl/noticias/138-neutralidad-red/5311-ley-de-neutralida...
Overview Wikipedia Zero:
https://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Mobile_partnerships
2014-04-26 7:00 GMT+02:00 John Mark Vandenberg jayvdb@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. ;-)
https://theconversation.com/europe-votes-for-a-neutral-net-but-what-does-tha... 3. http://policyreview.info/articles/news/proof-pudding-eating/232 4. https://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Mobile_partnerships#Where_is_Wikipedia_...
-- John Vandenberg
Advocacy_Advisors mailing list Advocacy_Advisors@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@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@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/advocacy_advisors
Thanks for sharing this. We plan to post a more extensive discussion of our position next Friday.
Best, Yana
On Fri, Jul 25, 2014 at 10:20 AM, Jens Best jens.best@wikimedia.de wrote:
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-divi...
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@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@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-ac...
http://www.subtel.gob.cl/noticias/138-neutralidad-red/5311-ley-de-neutralida...
Overview Wikipedia Zero:
https://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Mobile_partnerships
2014-04-26 7:00 GMT+02:00 John Mark Vandenberg jayvdb@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. ;-)
https://theconversation.com/europe-votes-for-a-neutral-net-but-what-does-tha... 3. http://policyreview.info/articles/news/proof-pudding-eating/232 4. https://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Mobile_partnerships#Where_is_Wikipedia_...
-- John Vandenberg
Advocacy_Advisors mailing list Advocacy_Advisors@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@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@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@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/advocacy_advisors
This is what happens with Wikipedia Zero: We become part of the marketing plan of Facebook Zero:
http://www.dailydot.com/technology/facebook-internet-org-app/
Looking forward to the announced "extensive discussion of our position".
best regards
Jens
2014-07-25 20:18 GMT+02:00 Yana Welinder ywelinder@wikimedia.org:
Thanks for sharing this. We plan to post a more extensive discussion of our position next Friday.
Best, Yana
On Fri, Jul 25, 2014 at 10:20 AM, Jens Best jens.best@wikimedia.de wrote:
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-divi...
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@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@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-ac...
http://www.subtel.gob.cl/noticias/138-neutralidad-red/5311-ley-de-neutralida...
Overview Wikipedia Zero:
https://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Mobile_partnerships
2014-04-26 7:00 GMT+02:00 John Mark Vandenberg jayvdb@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. ;-)
https://theconversation.com/europe-votes-for-a-neutral-net-but-what-does-tha... 3. http://policyreview.info/articles/news/proof-pudding-eating/232 4. https://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Mobile_partnerships#Where_is_Wikipedia_...
-- John Vandenberg
Advocacy_Advisors mailing list Advocacy_Advisors@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@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@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@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@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/advocacy_advisors
From a purely marketing pov: here in Canada there has been zero mention of Wikipedia in relation to this news story. It is strictly a "Facebook tries to hook the third world" storyline.
Amgine
On Jul 31, 2014, at 15:49, Jens Best jens.best@wikimedia.de wrote:
This is what happens with Wikipedia Zero: We become part of the marketing plan of Facebook Zero:
http://www.dailydot.com/technology/facebook-internet-org-app/
Looking forward to the announced "extensive discussion of our position".
best regards
Jens
publicpolicy@lists.wikimedia.org