Thanks! I see it's from November. Somebody could point earlier to this and spare us u couple of emails of this month quota :P On Jan 2, 2016 09:20, "Bodhisattwa Mandal" bodhisattwa.rgkmc@gmail.com wrote:
Hi,
I just got the link of the official statement of WMF regarding internet.org.
https://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Wikipedia_Zero/Development#Regarding_In...
Regards, Bodhisattwa On 2 Jan 2016 05:01, "Kim Bruning" kim@bruning.xs4all.nl wrote:
Hi Milos, Happy new year to you!
I thought your mail to the list was very thoughtful. I've replied inline below.
On Fri, Jan 01, 2016 at 06:50:16AM +0100, Milos Rancic wrote:
I don't think the pure form of net-neutrality is sustainable. Many businesses already have deals with other businesses to provide something for free or "for free" or for reduced price via their infrastructure.
Hmm, this example has little to do with net neutrality as I understand it though.
Net neutrality means that you pay your ISP to allow you to send and receive packets to/from anyone without discrimination to source or destination. (In other words you're paying for actual internet access without let or hindrance).
Previously this is how the market worked.
Without going into details here, many sources tell us that the market is now threatening to shift towards a winner-takes-all walled garden model. (if not already there)
It's going to be a challenge to keep open source and open content operating and relevant in such an increasingly hostile environment this coming decade.
Neither I think the initiative will really create a permanent underclass. People in underdeveloped regions will eventually become richer and they won't need this kind of service.
We can ask them whether they want to continue having such a service at any time. Or we can set some participation threshold above which we would accept a petition to stop. (It is always wise to have pre-prepared go/no-go safety checks at particular points in time)
- Finally, we belong to the movement which promotes net neutrality as
one of the core values. No matter how realistic it is, we should support it. Wikipedia Zero is not net-neutral, but Wikimedia projects are of such significance that it could be tolerated. Going further into abandoning that principle would create definite divide between us and the rest of our global super-movement.
*Nod* We have to beware of fouling our own nest. Even though Wikipedia zero appears to help our own cause now, we need to be careful we don't hurt the people we depend on in turn.
People such as the open source community and internet standards organisations might prove quite sensitive to changing Internet rules. We should put our ears to the ground and listen carefully to what representatives of these groups may be saying to us.
sincerely, Kim Bruning
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe