There is a crucial difference: Wikipedia Zero is not a general way to provide access to the Internet for free, it provides access to parts of Wikipedia for free through partnering carriers. Wikipedia Zero is not in violation of net neutrality in the first place, as Wikipedia Zero is not an internet service provider and thus it cannot violate net neutrality.
I cannot see how Wikipedia Zero can violate any net neutrality laws in any countries, as they simply do not apply in this case.
Having said that, I wonder what even the motivation is in trying to suggest to close programs that provide easier and affordable access to the contents of Wikimedia sites to a wider population.
The usual disclaimers apply, IANAL, etc.
Cheers, Denny
2013/8/25 rupert THURNER rupert.thurner@gmail.com
hi,
most people know some advantage of wikipedia zero and everybody can look up the advantages by just typing wikipedia zero into some search engine. as i am not sure about the answer and anyway get asked in rare cases what i think of wp:zero i guess it should be best answered on the mailing list:
is wikipedia zero illegal in some countries because it violates net neutrality? and if it is illegal or borderline according to, say, netherlands, swiss, or german law, is it appropriate to do it in countries where the law is less developed? or should wikimedia foundation apply a higher moral standard and just abstain from any activity which might be perceived as illegal somewhere?
just for the ones not so sure about net neutrality [1]: Internet service providers and governments should treat all data on the Internet equally, not discriminating or charging differentially by user, content, site, platform, application, type of attached equipment, and modes of communication.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Net_neutrality
rupert.
Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe