Washington post article http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/the-switch/wp/2014/11/25/wikipedias-comp...
sincerely, Kim
Kim Bruning <kim@...> writes:
Washington post article
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/the-switch/wp/2014/11/25/wikipedias-comp...
The response to this is embarrassing and lacking. Wikipedia Zero is an amazing program (and is one of the only excellent non-engineering things the foundation has done). Providing free access to Wikipedia doesn't violate the concept of net neutrality. Access to Wikimedia is being subsidized by the mobile companies. Access to other sources of information isn't being slowed. There's no extra charge to access other sources of information.
My biggest wonder here is: why in the world is the HR director for the foundation speaking with the press about this on behalf of the foundation (and the movement)? This seems like the kind of thing the communications department, or the ED (or DD) should be doing.
- Ryan Lane
On 11/30/14, 9:49 AM, Ryan Lane wrote:
Providing free access to Wikipedia doesn't violate the concept of net neutrality. Access to Wikimedia is being subsidized by the mobile companies. Access to other sources of information isn't being slowed. There's no extra charge to access other sources of information.
I don't see a distinction here, unless you're extremely naive about economics. Discriminatory pricing in any market can be done in two ways: 1. have a "standard" rate and add a surcharge to certain disfavored uses; or 2. have a "standard" rate and give a discount to certain favored uses. Most things done with #1 could be reconfigured to be done with #2 or vice-versa; it ends up as mainly a rhetorical and administrative difference. In either case, applied to data, it's varying pricing packet pricing based on whether the source of the packets is favored or disfavored by the ISP (in this case, Wikipedia is favored), which is precisely what net neutrality wishes to prohibit.
-Mark
Mark <delirium@...> writes:
I don't see a distinction here, unless you're extremely naive about economics. Discriminatory pricing in any market can be done in two ways:
- have a "standard" rate and add a surcharge to certain disfavored
uses; or 2. have a "standard" rate and give a discount to certain favored uses. Most things done with #1 could be reconfigured to be done with #2 or vice-versa; it ends up as mainly a rhetorical and administrative difference. In either case, applied to data, it's varying pricing packet pricing based on whether the source of the packets is favored or disfavored by the ISP (in this case, Wikipedia is favored), which is precisely what net neutrality wishes to prohibit.
While a fine and principled view this is, its strict nature harms those we're most interested in reaching.
We really need to consider what we're after when talking about net neutrality. Offering free access to services to subscribers who don't have data plans (most likely because they can't afford them) is a much different thing than tiered levels of access for people who are paying for data. Assuming there's no conflict of interest from the telecoms themselves this is not actively harmful.
Note that for your points, neither 1 nor 2 is true, since there's no standard rate.
- Ryan
I don't see economics here, unless you are extremely naive about reality.
There are some items -- abused or not for marketing purposes of the entities used for achieving interests of their shareholders -- which belong to the corpus of common good. Like air and free knowledge are, for example.
The fact that the net neutrality concept has been written from the perspective of the dominant ideology, which adherents are not capable to comprehend that there is something outside of the market, proves just the point that those responsible for the definition should educate themselves a bit and try again. On Nov 30, 2014 12:05 PM, "Mark" delirium@hackish.org wrote:
On 11/30/14, 9:49 AM, Ryan Lane wrote:
Providing free access to Wikipedia doesn't violate the concept of net neutrality. Access to Wikimedia is being subsidized by the mobile companies. Access to other sources of information isn't being slowed. There's no extra charge to access other sources of information.
I don't see a distinction here, unless you're extremely naive about economics. Discriminatory pricing in any market can be done in two ways: 1. have a "standard" rate and add a surcharge to certain disfavored uses; or 2. have a "standard" rate and give a discount to certain favored uses. Most things done with #1 could be reconfigured to be done with #2 or vice-versa; it ends up as mainly a rhetorical and administrative difference. In either case, applied to data, it's varying pricing packet pricing based on whether the source of the packets is favored or disfavored by the ISP (in this case, Wikipedia is favored), which is precisely what net neutrality wishes to prohibit.
-Mark
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/ wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
On 12/1/14, 7:11 AM, Milos Rancic wrote:
There are some items -- abused or not for marketing purposes of the entities used for achieving interests of their shareholders -- which belong to the corpus of common good. Like air and free knowledge are, for example.
If an ISP wanted to make *all* online free-knowledge resources exempt from per-MB data charges, that would be a much more interesting proposal. It's the differential pricing between different sources of knowledge that I find more troubling: why should a user pay more to access the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy than Wikipedia? That's already attempting to shape, via differential pricing, where online users get their information.
-Mark
On Dec 1, 2014 8:26 AM, "Mark" delirium@hackish.org wrote:
On 12/1/14, 7:11 AM, Milos Rancic wrote:
There are some items -- abused or not for marketing purposes of the entities used for achieving interests of their shareholders -- which
belong
to the corpus of common good. Like air and free knowledge are, for
example.
If an ISP wanted to make *all* online free-knowledge resources exempt
from per-MB data charges, that would be a much more interesting proposal. It's the differential pricing between different sources of knowledge that I find more troubling: why should a user pay more to access the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy than Wikipedia? That's already attempting to shape, via differential pricing, where online users get their information.
I agree that we should coordinate with the participants of the broader free knowledge and free software movement and include their sites while negotiating with mobile carries.
In the meantime this is what we have. Some corporations find that it's clever PR idea not to charge for oxygen. That's not fully useful, but it's quite essential. The next target is nitrogen, then we should take care of other gases to make air completely free.
Counting the tendency initiated by WMF, net neutrality should move to exclusively commercial or market terrain. I agree with that, but it's not about us. Free content is common good and we are fortunate that mobile providers will be soon forced to recognize that. (First it's about clever PR, then it becomes the norm.)
On Sun, Nov 30, 2014 at 9:49 AM, Ryan Lane rlane32@gmail.com wrote:
Kim Bruning <kim@...> writes:
Washington post article
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/the-switch/wp/2014/11/25/wikipedias-comp...
The response to this is embarrassing and lacking. Wikipedia Zero is an amazing program (and is one of the only excellent non-engineering things the foundation has done). Providing free access to Wikipedia doesn't violate the concept of net neutrality. Access to Wikimedia is being subsidized by the mobile companies. Access to other sources of information isn't being slowed. There's no extra charge to access other sources of information.
My biggest wonder here is: why in the world is the HR director for the foundation speaking with the press about this on behalf of the foundation (and the movement)? This seems like the kind of thing the communications department, or the ED (or DD) should be doing.
i find this article very good. and also gale gives a quite balanced and reasonable statement. ryan, the sentence from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Net_neutrality is: "... should treat all data on the Internet equally..." if you could elaborate a little how paying for one source, and not paying for another is "equal"?
rupert
Ryan Lane wrote:
Kim Bruning <kim@...> writes (roughly):
Washington post article: http://wapo.st/1zUXNXj
The response to this is embarrassing and lacking. Wikipedia Zero is an amazing program (and is one of the only excellent non-engineering things the foundation has done). [...]
I think calling Wikipedia Zero non-engineeering is kind of bizarre, possibly just wrong. Wikipedia Zero spans both development and operations. It has a MediaWiki extension https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Extension:ZeroBanner and custom back-end (Web server) configuration to support it. And of course ZeroBanner is just the latest extension, it's had others, while parts of Wikipedia Zero's infrastructure have been integrated (yay!) with other extensions.
To be clear, I'm not attacking Wikipedia Zero or the resources it's using, I kind of like the idea, but it's definitely an engineering project. In addition to engineering resources, Wikipedia Zero requires administrative overhead for partnership negotiation and management, which is probably not unique to the Wikipedia Zero team. "Only excellent" seems a bit rough.
My biggest wonder here is: why in the world is the HR director for the foundation speaking with the press about this on behalf of the foundation (and the movement)? This seems like the kind of thing the communications department, or the ED (or DD) should be doing.
This isn't arguably wrong, just plain wrong. :-) Gayle's title is "Chief Talent and Culture Officer" and the Director of Human Resources is someone else who reports to her; cf. https://www.wikimedia.org/wiki/Template:Staff_and_contractors#HR. I agree that for a media outlet such the Washington Post, having a C-level person speak is best... and that's what happened here. (Now whether the Wikimedia Foundation should be large enough to require a Chief Talent and Culture Officer position is a separate question that can hopefully be addressed in another thread.)
I'll let others respond on the basic point here about whether Wikipedia Zero is violating net neutrality. I personally agree with Gayle that it's complicated. :-) I think it's difficult to argue that Wikipedia Zero is not, at least in the strictest sense, a violation of net neutrality.
MZMcBride
On 11/30/2014 11:08 AM, MZMcBride wrote:
I think it's difficult to argue that Wikipedia Zero is not, at least in the strictest sense, a violation of net neutrality.
That's perfectly true, but because the traditional definition of "net neutrality" (and, by extension, the definition of what violates it) is by and large overly simplistic and unrealistic.
Factors that should be taken into account but aren't include the nature of the preferential treatment, its exclusivity (or lack thereof), conflict of interest, and competitive landscape.
One would be hard pressed to argue that giving non-exclusive free access to a public good to a population in need is harmful (beyond slippery slope arguments), just as it would be clear that a media conglomerate giving exclusive free access from an ISP they own to their media is clearly wrong.
What makes Wikipedia Zero clearly okay, IMO, is that *any* provider is welcome to approach us and set it up; and we require nor demand any sort of exclusivity. Whether they chose to do so is obviously driven by their business objectives (publicity, competitive advantage, and so on) -- but their business decision affects them and only them. They cannot hinder their competition from doing so or not as they will, nor gain an advantage they cannot get as well.
So it's clearly neutral in the "equally available" sense of the term. And it remains neutral in the "competition" sense of the term since they are welcome to zero-rate any other service they wish alongside ours.
And, finally, it's also neutral from a conflict-of-interest point of view. The Wikimedia Foundation (and movement, for that matter) has no stake in the competitive landscape of telco providers, and and they have no interest in Free online encyclopedias. They gain nothing by favoring us over other educational resources, and we favor no provider over another (albeit our immediate efforts do seem directed mostly at those where the population would benefit the most - which is reasonable).
So yeah, this is probably not "net neutrality" as it is generally defined - but I would argue it means that the definition itself is inadequate.
-- Marc
On 30 November 2014 at 17:14, Marc A. Pelletier marc@uberbox.org wrote:
So it's clearly neutral in the "equally available" sense of the term. And it remains neutral in the "competition" sense of the term since they are welcome to zero-rate any other service they wish alongside ours.
This is arguably not an equitable proposition in practice, because Wikimedia is *rather heavyweight* as online charities go. If we ask for something, it carries weight.
That said, zero-priced mobile data is something the world could do with more of. If we can push that as a good thing,
- d.
2-3 short remarks to your arguments, Marc:
First it's kind of interesting that net neutrality which is very clear in its definition becomes "overly simplistic and unrealistic" and "inadequate" the moment it collides with an organisations own interests. Isn't that quite an coincidence? ;)
Principles of a free and open web are to be acknowledged by Websites with good causes the same way they are to be respected by Websites with more commercial causes. Wikipedia Zero is a brand product, in its last consequence it belongs to the WMF, it is not public good.
Second, well, of course all providers are happy to use Wikipedia (Zero) as a door opener to get the customer used to different treatment of data (which is a clear violation of net neutrality). Why? Well, they all know, that they are selling "dump pipes" and the "dump pipe"-Business (incl. mobile) needs to develop new way of making money out of it. So therefore, they have to establish a world where different data can be treated differently (money-wise) - and here Wikipedia comes in well-handy. It's an established brand with maximum of "positive karma", run by the people, for the people - it's a wet dream for every marketing executive of any provider. Using Wikipedia Zero isn't primarily for making a different against the competition, but to get people used to unequal handling of data.
Therefore Wikipedia Zero, apart from all the good intentions it was started with, was to reconsidered. Net neutrality is under attack globally. Every country where net neutrality will be already diminished in an early state of broad (mobile) use is lost for a really free and open web. This shouldn't be something supported by the movement. Of course, we have to think about good and practical ideas how to spread free knowledge, but we shouldn't put our cause in collision with a much more deeper principle of a web where the rules of the market aren't superior to everything.
best regards
Jens Best
2014-11-30 18:14 GMT+01:00 Marc A. Pelletier marc@uberbox.org:
On 11/30/2014 11:08 AM, MZMcBride wrote:
I think it's difficult to argue that Wikipedia Zero is not, at least in the strictest sense, a violation of net neutrality.
That's perfectly true, but because the traditional definition of "net neutrality" (and, by extension, the definition of what violates it) is by and large overly simplistic and unrealistic.
Factors that should be taken into account but aren't include the nature of the preferential treatment, its exclusivity (or lack thereof), conflict of interest, and competitive landscape.
One would be hard pressed to argue that giving non-exclusive free access to a public good to a population in need is harmful (beyond slippery slope arguments), just as it would be clear that a media conglomerate giving exclusive free access from an ISP they own to their media is clearly wrong.
What makes Wikipedia Zero clearly okay, IMO, is that *any* provider is welcome to approach us and set it up; and we require nor demand any sort of exclusivity. Whether they chose to do so is obviously driven by their business objectives (publicity, competitive advantage, and so on) -- but their business decision affects them and only them. They cannot hinder their competition from doing so or not as they will, nor gain an advantage they cannot get as well.
So it's clearly neutral in the "equally available" sense of the term. And it remains neutral in the "competition" sense of the term since they are welcome to zero-rate any other service they wish alongside ours.
And, finally, it's also neutral from a conflict-of-interest point of view. The Wikimedia Foundation (and movement, for that matter) has no stake in the competitive landscape of telco providers, and and they have no interest in Free online encyclopedias. They gain nothing by favoring us over other educational resources, and we favor no provider over another (albeit our immediate efforts do seem directed mostly at those where the population would benefit the most - which is reasonable).
So yeah, this is probably not "net neutrality" as it is generally defined - but I would argue it means that the definition itself is inadequate.
-- Marc
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/GuidelinesWikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
"Second, well, of course all providers are happy to use Wikipedia (Zero) as a door opener to get the customer used to different treatment of data (which is a clear violation of net neutrality)."
Exactly this. Net neutrality means that the pipes are totally dumb, not favoring -any- service over any other in any way. Not Netflix, not Youtube, not Amazon, and not Wikimedia.
Anything that says "Data from this source will be (treated|priced) differently than data from another source" is a violation of net neutrality. Period. That does not mean the definition is inadequate. The definition is there to ensure the pipe -stays dumb-, and that preferential treatment is never accepted.
Todd
On Sun, Nov 30, 2014 at 11:12 AM, Jens Best jens.best@wikimedia.de wrote:
2-3 short remarks to your arguments, Marc:
First it's kind of interesting that net neutrality which is very clear in its definition becomes "overly simplistic and unrealistic" and "inadequate" the moment it collides with an organisations own interests. Isn't that quite an coincidence? ;)
Principles of a free and open web are to be acknowledged by Websites with good causes the same way they are to be respected by Websites with more commercial causes. Wikipedia Zero is a brand product, in its last consequence it belongs to the WMF, it is not public good.
Second, well, of course all providers are happy to use Wikipedia (Zero) as a door opener to get the customer used to different treatment of data (which is a clear violation of net neutrality). Why? Well, they all know, that they are selling "dump pipes" and the "dump pipe"-Business (incl. mobile) needs to develop new way of making money out of it. So therefore, they have to establish a world where different data can be treated differently (money-wise) - and here Wikipedia comes in well-handy. It's an established brand with maximum of "positive karma", run by the people, for the people - it's a wet dream for every marketing executive of any provider. Using Wikipedia Zero isn't primarily for making a different against the competition, but to get people used to unequal handling of data.
Therefore Wikipedia Zero, apart from all the good intentions it was started with, was to reconsidered. Net neutrality is under attack globally. Every country where net neutrality will be already diminished in an early state of broad (mobile) use is lost for a really free and open web. This shouldn't be something supported by the movement. Of course, we have to think about good and practical ideas how to spread free knowledge, but we shouldn't put our cause in collision with a much more deeper principle of a web where the rules of the market aren't superior to everything.
best regards
Jens Best
2014-11-30 18:14 GMT+01:00 Marc A. Pelletier marc@uberbox.org:
On 11/30/2014 11:08 AM, MZMcBride wrote:
I think it's difficult to argue that Wikipedia Zero is not, at least in the strictest sense, a violation of net neutrality.
That's perfectly true, but because the traditional definition of "net neutrality" (and, by extension, the definition of what violates it) is by and large overly simplistic and unrealistic.
Factors that should be taken into account but aren't include the nature of the preferential treatment, its exclusivity (or lack thereof), conflict of interest, and competitive landscape.
One would be hard pressed to argue that giving non-exclusive free access to a public good to a population in need is harmful (beyond slippery slope arguments), just as it would be clear that a media conglomerate giving exclusive free access from an ISP they own to their media is clearly wrong.
What makes Wikipedia Zero clearly okay, IMO, is that *any* provider is welcome to approach us and set it up; and we require nor demand any sort of exclusivity. Whether they chose to do so is obviously driven by their business objectives (publicity, competitive advantage, and so on) -- but their business decision affects them and only them. They cannot hinder their competition from doing so or not as they will, nor gain an advantage they cannot get as well.
So it's clearly neutral in the "equally available" sense of the term. And it remains neutral in the "competition" sense of the term since they are welcome to zero-rate any other service they wish alongside ours.
And, finally, it's also neutral from a conflict-of-interest point of view. The Wikimedia Foundation (and movement, for that matter) has no stake in the competitive landscape of telco providers, and and they have no interest in Free online encyclopedias. They gain nothing by favoring us over other educational resources, and we favor no provider over another (albeit our immediate efforts do seem directed mostly at those where the population would benefit the most - which is reasonable).
So yeah, this is probably not "net neutrality" as it is generally defined - but I would argue it means that the definition itself is inadequate.
-- Marc
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org <
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/GuidelinesWikimedia-l@lists.wi...
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 Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
On 01/12/14 06:10, Todd Allen wrote:
"Second, well, of course all providers are happy to use Wikipedia (Zero) as a door opener to get the customer used to different treatment of data (which is a clear violation of net neutrality)."
Exactly this. Net neutrality means that the pipes are totally dumb, not favoring -any- service over any other in any way. Not Netflix, not Youtube, not Amazon, and not Wikimedia.
Anything that says "Data from this source will be (treated|priced) differently than data from another source" is a violation of net neutrality. Period. That does not mean the definition is inadequate. The definition is there to ensure the pipe -stays dumb-, and that preferential treatment is never accepted.
But the pipes are fundamentally not dumb -- there is a complex arrangement of transit prices and peering, and the companies that built transoceanic links want to recoup their investment. What you are saying is that you want the ISPs to provide the necessary cross-subsidies so that the pipes will appear to be dumb, to the end user.
The question for any regulated cross-subsidy should be: what is its social benefit? If certain telcos are allowed to choose, it will be cheaper to access Wikipedia than cheezburger.com. Is that appropriate? What social benefits will it provide if we regulate to ensure that they are the same price?
Vertical integration between content providers and ISPs is probably harmful to competition. The obvious way to deal with that is to split those companies. But even in a competitive marketplace, from a cost perspective, it totally makes sense that certain content providers will continue to be cheaper and/or faster, just because of geography.
Wikipedia is naturally slow and expensive for many ISPs, because we don't use a big CDN. If ISPs sold services on a cost-plus basis, you would expect websites delivered via CDN to be cheaper than websites that are located at a single site, geographically distant from their users.
-- Tim Starling
On Mon, 1 Dec 2014, at 15:21, Tim Starling wrote:
On 01/12/14 06:10, Todd Allen wrote:
"Second, well, of course all providers are happy to use Wikipedia (Zero) as a door opener to get the customer used to different treatment of data (which is a clear violation of net neutrality)."
Exactly this. Net neutrality means that the pipes are totally dumb, not favoring -any- service over any other in any way. Not Netflix, not Youtube, not Amazon, and not Wikimedia.
Anything that says "Data from this source will be (treated|priced) differently than data from another source" is a violation of net neutrality. Period. That does not mean the definition is inadequate. The definition is there to ensure the pipe -stays dumb-, and that preferential treatment is never accepted.
But the pipes are fundamentally not dumb -- there is a complex arrangement of transit prices and peering, and the companies that built transoceanic links want to recoup their investment. What you are saying is that you want the ISPs to provide the necessary cross-subsidies so that the pipes will appear to be dumb, to the end user.
The question for any regulated cross-subsidy should be: what is its social benefit? If certain telcos are allowed to choose, it will be cheaper to access Wikipedia than cheezburger.com. Is that appropriate? What social benefits will it provide if we regulate to ensure that they are the same price?
Vertical integration between content providers and ISPs is probably harmful to competition. The obvious way to deal with that is to split those companies. But even in a competitive marketplace, from a cost perspective, it totally makes sense that certain content providers will continue to be cheaper and/or faster, just because of geography.
Wikipedia is naturally slow and expensive for many ISPs, because we don't use a big CDN.
Why don't we? Is it one of the "expensive for us, cheap for users" things?
If ISPs sold services on a cost-plus basis, you would expect websites delivered via CDN to be cheaper than websites that are located at a single site, geographically distant from their users.
-- Tim Starling
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
-- svetlana
On 01/12/14 15:24, svetlana wrote:
Wikipedia is naturally slow and expensive for many ISPs, because we don't use a big CDN.
Why don't we? Is it one of the "expensive for us, cheap for users" things?
That may be part of it. Also, we have unusual technical requirements for freshness of content and prompt removal (revision deletion etc.), and an ops team with a desire for independence.
-- Tim Starling
Hoi, We do have the experience needed. We have servers in Amsterdam and, it is something we can repeat.
When the desires of our ops team negatively affect the performance of our users, they have to reconsider what they are thinking. Imho that is not an acceptable argument. Thanks, GerardM
On 1 December 2014 at 10:38, Tim Starling tstarling@wikimedia.org wrote:
On 01/12/14 15:24, svetlana wrote:
Wikipedia is naturally slow and expensive for many ISPs, because we don't use a big CDN.
Why don't we? Is it one of the "expensive for us, cheap for users"
things?
That may be part of it. Also, we have unusual technical requirements for freshness of content and prompt removal (revision deletion etc.), and an ops team with a desire for independence.
-- Tim Starling
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
This comparison is quite useful and got rather popular: «For all the arcana in telecommunications law, there is a really simple way of thinking of the debate over net neutrality: Is access to the Internet more like access to electricity, or more like cable television service?». http://www.nytimes.com/2014/11/11/upshot/a-super-simple-way-to-understand-th...
Tim Starling, 01/12/2014 05:21:
But the pipes are fundamentally not dumb -- there is a complex arrangement of transit prices and peering, and the companies that built transoceanic links want to recoup their investment.
I doubt the worldwide internet backbone is (significantly) more complex or expensive than the electricity grid.
What you are saying is that you want the ISPs to provide the necessary cross-subsidies so that the pipes will appear to be dumb, to the end user.
Opinions on this vary. Historically, for instance, electricity grids have been rather fragmented and have been unified only with strong regulations or nationalisations. Only now regulators are seriously taking care of supranational grids. Certainly we don't want to go backwards, because it usually takes decades to progress.
Nemo
On 01/12/14 23:11, Federico Leva (Nemo) wrote:
This comparison is quite useful and got rather popular: «For all the arcana in telecommunications law, there is a really simple way of thinking of the debate over net neutrality: Is access to the Internet more like access to electricity, or more like cable television service?». http://www.nytimes.com/2014/11/11/upshot/a-super-simple-way-to-understand-th...
I don't think the internet is especially similar to either. I think it is like the postal service. The analogous question to net neutrality is whether priority mail should be allowed, and whether it should cost more to send a package to another continent than it does to send it within the same city.
Nobody is saying ISPs should adopt a cable model, giving you a subscription to a bundle of 100 websites tailored to your tastes and preventing access to anything else, as that article suggests. That is a straw man.
Obviously your electricity company has no opinion on what brand of hairdryer you use, because your electricity company is not in the business of shipping hairdryers. But if you buy hairdryers online, the postal service or courier company will often have bulk discounts with certain suppliers, so they do effectively participate in selecting your hairdryer brand.
You don't connect your laptop to the internet each morning and say "one million bits, please!" which is then delivered as white noise through your speakers. ISPs are not selling a commodity.
-- Tim Starling
On 11/30/2014 01:12 PM, Jens Best wrote:
First it's kind of interesting that net neutrality which is very clear in its definition becomes "overly simplistic and unrealistic" and "inadequate" the moment it collides with an organisations own interests. Isn't that quite an coincidence? ;)
At least for me, it is not: I have always been opposed to statements of the form "All X is good/bad" because such statements are always, by definition, overly simplistic and unrealistic.
"Net neutrality" sounds like a good idea at first glance because it superficially resembles the ill-defined and subtle desirable objective of "prevent the oligarchies that owns the communication media from effectively controlling and/or affecting what can be accessed/done in order to further their interests at the detriment of people".
"Net neutrality" as currently defined is an alluring concept because - as Westerners - we percieve its putative effect as "make everything uniformly inexpensive to level the playing field for users and content providers". /We/ don't care that Wikipedia is as expensive to use as Facebook because the cost to either is marginally neglectable.
-- Marc
On 1 December 2014 at 14:45, Marc A. Pelletier marc@uberbox.org wrote:
"Net neutrality" as currently defined is an alluring concept because - as Westerners - we percieve its putative effect as "make everything uniformly inexpensive to level the playing field for users and content providers". /We/ don't care that Wikipedia is as expensive to use as Facebook because the cost to either is marginally neglectable.
This makes me wonder if "yep, we sure do violate it, and here's precisely why" might be a good answer. Though I'd rather not hand Comcast any more sticks. (Compare the FSF's use of copyright assignment and the typical commercial user of copyright assignment.)
I note a vague similarity to Erik's essay on why -NC is harmful: that the idea of enforcing "noncommerciality" is pretty much a first world affectation and doesn't really do the job people using it want it to.
- d.
I'm finding this highly principled conversation fascinating to read - I'm genuinely learning a lot about the different arguments (both philosophical and practical) used to support or critique Wikipedia Zero. What a diverse and highly informed group of people this list contains! :-)
From my Australian perspective, it's interesting because we've never had
'net neutrality' in the way that it is described in the US and, with appropriate competition and regulation this is not been a problem. e.g.:
"Net neutrality is an honourable aspiration, but the Australian internet
service provider market has thrived and innovated without it. Discriminatory pricing in the form of unmetered content is more a consumer bonus than an imposition of someone else’s choice. http://theconversation.com/australias-net-neutrality-lesson-for-the-us-22245
While I genuinely support the idealism of the net-neutrality debate, and it makes sense in certain jurisdictional contexts (notably the USA), I am won-over by the arguments that have been made here about how WikipediaZero is non-rivalrous. As Marc P. put it earlier:
So it's clearly neutral in the "equally available" sense of the term. And it remains neutral in the "competition" sense of the term since they are welcome to zero-rate any other service they wish alongside ours. And, finally, it's also neutral from a conflict-of-interest point of view.
When looking at the practical reality of a high-school in a poorer district of South Africa specifically asking for greater access to WP from their local telecom company[1], it's hard to remain stuck on purely-principled debates. That is a *real world* group of of people that is *specifically* asked for easer access to Wikipedia - *of course *we should support that.
This is *not *to discount the importance of principles - and a lot of good ones have been mentioned here - but I'm not going to argue against a school-group in a poorer country wanting "free-access to the sum of human knowledge" on their mobile phones because of a political fight in richer countries about heavy-data usage on high-speed broadband.
-Liam
On Mon, Dec 1, 2014 at 11:30 AM, Liam Wyatt liamwyatt@gmail.com wrote:
From my Australian perspective, it's interesting because we've never had 'net neutrality' in the way that it is described in the US and, with appropriate competition and regulation this is not been a problem. e.g.:
"Net neutrality is an honourable aspiration, but the Australian internet
service provider market has thrived and innovated without it. Discriminatory pricing in the form of unmetered content is more a
consumer
bonus than an imposition of someone else’s choice.
http://theconversation.com/australias-net-neutrality-lesson-for-the-us-22245
Thanks for the interesting link. While the article acknowledges that the lack of net neutrality has favored certain Australian content providers at the expense of others, it sounds like the most pernicious effects are mitigated by the fact that at least part of the ISP infrastructure is treated as a public utility that must permit competitors.
One more example of how an absolutist and global approach to net neutrality fails to account for local nuance.
Hi all,
As Gayle mentioned in her email, the article in the Washington Post did not represent an official position on net neutrality from the Wikimedia Foundation, or how we understand Wikipedia Zero. I wanted to provide some background that does.
Wikipedia Zero is designed to empower people who cannot afford to access information to get basic access to knowledge and participate in the creation of knowledge. It’s widely understood that barriers like poverty and limited internet connectivity are two major blockers preventing people around the world from full access to knowledge, and there are a number of groups working to address these issues as part of the broader Access to Knowledge (A2K) movement.
Wikipedia Zero is a powerful tool for accessing knowledge, but it is not the solution to the whole problem. It’s one tool in a toolbox. Real change needs to address issues such as cost barriers, literacy, and access to infrastructure. That’s why we’re also developing a more coordinated effort within a broader A2K coalition to collectively address the systemic challenges.
While Wikipedia Zero serves broader A2K objectives, we are mindful that zero-rating can be a challenging issue for net neutrality advocacy. In response, we’ve developed ten operating principles https://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Wikipedia_Zero_Operating_Principles to make sure that the initiative remains a free knowledge base with operations that are transparent to users.[1] They are intended to deter Wikipedia Zero from being used to introduce other zero-rating initiatives that don't follow the operating principles. We developed these principles after extensive consultation with net neutrality advocates about their concerns regarding commercial zero-rating arrangements, and believe they are strong and useful guidance for advocates to distinguish free access to Wikipedia from other zero-rating programs.
We’ll continue working with policymakers on net neutrality and welcome your constructive suggestions in this regard. We believe the vision of Wikimedia — the sum of all knowledge, available to all — and the values of an open internet are entirely consistent and in the global public interest. We’re also learning from your comments and welcome more input on how the Wikimedia community can support the A2K movement.
Best, Yana
[1] https://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Wikipedia_Zero_Operating_Principles
MZMcBride <z <at> mzmcbride.com> writes:
Ryan Lane wrote:
Kim Bruning <kim <at> ...> writes (roughly):
Washington post article: http://wapo.st/1zUXNXj
The response to this is embarrassing and lacking. Wikipedia Zero is an amazing program (and is one of the only excellent non-engineering things the foundation has done). [...]
I think calling Wikipedia Zero non-engineeering is kind of bizarre, possibly just wrong. Wikipedia Zero spans both development and operations. It has a MediaWiki extension https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Extension:ZeroBanner and custom back-end (Web server) configuration to support it. And of course ZeroBanner is just the latest extension, it's had others, while parts of Wikipedia Zero's infrastructure have been integrated (yay!) with other extensions.
To be clear, I'm not attacking Wikipedia Zero or the resources it's using, I kind of like the idea, but it's definitely an engineering project. In addition to engineering resources, Wikipedia Zero requires administrative overhead for partnership negotiation and management, which is probably not unique to the Wikipedia Zero team. "Only excellent" seems a bit rough.
It was a project created and lead by the business development folks and was given some engineering resources to make it happen. It's been incredibly successful and has a real and important impact. Even taking engineering projects into consideration, this is one of Wikimedia's most impacting projects from the point of view of the mission.
My biggest wonder here is: why in the world is the HR director for the foundation speaking with the press about this on behalf of the foundation (and the movement)? This seems like the kind of thing the communications department, or the ED (or DD) should be doing.
This isn't arguably wrong, just plain wrong. Gayle's title is "Chief Talent and Culture Officer" and the Director of Human Resources is someone else who reports to her; cf. https://www.wikimedia.org/wiki/Template:Staff_and_contractors#HR. I agree that for a media outlet such the Washington Post, having a C-level person speak is best... and that's what happened here. (Now whether the Wikimedia Foundation should be large enough to require a Chief Talent and Culture Officer position is a separate question that can hopefully be addressed in another thread.)
http://siliconvalleyjobtitlegenerator.tumblr.com/
Sorry, I used director instead of chief. That doesn't change the fact that her role is to lead HR. If you look at the staff page, you'll see this is in the case and from a practical point of view, she does HR stuff.
Having any C level respond to the press is a bad approach, especially with a subject this touchy. This is the entire reason for having a communications/brand department.
- Ryan
On Nov 26, 2014 11:21 PM, "Kim Bruning" kim@bruning.xs4all.nl wrote:
Washington post article
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/the-switch/wp/2014/11/25/wikipedias-comp...
sincerely, Kim
This is obviously not the first time this comes up, and it's probably not going to be the last time either. I think that Wikipedia Zero is a great and valuable project that does the right thing. I also agree it violates net neutrality for any reasonable definition of net neutrality, and there is a number of very good objections to the practice. It would be great if we were confident enough of this project to come out and say yes, this violates net neutrality and here are the reasons why we think it's a good thing in this case. It would make a far stronger case than the well, actually, ... rule lawyer, question evasion, goalposts moving, talking around the issue ... and that's why it has nothing to do with net neutrality!
Wikipedia Zero is a great project that does amazingly good stuff for many people who need it most. That's an awesome reason to violate net neutrality, even when it has real dangers and drawbacks. When we start to deny the dangers and drawbacks, all discussion becomes muddled, and stains the zero project with dishonesty.
--Martijn
Net Neutrality issues cropping up in india now, VOIP providers are first to be targeted..
http://in.reuters.com/article/2014/12/24/bharti-airtel-rates-idINKBN0K20SU20...
If they can charge for VOIP or for other things, it means there is also nothing stopping providers in India from charging for wikipedia either. The reason they haven't done it yet, is just because they haven't thought of it yet.
Due to our current activities in India, we may be in a bit of a tricky situation trying to prevent afforementioned scenario.
We'll have to see how this progresses in practice.
sincerely, Kim
On Wed, Nov 26, 2014 at 10:07:02PM +0100, Kim Bruning wrote:
Washington post article http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/the-switch/wp/2014/11/25/wikipedias-comp...
sincerely, Kim
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
Hi Kim,
Ofcos I see there are many reasons which prompted them to make this move. Firstly and majorly been that they have lost their earning in calls and traditional SMSes because of VoIP and messaging applications like whatsapp.
Not sure for now if they will end up charging additionally for Wikipedia, as it in now way impacts their business.
Regards from Mumbai, Karthik Nadar.
On Sat, Dec 27, 2014 at 2:46 PM, Kim Bruning kim@bruning.xs4all.nl wrote:
Net Neutrality issues cropping up in india now, VOIP providers are first to be targeted..
http://in.reuters.com/article/2014/12/24/bharti-airtel-rates-idINKBN0K20SU20...
If they can charge for VOIP or for other things, it means there is also nothing stopping providers in India from charging for wikipedia either. The reason they haven't done it yet, is just because they haven't thought of it yet.
Due to our current activities in India, we may be in a bit of a tricky situation trying to prevent afforementioned scenario.
We'll have to see how this progresses in practice.
sincerely, Kim
On Wed, Nov 26, 2014 at 10:07:02PM +0100, Kim Bruning wrote:
Washington post article
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/the-switch/wp/2014/11/25/wikipedias-comp...
sincerely, Kim
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
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 Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
Found another article calling out Wikipedia. Are there also articles praising us? :-)
https://medium.com/backchannel/less-than-zero-199bcb05a868
I do think that wikipedia zero is useful in the short term. I'm a bit worried about the long term though.
Question: How do you predict wikipedia zero's effect on the internet in the long term? There are clearly going to be both positive and negative effects. Denying either is silly. What can we do to strengthen the positive effects, and how do we mitigate the negative?
At what thresholds would wikipedia zero be stopped in some country and at what thresholds promoted? Are there documents/analysis online?
sincerely, Kim
On Wed, Nov 26, 2014 at 10:07:02PM +0100, Kim Bruning wrote:
Washington post article http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/the-switch/wp/2014/11/25/wikipedias-comp...
sincerely, Kim
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
* Kim Bruning wrote:
Found another article calling out Wikipedia. Are there also articles praising us? :-)
Quoting,
Facebook, Twitter, WhatsApp and Wikipedia become “the Internet” for the users of mobile data supported by “zero rating” plans, because accessing these services doesn’t cause users to hit the data caps applied by the carriers, and in many cases the plans don’t require the user to sign up for mobile data at all.
http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Wikipedia_Zero_Operating_Principles
Wikipedia Zero cannot be sold as part of a bundle. Access to the Wikimedia sites through Wikipedia Zero cannot be sold through limited service bundles.
It seems pretty clear to me that users of Wikipedia Zero must pay a non-trivial amount for "mobile data" above and beyond normal telephony services, even if they only access "zero-rated services", otherwise it is a limited service bundle which we are lead to believe is forbidden.
(It is also possible the intent of the requirement above is that it is entirely okay to "sell Wikipedia Zero" through limited service bundles so long as an operator does not offer even more limited services; in that case the phrasing is grossly misleading.)
I assume the Foundation closely monitors offerings of operators it has made an agreement with to ensure access to Wikipedia Zero is never sold as part of a limited service bundle. Could the relevant records please be released?
wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org