[Advocacy Advisors] Wikipedia Zero and net neutrality

Fri Jul 25 18:18:48 UTC 2014

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 at 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-divide
>
> 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 at 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 at 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-access-to-wikipedia-and-facebook/
>>>
>>>
>>> http://www.subtel.gob.cl/noticias/138-neutralidad-red/5311-ley-de-neutralidad-y-redes-sociales-gratis?_ga=1.143290485.1915805894.1400742323
>>>
>>> Overview Wikipedia Zero:
>>>
>>> https://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Mobile_partnerships
>>>
>>>
>>> 2014-04-26 7:00 GMT+02:00 John Mark Vandenberg <jayvdb at 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. ;-)
>>>>
>>>> 1. http://www.networkneutrality.info/members.html
>>>> 2.
>>>> https://theconversation.com/europe-votes-for-a-neutral-net-but-what-does-that-mean-25252
>>>> 3. http://policyreview.info/articles/news/proof-pudding-eating/232
>>>> 4.
>>>> https://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Mobile_partnerships#Where_is_Wikipedia_free_to_access.3F
>>>>
>>>> --
>>>> John Vandenberg
>>>>
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> Advocacy_Advisors mailing list
>>>> Advocacy_Advisors at 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 at 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 at 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 at 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>.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/advocacy_advisors/attachments/20140725/84e5ced7/attachment-0001.html>