[Advocacy Advisors] Wikipedia Zero and net neutrality

Thu Jul 31 22:49:31 UTC 2014

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 at 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 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>.
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/advocacy_advisors/attachments/20140801/cdf856d6/attachment-0001.html>