[Advocacy Advisors] Wikipedia Zero and net neutrality

Sat May 31 12:54:29 UTC 2014

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.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/advocacy_advisors/attachments/20140531/dc11a810/attachment-0001.html>