[Advocacy Advisors] Wikipedia Zero specifically excepted from ban of zero-rating services in Chile

Tue Sep 23 03:15:44 UTC 2014

“Wikipedia Zero, as structured, does not pose harm to the open internet. It
promotes free speech and innovation, which are the two underlying purposes
of net neutrality.“ = desperate PR-speak. More Orwell entering some fields
of work of the foundation.

Ignoring bad factual consequences of inconsiderately introduced projects
seems to be a strong quality in some areas of the foundation.

So, therefore, it has too be said again: Wikipedia Zero is used by mobile
providers and its lobbyists to establish an unequal usage of different
data, in consequence getting people used to violate net neutrality on a
regular base.

Even if the foundation now found a so called net neutrality advocate which
is willing to trade the principle for whatever reason, the global gathering
(IGF) in Istanbul showed that NGO representatives from USA, Europe and the
“Global South“ are strongly worried about the fact that Wikipedia Zero is a
breaker of the net neutrality principle (and some foundation
representatives strictly ignoring that fact).
Member of a “Global South“ initiative called Wikipedia Zero and the way it
brings “the internet“ to the poor plainly patronizing. They put Wikipedia
in the same category with Facebook and other US-american Websites which
hide their marketing tricks behind nice PR-wordings.

The foundation strongly needs to rethink its strategy pushing a project
that globally counteracts the actions for protecting net neutrality in a
very critical time instead of increasing its dangerous activities in this
field. Wikipedia Zero is a clear violation of net neutrality whatever deal
the foundation is making with single governments. A global principle can't
be changed by one department of one ministry of one country.

The possible alternative: A general channel for all public sphere content
would be something totally different, because it would be implemented by
laws and multi-stakeholder-agreements around the world and not be based on
individual deals. All content which would by these rules then seen as “free
knowledge or free education“ would be part of these public sphere without
the need to deal with every mobile providers.

No mobile provider will ever allow zero-rated free knowledge Video content
when they not forced by an internationally agreed understanding and
consequent laws establishing a truly free digital public sphere.

Nowadays deals can be made by a well-staffed organization like the
foundation, but surely not by many other producers of free knowledge
material.
Therefore the recent activities of the foundation are going in the wrong
direction. Obviously covering mistakes made in the past with new mistakes
is having higher priorities than really finding a better way to ensure free
knowledge and respecting basic rules of a free and open web the same time.

Jens
Am 23.09.2014 02:27 schrieb "Yana Welinder" <ywelinder at wikimedia.org>:

> Hi Cristian,
>
> Thanks for your comments.
>
> I'm glad that Chile is an example of a country with a strong net
> neutrality law that does not prohibit Wikipedia Zero. Generally, the
> principle of net neutrality is not that unequivocal that zero-rating can be
> said to clearly violate it. In fact, out of eight net neutrality laws and
> regulations worldwide, only one (if any) actually prohibits all
> zero-rating. Presumably, regulators recognize they have to review
> zero-rating practices on their merits and see if they pose any harm to the
> open internet.  Otherwise, they will end up prohibiting free access to
> information for no apparent reason.
>
> Wikipedia Zero, as structured, does not pose harm to the open internet. It
> promotes free speech and innovation, which are the two underlying purposes
> of net neutrality. It's structured around our ten operating principles that
> make sure that the initiative doesn't create a slippery slope towards other
> harmful services because it would immediately be obvious if they don't
> operate under similar principles.
>
> With this position, SUBTEL hasn't articulated a Wikipedia Zero exception.
> He provided an informal clarification that his recent order only prohibited
> certain commercial bundles. The order didn't cover zero-rating initiatives
> like Wikipedia Zero. While we don't yet know the exact scope of what's
> allowed and are asking carriers to seek formal clarification from SUBTEL, I
> could imagine that this category may include initiatives like zero-rated
> lending of ebooks from public libraries and free access to non-profit
> healthcare apps.
>
> We've seen support from net neutrality advocates who can see that a
> country can have both net neutrality and initiatives like Wikipedia Zero.
> Some of them helped us prepare our communication to SUBTEL. We are
> discussing broader policy on how the two could coexist and will report back
> as soon as we reach a common understanding. In the meantime, here is a
> summary that CDT prepared of a related panel discussion at IGF earlier this
> month:
> http://www.intgovforum.org/cms/wks2014/index.php/proposal/view_public/208
>
> Best,
> Yana
>
>
> On Mon, Sep 22, 2014 at 1:37 PM, Cristian Consonni <
> kikkocristian at gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> (probably this can be commented by more qualified people than myself)
>>
>> TL;DR
>> Chile's government (Subsecretaria de Telecomunicaciones, SUBTEL) has
>> issued a circular (i.e. an explanation of the law), called circular n.
>> 40[1], earlier in April this year stating that zero-rating go against
>> the Chilean net neutrality law in force (spec. disposition n. 6 and 7.
>> of law n. 18.168)[*]. Today  SUBTEL has "confirmed to us [WMF and
>> Wikimedia Chile] that the new order was not intended to prevent
>> Wikipedia Zero and similar free knowledge initiatives"
>>
>>
>> http://blog.wikimedia.org/2014/09/22/chilean-regulator-welcomes-wikipedia-zero/#cite_ref-1
>>
>> Well, in one word this is, for sure, "a thing".
>>
>> Cristian
>>
>> [1]
>> http://www.subtel.gob.cl/transparencia/Perfiles/Transparencia20285/Normativas/Oficios/14oc_0040.pdf
>> [*] {{es}} (end of page 1) "La estructura de la oferta en comento,
>> importan a juicio de esta autoridad una contravención a las normas que
>> en la especie regulan y prohiben conductas discriminatorias de
>> contenidos, aplicaciones o servicios, que integran el principio de
>> Neutralidad de Red contenidas en la normativa sectorial, y en
>> particular al texto del articulo 24o H letra a) de la Ley [dispuesto
>> 6o y 7o de la Ley no. 18,168]"
>> {{en}} "The structure of the offers under scrutiny, imply to the
>> judjement of this authority an infringement of the norms ... which
>> regulate and prohibit conduct of discrimination of contents,
>> applications or services which constitute the principle of Net
>> Neutrality contained in the sectorial norms, and in particular in the
>> text of the article 24th H letter a) of the [aforementioned] law"
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> 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
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/advocacy_advisors/attachments/20140923/46b9fde3/attachment.html>