[Wikimedia-l] is wikipedia zero illegal because it violates net neutrality?

[Robert Rohde]

On Mon, Aug 26, 2013 at 2:13 PM, George Herbert
<george.herbert at gmail.com> wrote:
<snip>
> Again: with Wikipedia, we do not have particular mutually beneficial
> relationships which this would be encouraging, and the service provider
> isn't really in a position to damage a Wikipedia competitor by doing this,
> as far as I can see.
>
<snip>
>
> If you can explain a manner in which the underlying monopoly / advantage
> issue IS a problem here, please point it out.  If there is one that I do
> not see then that forms a valid reason to reconsider.

I'm willing to play devil's advocate here.  Personally, I don't see
Wikipedia Zero as bad or a serious threat to net neutrality, but I can
certainly understand the argument that free access to Wikipedia might
disadvantage other content providers and discourage people from paying
for mobile internet.

To give a timely (if rather American) example, the Video Music Awards
were last night.  If I wanted to know what happened, I could visit the
VMA site, or many news sites, or Wikipedia which was updated in near
real time.  In the framework of Wikipedia Zero, getting the info from
Wikipedia is free which would rationally discourage traffic to other
news sites or VMA's own site.

The same argument can be made for other reference websites (e.g.
About.com, Encyclopedia Britannica Online).  If they cost money to
visit and we don't, then they are at a disadvantage when it comes to
getting traffic.

Free information is incredibly powerful, and I think we all agree that
it is generally a Good Thing.  This is doubly true in many of the poor
nations where Wikipedia Zero partnerships have been formed, as poverty
can make data charges seem prohibitive.  However, the presence of free
information is also disruptive to for-profit information providers.
For example, we all know how the internet has impacted newspaper
sales, or how the internet (and sites like Wikipedia) ultimately led
Encyclopedia Britannica to close their print operation.  Free
information is powerful, and sometimes that power will disrupt or
destroy for-profit information providers.

Consider for a moment, how the story might sound if we changed the
names a bit.  Suppose National Monopoly Telecom partnered with Google
to bring Maps and News to poor people with no data charges?  Is that
just as good?  What if they had ads on the pages which were presented
without data charges?  What if it were Microsoft instead of Google?
Etc.  The end users get a free service, and presumably that service is
useful, and quite possibly most users will be glad they have it.
Still, it is true that Wikipedia Zero and similar programs do cause
some content to have a privileged place in the marketplace over other
content, and that will drive traffic to the free option and reduce
traffic to competitors.  Depending on your point of view, maybe that's
not a big deal, but if you are a hardcore advocate of net neutrality
then one might well argue that ISPs should treat all content equally
and not have different rates for equivalent amounts of data coming
from different sources.  It is well-formed criticism of the Wikipedia
Zero project.  Personally, I don't think the principle of net
neutrality should be so rigidly adhered to as to discourage the broad
dissemination of knowledge among people who have historically lacked
access to it, but I suppose some people might disagree.

-Robert Rohde