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

[rupert THURNER]

On Wed, Aug 28, 2013 at 2:05 AM, George Herbert
<george.herbert at gmail.com> wrote:
> This is a huge question and problem, however:
>
> Andreas:
>
>> The question is whether monopolisation of information is desirable. I
>> prefer pluralism. Monopolies sooner or later end up not being in the
>> public's best interest.
>
>
>
> If you view Wikipedia / WMF projects getting very slightly preferred net
> access as the primary barrier to WMF / Wikipedia not edging towards an open
> information monopoly, I object.
>
> The primary barrier is that nobody has proposed a more functional, feasible
> model and launched a project to implement that better model.

Good point. So the question you are asking is "How can we legalize
Wikipedia Zero in all countries and avoid such a discussion in
future?". What do you think of doing the following:

First, WMF should declare officially if it wants to follow net
neutrality or not. This eases the future design of offerings. And it
facilitates dealing with net neutral borderline countries, like China.
 "we like net neutrality, but we do think it does not apply for our
own contents" might bear a reputational risk, and therefor impact
donors money inflow, weaken negotiation position. Essential is that
this does _not_ mean "promote net neutrality" - which at least i
cannot read out of the vision or mission.

Second, find a way to legalize Wikipedia Zero. A simple proposal might
be a contract in the lines of:
   "If one reads a Wikipedia article on the mobile device, then he
shall get 3 MB free internet traffic for this day."

This would have the following advantages:

1. it is a real teaser to people to read wikipedia every day
2. there is no cost trap when clicking out of zero.wikipedia.org.
3. people can really participate in the movement,
    e.g. read/write emails, facebook groups,
    read blog.wikimedia.org.
4. mobile applications traffic is included
5. compared to today, the conditions would be simple
6. it is cheaper because no effort goes into separating
    our contents into zero.wp.org, m.wikipedia.org, etc.

Rupert