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

[Andre Engels]

On Wed, Aug 28, 2013 at 8:12 AM, rupert THURNER <rupert.thurner at gmail.com>wrote:

> Am 26.08.2013 18:14 schrieb "Andre Engels" <andreengels at gmail.com>:
>
> > Dutch telecommunication law, article 7.4a (the net neutrality article),
> > paragraph 3:
> >
> > "Aanbieders van internettoegangsdiensten stellen de hoogte van tarieven
> > voor internettoegangsdiensten niet afhankelijk van de diensten en
> > toepassingen die via deze diensten worden aangeboden of gebruikt."
> >
> > "Offerers of internet access services do not make the tariffs for
> internet
> > access services dependent on the services and applications that are
> offered
> > or used via these services."
> >
> > If an isp offers Wikipedia for free, and some other internet usage not,
> > then it has a different tariff dependent on the service that is offered.
>
> Andre, this means Wikipedia Zero is illegal in Dutch law, and WMF
> actively promotes illegal deals? The Swiss proposal btw looks the
> same, as well the intention of the German law seems similar.
>

Well, they are not illegal, as they do not fall under Dutch jurisdiction.


> As i see it "illegal" does not mean necessarily "immoral" or "bad
> intention". And of course we (or at least i) are heavily biased
> because we think there is nothing better than Wikipedia, and there is
> nothing better if everybody on this world is able to get it for free.


For me personally, it is a moral question. As specified above, it's not
illegal for the simple reason that it's not been rolled out or planned in
countries with net neutrality laws as far as I know. To me the question is:
Even if it is not illegal, is it a good idea from a moral standpoint? I
don't think WMF has spoken out about net neutrality, but undoubtedly many
people within our movement stand behind it. If the WMF would endorse net
neutrality, and if Wikipedia Zero would break it, then supporting Wikipedia
Zero would be hypocritical. For me personally, the solution is to stand for
a more relaxed definition of net neutrality, where giving an alternative or
better service for specific services is not problematic as long as this
does not adversely affect service for other services. YMMV.

-- 
André Engels, andreengels at gmail.com