I don't see economics here, unless you are extremely naive about reality.
There are some items -- abused or not for marketing purposes of the
entities used for achieving interests of their shareholders -- which belong
to the corpus of common good. Like air and free knowledge are, for example.
The fact that the net neutrality concept has been written from the
perspective of the dominant ideology, which adherents are not capable to
comprehend that there is something outside of the market, proves just the
point that those responsible for the definition should educate themselves a
bit and try again.
On Nov 30, 2014 12:05 PM, "Mark" <delirium(a)hackish.org> wrote:
On 11/30/14, 9:49 AM, Ryan Lane wrote:
Providing free access to Wikipedia doesn't
violate the
concept of net neutrality. Access to Wikimedia is being subsidized by the
mobile companies. Access to other sources of information isn't being
slowed.
There's no extra charge to access other sources of information.
I don't see a distinction here, unless you're extremely naive about
economics. Discriminatory pricing in any market can be done in two ways: 1.
have a "standard" rate and add a surcharge to certain disfavored uses; or
2. have a "standard" rate and give a discount to certain favored uses. Most
things done with #1 could be reconfigured to be done with #2 or vice-versa;
it ends up as mainly a rhetorical and administrative difference. In either
case, applied to data, it's varying pricing packet pricing based on whether
the source of the packets is favored or disfavored by the ISP (in this
case, Wikipedia is favored), which is precisely what net neutrality wishes
to prohibit.
-Mark
_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
https://meta.wikimedia.org/
wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
Wikimedia-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
<mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>