SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
Brian Fung writes in the Washington Post that Wikipedia has been a little hesitant to weigh in on net neutrality, the idea that all Web traffic should be treated equally by Internet service providers such as Comcast or Time Warner Cable. That's because the folks behind Wikipedia actually see a non-neutral Internet as one way to spread information cheaply to users in developing countries. With Wikipedia Zero, users in places like Pakistan and Malaysia can browse the site without it counting it counting against the data caps on their cellphones or tablets. This preferential treatment for Wikipedia's site helps those who can't afford to pay for pricey data — but it sets the precedent for deals that cut against the net neutrality principle. "We believe in net neutrality in America," says Gayle Karen Young adding that Wikipedia Zero requires a different perspective elsewhere. "Partnering with telecom companies in the near term, it blurs the net neutrality line in those areas. It fulfils our overall mission, though, which is providing free knowledge."
Facebook and Google also operate programs internationally that are exempted from users' data caps — a tactic known somewhat cryptically as "zero rating". Facebook in particular has made “Facebook Zero” not just a sales pitch in developing markets but also part of an Internet.org initiative to expand access “to the two thirds of the world’s population that doesn’t have it.” But a surprising decision in Chile shows what happens when policies of neutrality are applied without nuance. Chile recently put an end to the practice, widespread in developing countries, of big companies “zero-rating” access to their services. "That might seem perverse," says Glyn Moody, "since it means that Chilean mobile users must now pay to access those services, but it is nonetheless exactly what governments that have mandated net neutrality need to do."
(Score: 2) by frojack on Thursday November 27 2014, @09:34PM
This just isn't helpful. I'm somewhat familiar with Africa, and in many African countries, national bandwidth is truly pretty limited. If you give one service advantageous access, then you are automatically reducing the bandwidth available for all competing services.
Exactly.
Further, if Facebook and Google and Wikimedia want to subsidize end users in remote places let them ADD to the band width with direct grants rather than SUBTRACT from the bandwidth by effectively buying it up for their own use. Let the give grants to end users. Let them buy infrastructure for ISPs, or put servers on the ISPs network to reduce the ISP's upstream costs, with a stipulation that the ISP passes that cost saving along to customers.
But they don't need to fuckover the entire net just to make THEIR content flow faster.
Further, an organization like Wikimedia, which perpetually has its hand out begging donations, has no business subsidizing some users.
No, you are mistaken. I've always had this sig.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday November 27 2014, @11:44PM
Further, if Facebook and Google and Wikimedia want to subsidize end users in remote places let them ADD to the band width with direct grants rather than SUBTRACT from the bandwidth by effectively buying it up for their own use.
What is a "direct grant?" They are paying the telco for the bandwidth used, who do you propose they grant this money to other than the telco?