Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

SoylentNews is people

posted by janrinok on Thursday November 27 2014, @05:50PM   Printer-friendly
from the have-the-cake-and-eat-it dept.

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."

 
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
Display Options Threshold/Breakthrough Mark All as Read Mark All as Unread
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
  • (Score: 2) by aristarchus on Friday November 28 2014, @01:19AM

    by aristarchus (2645) on Friday November 28 2014, @01:19AM (#120748) Journal

    If you have to ask whether it is sarcasm, you already are a racist. Do try to get a clue! Some of us here on Soylent are trying to be human beings!

    Wait, which side were you on?

    Starting Score:    1  point
    Karma-Bonus Modifier   +1  

    Total Score:   2  
  • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday November 28 2014, @02:18AM

    by Anonymous Coward on Friday November 28 2014, @02:18AM (#120757)

    This is hilarious. Each comment of yours is funnier and funnier than the last!

    • (Score: 2) by aristarchus on Friday November 28 2014, @02:27AM

      by aristarchus (2645) on Friday November 28 2014, @02:27AM (#120758) Journal

      Sorry, It's not intentional. Fish in a barrel, racists in white hoods, and whatnot. And what is so damn hard to understand about common carrier status? This was settled with telegraph back in the day! And then POTS! So what about network connectivity? Same deal, morons! Oh, gawd, and gweg, now I am tired. Too tired to not be a racist anymore. Fricking Honkeys! Espido Gringos! Bloody Brits! And Comcast, is it possible to be racist against corporations?