
Wikipedia Zero and Net Neutrality: Protecting the Internet as a Public Space - user_235711
http://blog.wikimedia.org/2014/08/01/wikipedia-zero-and-net-neutrality-protecting-the-internet/
======
mwsherman
Net neutrality is a very confused idea. Once one tries to define a testable
law, it becomes a lot less desirable.

Since I started paying attention, the definition has changed from “QoS on the
last mile” to “slowing certain protocols” to “blocking competitive services”
to “blocking any services” to “not building enough capacity” to “fast lanes
that aren’t CDNs” to “throttling any user” to “paying for interconnect”.

In the Wikipedia case above, it’s clearly a violation of NN and it’s clearly
good for consumers. It’s a very progressive policy, I support it – and it’s
not neutral.

The justification Wikimedia offers here is that they are serving the community
and are not exchanging $$ with the ISP. Is this part of the definition now?
And if so, do we want to start defining which sites we feel serve the
community?

~~~
A_COMPUTER
The argument that QoS would violate net neutrality is FUD from net neutrality
opponents. The only time I've seen proponents call it that was because ISPs
would block bittorrent for "quality of service" reasons, which of course isn't
QoS at all.

~~~
pessimizer
I am pro-net neutrality, and I think that particular packets getting QoS
guarantees is exactly what I'm against - and pretty much completely describes
what I'm against.

I don't know what net neutrality with QoS guarantees even means. Unless QoS is
a promise that the ISPs will be making to me, guaranteeing that I will always
have a particular amount of bandwidth - but I don't want any of the packets
that I am sending or receiving to get favorable treatment of any other packets
that I'm sending or receiving.

I'd even like to see law about the variables that upstream caching algorithms
can use, and I think that situations like the Netflix appliance could
absolutely legitimately be declared a no-no. Packet throughput should be
fungible, and it is before people start slipping each other cash.

~~~
nitrogen
QoS is a highly desirable feature of a network, _iff_ you, the end user,
control the QoS selection. If I'm playing a fast-paced online game, talking to
a group of friends with VoIP, and downloading a movie from one of the online
stores to watch later, I'd like to place the priority of the movie's packets
below the game and voice packets. But if the ISP does that for me, gives me no
choice in the matter, and/or prioritizes my minimum guaranteed allotment movie
packets above or below the voice packets of other customers, that's not okay.

I've mentioned this strategy a few times before on HN, starting ~4 years ago:

[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=2049784](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=2049784)

[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=4860164](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=4860164)

[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=4860180](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=4860180)

[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=7711264](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=7711264)

[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=7911677](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=7911677)

[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=8058319](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=8058319)

~~~
GauntletWizard
Yes; QOS has no place crossing the boundaries of a network segment - It should
allow me to control the ingress and egress of my network, but be stripped
before it gets to a network "trunk" like an ISP.

Further on that; If bandwidth on a segment is constrained, the ISP should
divide it as fairly as possible, while also trying to maximize throughput.
Each user should get an equal share, and if they're using less than that, the
remainder should be apportioned to the other users evenly.

~~~
nitrogen
It seems to me that some level of either user-controlled QoS or congestion
notification is desirable at the ISP level, since your software (e.g. Netflix,
VoIP) might not know that the ISP network is congested, but you'd still prefer
to tell your ISP's routers to prioritize the VoIP over the Netflix (within
your allotted share of bandwidth, of course).

------
fsniper
This is absolutely non NetNeutral.

There are billions of websites out there and each one of them is some kind of
information. Giving wikipedia free access but charging others may seem to be
innocent. But I believe on the contrary, it is opening one door that should
not be used.

There are thousands (millions?) of wikipedia articles and all have some kind
of linked citation. How will you draw the line? Wikipedia is open information
but these citations are not?

In my country we have operator giving twitter and facebook free access. And I
always thought that was another nail on net neutralities coffin. Wikipedia is
nailing one more too.

~~~
asadotzler
Public benefit organizations like Wikipedia already operate by a somewhat
different set of tax laws than traditional for profit corporations. This is
precisely because governments around the world believe there is high value in
organizations other than governments that serve the people with a public good
or service.

Why can you not imagine similar carve-outs for non-profits when it comes to
communications regulations on the Internet.

~~~
fsniper
This is not regulation.

Also I'm not against free wikipedia access. I'm against using connection
provider power to limit access to any where.

If an ISP starts with free wikipedia where would it land then? I believe "You
can freely connect wikipedia but you can't use whatsapp or you must reimburse
us for the lost sms revenue" is only one step ahead.

------
higherpurpose
Just because it's Wikimedia doing it, doesn't mean that all of the sudden I'm
all for it. I believe it's still discriminatory against small
organization/websites and against net neutrality principles.

------
wodenokoto
>Wikipedia Zero cannot be sold as part of a bundle. Access > to the Wikimedia
sites through Wikipedia Zero cannot be >sold through limited service bundles.

Sounds to me like it is ONLY available in some sort of bundles.

This is a brilliant display of the good that non-NN can bring to the world
while showing the potential sliding slope. Interesting stuff.

------
_h__
This is a difficult choice. On one hand I believe that Wikipedia should be
FREE in all senses of the word. On the other hand making one exception will
create more exceptions. Why not make facebook and Gmail free to access so that
people can communicate? I want this exception for Wikipedia. But I am worried.

~~~
_h__
I am from India. Bandwidth is costly here. Internet enabled devices have
surprisingly have become cheaper. Making some access 'Free' could change the
world of many people.

I agree where there is food and shelter in short, giving Internet free may not
help to fight these. But it will help to fight corruption and bureaucracy.
Many important government services are online nowadays. In West-Bengal,
government stopped online college admission just to keep bureaucratic system
going. They fear free Internet, it is a killer for corruption here.

~~~
chimeracoder
Allowing certain organizations to bypass data caps or data rates and not
others is an incredible opportunity for corruption.

It's like the "licenses Raj" days all over again. Nehru might have had good
intentions, but it just created a massively corruption system of extortion.

------
habosa
Maybe we can make an exception for non-profit organizations that don't pay the
ISPs or get paid?

Although since the NFL is a non-profit, maybe not...

~~~
skybrian
I think these rules have it covered: "No exchange of payment." "Wikipedia Zero
cannot be sold as part of a bundle"

If the NFL wants to provide free football games to all cable subscribers, I
think we should let them.

------
sparkzilla
>Imagine a world in which every single human being can freely share in the sum
of all knowledge. That’s our commitment.

Wikipedia can _never_ be the sum of all human knowledge and anyone who thinks
so is seriously deluded. The web in its entirety still doesn't include even a
fraction of all knowledge. To think that one website -- a poorly designed one,
with terrible software, design, media handling, policies and leadership -- is
claiming this is simply laughable.

That goes for Wikipedia "protecting the internet". Protecting it from who
exactly?

Wikipedia's leadership and its acolytes constantly use false utopian goals to
justify their expansion into areas that they are ill-equipped to deal with
(see: dangerous and incorrect medical data). It seems they are trying to use
the same lofty ideals to carve out market protection in Africa.

~~~
pms
Could you provide any arguments, instead of just bashing Wikipedia?

~~~
NoahTheDuke
I'm not the OP, but Deletionism [0] is a serious detriment to the idea of "sum
of all human knowledge."

[0]:
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deletionism_and_inclusionism_i...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deletionism_and_inclusionism_in_Wikipedia)

