Washington Post:
The Internet’s biggest encyclopedia is a lot like other major sites on the Web: It’s 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.
This issue, along with those raised by Mark Cuban in his controversial interview, show the complex nature of the net neutrality argument.
so now FCC is in charge of Pakistan and Malaysia’s bandwidth problem.
How quaint.
Electricity, Water, Roads are basic infrastructure thus UTILITY.
It is settle LAW. NO court will overturn it, in fact last judge said so to FCC.
Every other country has government controlled company sharing the last mile with ISPs. Nothing complicated about it.
If you can’t understand than you can’ understand anything in tech.
Wikipedia highlights an example of how I think that net non neutrality should work.
see to me the issue is that the current fast lanes are about making companies like Netflix pay so that they get what I should be getting as a consumer. I live in a major city in a neighborhood that has exactly 1 internet choice outside of my cell service. I can get cable internet from Comcast or use a costly cell provided connection. There is no fiber, no fios, no uverse. they arent allowed because it was legal for my neighborhood (which is incorporated) to grant an exclusive permit to Comcast to be THE only provider of any
No one said that the FCC is in charge of anything. Wikipedia does this in those areas and if the cell companies would play ball would likely do it in the US for areas that are still stuck on dialup due to lack of infrastructure for anything else. and yes there are such areas in the US. Mostly in the mountains. This is, to them, a positive example of how “special treatment” can happen.
And we all know what are and aren’t utilities. The point is that perhaps internet access should be also. And yes the courts and/or Congress can overturn this lack. If you don’t understand that then you dont understand how the US government works
Net neutrality (the old days) allowed Wikipedia to develop a crowd sourced model which competed against MSN Encarta because there was a level playing field.
I think their intentions are good however Wikipedia’s content is overwhelming white, english, male, and western. If they have an advantage then alternative local ventures can’t effectively do the same thing. Also it supports the case that it is reasonable for China to block or throttle traffic from Wikipedia and give an advantage to internal state sanctioned sites.
These motherhood examples cut both ways.
Without net neutrality the internet simply cannot function because it ceases to be an internet. There’s no argument period. It becomes broken up into smaller and smaller networks the more corporations find it possible to break it up and charge for access to websites until we’re all disconnected again. It becomes like cable television.
Without net neutrality people in Malaysia and Pakistan (let’s just assume they’re subject to our laws which they are not) would have to pay for bandwidth AND access to individual sites. This is beyond ridiculous.
So I checked http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Net_neutrality for an example. Its text is about 125K characters; about 300K source. The picture of Eric Schmidt (?!?) must add another couple of K.
That’s a LONG article, full of global policy issue discussions. At a likely / approximate / US price for mobile data—2GB/mth at $50, i.e. pretty high—it’s less than a penny.
I know I’m a well-off first-worlder and have a different perspective on these things. But a penny for an in-depth article seems a small part of the value for anybody who cares about articles like that. At 100wpm reading speed, it’s an hour and a quarter of somebody’s time, for example.
Wikipedia, bless their souls, is warping their mission by not recognizing the value of their efforts.
Sounds a bit like Wikipedia is begging for table scraps.
One of the problems with public highways is that those that use them the most and damage them the most do not pay for their use. It’s like we all subsidize free highways in this country for the benefit of trucking companies, real estate developers, and heavy commuters.
And folks want this same mess for the Internet so the heavy beneficiaries like Netflix and Netflix users get a free ride on all of that infrastructure.
Little bits of info are one thing, but massive data use is another. I think we need a middle ground here.
I think you’re saying that the fuel excise taxes don’t go to the highway trust fund. What am I misunderstanding?