6 ms·

Wouldn't net neutrality supporters be enraged because all data is not being treated equally now? Upstart wikis will never be able to compete!

by seibelj 10y ago

schoen 10y ago
Zero-rating has indeed become a big network neutrality controversy.
- seibelj 10y ago
  I know, it's a travesty that we allow Iraqis to access Wikipedia for free. We are literally ending wiki competition. Simply awful. Iraqis must demand net neutrality and stop accessing Wikipedia for free!
  - sa1 10y ago
    Laws and regulations won't be made per site. Net neutrality regulation would be effective only if you don't leave in backdoors via exceptions. Also, Wikipedia, being text-heavy and without obtrusive ads, is not something for which zero-rating provides much relief.
    - smsm42 10y ago
      That sounds dangerously like "we have this shiny new law that sounds good in theory so we're going to ignore that it hurts actual people in practice, because the theory sounds nice". I think if the law doesn't work "per site", it should be rethought until it does.
      - sa1 10y ago
        It has prevented zero-rating of video and social media services in practice.
        djrogers 10y ago
        What has, and where? All it takes is a quick trip to T-Mobile's website to see the list of video services they've zero-rated without any regulatory issues at all.
        sa1 10y ago
        Net neutrality regulation, India.
gbl08ma 10y ago
You kid, but as much as I like Wikimedia (and as much as I would like to access Wikipedia free of mobile data charges), I think this objectively makes it harder for projects in the same field to compete, even if just a tiny bit. I like to think I'm a net neutrality supporter, but when my mobile plan included unlimited data for the carrier's own music streaming service, I started using it and the unlimited data came in really handy. I used other streaming services much less because of that; Spotify, for example, didn't stand a chance of seeing my money. I guess you can't have your cake and eat it too...
- megalodon 10y ago
  There is a pretty big difference between a charitable non-profit organization and a proprietary music streaming service.
  - yosamino 10y ago
    Sure, but the barrier for the ISP to allowing the same thing for a proprietary music streaming service has been lowered. This is, apart from the utility that it brings, advertisement for the operator: > Wikimedia recognizes the user is on that operator's network and serves a banner on the top of the page indicating free data courtesy of their mobile operator, which reinforces a positive brand experience for the operator. [0] It's not inconceivable that the ISP would do similar deals with $music_streaming_service. Maybe for some payment. [0] https://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Wikipedia_Zero https://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Wikipedia_Zero
  - gbl08ma 10y ago
    See guelo's comment ( https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=13767782 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=13767782 ) Just because Wikimedia is not seeking profits or even looking to somehow "stay ahead" with this deal, that doesn't mean it isn't against neutrality.
- smsm42 10y ago
  > think this objectively makes it harder for projects in the same field to compete, even if just a tiny bit. I think this is true in theoretical sense, but not in any practical sense. Just as it's true that you breathing reduces amount of breathable oxygen around, but that's not a ground for me to sue you for air pollution and depriving me of vital oxygen ;) There are things so tiny as to consider them as if they weren't is to seriously distort the matter, and I think it's one of such things. To make it substantial, one needs to point out that a) there are viable competitors b) they are influenced by things like bandwidth costs and c) this difference is causing real and noticeable preference shift. I can believe it's true for mobile music streaming services, but I don't see it being true for Wikipedia. There's one more point - the argument against NN goes "it'd kill Wikipedia Zero". I don't think saying "well, so what, but it'd help Spotify" really a strong counter to it - if I had to choose between living without Wikipedia and living without Spotify, I'd choose Wikipedia without even pausing to think for a second. So NN proponents have to offer better answer than that, if they mean to go the utilitarian road.
tdb7893 10y ago
In my opinion zero rating is one of those things that is good until it is abused, and it would be much less of a problem if there was actual competition between ISPs. In my opinion net neutrality is largely to keep monopolies (either a web company or an ISP) from gaining even more power over the market. I would prefer to have no zero ratings at all because having any opens the door to abuse but practically it isn't actually bad in this situation otherwise.
boomboomsubban 10y ago
Other sources of information can't compete, and it's fairly easy for one source to be controlled by some person or organization. Additionally, when this has been done in the past people turn Wikipedia into the normal internet, hiding media on various pages and using it as a social media stand in. The money would be better spent lowering the normal cost, but then Wikipedia doesn't get the huge supply of editors.
- seibelj 10y ago
  You are right, the best possible solution is to ban free access to Wikipedia. It just isn't fair.
  - boomboomsubban 10y ago
    No, the best solution is free or affordable access to the entire internet. When the majority of users can't read the sources or access new ones to change things, Wikipedia can become a dangerous tool. The English version has problems with political groups controlling what goes on various Wikipedia pages, this system ensures it will happen.
- smsm42 10y ago
  It's easy to tell other people where their money are best spent, but the situation as it is is that in these countries, the prices of data vs. the salaries are such that 1G may cost you a month's salary. In that situation, the choice is not "listening streaming music on that or this service", it's "zero-rated sites or no internet at all". I'd rather these people had at least Wikipedia access. Even if it may put some Silicon Valley startup in a tougher spot.
  - boomboomsubban 10y ago
    >it's "zero-rated sites or no internet at all" Or the money spent providing Wikipedia data could be used to provide a limited amount of free access to the entire internet. Or on better infrastructure so service doesn't cost a months salary.
yosamino 10y ago
> Upstart wikis will never be able to compete! The problem is not "upstart wikis" it's upstart everything. The internet is a lot bigger than just wikipedia, or indeed the web.
gpvos 10y ago
Although zero-rating Wikipedia in itself is rather benign (it has already outcompeted other encyclopedias anyway), it does run the risk of creating more acceptance for zero-rating of other, possibly commercial services.
geforce 10y ago
You can't possibly mad for people gaining access to knowledge. For me personally, it's the single most important thing Internet gives. But as for net neutrality? Of course I'm sad. How are they going to check the sources of the articles? Wikipedia is still pretty limited in some areas of knowledge. Nothing is perfect. I'm very happy they get to browse wikipedia. It is magnitude of order better than not having access to it.
guelo 10y ago
I am not enraged but this is not good. We don't want ISPs to use their monopolies to pick and choose the web's winners and losers. Just because Wikipedia is a great nonprofit resource doesn't mean that competitors should be disadvantaged. ISPs don't zero-rate because of the goodness of their non-existant hearts. They do this to get people hooked on using more data to get them to buy more data. Either that or they can use it to start competing services or as blackmail to get web services to pay them.
- smsm42 10y ago
  > Either that or they can use it to start competing services or as blackmail to get web services to pay them. Who is being blackmailed here? Can you point out somebody who is really hurt by this arrangement, not in theoretical conspiracy scenario but in real world?
  - manigandham 10y ago
    ... it would be any competing service that would probably have to pay to get same access/performance or struggle against data/price burden for users.
    - smsm42 10y ago
      Which competing service, can you name a couple?
      - schoen 10y ago
        In Wikipedia history there was a famous fork of es.wiki called Enciclopedia Libre Universal en Español, which split in some sense over policy disagreements. It remained larger than es.wiki for over two years following the fork. Right now there are collaboratively-edited encyclopedias in some languages (at least Chinese) that are larger than Wikipedia, like Baidu Baike, which is much larger than zh.wiki. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Enciclopedia_Libre https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Enciclopedia_Libre https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Baidu_Baike https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Baidu_Baike There were at least two famous attempts to compete with English Wikipedia over policy disputes (Citizendium, which was concerned about verifiability and anonymity, and Conservapedia, which was concerned about the neutral point of view policy). These competitors haven't been very successful, but I can easily imagine people wanting to give each of them another go. Right now there are about 100 online encyclopedias, each of which potentially competes in some degree with Wikipedia in some sense. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_online_encyclopedias https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_online_encyclopedias An example that's not particularly a result of an editorial policy dispute is Eric Weisstein's World of Mathematics, a super-great online math encyclopedia (that competes with Wikipedia for attention in its coverage of math). Another is the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, a super-great online philosophy encyclopedia. Both of these encyclopedias are stronger in at least some parts of their respective areas than Wikipedia is, and perhaps better even on Wikipedia's own terms (e.g., I bet the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy manages to have a more "neutral point of view" on several philosophy controversies than Wikipedia currently does). But zero-rating probably means that people interested in these topics on some mobile carriers are more likely to look only at Wikipedia's articles, even if they're not the best online encyclopedia articles in those areas. Edit: Eric Weisstein's World of Mathematics has been renamed to "Wolfram MathWorld". Although Wikipedia's coverage of most math topics is really excellent, I still think MathWorld has areas where it's likely to be even better. Edit 2: Suppose you're interested in a particular religion's official take on some religious issue. Then an encyclopedia edited by adherents of that religious tradition (like one of https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_online_encyclopedias#Religion_and_theology https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_online_encyclopedias#R...) may be more helpful to you than Wikipedia, for example because it may go into more theological or ritual detail, as well as more detail about polemics or apologetics from a particular religious view. That might actually be what you were looking for, but currently none of those religious encyclopedias is zero-rated by a mobile carrier.
rocky1138 10y ago
As a fan of net neutrality I have no problem with zero rating any non-profit website/service.
- gpawl 10y ago
  non-profit just means there is no corporate owner. A non-profit can still be run in a way that enriches management and employees, and a for-profit can have a strong social contribution.

Wouldn't net neutrality supporters be enraged because all data is not being treated equally now? Upstart wikis will never be able to compete!

by seibelj 10y ago

Wouldn't net neutrality supporters be enraged because all data is not being treated equally now? Upstart wikis will never be able to compete!

schoen 10y ago

Zero-rating has indeed become a big network neutrality controversy.

seibelj 10y ago
I know, it's a travesty that we allow Iraqis to access Wikipedia for free. We are literally ending wiki competition. Simply awful. Iraqis must demand net neutrality and stop accessing Wikipedia for free!
- sa1 10y ago
  Laws and regulations won't be made per site. Net neutrality regulation would be effective only if you don't leave in backdoors via exceptions. Also, Wikipedia, being text-heavy and without obtrusive ads, is not something for which zero-rating provides much relief.
  - smsm42 10y ago
    That sounds dangerously like "we have this shiny new law that sounds good in theory so we're going to ignore that it hurts actual people in practice, because the theory sounds nice". I think if the law doesn't work "per site", it should be rethought until it does.
    - sa1 10y ago
      It has prevented zero-rating of video and social media services in practice.
      - djrogers 10y ago
        What has, and where? All it takes is a quick trip to T-Mobile's website to see the list of video services they've zero-rated without any regulatory issues at all.
        sa1 10y ago
        Net neutrality regulation, India.

gbl08ma 10y ago

You kid, but as much as I like Wikimedia (and as much as I would like to access Wikipedia free of mobile data charges), I think this objectively makes it harder for projects in the same field to compete, even if just a tiny bit. I like to think I'm a net neutrality supporter, but when my mobile plan included unlimited data for the carrier's own music streaming service, I started using it and the unlimited data came in really handy. I used other streaming services much less because of that; Spotify, for example, didn't stand a chance of seeing my money. I guess you can't have your cake and eat it too...

megalodon 10y ago
There is a pretty big difference between a charitable non-profit organization and a proprietary music streaming service.
- yosamino 10y ago
  Sure, but the barrier for the ISP to allowing the same thing for a proprietary music streaming service has been lowered. This is, apart from the utility that it brings, advertisement for the operator: > Wikimedia recognizes the user is on that operator's network and serves a banner on the top of the page indicating free data courtesy of their mobile operator, which reinforces a positive brand experience for the operator. [0] It's not inconceivable that the ISP would do similar deals with $music_streaming_service. Maybe for some payment. [0] https://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Wikipedia_Zero https://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Wikipedia_Zero
- gbl08ma 10y ago
  See guelo's comment ( https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=13767782 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=13767782 ) Just because Wikimedia is not seeking profits or even looking to somehow "stay ahead" with this deal, that doesn't mean it isn't against neutrality.
smsm42 10y ago
> think this objectively makes it harder for projects in the same field to compete, even if just a tiny bit. I think this is true in theoretical sense, but not in any practical sense. Just as it's true that you breathing reduces amount of breathable oxygen around, but that's not a ground for me to sue you for air pollution and depriving me of vital oxygen ;) There are things so tiny as to consider them as if they weren't is to seriously distort the matter, and I think it's one of such things. To make it substantial, one needs to point out that a) there are viable competitors b) they are influenced by things like bandwidth costs and c) this difference is causing real and noticeable preference shift. I can believe it's true for mobile music streaming services, but I don't see it being true for Wikipedia. There's one more point - the argument against NN goes "it'd kill Wikipedia Zero". I don't think saying "well, so what, but it'd help Spotify" really a strong counter to it - if I had to choose between living without Wikipedia and living without Spotify, I'd choose Wikipedia without even pausing to think for a second. So NN proponents have to offer better answer than that, if they mean to go the utilitarian road.

tdb7893 10y ago

In my opinion zero rating is one of those things that is good until it is abused, and it would be much less of a problem if there was actual competition between ISPs. In my opinion net neutrality is largely to keep monopolies (either a web company or an ISP) from gaining even more power over the market. I would prefer to have no zero ratings at all because having any opens the door to abuse but practically it isn't actually bad in this situation otherwise.

boomboomsubban 10y ago

Other sources of information can't compete, and it's fairly easy for one source to be controlled by some person or organization. Additionally, when this has been done in the past people turn Wikipedia into the normal internet, hiding media on various pages and using it as a social media stand in. The money would be better spent lowering the normal cost, but then Wikipedia doesn't get the huge supply of editors.

seibelj 10y ago
You are right, the best possible solution is to ban free access to Wikipedia. It just isn't fair.
- boomboomsubban 10y ago
  No, the best solution is free or affordable access to the entire internet. When the majority of users can't read the sources or access new ones to change things, Wikipedia can become a dangerous tool. The English version has problems with political groups controlling what goes on various Wikipedia pages, this system ensures it will happen.
smsm42 10y ago
It's easy to tell other people where their money are best spent, but the situation as it is is that in these countries, the prices of data vs. the salaries are such that 1G may cost you a month's salary. In that situation, the choice is not "listening streaming music on that or this service", it's "zero-rated sites or no internet at all". I'd rather these people had at least Wikipedia access. Even if it may put some Silicon Valley startup in a tougher spot.
- boomboomsubban 10y ago
  >it's "zero-rated sites or no internet at all" Or the money spent providing Wikipedia data could be used to provide a limited amount of free access to the entire internet. Or on better infrastructure so service doesn't cost a months salary.

yosamino 10y ago

> Upstart wikis will never be able to compete! The problem is not "upstart wikis" it's upstart everything. The internet is a lot bigger than just wikipedia, or indeed the web.

gpvos 10y ago

Although zero-rating Wikipedia in itself is rather benign (it has already outcompeted other encyclopedias anyway), it does run the risk of creating more acceptance for zero-rating of other, possibly commercial services.

geforce 10y ago

You can't possibly mad for people gaining access to knowledge. For me personally, it's the single most important thing Internet gives. But as for net neutrality? Of course I'm sad. How are they going to check the sources of the articles? Wikipedia is still pretty limited in some areas of knowledge. Nothing is perfect. I'm very happy they get to browse wikipedia. It is magnitude of order better than not having access to it.

guelo 10y ago

I am not enraged but this is not good. We don't want ISPs to use their monopolies to pick and choose the web's winners and losers. Just because Wikipedia is a great nonprofit resource doesn't mean that competitors should be disadvantaged. ISPs don't zero-rate because of the goodness of their non-existant hearts. They do this to get people hooked on using more data to get them to buy more data. Either that or they can use it to start competing services or as blackmail to get web services to pay them.

smsm42 10y ago
> Either that or they can use it to start competing services or as blackmail to get web services to pay them. Who is being blackmailed here? Can you point out somebody who is really hurt by this arrangement, not in theoretical conspiracy scenario but in real world?
- manigandham 10y ago
  ... it would be any competing service that would probably have to pay to get same access/performance or struggle against data/price burden for users.
  - smsm42 10y ago
    Which competing service, can you name a couple?
    - schoen 10y ago
      In Wikipedia history there was a famous fork of es.wiki called Enciclopedia Libre Universal en Español, which split in some sense over policy disagreements. It remained larger than es.wiki for over two years following the fork. Right now there are collaboratively-edited encyclopedias in some languages (at least Chinese) that are larger than Wikipedia, like Baidu Baike, which is much larger than zh.wiki. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Enciclopedia_Libre https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Enciclopedia_Libre https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Baidu_Baike https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Baidu_Baike There were at least two famous attempts to compete with English Wikipedia over policy disputes (Citizendium, which was concerned about verifiability and anonymity, and Conservapedia, which was concerned about the neutral point of view policy). These competitors haven't been very successful, but I can easily imagine people wanting to give each of them another go. Right now there are about 100 online encyclopedias, each of which potentially competes in some degree with Wikipedia in some sense. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_online_encyclopedias https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_online_encyclopedias An example that's not particularly a result of an editorial policy dispute is Eric Weisstein's World of Mathematics, a super-great online math encyclopedia (that competes with Wikipedia for attention in its coverage of math). Another is the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, a super-great online philosophy encyclopedia. Both of these encyclopedias are stronger in at least some parts of their respective areas than Wikipedia is, and perhaps better even on Wikipedia's own terms (e.g., I bet the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy manages to have a more "neutral point of view" on several philosophy controversies than Wikipedia currently does). But zero-rating probably means that people interested in these topics on some mobile carriers are more likely to look only at Wikipedia's articles, even if they're not the best online encyclopedia articles in those areas. Edit: Eric Weisstein's World of Mathematics has been renamed to "Wolfram MathWorld". Although Wikipedia's coverage of most math topics is really excellent, I still think MathWorld has areas where it's likely to be even better. Edit 2: Suppose you're interested in a particular religion's official take on some religious issue. Then an encyclopedia edited by adherents of that religious tradition (like one of https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_online_encyclopedias#Religion_and_theology https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_online_encyclopedias#R...) may be more helpful to you than Wikipedia, for example because it may go into more theological or ritual detail, as well as more detail about polemics or apologetics from a particular religious view. That might actually be what you were looking for, but currently none of those religious encyclopedias is zero-rated by a mobile carrier.

rocky1138 10y ago

As a fan of net neutrality I have no problem with zero rating any non-profit website/service.

gpawl 10y ago
non-profit just means there is no corporate owner. A non-profit can still be run in a way that enriches management and employees, and a for-profit can have a strong social contribution.