When internet access gives net neutrality a beating

Monika Ermert, Heise, Intellectual Property Watch, VDI-Nachrichten, Germany

PUBLISHED ON: 05 Sep 2014

Net neutrality has been chosen to be one of the focus debates for the 9th Internet Governance Forum in Istanbul (2-5 September 2014). Is neutrality more important than access?, was one of the trickier questions the participants addressed, diving specifically in the topic of so called zero-rating offers by mobile operators. Are Facebook Zero or Wikipedia Zero an entrance to the internet in poor countries – or are they bleak violations of the neutral network principles and just a nail in the coffin of net neutrality?

Bundling access with selected content has been a topic in the net neutrality discussion for quite some time. It is especially seen as problematic as users are in some instances not given a choice of access provider. Zero-rating selected content in mobile networks - making it available for free regardless of service type, bandwidth or data volume paid for - clearly privileges that content compared to other services. Facebook announced a first zero-service in 2010, but in Istanbul it was Wikipedia who had to defend itself against network neutrality advocates.

Wikipedia Zero, a temporary fix

Wikimedia since two years offers Wikipedia Zero partnering with mobile providers like Orange. The goal, according to Yana Welinder from Wikimedia's Legal Team, was to “get carriers to provide access to people that need that access the most, free of data charges”. Access to Wikipedia not only meant access to information, but also access to express one's ideas and contribute to knowledge production in the online encyclopedia. After two years Wiki Zero was now available, she said, in 30 countries and 350 million people, and the Foundation saw 65 million zero-rated pageviews per month, Welinder reported.

Welinder acknowledged that the Foundation had to explain the deviation from neutrality, though. "The open internet is incredibly important for our operations as a non-profit. We talk a lot with net neutrality advocates and try to figure out how we can operate in a way that will protect the open internet," she said. Wikimedia has developed ten principles for that, including no paid partnerships, no exclusive rights to the content, non wider bundling. Wiki Zero is a "temporary fix until the content will be available without zero-rating", she added.

Corporate social responsibility or marketing trick

Orange's Vice-Chair Yves Nissim described the Wiki Zero offer as part of the company’s “corporate social responsibility” programme. Twenty of the 30 countries covered by Wiki Zero are done so via Orange. "We thought it was a good way to introduce usage of data through their mobile phone. The deal is, if you do have a SIM card from Orange, then you can access Wikipedia zero-rating. It is done to develop education,” Nissim explained. There was no calculation on getting a million new customers from the service, but “we thought it was aligned with our corporate social responsibility strategy", Nissim said.

Jens Best, member of the board of Wikimedia Germany admitted he’s experiencing a dilemma. While he is all for public knowledge and open access, "it's a little bit like there is some guys on the street selling some stuff and the first stuff is for free and then the second stuff costs money". Best also pointed to several problems with the zero-rated offers, for example the issue about links leading out of the zero area. For Wikipedia the links to sources were essential. Abuse of the Wikipages for free chatting also might happen. In sum, Best said, neutrality remains the fundamental principle. While he acknowledged that one had to be open about the many uses of the internet, "entering the web only by using Facebook zero is not entering the internet, it's entering Facebook".

Full access is possible

Representatives from southern countries at the Internet Governance Forum were divided about the issue as were neutrality advocates and carriers. Zero-rated access could be a “primer” and stepping stone to the net, as have been the community telecenters, said Helani Galpaya von LirneAsia, a information technology think tank in Sri Lanka. Anyway, she said, she knows many teenagers for whom Facebook was the sole internet app. Given that regulators had not done their job to allow for competition, banning zero-rating now was "a little rich". "Yes, the principles are holy but the facts are that our people are not online," Galpaya said. At the same time, she acknowledged that there was more to deal with when it comes to access, namely especially monopolistic structures and high prices for connecting to the international backbone.

Activists from India and Brazil warned against the practice of zero-rating. Would Wikipedia even exist if carriers had made the Encyclopedia Britannica available for free a few years ago?, an activist asked. Internet newbies find it difficult to come to terms with zero-rated content, as once they want to click a hyperlink presented, the content requested is no longer for free. Activists also doubt that once introduced, the zero-rating will go away later.

Josh Levy from US net neutrality group Free Press, who defended the net neutrality principle on the zero-rating panel simply said: "When the first billion people came online, and got access to the internet, it wasn't through zero-rated services. They got access to the full internet. So I don't see why we can't continue to strategise about ways to get the second billion people online to using the full internet."

Add new comment