Mediaboss Marketing

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 ideathat all Web traffic should be treated equally by Internet service providers such asComcast 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 sitehelps 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 have a complicated relationship toit.We believe in net neutrality in America," said Gayle Karen Young, chief culture and talent officer at the Wikimedia Foundation. But, Young added, offeringWikipedia Zero requires adifferent perspective elsewhere. "Partnering with telecom companies in the near term, it blurs the net neutrality line in those areas. It fulfills our overall mission, though, which is providing free knowledge."

Wikipedia isn't alone. Facebook and Google both operate programs internationally that are exempted from users' data caps a tacticknown somewhat crypticallyas"zero rating". Andwireless carriers in the United States have recently begun experimenting with the business model. On Monday, T-Mobile expanded the number of zero-rated music servicesit offers toinclude Google Play Music and Soundcloud. (Who picks up the tab for the data consumers use varies, but it's typically the content provider.)

Zero rating is still in its infancy in the United States, and given the furor over net neutrality, it's no surprise that the practice is controversial. Civil rights groups argue that low-income Americans who don't see the value in using the Internet could benefit from zero rating, if it were allowed.

These types of services could help "level the playing field for adoption and use" of the Internet, said Nicol Turner-Lee, vice president of the Minority Media and Telecommunications Council. "We have not taken a strong position on zero rating but clearly this is one of those cases where you are trying to encourage more adoption of tech services, particularly for more vulnerable populations where income is a sensitivity."

But others worry thatpermitting zero-rating is an imperfect tacticfor promoting Internet adoption. There are other ways of accomplishing thatwithoutharming net neutrality, they say.

One way would be to adapt an existing federal program so that it directly subsidizes broadband for poorer Americans. The program, known as Lifeline, already connects millions to basic telephone service. But it could get millions more connected to high-speed Internet with a few tweaks, according to Gene Kimmelman, chief executive of the consumer advocacy group Public Knowledge.

"Then you'daugmentthat with digitaladoptionprograms that address literacy," said Kimmelman. "That, to me, is a more direct way to benefit a community."

When it comes to zero-rating, other policy analysts worry that what may be workingin developing countries will have unintended consequences if implemented widely in the United States. For instance, in countries where broadband adoption is relatively low, telecom companies benefit from such programs because it allows them to introduce the Internet to a new customer base.For them, zero-rating is a marketing device.

Original post:
Wikipedias complicated relationship with net neutrality