To sidestep any straw-man arguments about war zones, different country, etc; What if this were implemented in Appalachia to give access to wikipedia to the poor an uneducated there?
But if you put it to a vote, a more anarchic internet (characterized by, inter alia, 1. wholly distributed naming and cert mechanisms, 2. final-mile mesh networking, 3. few or no blanket bans on low-power radio transmission, 4. the removal of politically-enshrined content bias from the application layer (ie, copyright law and software patents)) will, I think, win such a poll. The overwhelming majority here prefer that vision as a long-term plan, compared to barely-leashed telecoms restrained by a wink-wink-nudge-nudge "net neutrality."
And so, the solution referred here, since it is pragmatic and reasonable, meets a sort of "for now" test of decency, whilst not being inconsistent with a soft, "best we can do" system of net neutrality for Comcast and Time Warner.
Wouldn't it be even better for the Iraqi people if they could also have affordable Internet access for the purposes of communicating and conducting commerce? Unless Wikimedia is footing the bill for the data usage, this is just a case of the telcos restructuring their pricing so that the lost profits of Wikimedia access are subsidized by the rest of the data usage. At least some of that other usage is probably more valuable to the Iraqi economy and general welfare (especially in the near term) than reading Wikipedia, even if it is less idealistic sounding.
The problems with the United States are the large area to cover, combined with a relatively uncompetitive market, and the predominance of post-paid contracts. But you can't generalise this to the rest of the world.
That argument is never valid. Parts of the US may present a challenge due to low density, but the overall geographical size is not a determining factor for anything relating to internet infrastructure.
In essence, if we're all OK with Wikimedia having a monopoly on what it is that Wikimedia does then there is no problem.
Going back to the roots of the ICC(predecessor to the FCC) trains could carry USPS mail at different rates than other cargo. The USPS had a government sponsored monopoly on mail delivery. However, rate discrimination between similar cargo from different parties was prohibited. This is the basis for our concept of common carriers and NN.
Yeah, no way that could go wrong...
It is the very high potential, one might even say certainty, that if given the opportunity to hobble their competitors in the entertainment space and to give themselves a massive advantage, they will do so.
The telcos and cable operators in the US have never been anything but monopoly or duopoly players. They don't know how to compete on any other field. If they are given the gun with which to shoot Netflix (for example) in the head (or demand ransoms that only major players can pay), they will likely pull the trigger the same day.
So, no. It's not about disliking Comcast, it is about knowing with confidence that the internet will be harmed, maybe drastically, by giving Comcast (and a few others who play according the same rules) the ability to do so.
> mostly just means "I don't like Comcast"
Is totally _not_ the meaning of net neutrality.
I don't put this on the same scale. I'd seriously not mind actual educational websites to be exempt from data charges - and this would include (but not be limited to) Wikipedia. I understand this would have a few flaws and arguements, but it is a start. I'd happily add in direct mostly text-based communication as well (Messenger for facebook but not the pages, hangouts, and the like).
First, the obvious straightforward sort of information. Wikipedia, for example. Medical advice and self-care, including text-heavy information on cooking, car and machine repair, and so on. Math, science, programming, parenting, history. Primary or secondary language learning and improvment. Anything that actually teaches you a skill (yes, this will be abused to a point, but I'm willing to allow folks to learn to juggle if others can learn to practical skills).
Things like religious texts becomes a tricky area. I think it is good for society when folks learn about different philosophies and religions. Yet these would paid, as well as a lot of the grey area stuff because you gotta draw the line somewhere. Many books fall into this category, even old classics, because most books are intended for entertainment. Some things would depend on context. For example, meditation. In a religious context, no. In a psychology, science, or medical context? stick it in there. Social media is a paid product. Sometimes the cut-off won't make sense: Learning musical instruments would be free, but listening to them paid.
In addition, the site itself would have to take action to be included. If they don't apply to be exempt or to renew exemption, folks must pay for the content.
A hardcore supporter of Facebook or Google would say we could never run our sites like Wikipedia. Don't pay attention to them either.