This is a difficult choice. On one hand I believe that Wikipedia should be FREE in all senses of the word. On the other hand making one exception will create more exceptions. Why not make facebook and Gmail free to access so that people can communicate? I want this exception for Wikipedia. But I am worried.
"We believe in Net Neutrality, but it doesn't apply to us." This is bullshit. How many of the big incumbent websites would like to be in the blessed exception category? Facebook is one (http://internet.org/press/introducing-the-internet-dot-org-a...), and they are most certainly a for-profit corporation with many competitors (which are not included in the Zambia deal, of course). If the intention were truly to benefit these parts of the world, and not just to drive more users for the existing big players, why not give free access to local sites, to help drive growth in the local economy? Of course, then there is a risk of them competing with American websites, and they might have a cultural/linguistic advantage. Surely there is a way to provide a basic, inexpensive free tier of Internet service that is content-neutral.
I am from India. Bandwidth is costly here. Internet enabled devices have surprisingly have become cheaper. Making some access 'Free' could change the world of many people.
I agree where there is food and shelter in short, giving Internet free may not help to fight these. But it will help to fight corruption and bureaucracy. Many important government services are online nowadays. In West-Bengal, government stopped online college admission just to keep bureaucratic system going. They fear free Internet, it is a killer for corruption here.
Allowing certain organizations to bypass data caps or data rates and not others is an incredible opportunity for corruption.
It's like the "licenses Raj" days all over again. Nehru might have had good intentions, but it just created a massively corruption system of extortion.
I think it breaks pretty cleanly on whether the content provider is for-profit or not-for-profit. Not for profits organized as public charities (e.g. Wikipedia) could arguably be granted some treatment that is not available to for-profit entities such as Facebook and Google. This is consistent with their treatment in the tax code, etc.
Gmail and Facebook very clearly allow people to communicate but their reason for existence is not that but to deliver advertising, a commercial objective.
Likewise, this is a messy grey area. It looks like Wikipedia is trying pretty hard to avoid the slippery slope of cable packaged internet here, but they're still playing by the ISPs' non-neutral internet rules. That alone really isn't a good sign.
Facebook Zero is an initiative undertaken by social networking service company Facebook in collaboration with mobile phone-based Internet providers, whereby the providers waive data (bandwidth) charges (also known as zero-rate) for accessing Facebook on phones via a stripped-down text-only version of its mobile website, located at 0.facebook.com or zero.facebook.com
It is hard to say if Wikimedia will stay credible regarding their net neutrality effort without disabling WP0. The no-money-paid and no-exclusive-deals approach sounds reasonable at least.
Cant agree to the points. It all depends on use case. In some cases it is even beneficial to remove the OS itself. I am not talking about high lveel OS like Linux, QNX or VXWorks, even MicroC OS II is a big overhead for some systems.
Consider how your car decides to deploy the airbags. Do you want a message queue? No, as soon as hardware inputs meets the condition the airbags needs to be deployed. On the other hand on the same car will have a infotainment system that has VxWorks/QNX/WinCE with multi process architecture. Most of them even have separate processor to interface vehicle CAN bus and power management. Inside the application processor, graphics and HIM will be distributed in some processes. The low level drivers codecs in another set of processes. The whole thing will just give the user a mediaplayer, a map and a phone interface.
Some OEMs (e.g. Daimler, Ford) even distribute this whole functionality across different H/W modules.
Dividing gives you maintainability, re-usability, drop-in replacement alternatives. Most of the cases it shortens the engineering time, improves quality and reduces product recall.
The above automotive embedded example is just one use case. There are many areas where you want to distribute your application in many ways.
Finally, I want to ask one small question, when you turn off the reading light in a passenger aircraft, how many processes do you want it (Switch OFF signal) to go through before the light turns off? and why so?
