[gbl08ma]

> right now

NN, as I understand it, is not so much about the current state of things, but about making sure that future "wikipedias" and "facebooks" get the same chances as the current ones. Right now there are no viable alternatives (that you and I know of, at least) - but what about this time next year?

You can't change what NN means on a whim, to account for whether each specific type of internet service has "viable alternatives" or not. And how do you even define what are viable alternatives? What's viable for me, might not be viable for others.

[smsm42]

In the list of the hurdles you need to overcome to get viable competitor to Wikipedia, zero-rating in Iraq wouldn't be even in the top 20, I imagine.

> You can't change what NN means on a whim

I don't want to change what NN means. I want to emphasize that NN means that people in Iraq who now can have access to a snapshot of the world's knowledge absolutely free wouldn't have that option anymore. In service of some abstract idea of fairness that doesn't even apply to anything specific. I don't think it is a good idea.

[wtallis]

> I want to emphasize that NN means that people in Iraq who now can have access to a snapshot of the world's knowledge absolutely free wouldn't have that option anymore.

Not free. The costs are being covered by increased pricing on the rest of their phone usage.

[smsm42]

Is there any evidence to support that? Did the phone usage prices in Iraq really surge after introducing zero-rating for Wikipedia? How much did they surge?