This result, although positive, may have much bigger drawback in the not-so-long term: this is a first blow to net neutrality.<p>First net neutrality is broken for obviously good sites: Wikipedia & Co. Then it is broken for obviously useful sites: Google, Gmail, Hotmail, Facebook. Then news sites. Then some sport sites. In the end new sites (let's call them competitors) will find themselves confined in the "for pay" area, unable to enjoy the growth of the other sites (let's call them incumbent) because they cannot afford the expensive fees that the carries will charge to move you to the "for free area".<p>I do not like this trend. I especially do not like Wikipedia and Africa being used as pilot cases for breaking the network neutrality.
Really interesting. Just yesterday I saw in TV that in my country (Uruguay [<a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uruguay]" rel="nofollow">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uruguay]</a>) there would be free access to "Registered Educational Contents", at first I thougth "Great!" but then it came to me that voice that says "What about net neutrality??"<p>I hope to see a good discusion here