This week’s two assigned articles were an interesting combination. Jeff Tyson’s piece outlines the history and physical infrastructure of the Internet while Andrew Pace’s “Dismantling Integrated Library Systems” chronicles libraries’ struggles with adopting and paying for ILS. Despite the loss of physical paraphernalia and brick and mortar institutions, there is nothing lightweight and accessible about the price of information.
Tyson states that because of its design as interconnected networks within networks, the Internet isn’t owned; it’s a shared information resource. This creates a contradictory dynamic because it costs money to access it, whether through individual ISPs or companies and libraries paying flat fees to provide free access to their users.
I understand that I focus a great deal on the economics of technology but that is only because when heralding the benefits of the digital age, democratic and open source are ubiquitous descriptions. Whatever the original motivation behind its creation, the Internet is only as democratic as the society it functions in. For example, more prohibitive societies monitor websites, censor public information, and restrict access. We have a more democratic approach to the exchange of information but because we are a capitalist democracy, our Internet functions like one. It’s a shared network but privately owned companies make a profit from it by reformatting it into a paid service. It’s not as if there is a free point of access and ISPs are faster, more dynamic alternatives; they are the only alternatives. The same holds true with effective access to the glut of available information. Libraries access to networked information is only as good as the ILS they are able to afford. Not only does this widen the "digital divide" but quality become a privilege available only to those with enough money to buy it.
I’d really like to learn the economic history of the Internet, to understand how shared resources become a utility cost. I think learning about the dynamics of this transformation is important because the Internet, while no longer in its nascent stages, is still open to paradigm changes and could still become a democratic resource. Otherwise, we are only fooling ourselves if we believe that true democracy is a hand out waiting to be paid.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
4 comments:
I really liked your post.
In regards to the price of information and having access to this information in some places is free. The World Health Organization has the Health InterNetwork Access to Research Initiative (HINARI) http://www.who.int/hinari/en/ .
They offer free or low cost access to journals if the GNI is under a certain dollar amount. Which is one step in the right direction to improve the global digital divide.
Ms. Petunia, terrific insight into the economic underbelly of the internet. Putting the technology into the context of the society goes a long way in explaining the contradictions and inequities that persist. This is going to be a continuing tug-of-war that nobody can afford to snooze on.
"It’s a shared network but privately owned companies make a profit from it by reformatting it into a paid service." is an especially perceptive critique. How much initially free "content" is being sold back to us after it gets a particular corporate slant of approval? A related example: back in the day I used to be able to watch baseball games every summer with rabbit ear antennas. Now I would pretty much have to pay $50 to $100 a month for cable, and that's not gonna happen. I think that usurpation of content by cable TV is a warning of what may happen increasingly with the internet, beginning with "tiers of service".
In the videotaped Rick Prelinger speech for 2200, I was particularly impressed with his effort to turn this model on its head: the first tier would feature completely open access to all moving image content, while the "paid tier" would be reserved for institutions and businesses that wanted to use the images for advertising.
I would be interested in that class too, re:Economics of the Internet. In "Inside the Google machine" video, they mapped where Google was used the most and the least. It showed wide use in western europe and the americas, but in Africa, it showed a small blip.
So yeah, its only free as your economic advantage or privilledge provides.
I have never really thought about the fact that the Internet is free, but we have to have pay to access it before. It is kind of the same with open source too. The software is free, but you have to pay companies that have packaged it to get it in a layman's format.
In our capitalist society, the library really is a unique structure. The relationship between libraries who exist to provide a service with not strings attached and for profit companies is interesting to me. Libraries interact in this relationship in so many ways from Internet service, acquisitions, and electronic subscriptions. I wonder how relationships can even work between libraries and companies like Google to provide a service that everyone is happy with.
Post a Comment