Information commons

[ewt]

I wasn't very clear what I meant in this post.

So:

The practicalities of making internet access (or books, for that matter) free for a certain amount of public access are many and complex, however this does not mean that they should become facilities available only to those who have the money to pay for them.

Discuss.

Comments

[beingjdc.livejournal.com]

Is internet access not already free or cheap in most public libraries?

[ewtikins.livejournal.com]

When I tried to get "internet" access at libraries in Islington in 2004, it turned out to be extremely limited web browsing access. There was no telnet, no ssh, no https, and one was forced to use ancient computers that could just about handle Islington Council's webpages. I understand the reasons that many of the restrictions were in place, but I do not consider that to be internet access.

Libraries do pretty well at books, I think, for those willing to wait... but access to other resources through libraries is still extremely wrinkly.

[ewtikins.livejournal.com]

Also, cheap is NOT the same as free, certainly not for people who have very little money to start with.

[beingjdc.livejournal.com]

Well, Southwark is free for internet access and Microsoft Office, and other places I've been are free for basic reference access, and free-if-you're-on-benefits for most other internet stuff.

There are two issues here, cost and demand management. Given that the cybercafe across the road from the library is always full, I imagine there's a big queue at the library for the free stuff.

We could solve that by building bigger libraries with more computers, but that would be very expensive. Public wireless doesn't really solve the problem - I think if you can afford a wireless laptop you can probably afford an internet connection.

It competes with other things we need to spend money on - some of which are quite basic. A walk around Southwark to people living in the crime-ridden asbestos-heavy badly insulated flats might be interesting if you attempted to persuade them that free internet access was a higher priority than heating and police.

I see why it's a social good that people should be able to, say, apply for jobs on the internet, look up education courses, manage a webmail account for correspondence relating to this, and so on. I am unconvinced that there's any legitimate reason for taxes to be providing someone with an ssh connection.

[ewtikins.livejournal.com]

I am unconvinced that there's any legitimate reason for taxes to be providing someone with an ssh connection.

At the time it was the only way for me to access my primary e-mail account. Having to pay for that sucked.


We could solve that by building bigger libraries with more computers, but that would be very expensive. Public wireless doesn't really solve the problem - I think if you can afford a wireless laptop you can probably afford an internet connection.

Not necessarily. I can think of a few circumstances where someone may have a wireless-enabled laptop or PDA but no internet connection. Certainly I know people who have the equipment but would not be able to afford a connection on their own. I should think that as wifi-enabled computers become more popular and rich people replace their still-working-but-not-fast laptops, the number of people who have access to equipment but no connection will probably increase rather than decrease.

It competes with other things we need to spend money on - some of which are quite basic.

Agreed, but just because people should have safe, warm housing doesn't mean they should not have internet access, even if reality dictates that if we're paying for it out of public funds we have to choose one or the other.

[beingjdc.livejournal.com]

At the time it was the only way for me to access my primary e-mail account

That's really quite unusual though, isn't it? I mean, the number of people with a unix account only accessible by ssh, but without either a home internet connection or an IT-job which provides such, that's extremely small, no? And even for that small number, it's a choice.

If we're providing the internet so people can apply for jobs and so on, they can always register a webmail account and use that (and pay to go on ssh once and e-mail all their contacts saying 'please use this for now').

even if reality dictates that if we're paying for it out of public funds we have to choose one or the other.

Ah well, if we're talking about what people should have for free regardless of what reality dictates, I'm off to the council offices to pick up my free lunch, antihistamines, and bicycle.