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?

[sci.livejournal.com]

Set up software on the router/modem (Linksys are open source) that gives priority to hard-wired or non-anonymous wifi connections. Encourage anyone who is not bandwidth capped to install it and name their access point "FreeToUse - whatevernameyoulike", giving people permission.

[ewtikins.livejournal.com]

That's the 'how'.

I'm interested in the 'should'.

[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.

[561.livejournal.com]

How does one deal with the legal problems? If a crime is committed utilising your internet connection you have a problem.

How do the courts tell the difference between a well executed crime that appears have been committed by a person with open wireless and a well executed crime that has been committed by a person with open wireless who is using the fact that the wireless was open as part of their defence?

Throw in the fact that most contracts with ISPs forbid certain types of behaviour - to safeguard not only their own interests but those of the stability of the network. How do you pass on the contract obligations to an anonymous third party standing outside your house? Some ISP contracts forbid allowing open access (you might argue this is for commercial reasons but I think some of the legal issues are enough to make this a sensible plan). So now you are breaking a contract anyway. Even without a contract it seems likely that you are giving access to a resource that you do not own and in such a way that you cannot police it adequately.

I'd say there is a lot more how to sort out yet.

[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.

[xiphias.livejournal.com]

I find it weird that the ONE social justice thing that the United States seems to do better than Europe is libraries.

Of course, how well we do libraries varies immensly from place to place -- libraries are all funded locally, with some help from states, so a town that doesn't fund their libraries doesn't have one, while a town that does, does. Still, on the whole, my town is fairly typical: unlimited Internet access (time limits if there's a line waiting; people who have research to do have priority over people who want to play games -- but if the computers are free, you can go ahead and play online games, so long as it doesn't involve installing programs to the library computer), free WiFi in the building.

We are terrible with most other social justice things -- support for the poor, health care, and so forth -- but we do libraries extremely well. I don't know why, unless it's that the United States has some of the most rabidly fanatical librarians in the world: our library schools train librarians to look at their work as a holy calling that is fundamental to the existence of a free society.

Which, of course, it is.

[caliban18.livejournal.com]

Should is always a giant word. It gets very close to the demand of people having a "right" to something. Where I tend to get skeptical is when a "right" is demanded that comes with a price tag.

A right to a service is a demand that everyone else open their wallets in support, and the state will back up that "right" with threats by the revenue department. Thus, I think it is unfair to just toss aside cost when thinking about "shoulds" and "rights".

I live in a country where we spend huge sums on healthcare to ensure that every sick person just has to go to a doctor or emergency room, show a little plastic card and some of the most advanced medicine on the planet is suddenly freely available, paid for by the public purse. Why? Because citizens in Canada have a right to be healed. I hope I never live to see the day when that right is eroded.

But here we are taking this concept that people have a right to something and applying it not to an issue of health or housing or hunger, but to surfing the web and accessing whatever brand of net connection a user could desire. You have to be careful in how you apply the concept of rights. It is a concept that can be diluted.

If there is a cost effective way to ensure that libraries have meaningful access, then absolutely that is a good idea, and frankly these days bandwidth and useable computers are getting quite cheap. Bolstering a library budget is a good thing, but remember, this too comes with a price, and therefore sacrifice. You cannot increase services without increasing revenue or cutting other services. Simple math.

What I have absolutely no patience for is the idea that because someone thinks that something (that someone else is paying for) should be free, there is a justification for stealing it.