I have just come across this, and was so struck by the potentially huge impact that I had to share it.
At the moment, the internet is free - not in financial terms (most of us pay, in one way or another, for personal access), but in terms of what we can view. Obviously, there are laws to do with what can be put up (as there should be), and eventually we may one day close more of the loopholes that allow criminals to use the internet for their own ends. However, given these restrictions, the internet is a remarkably liberal forum for self-expression and freedom of information - but I don't really need to sell the internet to you, do I?
However, there is legislation in the pipeline that has the potential to change all this. In Europe, it is called the Telecoms Package, and it is currently being voted on in the European Parliament (for more information, go
HERE), but similar moves are also being considered in the US (and, no doubt, other places). What it basically means is that internet providers will be able to restrict access to the websites and internet services that you access. This will probably take the form of asking you to subscribe to different 'channels' or 'packages' of sets of sites, and asking you to pay extra for anything outside of this. If this were to happen, then traffic to sites like this would die off almost overnight. Who would come here if you had to pay? A select few, possibly.
However, as much as I like to look after myself, there is a bigger agenda here. What about other websites with minority audiences, or websites with controversial opinions? Might ISPs come to exert a form of censorship over what gets included in what package? At the moment, we have what is called 'net neutrality', which means that ISPs do not generally restrict what sites or services you access (they are 'neutral' in that respect).
My gut reaction to this is that such legislation would never actually work. The internet has already fostered too many self-willed individuals who don't want to go down the same track as everyone else, and they would obviously kick up a fuss (as I am doing here, in my own modest way). However, it seems to me that it would also create a huge dip in quality. Whilst the ability of anyone to put up their own site has resulted in a lot of dross, the opposite is true (Philosophy Online is, after all, a private project... AHEM!). Furthermore, many big websites include links to small ones, and 'channelling' content would mean that those links would then be 'dead'.
However, whether unworkable or not, I think that such restriction and censorship remains a distinct possibility (at least, it is real enough to concern Tim Berners Lee, the internet's founding father -
see
HERE). Think of it: as things stand, it is difficult for the major businesses to fully monopolise the internet, or guarantee a certain audience (and thus attract sponsors). If I run a cafe, and I want to buy bagels, all I have to do is type 'bagels' into a search engine, and as long as the search engine lists all available sites, I may decide to buy from a small stockist round the corner (instead of a big one who is based miles away). Thus, I can make my own decision: perhaps I want organic bagels made with wholemeal flour, and the big suppliers don't stock these - but the little one does. However, what if the search engine just starts listing the major suppliers? What will happen to the small supplier? And my desire for specialist bagels?
Don't take my bagels away!
If you want to do something about this, first read the links above, and then contact your local MEP (Member of the European Parliament) if you live in the UK - I'm not sure what to do if you live anywhere else - if anyone knows, then contact me and I'll post info. To find out who your MEP is, go to this fantastic website, and follow the steps:
Write to Them. I've just sent an email - I'll let you know how I get on...
If anybody has any thoughts on this, or any extra info, please comment or contact me.
