 |
 |
Mass media: The Internet
|
|||
|
Mass media: The Internet
|
I've painted a pretty gloomy picture above of the possible development of the Internet once it falls into the hands of the major media corporations. Certainly, I believe that the history of print and radio must give us pause. Tony Blair's enthusiasm for the Internet (which he admits to hardly using himself) is depressingly focused on the needs of industry. In a lengthy article in The Guardian supporting that newspaper's 'Tools for Schools' initiative, which seeks to persuade industry to donate used computers to schools, there was no mention of the democratizing potential of the Internet. Rather, the emphasis was on e-commerce. Blair mentions education several times in the article, but his concern seems primarily to be with industry's needs and how IT in schools and 'lifelong learning' in adult training can be used to supply business with a steady flow of employees with the required skills.
The January 2000 £220bn merger between AOL and Time-Warner, the biggest merger ever (though almost outdone only a couple of weeks later by the merger of mobile 'phone companies Vodaphone and Mannesmann), may be a pointer to much of the Net's likely future development. Time-Warner gets a ready made Internet strategy and the biggest Net 'audience' in the world; AOL gets 'content', the merged company taking over EMI records within a couple of weeks of the merger, thus adding more content, an astute, if obvious, move at a time when the Web is fast taking music in the direction of MP3 distribution. Perhaps most astute of all was that Steve Case used his dotcom funy money to buy something worth real money before the dotcom collapse.
Some commentators have been upbeat about the merger, seeing it as confirmation that 'content is king' after all (though most seem to have overlooked the fact that AOL gets access to Time
Warner's broadband service, which has over 13 million subscribers).
Others have been less enthusiastic as they reflected on the likely quality of
the content. It's not so long ago that there
were on-line discussions as to whether AOL subscribers should be allowed to join
a particular mailing list, since they were self-evidently so stupid that they
would have nothing to contribute. There was no doubt a measure of propellerhead
snobbery in that, as AOL had delivered installation software which didn't
require a Microsoft Certified Systems Engineer qualification to set up, but AOL
boss Steve Case had built with AOL a bland version of the Internet, targeting
families by offering parental controls, signing up news providers to supply
ready-made news and companies to provide shopping malls, the electronic suburb,
rather than the electronic frontier. Time-Warner now
provides AOL with branded content, an encouragement to subscribers to stay
within the safe boundaries of that bit of the Net controlled by AOL. It
begins to look as if major corporations are the ones being empowered by the Net,
rather than individuals as the cybervisionaries would have it. On the other hand
if Time-Warner-EMI are now empowered to release the Beatles, the Stones,
Madonna, the Chilis et al via MP3, then, by the same token, so is any unsigned
musician (see for example 
mp3.com
or peoplesound.com)
Bill Gates has repeatedly defended himself against accusations of trying to take over the Net by retorting that he is merely seeking to offer the best solution to delivery and reception, but has no control over the network itself nor over its content. It's clear, though, that Gates has for some time been seeking to acquire content, as has AT&T. It was presumably this desire to control both content and distribution that drove CBS and Viacom into each other's arms in September 1999. In AOL-Time Warner, we now see a corporation which controls both the pipe and what comes down it. John Browning of First Tuesday (which he describes as a kind of 'medieval fair' for budding Internet entrepreneurs) compares this with the development of vaudeville when one man realized that
if he owned the right theatre in New York, he could tell performers that they might appear there, but only on bills he chose; and then tell provincial theatres that they could book his performers, but he would choose which they got. He understood the link between content and conduit; he realized how to link what people wanted to see with railway schedules. Now the conduit is not the railway but the Internet; and that's why we've got AOL buying Time Warner.quoted in The Guardian (Jan 29 00)
One advantage of the merger will certainly be that, with the full might of media corporations behind it, the technology will at least work reliably (if that is an advantage; personally, I find its clunkiness endearing). Convergence of media will accelerate, there will be a drive to maximize bandwidth and the spread of always-on connexions so that video can be squirted across the Net as readily as text today. The cost of the kit will fall as the corporations fall over themselves to flood our homes with whatever they think we will buy. Whether the delivery mechanism will continue to be as cheap as the reception mechanism remains to be seen, but, assuming it does, then the potential of the Net for many-to-many communication will continue. What may well change will be the balance of content, as the contributions by the nerds, the anarchists and freaks are submerged in the flood of polished and bland media 'content'. It won't be the case that one gigantic mega-corporation will control all the content, though if you trace the threads of the complex interconnexions of media and ICT corporations today it can begin to look as if they all own one another - after all, January's 'biggest merger ever' came only three months after the merger of CBS and Viacom, which at the time created the biggest media corporation in the world. Certainly, AOL-Time Warner gives us a hint of what such a corporation might look like, with interests ranging from Time magazine, through CNN and Friends and ER to Warner's movie studios and, since mid-2001 when AOL acquired UK publisher IPC, British magazines such as Loaded, Marie-Claire and Ideal Home. Even so, that doesn't necessarily have the consequence that the output is uniform. After all, Murdoch's product is pretty diverse, ranging from William Rees-Mogg to the X-Files (though, come to think of it, maybe from one species of alien to another i's not much of a range). What will be new, though, will be that what we can currently identify as media conglomerates will cease to be identifiable as such, as they come to provide telephony, banking services, supermarket home-delivery, advertizing agencies, computer software we use on-line and services we haven't even thought of yet. That's a pretty impressive concentration of commercial clout in what will presumably be a handful of corporations - and commercial clout in today's deregulated world confers political clout too.
The dotcom shake-out during 2001, during which a number of highly quoted dotcoms simply disappeared from the Net and most others haemorrhaged money does indeed suggest that there will indeed be only a handful of major corporations left dominating the Net. Amazon has shed staff, CNN and the New York Times have cut their Internet budgets, the Daily Express's websites were sold off for £1. The mighty Disney corporation predicted eight million users for its Go.com portal, but they never came and Disney ended up laying off 400 staff. (Not that this means that Disney is necessarily going to give up on the Net, as it is rumoured to have Yahoo! in it sights.)
Some more optimistic commentators than I have suggested that the massive losses sustained during 2000 will eventually lead to corporations giving up and leaving the Net to its original cybercitizens. In the Observer of Jan 7 2001, John Naughton quotes figures from the Pew foundation which conducted a survey over the Christams holiday period. 53% of Net users sent e-mails to friends and relatives to discuss the holiday and make plans; 32% sent e-greetings cards; 24% went to the Web to get information on crafts, recipes etc. and 14% sought religious information on-line. 53% bought something on-line. Taken together with the finding that only 4% or 5% regularly engage in shopping or banking on-line, these figures do lend support to the 'optimistic' view that people will continue to use the Net as a medium of communication and a means of satisfying their curiosity rather than as a virtual mall. The Pew researchers concluded:
Clearly, the online population sees the internet more as a tool for information gathering and communications than for commerical transactions. Our previous studies have shown that the most powerful impacts of the internet in users' lives fall much more into this social realm than the commerical realm. Substantial majorities of online Americans have told us that the internet improves their connection to family and friends, helps them pursue their hobbies and helps them learn new things and get answers to questions.
Does this mean, then, that the corporations will bugger off and leave the rest of us alone? I find that an unlikely scenario. Rather, I expect that there will be a few major media conglomerates left standing amidst the carnage and these few remaining gatekeepers will effectively dominate delivery and content. 'To keep our profit margins, we need to be able to control the whole chain: content, production, distribution and connexion with the subscriber,' said Jean-Marie Messier, Managing Director of Vivendi Universal (quoted in Le Monde Diplomatique, p.12, May 2001)
However, Manuel Castells is far more sanguine about such developments, taking the view that the big commercial users who require payment by credit card (or whatever secure systems are developed) will gradually develop separate networks, while the Internet continues to expand as 'an electronic global agora'. (Castells (1996 : 357)) I don't know where Castells finds the evidence for that, but it is a possibility, given the increased differentiation and segmentation of audiences, at least for those who can afford to purchase their options. Currently (Jan 2000), Web usage is showing an interesting development in that the top 100 websites attract nearly half of all page views. If that trend continues, then we could eventually see the majority of surfers using only half a dozen or so content providers, so taking us closer to the few-to-many model of television, regardless of whether the technical capacity for many-to-many communication is sustained.
One may perhaps find some support for Castells' conviction in the current development of Internet 2, which is being carried on by US universities, while government and corporate backing seems to be primarily behind the Next Generation Internet (NGI) initiative. I have already mentioned above the problem of limited bandwidth and it is that problem which both of these initiatives seek to address, I2 by upgrading a series of existing campus networks, both in hardware terms and in terms of software designed for the more efficient exploitation of existing bandwidth, the NGI by developing advanced networking technologies for a new backbone environment. In addition there are the fibre-optics-based Project Oxygen, the satellite-based Iridium (whoops! - by now (2001) a costly failure) and many other developments all of which are covered in detail on the Web if you're interested. Bandwidth will certainly be increased, as I said above, but it does not necessarily follow that it will be increased symmetrically. To a very large extent Web content is still dominated by text, which needs little bandwidth, but the major corporations clearly have Web TV and movies on demand in their sights. If they can sell these to a majority of users who themselves do not have the time, ability or desire to place their own information on the Web, we may well see a very asymmetrical development of Internet bandwidth, with vastly increased capacity for incoming lines and very limited capacity for outgoing data.
Digital image storage expert Howard Besser predicts (1994) that the impending abandonment of symmetrical connexions will allow high quality video on demand into the home, but only just enough outgoing capacity for selection and billing options. In such a scenario only a limited number of sites would have the capability of outputting large amounts of information, which, Besser argues, would inevitably lead to some kind of gatekeeping, with the result that the Internet of the future will look much more like broadcast television than it does today. He predicts that we will see the introduction of 'preferred servers', which will inevitably be available to those who have the economic clout to gain access. In a depressing echo of the discussion of early radio above, Besser quotes from unfulfilled government predictions from the 60s and 70s for the future of cable TV, whose two-way communication capability was going to revolutionize participatory democracy and offer unprecedented educational opportunities. Contrary to Castells, Besser takes the view that the current diversity of Internet-based materials will shrink drastically as providers focus increasingly on material with mass appeal based on the current television model of largely passive consumption, a bleak future in which the clash between the corporate culture and the 'ethos of open access and public participation espoused by many Net enthusiasts will be bitter and protracted, and have far-reaching consequences for the construction of a common culture in contemporary conditions' (Murdock (1997 : 98)).
Though it seems to me quite possible that both models could emerge together, creating what Castells refers to as
two essentially distinct populations: the interacting and the interacted, meaning those who are able to select their multidirectional circuits of communication, and those who are provided with a restricted number of prepackaged choices. And who is what will be determined largely by class, race, gender and country.
Castells (1996 : 371)
There is, I think, also an increasingly evident danger that the Net will come to be controlled and patrolled by big business and governments framing legislation to protect their interests. I don't have the technical knowledge to assess to what extent it is possible to maintain the public access necessary to sustain e-commerce, whilst simultaneously limiting the user's freedom to continue to output whatever she likes to the Net, as at present. As I have mentioned above, the technologies needed by the powerful often also provide a means of response by the weak and that is certainly true of the Net. Right now (Jan. 2000) it takes only around £4000 to set up a full non-linear video editing facility, together with camera, and those prices will fall. There are already US companies offering free broadband connexions to the Net, so it looks as if video activists/Net hacktivists will be well placed to provide their own independent services.
However, the outcry over the denial of service attacks on several major companies in February 2000 suggests that the powerful have every intention of using their power to silence the weak. To me the denial of service attacks were heartening evidence of the democratic and disruptive potential of the Net, but I was surprised to find that almost everyone of my acquaintance seemed to think they were thoroughly reprehensible as they had disrupted major on-line enterprises' businesses for several hours, costing hundreds of thousands, if not millions, of dollars - precisely what I had found so heartening in them (that statement probably makes me a 'terrorist' under UK Home Secretary Jack Straw's new legislation). Some of the companies affected soon made it clear that, as they suspected that some of the attacks originated in university computer systems, they were prepared to sue the universities concerned. And of course they want ever more punitive legislation introduced to deter hackers. Free trade on the Net, naturally, should be completely untrammeled by legislation or regulation, but the slightest reduction in the millions these upstarts are ripping off everybody else's technology leads them to call for more and harsher legislation. Well, they probably own shares in US prisons as well, so incarcerating a few more in the land of the free (which all by itself houses more than 25% of world's prison population) would be all to the good. Where do these people come from? Who asked them? The Net functioned perfectly well before they decided to grab themselves a million here and a billion there, using up the bandwidth with their pointless gizmos and unnecessary products, so who are they to determine its future? The answer, as always, is simply that they are the rich, therefore the powerful.
Incidentally, in this connexion, virus writing is a
fascinating activity - you might like to take a look at
VX Heavens or
Cult of the Dead Cow.
Back in 1991, the virus writer Hellraiser started the on-line magazine 40Hex,
which is still available
here.
Hellraiser founded Skism (Smart Kids Into Sick Methods), a group of virus
writers, who seem now to have disappeared. It seems to be generally assumed that
virus writers, who may be into it for fame, as a relief from boredom or the
sheer interest of tinkering, even the excitement of creating something which
resembles 'life', will eventually 'age out', but there is evidence that some are
refusing to 'age out', some because they are geeks, but others out of political
motivation and the older they get, the more dangerous they become in principle
at least, as their knowledge becomes more extensive and their code more
sophisticated. The Vx (virus writing) community itself distinguishes
between 'white hats' (those such as Cult of the Dead Cow, who write viruses out
of interest and to alert software corporations to security flaws in their code)
and 'black hats' (who release them into the wild). Maybe the Unabomber would
have had more success as a virus writer.
The extraordinary Regulation of Investigatory Powers (RIP) Act, passed in the UK in the summer of 2000, extends telephone tapping powers to include ISPs, allowing the UK government to arrange for blanket surveillance of all Internet traffic, including interception of e-mails. Individuals who send encrypted e-mails can be forced to reveal their private keys and can be sent to prison if they fail to do so. Forgetting your key is no excuse before the law, unless you can prove that you have forgotten it (would you like me to run that one by you again?) In a Guardian article of 10/08/00, Duncan Campbell claims that:
A US official report,
International Crime Threat Assessment, lists the perceived threats to US
security of cybercrime. The same supposed threats underlie the Council of
Europe's proposed convention on cybercrime, which, if adopted, will form the
basis of international efforts to harmonize cybercrime laws world-wide,
including the authorities' access to server records. Stefano Rodota, in charge
of a EU working party on the protection of personal data described the plan as
intending to 'legally limit fundamental rights and liberties'. In its current
form the convention envisages that those states where the collection of server
logs may be illegal will arrange for their collection abroad, as the basis for a
legal suit. The convention also intends to provide for extradition of accused
persons, even if a no formal extradition treaty exists. (source: Nous sommes
tous des cybercriminels by Philippe Uaéuq, Le Monde Diplomatique June
2001).
Following the September 11, 2001 attack on the World Trade Center in New York, British Home Secretary, David Blunkett, set about dismantling civil liberties in the UK, suspending the European Convention on Human Rights, which outlaws detention without trial. He also signalled his intention to crack down on ISPs by strengthening the RIP Act, though the details of that are unclear as yet (late 2001). In the USA, the Senate approved the so-called USA Act, which gives intelligence agencies carte blanche to monitor people's Net usage. The Act was rushed through the Senate with little time for debate, just like Blunkett's strengthening of anti-terrorist measures in the UK. Immediately after the terrorist attack, Western politicians condemned it as an attack on the fundamental values of Western democracies. It seems that what the terrorists failed to achieve, those same politicians are determined to achieve for them. I forget which of the Founding Fathers said that he who would prefer safety to liberty deserves neither, but they are words we should do well to heed.
Sorry, but that's as far as I've got.
Understanding and Using the Internet - links to statistics on web usage and user demographics, internet jargon, internet history, guides and what's new. A useful place to start your exploration.
Center for Democracy and Technology - "The Center For Democracy and Technology is a non-profit public interest organization based in Washington, DC. CDT works for public policies that advance civil liberties and democratic values in new computer and communications technologies". Lively, up-to-the-minute site with plenty of informed discussion of the latest issues and legislation.
Computer-mediated Communication Magazine - some insightful stuff here, some of the essays pushing hypertext to the limit.
CTHEORY Arthur and Marie-Louise Kroker's site. Arthur was described by the BBC as the 'McLuhan of the 90s', so this must be essential reading, especially on the relationship between technology and the body
CyberAtlas for thorough and current statistics on just about every aspect of the Net.
John December's links to Internet Resources on Computer-Mediated Communication - a comprehensive list of a range of different sites; the focus is not primarily on 'theory', but you'll probably find it useful to scrutinize the practice.
Elektronische Texte zum Thema computervermittelte Kommunikation - list of links to on-line texts on computer-mediated communication, many in English, many available as .zip files
History of Modern Communications (Arthur C Clarke Foundation) - beautifully crafted site with timeline of the development of communication media to the present day. Not specifically Internet-oriented; very useful general resource
Hobbes' Internet Timeline - succinct and readable summary of Internet development.
Hotwired - on-line version of Wired Magazine: quite a few reflections and interviews on information technology and its effects. Sometimes insightful, sometimes loopily enthusiastic.
Hypermedia Research Centre, University of Westminster - an excellent collection of thought-provoking articles by both lecturers and students at the centre, adopting a refreshingly skeptical attitude towards 'cyberbollocks'
Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication Annenberg School for Communication University of Southern California
Mark Poster's Home: essential reading
Wendy Robinson's notes for the Duke University course on Ethics and the Internet, which includes exhaustive lists of links to informative and provocative articles
Wendy Robinson's Internet History page with short biographies of all the major pioneers.
Technorealism Manifesto: this should perhaps be your first port of call in following up all the issues discussed in this article. I got a little irritated by it at times because of the sometimes rather patronising attitudes of these critics towards the people who are actually making the whole show work, but I often feel like that about the whole content of my website. nad I have to recognize that there are many 'doers' contributing to this project. Go here and follow up the links and you'll find articles on just about everything you need.
Polly
Woolley's Home Page - some fascinating and thought-provoking work here on:
The Writings of Professor Robert M. Young, Centre for
Psychotherapeutic Studies, Sheffield University: 'Science, Ideology and Donna Haraway' - a lengthy, thorough, thoughtful and thought-provoking paper, easily downloadable, but you should be aware that it's not about the Internet in general terms and is really a must only if you have a particular interest in Haraway.
regulation of the Internet
technological determinism
fourth estate
|
