May 8th, 2009
The fundamental value of Internet access
Is Internet access more like cable television or a telephone?
In other words, is it a luxury or should it be a right? (Pictured, the new Cooper River Bridge in Charleston.)
Matt Asay holds to the former view. He doesn’t want to see Internet access defined as a fundamental right.
I agree, but for a different reason.
Fundamental rights can be taken away. Anyone who has been tortured, or had their free speech rights abridged, knows there is nothing really fundamental about rights other than our common agreement to respect them.
My Congressman is John Lewis. When he was a child, in Alabama, during the days of segregation, he had no rights. He had to demand them, march for them, get beaten bloody for them.
The Constitution is just words, the Bill of Rights just words. They can be ignored or abridged with a simple memo.
Internet access, then, is more fundamental than rights. It is an economic necessity.
People with no Internet connection, by definition, have less economic power in the 21st century than other people. They have less access to training, no way to see over the horizon (which is why TV has become so trivial). Their connections to the world are entirely local, except for those few people they maintain contact with by telephone or mail.
I’m old enough to remember a world before the Web was spun, when Internet access was an elite activity. I am returning to those heady days next month, when I visit my friends in Japan.
My last journey there was in 1989. I went there to cover a conference with the Electronic Networking Association, an early group of online advocates.
While there I wrote a few stories for Newsbytes, the online news service I was then employed by. On a trade show floor I found a phone line, connected my laptop modem to it, and bounced my stories to an editor in London, for forwarding to the publisher in San Francisco.
Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic, and even 20 years ago this kind of casual access to online resources was considered somewhat magical.
Today my kids take this kind of thing for granted. Neither can remember a time before the Internet. My daughter assumes she can download detailed directions to a likely college. My son assumes he can discuss computer games and culture with friends around the world.
Internet access, in other words, is fundamental to my childrens’ interactions with the world. It defines their economic utility, their ability to learn, even many of their social relationships.
Enabling that, or disabling that, is not a question of “rights,” but it is fundamental.
It is fundamental to our future as a nation that everyone have the best possible access to this resource. Just as it’s fundamental they have a way to get around on our road system.
You don’t have a “right” to drive but we know that if you can’t you are handicapped. Those who can’t drive and don’t live near public transportation are economically isolated, unable to get to work, to school, or to shop.
Unless, of course, they have Internet access, which offers all those things. The better the access, the better for everyone.
The Internet, in other words, is the real bridge to the 21st century, and those without it can’t cross. It’s not a fundamental right, but it is fundamental.
Dana Blankenhorn has been a business journalist for 30 years, a tech freelancer since 1983. You can follow Dana on Twitter. See his full profile and disclosure of his industry affiliations.
Subscribe to Linux and Open Source via Email alerts or RSS.
| 05/08/09
