Spreading my wings…

As is always the case when I find myself with a bit of time on my hands, I’ve been trying indulging in a little ‘project’.  I’ve finally decided to experiment with my own little space on the internet.  I had been reluctant for some time to go  down the whole domain/hosting route but I thought it was time I stretched myself a little and developed some new skills.  Much as I like the option to use a WordPress.com site, I thought it was time to try something that got me trying a few new tools (up until now I did not have a clue what an FTP was let alone use one!).

I have to say I have learnt a heck of a lot already.  Whilst I had some knowledge of HTML from my days using Blogger as my platform of choice, I was a little rusty and only really knew the basics.  I’m hoping that my creating this little space I will continue to develop and learn new skills – which I think in the current climate is very much a good thing.  So anyway, what about the site itself?

Well, after a bit of thought about what to call the website, I went for Infoism.  I was keen to avoid a domain that used either my name or my Twitter username and plumped for a ‘word’ that I think reflects my interests (information and politics).  I plan to use the site to cover a wide range of topics from libraries to information in general (perhaps with a particular focus on the information divide – which is one of my pet interests).  I was also keen to avoid creating a blog that provides hints/tips/useful tools for those in the profession. There are more than enough of those, all of which are far more eloquent than anything I could contribute.  Instead, I wanted to create something that is more focused on general issues facing the information society (I say that now, but I wouldn’t be surprised if that intention goes by the wayside!).  I suspect I’ll still use this blog from time to time, perhaps to share my continued experiences on my course or to post random stuff, but my new blog will become my main home.

Anyway, at present my home page is a little basic (don’t forget I am teaching myself HTML here – I perhaps should have used some HTML software!) but I have created a mobile version (woo!) and even a cool little icon when you bookmark it on your iPhone/iPad/iPod thing.  I suspect once I have access to Photoshop again I’ll create a more appealing, less texty front page…but it will do for now.  Oh, and I have also posted my first blog post here.  Be gentle with me, I’m still learning!

5.7 million households do not have an internet connection

Libraries can help address digital inequality (image c/o splorp on Flickr)

Yesterday the Office of National Statistics released its latest Internet access – households and individuals report.  Once again it demonstrated something that is often overlooked, there is a sizeable proportion of the population that do not have an internet connection.  According to the statistics, although the percentage of households with an internet connection has grown to 77% (up 4% on last year), there are still an amazing 5.7 million households in the UK without internet access.  Other top line statistics from the report:

• 45 per cent of Internet users used a mobile phone to connect to the Internet
• 6 million people accessed the Internet over their mobile phone for the first time in the previous 12 months
• The use of wireless hotspots almost doubled in the last 12 months to 4.9 million users
• 21 per cent of Internet users did not believe their skills were sufficient to protect their personal data
• 77 per cent of households had Internet access
• 50% of those without internet say they do not need it
• 40% say that the equipment is too expensive or they do not believe they have the skills required

…many children are being left behind

The last three points are particularly crucial.  Households without internet would mean, in many cases, families without internet connections.  This is particularly concerning as it has been demonstrated that children’s performance at school can be affected by their inability to make use of an internet connection.  Whilst the report doesn’t provide statistics on family households without internet access, it is not beyond reason to conclude that there are a great many families included within that 5.7 million households figure.  And, consequently, a great many children who are potentially being left behind by their ‘connected’ peers.  The consequences of this disparity are fairly clear.

The final two points are also concerning and provide a stark reminder of what damage would be done by large-scale library closures.  Libraries can play a massive role in addressing these issues.  Trained, professional library staff can help to support inexperienced users to find their way around the internet and gain the confidence to take full advantage of what it offers.  It has been demonstrated in repeated studies that people using the internet are economically better off (££) and, at a time of such economic difficulty, this is more important now than ever.

…public libraries are crucial to reducing digital inequality

Furthermore, the provision of free internet access in public libraries is absolutely crucial to reducing digital inequality and ensuring that a sizeable proportion of the population are not left behind.  Close public libraries and remove the only point of free internet access and you create a society of digitally excluded, those left to flounder as they do not have the finances or skills to keep up with the digitally advanced.  It is not enough to simply provide these people with computers and hope that will resolve the inequality.  Who will provide the support and the training?  Public libraries are still the best way to ensure that the digital revolution does not further isolate the disadvantaged from society and ensure that no-one is left behind.

One further point on this issue that perhaps ought to be made, in terms of libraries/librarians themselves rather than the people who use them.  It is worth noting that neither the Guardian or the BBC made any reference to public libraries offering free internet access, nor did they mention the impact library closures could have on those that are digitally excluded.  You may argue that the point isn’t directly relevant to those particular articles.  Maybe not.  However, it is worth remembering that although there have been plenty of positive shifts in the coverage of libraries in the past year, commentators still do not see libraries as a solution to modern-day problems.  For library advocacy to have any real success, this has to change.  Because if people of influence cannot see the role libraries can and should play in addressing contemporary concerns, there is little hope for the future of the library service and the profession.

Libraries must be the future – for the good of democracy

Is two tier information access inevitable? Image c/o Julian Sebastian on Flickr

If there is one thing you can rely on when reading an online article about libraries, it is that someone will suggest that the internet has made libraries and, by extension, librarians, irrelevant.  It is not just amateur commentators though even representatives from established think tanks perpetuate this belief.  The fact that 9 million people have never even accessed the internet is a minor inconvenience.  But still this belief persists.  Ironically (given that librarians are considered ‘past it’) it is those that utilise these arguments who are behind the curve and refuse to recognise the very nature of the internet.

The argument used by the ‘internet trumps libraries’ brigade relies on something that we know full well is not representative of the internet we have all grown to love (and hate?).  Since the mid-90s, the internet has frequently changed.  The internet of today is quite different from that preceding the dotcom crash.   It is not a static medium.  Who would have thought just 5 years ago that a large proportion of the population would be happy to share their personal details freely and openly?

…the internet is not static and is subject to change.

The assumption made by many when discussing library closures is that the internet will remain static, forever acting as a source of free and open information.  But, of course, the internet is not static and is subject to change.  And who is the biggest driver of this change?  Corporations.  Unfortunately for the corporate world the level of competition on the internet is inhibiting their ability to make profit.  However, moves are afoot to change this, shifting the balance of power from the individual to corporations.

Take the issue of net neutrality for example.  Ed Vaizey has been less than enthusiastic in his support of net neutrality.  In a speech delivered towards the end of last year, Vaizey stated that:

“Content and service providers should have the ability to innovate and, most importantly, to reach end users … This could include the evolution of a two-sided market where consumers and content providers could choose to pay for differing levels of quality of service.”

The implication being that the government envisages a two-tier internet, with all the inequality that goes with it (he later claimed that this wasn’t the case). The implications for the digital divide could not be more stark.  As Tim Berners-Lee has warned:

“Control of information is hugely powerful. In the US, the threat is that companies control what I can access for commercial reasons. (In China, control is by the government for political reasons.) There is a very strong short-term incentive for a company to grab control of TV distribution over the internet even though it is against the long-term interests of the industry.”

Abandoning net neutrality could lead to a shift in the control of information.  At present the flow of information is neither controlled by the state or by corporate interests – it moves freely enabling equal access for all. The removal of ‘net neutrality’ would change this, leading to corporations controlling access to information.

“…we are on the slippery slope towards a much more controlled, less open, internet.”

However, it is not just net neutrality that should concern us.  The Guardian recently reported that the growth of smartphones also poses a danger to the freely accessible internet that we know today.  In an article subtitled ‘The proliferation of powerful mobile phones could see control of the internet pass into the hands of corporations’, John Naughton comments that:

“…we are on the slippery slope towards a much more controlled, less open, internet. If these trends continue, then it won’t be all that long before a significant proportion of the world’s internet users will access the network, not via freely programmable PCs connected via landline networks, but through tethered, non-programmable information appliances (smartphones) hooked up to tightly controlled and regulated mobile networks.”

The root cause of this problem is the established belief that information is a commodity that can be bought and sold, a vital cog in the economic machine.  The growth of the internet has provided business with a wealth of opportunities, many of which remain untapped.  For the libertarians, commodities are best placed in the hands of corporations who can utilise them to their advantage and grow the economy, turning a blind eye to its potential impact on society.  As Anne Goulding noted ten years ago (£):

“The danger is that governments, supported by business and industry, will place a higher priority on the development of ICTs to support economic productivity than on assisting social cohesion and progress.”

This leaves us in a perilous state if our public libraries are destroyed.  Libraries do not discriminate when providing access to information.  You do not have to be rich to take advantage of the wealth of information that the library provides.  Likewise, you do not have to be wealthy to consult a librarian and ensure you gain access to the very best information available.  This is the danger in believing the internet will remain static and unchanging forever.  The internet is a mechanism for corporations to make money, whereas for libraries it is a tool to enhance the social, political and cultural life of society.

In 1998, Noam Chomsky, in an interview for CorpWatch on Microsoft and corporate control of the internet, argued:

“If you really know exactly what you want to find, and have enough information and energy, you may be able to find what you want. But they want to make that as difficult as possible. And that’s perfectly natural. If you were on the board of directors of Microsoft, sure, that’s what you’d try to do.”

Libraries and librarians are here to make that process as easy as possible.  When we suddenly find ourselves in a world of paywalls and divided access, will we look back in shame at what we cast aside because of a failure to understand the nature of technology?

The decline of Murdoch – a good thing for the flow of information?

Will the decline of the Murdoch empire have an impact on paywalls? Image c/o DonkeyHotey on Flickr

The past couple of weeks have been pretty momentous in the worlds of media and politics.  The revelations about the hacking of Milly Dowler’s mobile phone (falsely raising the hopes of both family and friends) have marked a new low in the history of the British press. Whilst the antics of the tabloid press should surprise no-one, a widespread sense of shock and disbelief at the depths that they would sink has engulfed the general public.  At the heart of this developing scandal lies News Corporation and Rupert Murdoch.  Already withdrawing their attempt to takeover BSkyB, could we be witnessing the slow, public death of one of the largest and most powerful news organisations in the world?  If so, could this have ramifications for accessibility to online information?

“The current days of the internet will soon be over.”

It is widely acknowledged that Murdoch doesn’t really ‘get’ the internet. Over the course of the past year, News Corporation has made moves to place their newspaper websites behind paywalls.  As The Guardian reported back in 2009, Murdoch envisaged a great change in the way information was accessed online:

Asked whether he envisaged fees at his British papers such as The Times, The Sunday Times, The Sun and the News of the World, he replied: “We’re absolutely looking at that.” Taking questions on a conference call with reporters and analysts, he said that moves could begin “within the next 12 months‚” adding: “The current days of the internet will soon be over.”

Such moves were cause for great concern.  Many libraries provide access to newspapers for free and, with declining budgets, it raised the question: should libraries subscribe to online newspaper content for their users?  But it also raised a greater and more important question.  If information is increasingly to be found behind paywalls in a time when libraries are faced with closure, how will we ensure equal access to information for all?  As we know (and as I repeatedly refer back to on this very blog!), 9 million people in this country have never even used the Internet.  The combination of their library closing and a wealth of information being kept behind paywalls would surely entrench the digital divide yet further – ensuring that a substantial proportion of the population never have access to the amount of information that the rest of us take for granted.

The initial impact of the paywall was stark.  Shortly after The Times paywall went up, The Guardian reported a 90% decline in visits.  People had become used to accessing information freely, without recourse to their debit or credit card.  And where one organisation leads, others follow.  The New York Times has suffered a 15% decline in visits since it also launched a paywall.  Whilst not a substantial decline, it is a decline nonetheless and an indication that people will turn away from paywalled content and access their information from elsewhere (which perhaps explains News Corporation’s repeated attacks on the BBC – the largest provider of free news content in the country).

But, with the foundations of the Murdoch media empire seemingly crumbling before our eyes, could this have implications for paywalled newspaper content?  Should Murdoch give up his stake in his remaining newspapers, would a new owner turn their backs on paywalled content?  Or has News Corporation set the Internet on an irreversible path?  I fear it may be the latter, but I remain hopeful that it is the former.

UN declares: “Internet access is a human right”

Access to the flow of online information is a right say the UN (image c/o Nrbelex)

Just over a week ago the United Nations underlined the right for everyone to have access to a resource that many take for granted: the internet.  As I have often commented on this blog over the years, lack of Internet access is not simply restricted to those that live in developing countries.  Nine million people in this country have never even accessed the internet, either at home or elsewhere.  From the Los Angeles Times:

“Given that the Internet has become an indispensable tool for realizing a range of human rights, combating inequality, and accelerating development and human progress, ensuring universal access to the Internet should be a priority for all states,” said the report from Frank La Rue, a special rapporteur to the United Nations, who wrote the document “on the promotion and protection of the right to freedom of opinion and expression.”

Obviously, putting access to information on the same footing as water is a significant and welcome move.  Access to information is absolutely vital for the wellbeing and prosperity of all individuals.  One wonders, however, what councils across the UK make of this development.

For many across the UK, a public library is the only place they can connect to the internet.  In the North East alone, connectivity stands at only 59% of households.  Closing libraries in areas such as the North East will surely result in access to the internet being cut off for many.  In essence, by closing public libraries, councils across the country will be violating tax payers’ human rights, according to the United Nations at least.  Is this likely to force them to change their minds about the extent of the closures?  Probably not.  Having said that, it may well be worth writing to your councillor and including a link to the text of the report.  You never know, it might just prick their conscience.

Net neutrality and public libraries

Information is Free. But for how long?

Towards the end of last year, Ed Vaizey addressed a telecommunications conference in London organised by the Financial Times.   In his address, he pointedly failed to give his support for ‘net neutrality’.  In fact, although he has denied it, it would appear that he supports scrapping it altogether.  In a section of the speech on ‘net neutrality’, Vaizey commented:

“Consumers should always have the ability to access any legal content or service. Content and service providers should have the ability to innovate and, most importantly, to reach end users … This could include the evolution of a two-sided market where consumers and content providers could choose to pay for differing levels of quality of service.”

The Guardian goes on to state:

The comments sparked a furore as his words were seen as allowing a two-tier internet in which companies would have to pay to get their content to arrive in timely fashion – a complaint that Erik Huggers of the BBC made last month over the corporation’s iPlayer catchup service.

There’s a phrase that should strike fear in any information professional: “two-tier internet”.  ’Two-tier’ inevitably means unequal and, consequently, entrenching a divide those that can access the top tier and those that can’t.  But before going any further, what is ‘net neutrality’?

Tim Berners-Lee describes ‘net neutrality’ as follows:

Net neutrality is this:

If I pay to connect to the Net with a certain quality of service, and you pay to connect with that or greater quality of service, then we can communicate at that level.That’s all. Its up to the ISPs to make sure they interoperate so that that happens.

Net Neutrality is NOT asking for the internet for free.

Net Neutrality is NOT saying that one shouldn’t pay more money for high quality of service. We always have, and we always will.

…

Control of information is hugely powerful. In the US, the threat is that companies control what I can access for commercial reasons. (In China, control is by the government for political reasons.) There is a very strong short-term incentive for a company to grab control of TV distribution over the Internet even though it is against the long-term interests of the industry.

…

Let’s see whether the United States is capable as acting according to its important values, or whether it is, as so many people are saying, run by the misguided short-term interested of large corporations.

As Berners-Lee suggests, abandoning ‘net neutrality’ could lead to very real dangers in terms of the control of information.  At present the flow of information is neither controlled by the state (as it is in China) or by corporate interests.  The removal of ‘net neutrality’ would change this, leading to corporations controlling access to information – a worrying prospect.

Over in the US, the debate over net neutrality has been waging for some time. Democratic Senator Al Franken has been particularly vocal in defending the principles of neutrality.  As one US blogger puts it:

Net neutrality is, of course, the exact opposite of the freedom-trampling “government takeover” as it is tarred by opponents in the capital. Net neutrality is internet freedom, not its adversary. The doctrine is designed to protect consumers’ rights to access information that is unfiltered and unrestricted by telecommunications companies that stand to profit from what could constitute, come to think of it, a “corporate takeover of the internet”.

“The only freedom they are providing for,” Democratic Senator Al Franken and several colleagues snapped back at Republicans in a recent letter, “is the freedom of telephone and cable companies to determine the future of the internet, where you can go on it, what you can attach to it, and which services will win or lose on it.”

The removal of ‘net neutrality’ could do very real damage to both the Internet as we know it today and seriously impact on the consumer’s ability to access information.  If ISPs are able to discriminate the flow of content there could be very serious consequences and it would undoubtedly be, as the ALA recently put it, ‘a severe violation of intellectual freedom’. Take these examples from The Nation:

Imagine how the next presidential election would unfold if major political advertisers could make strategic payments to Comcast so that ads from Democratic and Republican candidates were more visible and user-friendly than ads of third-party candidates with less funds. Consider what would happen if an online advertisement promoting nuclear power prominently popped up on a cable broadband page, while a competing message from an environmental group was relegated to the margins. It is possible that all forms of civic and noncommercial online programming would be pushed to the end of a commercial digital queue.

This is an even greater consideration in the UK where there are three main political parties and a number of smaller parties that are growing in popularity.  How would the Greens and UKIP, for example, be able to compete if ISPs discriminate against them and in favour of the main political parties?  And if they are able to discriminate, how will we be able to ensure that the consumer receives a range of information rather than just that which is ‘approved’ by the ISP?

As I mentioned above, the effect of a ‘two-tier’ Internet should have very real concerns for all information professionals.  The ALA made their concerns clear in 2006:

First, Network Neutrality is an intellectual freedom issue. The ALA defines intellectual freedom as the right of all people to seek and receive information from all points of view, without restriction. Unfortunately, there is no law that protects intellectual freedom on the Internet today. Internet service providers (such as the cable and telephone companies) have the ability to block or degrade information or services travelling over their networks. If these companies discriminate against certain kinds of information based on the content of the message being delivered, this would represent a severe violation of intellectual freedom.

Second, Network Neutrality is a competition issue. Libraries in the digital age are providers of online information of all kinds. Among hundreds of examples, public libraries are developing online local history resources, and academic libraries allow the online public to explore some of their rarest treasures. Libraries, as trusted providers of free public access to information, should not compete for priority with for-profit history or literature Web sites that might be able to afford to strike deals with service providers. This makes the Network Neutrality debate not only a matter of philosophy and values for librarians, but also of livelihood.

Couple this with some local authorities’ eagerness to close public libraries, and it is clear there are problems ahead.  One of the arguments against the need for a network of public libraries is that we ‘all’ have access to the Internet (of course we don’t but that doesn’t fit the narrative).  This is all well and good at present, but with ‘net neutrality’ under attack and an increasing amount of content being locked behind paywalls, it won’t be long before we find that the Internet as we know it is but a distant memory.

This is, again, yet another reason why libraries and information professionals are so important.  Librarians do not (or at least should not) discriminate on the information they provide their users.  If, for example, a customer visited the library and requested a book on ‘Islamic terrorism’ a librarian would (provided both texts are available of course!) lead you to a copy of both ‘Al Qaeda‘ by Jason Burke and ‘Londonistan‘ by Melanie Phillips and allow the user to decide which one is appropriate for them (the former hopefully!).  It may seem insignificant, but if the information professional was to behave as an ISP ‘unburdened’ by ‘net neutrality’, you would be presented with one or the other, potentially without even being aware that the other was available.  Imagine an information space where access to information was subject to vested interests.  Librarians do not have vested interests, they simply point you to a range of information resources and allow you to decide which is suitable.

Imagine, for a moment, that there are no public libraries and net neutrality is a thing of the past.  Imagine what the implications are for access to information.  Imagine the impact that this would have on our democracy.  Imagine the impact that this would have on society and how it would reinforce the gap between the richest and the poorest.  Sure, you may not think libraries are that important when you have the whole of the world-wide web at your finger tips.  But once paywalls are common place and ISPs are able to discriminate content, you may just realise what you’ve lost.  And don’t be fooled into thinking this is a far-fetched fantasy.  We are only a short step away from this eventuality.  Information has been commodified, once there is money to be made it won’t remain free and open for long.

Internet vs Public Libraries

The following was written for the Voices for the Library campaign and distributed earlier today in response to comments that were made about the role of libraries in bridging the digital divide and how providing everyone with Internet would be cost effective.

This argument has been doing the rounds this morning, most notably on BBC Breakfast.  The argument goes as follows:

Libraries are, for over 9 million people in this country, the only place that they can connect to the Internet.  Therefore, why not just connect everyone to the Internet as this would be cheaper and more efficient than providing access through a public library.  With Internet connections at around £100 per year, surely it would be cheaper?

There are many things wrong with this statement, so let’s have a look at how much such a scheme would cost.  Presumably, many of the people who do not have Internet connections do not have a computer either.  The most recent statistics suggest that 7 million households in the UK do not have an Internet connection.  1.4 million said that cost of equipment was the main reason why they did not have an Internet connection – other reasons given include lack of skills or they felt they ‘didn’t need it’.

A good quality computer costs something in the region of £300-500.  The cost of an Internet connection over a year is around £200 (taking £15 per month as an average for broadband).  So, taking the figures above, how much would it cost to connect everyone?

If we take the 7 million households figure first and provided them all with a broadband connection it would cost a grand total of £1.4 billion (of course that figure would be ongoing, every year).  If we took the 1.4 million households who said that computers were too expensive and provided each of those with a computer, the cost would equal £560 million (using £400 as an average cost for a desktop PC). If we were to consider that there are likely to be more households than this without a computer (7 million without an Internet connection remember), the cost could potentially be £2.8 billion.  So to provide everyone with a computer would cost between £560 million and £2.8 billion.  Again, this would not be a one-off payment as computers will need to be updated after a certain period of time to make sure they remain functional (usually every four years or so).

So, the total cost of providing everyone with an Internet connection would be…..

£2-4.2 billion with an annual bill of at least £1.4 billion.

Of course these figures do not take into account things such as software, anti-virus and, most importantly, the training and support that many would need to ensure they can use the equipment and the Internet.  Provision of all these extras could push the bill to over £5 billion (again with an annual bill of at least£1.4 billion plus the cost of upgrades every 3-4 years).  Just to compare that figure, public libraries cost the UK £1.1 billion every year.

So, which option makes sense financially in a time of spending cuts?  It seems fairly obvious.

The ‘Thoughts…’ Annual 2010 – Part II

July

July was a pretty cool month for me personally.  As you know from June’s summary, I was pretty hacked off about the coverage on Newsnight about public libraries.  What infuriated me further was that there was no authoritative voice putting a strong case for the defence.  I truly came away from the experience convinced I could have put a stronger case forward for libraries in the digital age.  So, I decided to put my money where my mouth is and have a crack.  I was mindful that I was about to put myself out there to be shot down, but I couldn’t just keep quiet and tweet the odd grumble on Twitter.  Quite frankly, that is just not my way.

I had noticed that The Guardian were always looking out for articles for their Comment is Free pages on their website, so decided I would have a crack at pitching an idea.  Thankfully, they liked my pitch and my subsequent 800 word article and decided to publish it on CiF – much to my shock and pleasure.

Well, the response was amazing.  If nothing else it certainly raised my profile amongst others in the library profession.  I had all manner of positive messages from people both on Twitter and even people passing on messages of support via my Twitter followers.  Amazingly, it was also picked up by a number of bloggers in the US and made it into the American Library Associations’ newsletter.  It has also made appearance in numerous presentations related to breaking out of the ‘echo chamber’.  I hope I managed to convince at least one person that libraries were vital but, if not, the peer recognition is something that I hold very dear and will do for some time to come.  Without doubt, it is probably one of the proudest moments of my life.  Although I hope my current activities will top that…..

 

Wordle created from a random selection of Library Day in the Life blog posts

July also saw a blog post about the hidden secret about libraries, one that even library campaigners ignore – libraries are used more now than ever before.  Not only are they being used more, they are increasingly being used in different ways.  For some bizarre reason, this little known fact is still overlooked by some campaigners….which makes me wonder why they are failing to talk up the library service and persist in talking it down.  In my experience, talking services down only leads to one of two things: closure or privatisation.  Unfortunately, it appears increasingly likely that privatisation is on the table for councils up and down the country.  Something that should concern library users and campaigners up and down the country.

 

A couple of quick blogs contributed to the ‘Library Day in a Life’ initiative were also written in July.  Hopefully this coming year I will be able to contribute something more substantial as they were rather quiet days this year.

July was also the month I discovered Dropbox for the first time and I can honestly say I have been using it all the time ever since.  If you haven’t signed up for it yet I strongly recommend that you give it a go….it’s a fantastic utility.

August

 

August also saw a trip to Hever Castle.

August saw a flurry of blog posts all around a similar theme: library cuts and the media narrative.  Finally at breaking point regarding media mis-representations of the library service (finally? Surely that point was reached months ago!?), I put a post out there suggesting that some form of alternative to the Good Library Blog be established.  I had become deeply disappointed that this was seen as the voice of libraries and wanted something to act as an alternative that is more in tune with users and library staff.  Lucky for me, some others felt the same……

 

In other developments, I discovered Flavors.me which I am still a fan of.  Flavors allows users to create simple, personalised spaces which aggregate feeds from all your social networks.  Of course, it’s not to everyone’s taste, but I rather like the stylish simplicity of it.

August also saw an attempt by Spanish Twitter folk to get libraries (‘biblioteca’ in this case) trending on Twitter.  It was a really positive campaign to tweet positive things about libraries to raise awareness of the good things they do.  I’m quite keen on the idea of agreeing a date and a time and doing a similar thing myself…with the added advantage of getting US tweeps onboard too!

September

 

Highlight of September - a trip to Galicia in the north west of Spain.

Well, September may have been a quiet month in terms of my blog, but it was far from quiet in other respects.  September saw the establishment of Voices for the Library – a campaign group designed to offer a strong, positive library voice in the face of national library cuts.  I have been immensely proud of the campaign and all of those that have stuck with it or joined in.  It’s amazing to think how far it has come in such a short space of time.  There’s still lots to do, however, and there is a lot of work that needs to be done to raise the profile of the group, the campaign and libraries in general.  It has been tough and there have been ups and downs, but nothing too difficult to overcome.  There will be many more challenges ahead, but whatever fate throws at us, I remain immensely proud to be involved in the fight.

 

October

October was a time of great relief…..finally I had completed my two option modules and was on my way to working on my dissertation.  It seemed like the time would never come but here I am, on the final straight.  Such an utter relief…but, again, there is still much to do.  The coming year is going to be pretty hectic, but I am determined to get that MSc under my belt and move my career on a stage.  Just need to manage my distractions and I should be fine…..!

Towards the end of October came the announcement from the Publishers Association that ebooks should not be available remotely from libraries but should require users to enter the building and download from a terminal – rather defeating the object of ebooks.  I still find it hard to believe that this statement could have been in any way a serious proposition.  Not only was it failing to think imaginatively about how to manage ebook delivery in public libraries, it showed a real willingness to give libraries a good kicking whilst they were ‘down’.  Quite frankly, it still rankles to this day.  Madness.

I also blogged about e-audiobooks, something I had often overlooked in the past.  Libraries now offer them as well and they are a superb service for commuters who can listen to books on their commute as well as for mor traditional audiobook users.  Another fantastic service and another example of libraries adapting to meet the needs of their users.

November

 

Also in November - a trip to Aranjuez, outside Madrid.

Ah November, a serene peaceful month where nothing much happens.  Quiet, peaceful, serene, until someone writes a load of guff about it being a good thing that libraries are being closed.  Not only guff, but guff backed up without a single, solitary fact.  I dread to think what kind of marks I would have got at uni for handing a piece of work of that standard.  I think a ‘try again’ would have been the only adequate response.  Yes, I am talking about that infamous article in a paper in the north-east.  Looking back, it kinda seems silly.  This is a broadcaster with very limited reach.  No-one down south had even heard of him (hence my provocative, yet also very accurate, title of my blog post).

 

Of course, there are those that write provocative pieces all the time, designed to provoke a response and, in many ways, this was merely another one to add to the canon of provocative guff.  However, as is always the case with guff-jocks (as opposed to ‘shock jocks’), when you call them on their guff they become predictably defensive.  Oh, it’s fine for them to talk offensive guff, but when you call them on it you are worse than a guff devil (ok, think that’s enough ‘guff’ references for now…).  Oh yes, they play the ‘I can say what I like, screw political correctness’ card for all its worth, they just don’t think it should be used against them.  Bless their sensitive souls.

Anyway, the job was done and I think it is fair to say that one guff monster was laid to rest (oops, sorry).  It did highlight for me, however, the need to challenge nonsense wherever it rears its head.  The influence these people have on their followers (sheep?) is quite immense and they should be challenged and made to justify (if not think about) their statements.  It’s not easy, but on the flip side, you’ve just made someone look an utter fool to a worldwide audience (ie Twitter).  Some things are worth pursuing.

So, what else happened in November?  Well, I was also interested in the growth of agency pricing for ebooks – something that threatens to undermine Amazon’s stranglehold on the ebook market.  Whilst I am not overly keen on this method of pricing, the fact that it levels the playing field for ebook platforms is a very good thing and, if there is any justice, Kindle will be forced to accept the ePub format rather than push their proprietary one.  Yes, it may well remain a pipe-dream, but it’s my pipe-dream and aim to cling to it for all it’s worth.  It’s either that or eternal hope that the Kindle perishes, crushed by its failure to look beyond proprietary formats.  Let’s hope for the former, I’m a gentle soul after all.

December

 

Winter strikes in December.....

December – and winter chaos fever has struck the 24hr news networks.  It even made an appearance on my blog…struck, as I was, by the way information was being distributed during the travel chaos and how some were excluded from this flow of information, leading to frustration and no little stress.  Whilst those on Twitter were able to communicate with various transport companies about their travel arrangements, others were stuck with the odd Tannoy announcements at the airport…..something that is never really satisfactory.  It certainly highlighted for me the advantages that the information rich have over the information poor.

 

I also posted my thoughts on the Wikileaks story….a story that has been dominating the news for what seems like a lifetime.  I am of the opinion that this flow of information is a very good thing.  And, despite the claims of those wishing to play it all down as nothing more than tittle-tattle, there has been some very interesting stuff coming out of the whistle-blowing organisation.

The Wikileaks story has also opened up another area for discussion however….the increasing clamour from governments and corporations to not only control the Internet, but to establish a two tier system.  Couple this with the destruction of the library service (where free Internet access is a given) and we can see the seeds of a deeply ingrained digital divide being established.  This should be cause for concern for everyone.  A two tier system would virtually ensure that there is one service for the wealthy and another for the poor.  This is a very dangerous road to go down and one hopes that we are not too far down the road that we can’t turn back.

And on that note, we come to the end of my blog review of the year.  It’s been interesting (if not time-consuming) looking back at my old posts and re-evaluating some of my thoughts at the time (or even just re-affirming in some cases!).  2011 is shaping up to be a very interesting/challenging year.  Library closures are increasingly on the agenda and cuts will start to bite deep.  That said, library campaigning is getting better and stronger and there is much to be optimistic about in the year ahead.  Yes, let’s end on a positive shall we?!

2011?  Bring it on!

Winter chaos and the information divide

Merry Christmas everyone!

One of the things that has fascinated me most about the recent winter chaos™ (alongside the 24hr news coverage) has been the way information has been transmitted and distributed across the country. There have often been complaints that too little information is being given, particularly in terms of transportation. The incidents at Heathrow are a prime example of this. There were repeated stories from passengers about a lack of information from the airport and the airlines about their flights.  Interestingly, however, there was possibly more information out there than ever before….it’s just some people weren’t able to obtain it.

Over the past few days, both Heathrow airport and a number of airlines (including the one I am flying with) have used Twitter to proactively communicate with customers about the state of their flights and the airport. Whilst some information has been of negligible value, there has been an attempt to communicate whatever information that is possible to share. However, there are two big drawbacks to this method of communication. Firstly, not everyone is on Twitter. Secondly, not everyone has an Internet connection (whether at home or on their mobile), precluding them not only from Twitter, but also the Heathrow website. Of course, there may have been many at the airport who did have smartphones and were able to access the Internet, but given the length of time that many were stranded, many would have had flat batteries. Furthermore, many people with smartphones may not have Twitter accounts, but this does not mean that they can’t search it. But then, how many people do you know who think that Twitter is all about sharing what you’ve had for lunch and thereby give it a wide berth?

I actually contact the Twitter accounts for both Heathrow airport and my airline (Vueling) in the past few days. Both answered promptly (within about ten minutes) and both dealt with my query in a satisfactory way. The response time was certainly better than I would have expected had I sent an email. But I have both a Twitter account and a smartphone so I am one of the lucky ones. What about those that have neither? They are left to struggle with phoning the airline or the airport and undoubtedly being held in queues waiting for answers. There’s no question who is at an advantage. And this gets to the heart of the information divide and the gap between the information rich and information poor. Those that have the means are able to get information promptly and effectively, those without are left in limbo forced to deal with overloaded call centres (and how much do those phonecalls cost?!) and a lack of information within the airport.

On that note, may I wish all my readers and followers a very merry Christmas and thanks for reading this blog and adding your comments over the past year. Personally speaking, it’s been a pretty exciting year. If 2011 is half as good I’m in for a great year!

Wikileaks – information should be free

Despite attempts to halt the leaks, they still keep coming....(flickr image: Brother O

As someone who is working in the information business, I have been fascinated by the leaks coming out from Wikileaks over the past few weeks. Fascinated as much by the reaction to the leaks as the leaks themselves. The reaction from politicians and commentators in the United States has been particularly….er…..disturbing. Calls for assassinations and equating Julian Assange with Osama Bin Laden are just some of the examples of blatant hyperbole that have dominated the airwaves since this series of leaks commenced. However, the leaks still come and day by day we are hearing new revelations in regard to foreign policy and international diplomacy. Yes, some of this may be tittle-tattle, but some of the information that is being leaked is noteworthy. Certainly they help to provide a bit of context to some of the events of recent years. But what about the future for information delivery in the light of these attacks on Wikileaks?

I guess before I go any further, I should disclose that I share Assange’s philosophy that the unlimited provision of free information can make the world a better place. Rational decisions can only be made when one has access to all the relevant information. One cannot, as an individual, make reasoned decisions without information. As I’ve noted before, one cannot expect people to make rational choices about the food they eat without being provided with information about it (or even the tools to interpret it).

What is more, the Internet is perhaps the greatest tool at our disposal to ensure the spread of information. Unfortunately, in the past couple of years there have been moves to restrict the flow of information on the Internet. Newspapers are steadily hiding things behind paywalls. Big name companies are placing restrictions on what content can be kept on their servers (see Amazon pulling the plug on Wikileaks). Large multi-national corporations have spent millions lobbying against net neutrality, effectively supporting a two tier information network. What we are seeing is the steady erosion of the liberty principle behind the Internet by corporations and governments, leading to a system where some have access to information and some do not, with money being the main dividing line.

As if the slow establishmentarianism and commercialisation of the Internet wasn’t bad enough, the only institution that can level the playing field (libraries) are being slowly taken apart (maybe not so slowly in some cases).  For libraries can subscribe to content to ensure that people can access materials without having to negotiate pay walls.  Why bother paying to subscribe to The Times online, when you can access it for free at the library?  In a way, the increased commercialisation should be a good thing for libraries.  After all, if libraries can purchase access on behalf of their users it could theoretically encourage people back into libraries.  However, it may be that this is seen as too much of a threat to the commercial world.  Whilst there is a free access model, they cannot make the profits that they would hope for.  And the free access model is certainly under threat – see the increased attacks on the BBC as media outlets start to put their content behind paywalls.  As long as the BBC puts out free news content, few people will pay for news content online.   Take the BBC out of the equation and bingo…users will be forced to pay for news content.

The internet is in very grave danger of moving towards a state where there is a large amount of content that people are simply not able to access.  As the commercial sector and the government tighten their grip on this resource, there is a very real danger of the digital divide becoming virtually impossible to close.  Certainly, without libraries to help provide access to content that is otherwise behind paywalls, there are a great many people who will never be able to access the kind of information that most of us will take for granted.  It would seem that not only is education being re-branded as a privilege, access to information may well be about to go through a similar re-branding process.  Governments and corporations both have much to gain from just such a re-branding exercise.  Control for the former and profit for the latter.

For more thoughts on this, I’d heartily recommend The Commercialisation of the Internet and the Erosion of Free Speech.  It’s a very interesting read and highlights some of the dangers ahead for free information on the Internet.