Why micropayments won’t solve a macroproblem… and why most of the Internet isn’t worth it anyway.

The Internet is a funny thing. On one hand, it is a wonderful tool for sharing information freely, anywhere anytime. On the other, it has only served to consolidate the power of multinationals who have made billions out of making their analog services digital. Amid all the discussions about what the Internet should stand for are the arguments about whether we should pay for the privilege of having it at all. Micropayments have been touted as the way to an Internet pay model’s heart, by allowing people to voluntarily contribute a dollar or two to a site they like. But, if you happen to like a lot of sites, those costs soon add up. And then there is that other niggling issue at hand - that most of the information that’s out there isn’t worth it anyway.

If you’re like me, you probably start your browsing day by checking the news, looking at a few funny sites that a colleague has sent you, and then doing some browsing during lunch (being careful not to get crumbs in the keyboard). Most of the time, the news sites will be ones that existed before the Internet. They will be online equivalents of AP, News Limited, Fairfax, Fox, CNN etc etc providing nothing more than what you get for free on the evening news or in the morning paper. You might pay for the morning paper, but how many of you drop a coin in the box to watch the evening news? This is probably the best way to think about the debate over micropayments. Why do we currently pay for one and not the other? What would convince you to pay for one, both or neither in the future?

I spend a lot of time doing research, finding what I can on the Internet, which is not a lot. Many big journals are published by huge companies that charge many thousands of dollars to provide access to them. They’re not on the Internet. The only journals I can find online are e-journals, some of which are very good, and some of which are average at best. Traditionally, scholars have been able to go to libraries and browse, read and copy portions of academic texts for free. In return, scholars write papers for free. Is it wrong to charge for access to these texts in a digital format if the authors don’t get paid? And what about all those sites you surf in your lunch break? Should you pay for them?

Some suggestions for payment models have been made, but the problem is much wider. The fundamental problem is convincing people that they should pay for something that they have had for free until now, and that they should pay for something they can get for free in other mediums. In most places around the world, once you’ve bought a TV or a radio you don’t have to pay any more to receive content. However, if you then want to add other types of services, like a VCR or a cassette player, you will have to pay for each program that you want to watch or hear (movies that you rent or buy, and books on tape etc). What value can content providers on the Internet guarantee? What happens if you pay to access a site, but next week all the old information is deleted? Can you get your money back? Are micropayments going to be like movie rentals, or more like buying a movie that you can keep? Micropayment management is another curly issue. What user is going to want to pay for content on 50 different sites in 50 different ways? Will we have to pay by credit card? Ultimately, the only future I can see for micropayments is that they will be dominated by large corporate websites that have the power to lobby for establishing micropayment systems, and the little sites will fall by the wayside. The Internet will then end up being as consolidated as any other form of media, with content controlled by those with the money and the power - most likely those that control TV, radio and newspaper publishing already.

So what’s the solution? Content providers need to take a long hard look at themselves when they ask users to contribute micropayments. Why are they seeking payments? Is it to provide access to exceptional content, or just to make people pay for mediocre stuff they used to provide for free? Lastly, will content providers have a heart for those who can’t afford it? In the analog world, you can fish a newspaper out of a bin, or watch TV in a store if you can’t afford to buy it for yourself. In the digital world, people who can’t afford access either go to their local library or miss out altogether.

How can we ensure that access is fair and equitable, and not another way for large corporations to widen the divide between the haves and have nots?