Great line from Economist "Leaders" bit on the web's "new walls":
The internet is as much a trade pact as an invention.
Actually, until it became a trade pact, it was an interesting bit of technology and not much else--a fantasy of a back-up comms net once the bombs started dropping ("Can you read this? Oh my God! At least the two of us survived! Now what?").
So the web really only works when people see commercial value, and when that commerce rears its beautiful head, barriers naturally arise. Governments want to fence off its value proposition for national firms (far more than they care to keep out "bad" content). Companies want to create "walled gardens" for their proprietary offerings. Some net providers want sites to pay for premier promotion.
These are all unremarkable developments. The web is certainly a generation or two beyond the telephone, but why it was supposed to be some everything-is-free nirvana is beyond me, any more than phones were going to change everything before and the telegraph before that.
These are the three types of walls cited by the Economist: national, company, and the possible downfall of the net-neutrality vision. So Wired says the net is dead--that goes too far says The Economist.
It has been my proposition going back to the mid-1990s, that everybody wants the connectivity, but everyone also wants to control the content--to their tastes, to their fears, and--most definitely--to their advantage.
The fencing off of the web is not all that different from the fencing off of the American West. If you want something to be truly tended, and not suffer the fate of the commons, people will need to own it and care about it.
But the free trade point made by the mag is equally valid; it just won't be the commons we imagined it to be.
And so it will need to go through the same negotiations--bilateral, multilateral, global, that regular trade goes through.
I'm not worried about the web. I see this as a natural evolution.