"Deregulation" is a slippery term, which has thus far indisputably resulted in further corporate consolidation of power in the guise of "competition" (another slippery term in this age of late--or permanent, as the case may be--capitalism). There is no reason to think that global conglomerates will not continue to get what they want, whether they call it "deregulation," "competition," or anything else. With all this merging of media going on (witness multi-billion dollar mergers involving CBS/Westinghouse, Disney Capitol Cities/ABC, Time-Warner, TCI/AT&T, on and on and on…) it is not hard to look around the corner and glimpse some very real possibilities for the future of the Internet. 

      Control of all media (thus far excluding the Internet) is merging at an amazing rate. The companies listed above are in movies, broadcasting, book publishing, cable, radio, and all of them increasingly have their eyes on the Internet. 

     Consider the following. 

     The television networks control television content. There are community standards, etc., but essentially the networks write, produce, or at least approve of, everything we see. It has always been so (with the exception of locally produced cable programming), and perhaps the medium with its "one to many" broadcast format was especially conducive to this arrangement. Intuitively, the Internet is different. We have the potential for many producers and many consumers, provided there is both the desire and the ability for many to produce, and a desire and ability for many to consume those products. But, this has increasingly not been the American model of commerce, whether it comes to information, or anything else. Mass marketing, and consumption of generic content is the rule. 

     This arrangement suits large conglomerates just fine. "Hollywood," for instance, can produce the same trite "retreads" of "standard formula" action, romance, comedy, and adventure films year after year with little risk of bottom-line box-office disappointments. The same is true of television, radio, newspapers, and popular magazines and books. Where we don’t see utterly conventional, formulaic pabulum, we see "the flavor of the month," which is, in itself, another kind of formula based on the standard manufacturing and marketing ploy known as "design for obsolescence." 

     Given this, what will make the Internet any different in a world where America Online merges with Netscape (already fait accomli), then merges with TCI Cable, then with US West, and next with Disney, Time-Warner, or CBS/Westinghouse?   Our government, if recent activity is any gauge, seems very unlikely to tamper with the "success" of these companies.

    Somehow--as an entire society--we have decided that "competition" is far more interesting if it involves only the fewest, largest, "best" competitors. (That’s great, honey, I’m glad your school play is this afternoon, but the superbowl is on. Daddy’s sorry.) Provided such mergers take place, what is, then, regulated by the FCC? Chat rooms, e-mail, telephone conversations? And how is it monitored? For heaven’s sake, what about the terrorists? Shouldn’t the "good guys" listen in, just a little bit?

     Apocalyptic? Maybe, but entirely within the grasp of the conglomerates if they take their power to its logical conclusion. Who among us thinks to argue that television and radio are heavily censored?  Who among us defends (or understands) their First Amendment rights?

     Independent publishing would likely continue to be every bit as hamstrung as it is at present in such a world. Just as we now have Cosmopolitan, as well as On Our Backs in print form, we can have the same relative success and failure on the Internet. The former is a huge, brain-dead, mainstream cash cow, and the other an intelligent, struggling, hardly known entity. And, unlike Cosmo, the ideas in On Our Backs are definitely "not ready for prime time," or any time for the vast majority of Americans.  So how does the Internet rescue the independent publisher?  My guess is it probably won't.

     Consider the daunting idea that in print, the struggling feminist publication can find an audience through distribution in independent bookstores and through mail subscription. In an closely watched and regulated electronic environment where the (for now) imaginary AOL/TCI-AT&T/Disney corporation refuses to sell information that it deems off-color or unnecessary, this will not be possible, at least over their equipment.  It may therefore come to pass that independent publishing is likely to continue to be pursued as a print activity. Think about it: today, if you, for some reason, disagree with US West, and choose not to purchase their telephone services, you have no telephone services.    These companies will own the digital means of providing you with information, and they may refuse to carry that which doesn't fit their corporate image, or which fails to meet bogus "community standards." 

     This is very tricky, of course.  For instance, today we enjoy the freedom to have any kind of telephone conversation we want.  So, we should have the freedom to have any kind of e-mail, or chat room coversation we want, too, right?   Well, it all depends on circumstances, and how "private" our coversation is.  Over the wires at work, we may be monitored and censored.  If  the argument is successfully made that Internet correspondence is being "broadcast," or has the potential to be broadcast, regulation could very well step in to monitor and control the content of messages.  Web pages, or homesites, certainly fit the criteria for "broadcast," and I beleive we will soon see new forms of regulation.

     In any case, what large corporations want on the Internet are the same rights they currently enjoy in other media. These rights have led to almost total domination. When is the last time you heard someone say, "I’d like to start my own radio, or television station?" It’s unheard of. The FCC and the corporations control the airwaves.   They control them because they own them, even if owning the airwaves--or the electromagnetic spectrum--or whatever you want to call it, seems ridiculous.  They already sell us water in bottles for $2.00 a peice, for God's sake.  They will sell whatever they can convince or deceive people into thinking has some specific value. Even if a bottle of water looks like it should cost next to nothing, people will pay $2.00 for it.  Even if the airwaves look like they should be free for everyone to use, people will accept regulation once they are convinced of its value--protecting "the children," or whatever those that seek to control others call it.

   Mass distribution of information is regulated and controlled, even if theoretically it is not. In reality it is. As a society, we have decided to place little emphasis on the free expression of ideas. We have decided to give the control of information to the FCC, CNN, and the Walt Disney Corporation. What most people see and hear is therefore not very challenging to their basic, protectionist/reactionary assumptions about the world.  An Internet dominated by those that seek only profit will do little if anything to change this. 

     It is wise not to forget that the marketing power of big business is not to be trifled with. Even if the Internet remains free for all to use as they see fit, that does not automatically alter the power relationships that currently exist. Someone once said, "If you want to understand a newspaper, look at who owns it." The same may soon be true of the Internet. 

     Independent media is severely marginalized in today’s society. A large part of the reason for this is that people have never been exposed to it, as busy as they are with alluring distractions like Entertainment Tonight and COPS. There is no reason to think that the Internet is somehow not well suited to corporate motives. There is no reason to think that the Internet cannot provide a new platform for continuing the constant barrage of "infotainment" and programming designed specifically to sell fashion and other culturally "significant" accoutrements. Any medium can be exploited for crass commercial purposes. The limits of the Internet in this regard will be soon tested with the full weight of billions upon billions of dollars of the best marketing techniques that humankind has yet devised. Most people will sit back and watch, with their wallets open and their minds empty. 

     Of course, it is possible that "pirate" Internet access will still be available in a worst-case "corporate takeover" situation as depicted above. Better yet, none of this may come to pass. The multiplicity of voices on the Internet may continue unchecked. Small, dedicated groups may proliferate and grow on the Internet. Maybe computer technology will cause the mediums to merge (the idea of multimedia: word, picture and sound somehow equally weighted), but ownership will multiply.  Somehow, in the end, there may be a way that we will all "own" the Internet, as we seem to today.  However, as I have pointed out elsewhere in this project, the ability to speak doesn’t mean anyone is listening, or that anyone cares.  Right now there are hundreds of small books, magazines, and musical recordings being produced that easily 90% of the population has never even heard of.  I could name dozens off the top of my head.  Much of this work is of extremely high quality by just about any standards, yet it goes completely unnoticed.

     So, yes it may turn out that the Internet changes all of this somehow. If the entire history of the human race is any indication, especially considering recent developments in the consolidation of power, it may be wise to place heavy doubts on sustaining this belief. It will take many dedicated people facing severe obstacles to make their voices heard over the din of the major, corporate media gristmill. And there are precious few of these people that I have encountered in 30 years, even when constantly seeking them out. In any case, for the time being there are promises as well as threats, and the truth is that there is a lot of ground between "radical democratization" of media, and complete corporate and governmental dominance and censorship. Theoretical notions about "what it means" to own the Internet, or how we must approach a "heterotopia of voices" (borrowing from John Trimbur), will do absolutely nothing to stop America Online from pulling your website when they disagree with what you say. If this sort of tampering occurs, the power of print may be reaffirmed for the independent publisher with ideas challenging to power. 

For a comprehensive, detailed overview of consolidation in media ownership, see:

Hazen, Don and Winokur, Julie. We the Media: A Citizen’s Guide to Fighting for Media Democracy  New York: The Free Press, 1997.

End of section.         Read next section.         View site map.