Despite instability, the benefits of free Internet outweigh costs

One of my unofficial life mottoes is "if it's for free, it's for me."

I have a fond memory of dodging traffic outside the West Virginia University Coliseum to retrieve a free bottle of Monster Energy Drink I dropped while dashing across Monongahela Boulevard.

I pride myself for managing to do so without dropping any of the 10 other bottles clutched to my chest or stashed in various parts of my jacket.

I also made off with a veritable mountain of goodies during the recent SGA give-a-thon and even once signed up for a credit card to get a free sub sandwich.

I thought it was a great deal. Sadly, Congress recently outlawed the practice.

I'm the guy who actually saves his fast food receipt and fills out the internet survey on its back in order to get a free chicken sandwich.

So you can imagine my dismay as I read in Newsweek magazine "The Future Won't Be Free" by Andrew Zolli.

Zolli used to like free stuff even more than I do. In the 1990s, he went around giving lectures to companies about the benefits of building an Internet presence and the "virtues of free-for-all online access."

Zolli helped convince newspapers and other content producers that putting their stuff on the Internet where anyone could see it (almost always without paying) was a good idea.

His opinion in this area has shifted. He now describes his earlier position as "total crap."

Older and wiser, Zolli now makes the not-unreasonable argument that setting up shop online and offering for free the exact same content consumers must pay for in a non-digital form essentially means companies are competing with themselves.

Since it's virtually impossible to compete with "free," the revenue-generating version of those companies are losing out.

It doesn't take a Master of Business Administration to know that no revenue eventually leads to no company.

Zolli is not the only person following that line of thinking.

Media mogul Rupert Murdoch declared in August 2009 his conglomerate, News Corporation, would begin charging for much of its Internet content within a year.

Paying for content is not an idea solely contained in the world of news. ESPN Insider has irked many frequenters of ESPN.com with its "freemium" (pay content on an otherwise free site) service.

It even provoked commentary by the site's independent ombudsman.

I'm not too distressed with the prospect of being unable to freely peruse The Times of London. Being cut off from Mel Kiper Jr's NFL draft coverage is something I have to struggle with on a daily basis.

It's hard to blame content producers for looking for ways to monetize Internet consumption. Putting content on the Internet certainly reduces cost, but there is a distinction between reducing costs and eliminating them.

While the prospect of having to pay for access to Internet content is not a particular appealing one, given the choice between having to pay for it or it not being available at all, most people would prefer having the option to pay.

So are we doomed to a future in which the Internet is largely bottled up behind a never-ending series of pay walls?

It may seem far-fetched, but it's not beyond the realm of possibility. It's hard to escape the timeless economic maxim that "there's no such thing as a free lunch."

It's hard, but not necessarily impossible.

The rise of targeted advertising techniques, such as those employed by Facebook and Google, has transformed the Internet advertising into a multi-billion dollar industry.

People who enjoy the Web free of charge should be prepared for (and welcome) the increased intrusion of advertisements into their Web streams, because such activity helps subsidize the "free" Internet.

Gimmicks, like forcing users to watch 30 ads or 60 ads before they can get to content (used for example by Hulu) may proliferate, appearing before news stories or game recaps.

In light of this, sites may offer users the opportunity to pay a subscription fee to avoid these ads, letting the consumer decide which commodity they are more willing to part with: money or time.

As the Internet continues to mature and eat away at traditional forms of content distribution, the model of free access for all may prove to be at least somewhat unstable.

This provokes interesting questions about the purpose of the medium, the social benefit of access to information and how to reward those whose work makes the whole thing possible.

How valuable is information, and what is worth paying for? Even for a cheapskate, freebie-lover like me, the answer is probably a pretty fair amount.

Hopefully the content providers never figure that out.