They are exploring the possibility of requiring a subcription or some sort of fee for use in order to do so.

The network will still be a network. The requirements for access may be modified.

You seem awfully sure that AP's actions will be detrimental. They may take a look at their data and decide to do something entirely different than attempting to shut down the internet. You sound like someone who doesn't want a free convenience taken away.

Trust me: I have things taken away all the time. One learns to deal. It keeps the mind sharp.

I laughed when I read your remark about taxes, below, though not at you especially. A lot of people believe that public libraries are supported primarily by taxes. "Public" describes who we serve, not necessarily where the money comes from. I could write you a check to refund your federal contribution for the year, in the neighborhood of $25.00. You have no idea how little there is. Now, I can't speak for your state, unless it's PA. Things vary a lot. But let me tell you, for a lot of my clients, whether AP requires somebody to pay to link to articles will not matter to them at all, because their net access is limited to what we can afford to give them. And our clients are lucky: they get an hour at a time. My co-worker has relatives in FL who tell her that people wait an hour to get 15 minutes online. That's their allotment for the day. Can you imagine trying to conduct a job search in that kind of environment?

You want to do a public service with your blog? Do some original research on net access among those who can't afford it. Statistics, personal stories, all across the country: the whole nine yards. It's a big story, and not reported often enough. It will be original reporting and your personal work, not an opinion piece on someone else's original work. You'll be able to see how much it costs to do it, and to do it well. Perhaps AP will be interested in it, and then you can charge them for access.

If a critic reviewed my play, which would be a hoot, by the way, because it's a one-day performance for the amateur actors ages 6-12 and their teen production committee, so all their families can see what they've been doing all week, the critic will not be linking to a YouTube video of the performance without my permission. Or she had better not. The profit motive is not an issue: the workshop is free. The analogy doesn't work too well.