Discussion on:

10 threats to The Golden Age of the Internet

"Without a doubt, the Internet as it exists in 2012 is a very good thing." That is how the sentence was originally written. After doing the research I had to remove the word " very." The chipping away of our Internet freedoms has started and is well underway.

One threat I didn't mention is the threat of a cyber attack.

Some of you may feel that the "golden age" has already ended. Some of my freedom went away on February 1, 2012 when my service provider, CenturyLink, started to meter bandwidth usage. How long do you think the golden age of the Internet will last? Is it already over?

As always, I will pop in occasionally to answer any questions and offer the odd bit of wisdom when I have something intelligent to say.

Thanks to FOSS developers, things like skype will always exist in some incarnation.
If the internet gets too locked down, we will make our own internet.

Many have tried to take freedom away from people, but in the end, it never works.

You have a great attitude and I believe that you are right - people will eventually reclaim their freedom. The problem is the one of the infamous boiling frog. Take away freedoms slowly enough and the water never gets too hot for action. Let's hope the frog doesn't boil before it realizes how hot it's gotten!

Our freedoms have already been nibbled away by those in power, who have generations of knowledge as to how to "handle" us. They know how to use fear to motivate us into gladly giving our freedom away, in return for an appearance of security. They know how to divide and conquer us so that we spend more time hating each other than uniting against our tyrants. They know how to use that "infamous boiling frog" to slowly erode freedom through a series of small usurpations. Then, to top it off, they control the schools so that we are conditioned to accept the state and to accept acquiescence as a proper form of patriotism. That is why you have people who say that you shouldn't mind government snooping "if you have nothing to hide." Or who maintain that they haven't lost any rights throughout a lifetime, blithely ignoring a host of encroachments in the form of Patriot Acts, police checkpoints, warrantless searches, and a plethora of regulation from agencies better known by their acronyms and supervised by unelected officials with a lust for power and empire. You have people who seek a leader; people who haven't got the guts to want freedom for themselves, so you can bet that they are more than happy to help the powerful take it from you as well. You have the 47% like the respondents in the BBC World Service poll who are so conditioned to government interference that they see a place for it on the Internet. As long as we who love freedom think that we can rest from vigilance against those who would take it from us, our freedom remains in jeopardy. It's hard work to remain vigilant, especially when those who love power are constantly pushing for more, when we freedom-lovers don't believe in coercion ourselves -- just the right to be left alone.

And, you are one of those people who stand out from the crowd. Sad, that people like you aren't controlling the country right now.

For example, to resist Internet Control "helps pedophiles", that's what that 47% are thinking.

Last time I checked, the police was capable of catching the sickoes with regular search-warrants... and as heinous as they are, I don't think we need to cripple the 99,99% of users to catch more of the 0,01%.
For the Lawmongers: A little proportion, please!

"catching the sickoes with regular search-warrants... and as heinous as they are,"

...and your own little fit of moral hysteria is moving the fear up another nanonotch. well done.

Is this really as bad as everyone says. Piracy of Copyrighted material has always happened. Did YOU ever tape a show off the TV? Piracy. Record a song from the radio? Piracy. 5 year olds do this. It will never go away, it will just change with the times. The internet has only made this piracy easier and more pervasive. I TOTALLY agree that artists need to be paid for their work, but 1 million per movie to gouge movie goers? Download those for free and let the actors and musicians learn how to deal with a budget.

The "definition" of piracy on the Internet has many shades of gray. Downloading an MP3 file of a song without paying for it is considered piracy but watching a music video of the same song is not.

No matter what laws are passed or what Digital Rights Management systems are put in place, there is no way to stop someone putting a microphone (connected to a recorder) in front of a speaker or putting a camcorder infront of a TV screen and making illegal copies. All these laws and DRM systems do is make it less convenient to copy. I must admit that when I was a teenager, I used to record radio programs onto reel-to-reel tape. However, the main reason for this was that I simply could not afford to buy recordings (dad bought the tape recorder), so even if I had been prohibited from making those illegal recordings, the artists/record companies would not have benefited in the slightest. As it was, I got to like certain types of music which meant I bought more records subsequently when I was earning than I might otherwise have done. Moreover, when the changeover from LPs to CDs came (why do people refer to LPs as 'vinyl' but not to CDs as 'carbonate'?), I rebought my favourite recordings on CD, thus paying twice for the same material. This is the flip side of piracy, yet I haven't seen any moves by the recording industry to enable re-buyers of recordings in a different medium to purchase at a significant discount. If the big boys are losing money, then legislation must be brought toi bear. If the little men are losing money, the recording industry doesn't care one iota. By recording industry, I include companies making recordings of both/either audio and video recording in any medium.

It's not the artists who are gouging us--it's the film and music RECORDING & DISTRIBUTION industry! If you like an artist, and want to thank them, try to find some way to send them money directly. Cut out the topheavy and GREEDY middleman.

Support independent artists!

Personally, I don't believe that it is anywhere near as bad as it is made out to sound like.
There doesn't seem to be much in the way of 'hard facts', only inflated guesstimates based on how much the record companies 'think' they would have sold.
I believe that if entertainment (TV/Movies/music/etc) was made available digitally so we wouldn't have to wait to get it after it has been released, the problem of piracy would go away.
I download TV shows because I don't want to wait, not because I don't want to pay.
When Fringe/Game of thrones/whatever is released in the US, I want to be able to watch it immediately in London. And I would be happy to pay for it.
As I don't have that option, then I will go for the one that let me watch these shows fastest.

Beat the pirates by enabling people like me to pay to watch the shows I want to watch.

For me the "golden age" means worry-free access. Now I have to worry if my Internet usage is about to bump up against an arbitrary limit.

I think it would be a huge worry and a blow to a digital economy if users have to worry that they might pay extra if they visit 'just one more website' or view one more youtube video.
Or what if you want to stream movies via a content provider?

You would basically kill the anility of content providers to have a business model if something like this happened.
Of course, I personally would never consider signing up to an ISP that has a cap in place.

...and you basically wouldn't be signing up for a residential account in the US now if you were determined to have no caps.

I monitor usage at my firewalls/routers. In my home, we don't even hit a small percentage of what's allowed.

But honestly, there are problems, even if I'm not all that concerned about the monthly caps.

First, the providers drew in lots of customers selling "unlimited." I remember it being a competition point. In one case they were still telling customers on the phone they were unlimited to sell them, after they announced plans to cap in the next few months.

Second, the real issue isn't monthly caps, it's peak hour congestions because the providers sold plans they couldn't physically accommodate.

Rather than upgrade, or acknowledge they couldn't accommodate, they put the burden on the customer when they saturated their bandwidth. Initially, attempts were made at shaping, but they were told by the Govt. they couldn't do that. They couldn't decide what types of traffic could get priority.

My real beef is not tiered bandwidth. It's dishonest business. But the typical digital consumer has developed an entitlement syndrome where they think they should get all they can eat at dirt cheap prices, and they are prime targets for dishonest business practices. There is a tendency for the modern consumers to bring it on themselves.

Free and unlimited rarely work in the real world for long. A very predictable economic reality of over-consumption manifests itself.

"But the typical digital consumer has developed an entitlement syndrome where they think they should get all they can eat at dirt cheap prices, and they are prime targets for dishonest business practices."

It's not just that they're targets. It's that they expect the same 'all you can eat for free' treatment from legitimate businesses.

You're absolutely right. As a guy who ran his own consultancy (and still freelance for income), where I depended on organizations to pay for the projects, I could write a book about the feeling of entitlement with the digital consumer. It is a very real problem for EVERYONE who provides some sort of digital service....from music to sysadmin. People do not want to value it.

But I can also tell you I didn't bait and switch. I didn't sell what I didn't have. When your business model is convince everyone your product is as plentiful as the sands on the sea, then change the rules, you've pulled a fast one.

I can tell by my downvotes everyone doesn't agree with me. There's a shock.

I would love to hear the reasons people think they should have "all-you-can-eat" for dirt cheap prices.

For someone who's read Heinlein, you must know that there is no 'free' WiFi or electrical recharging at McDonalds, Starbucks, Tuscon airport, or anywhere else. No web site sponsored by advertising is 'free' either. Someone is paying for those services, most likely indirectly and unknowingly through various service charges and product mark-ups. Is passing those costs on to unaware non-users better than directly charging only those who do use them?

You are, of course, right. Advertising is often the cost for "free". The three Wi-Fi spots mentioned in the article do not have any advertising other than a possible initial splash screen. And, as I understand it, the Wi-Fi can be used without any pressure to purchase anything. That means it really is free to the Wi-Fi user. The costs may not be passed on by marking up the coffee or burgers. It may be taken out of net profits or the service might generate enough additional revenue to pay for itself.

And the award for "Most Charmingly Naive Statement of 2012" goes to ...

I see free wifi as a marketing tool and it could be considered a cost of doing business, like lowering the price of coffee or redecorating the space. There is a cost that will be associated with it, but they are hoping to attract more customers who will in the end spend more money, and offset that cost.

For a week I used the free wifi at a McDonalds in Paris, rather than pay $12 euros a day for it in my room. I never bought anything at the McDonalds. But some of the group I went with did buy coffees and other snacks to eat while we were there. They would not have gone to McDonalds to eat on its own merits, the free wifi was the draw.

I don't know whats happening in the US, but in Canada, the McDonalds have launched a McCafe with high end coffees, hoping to capture some of the low end Starbucks crowd. To be honest, I prefer them to Starbucks.

Before you travel, look up locations for free Internet service. Paris has free WiFi in many of its parks. HotCaf.fr has plenty of locations in the area.

One thing that Americans usually fail to consider is buying a prepaid SIM for their GSM smart phone. Many plans include internet service along with voice and SMS at a monthly charge that's less than the price for one or two days at a hotel. In Hong Kong, I paid less than $30 monthly fee for service that's more than 10-X faster than what I have at home, even though I was only there for two weeks--well worth it, if you can't get to a Pacific Coffee shop.

The U.S. is one of the worst places in the developed world to find ubiquitous cheap [$40/mo] high speed broadband [20-40Mbps and more], and mobile services that aren't a complete rip-off. Maybe some day, but customers don't know enough to demand better than what we have. Where I live I'd have to pay $70/mo for 12Mbps service, but I refuse to pay such an outrageously high rate and you should too.

There's no other reason to maintain three different "kinds" of mobile protocols. Europe has only GSM, and lo, have more direct competition between carriers. In the USA, people are letting themselves be ripped off.

A nation of cattle?

This is something that Residents of US, Canada and Australia regularly encounter, GMS as used in Europe simply does not work in the Wide open spaces of these countries, In Europe (at least western Europe) it is unusual for you to be able to drive more than 4 kilometres without encountering some kind of Town or Village that can support at least 1 GSM Cell and provide coverage to your mobile, since GSM cells tend to work best at ranges of about 5Km this setup works fantastically and I envy the coverage Europeans are accustomed to. In many parts of Australia, Canada and the US is it very easy to drive over 100Km without there even being a Roadhouse to stop at for fuel, let alone being able to support a GSM cell this tyranny of distance means we have to rely on technologies capable of running Mobile communications at distances of over 20Km and still we get plenty of places even on Major highways where there is absolutely no mobile coverage. This is one of the core reasons why there are multiple Mobile standards in these countries.
Having said that of course unscrupulous companies will still attempt to lock in Customers and use different Standards as an excuse why you can???t shop elsewhere.

Anyway, it doesn't make sense for a carrier to have an arbitrary standard that fits only certain users (rural or urban - pick one!). After all, urban residents do travel through rural areas, and vice versa.
Now, if this had been done smartly, so that all the phones supported two or more standards, and could smartly switch to the one providing best (or any) coverage, *that* I would understand.
But having carrier-wide standard differences makes no sense at all.

GSM also works in wide open spaces, especially using the lower 850/900MHz frequencies. Have you ever been to central or western Spain, or southwestern France; smaller remote Greek Islands. Perhaps not, otherwise you wouldn't assume [without knowing] that there aren't many places in Europe where you have to travel for several hours to get to the next closest town. Actually there are. That's why they have towers in remote places, on top of mountains, where there are no towns.

I took photos of my cell phone from the top of a mountain, in a medieval fortress, at least 30 km from a town. It shows all bars for reception. I also got all bars in the Mediterranean between islands, on a 6 hour ferry ride. Universal mobile and broadband are too important in those countries to rely on the kind of private companies we have here that care more about their bottom line than the customers they are ripping off. European mobile and broadband is also provided by private companies, as in the U.S., but there's real competition, and more demanding customers.

Sounds like you need more accurate information.

These businesses are not charities. If they provide a free service, you can be sure that they recoup the costs, somehow.
On the other hand, they're not charities, so if they provide a free service, odds are they're getting something out of it, which makes it worthwhile.
If they realize that having free wifi makes their restaurants run at a higher usage level, increasing profits... then they'll be happy to pony up the bread.

Businesses commit "selective profitcide" because it grows the business long-term. James made a good point. Free Wi-Fi brings in a different crowd to McDonald's and some of them buy goodies to eat while they surf. In the grocery business we used "loss leaders" to bring in the crowds - an item we sold at or below cost in expectation that the customer would be purchasing other groceries that would more than make up for the loss.

Yes.
Just like I don't want coin-operated restroom facilities or extra charges for napkins and ketchup packets. These services become a differentiating feature of the business that fits cleanly into the marketing or advertising budget if not included as part of facilities costs. As a consumer, if you find the higher product prices at Starbucks unappealing, then by all means go to Joe's Coffee Shop. So what? I'll tell you a secret: Some businesses overcharge you for products and DON'T give you free WiFi....

I doubt that the hardware costs more than one or two of the tables these places (also) need to run their business. And these places will redecorate on an annual basis to keep people feeling comfortable. People want to think that their eating environment is hygienic, and having furniture that you know to be less than a year old helps people entertain that notion, whether or not the surroundings are truly hygienic or not.

So, if the cost of the wifi is negligible, it doesn't matter if everybody pays for it.

It takes more hardware, bandwidth, and electrical outlets to provide full coverage at an airport than a coffee shop.

If no-one pays for faster connections or more downloads, what incentive have the service providers to increase the internet connection speeds? Come on, Balthor - most of us live in the real world!

There are some people in the world who are still stuck with 56K dialup for whatever reason.

If someone is still on 56K dialup, the internet *is* like a "phone call" to them!

I didn't download large files, stream content, or play online games, and had little to gain by paying two or three times as much from broadband as my $12 dial-up rate. I still don't engage in those activities but I found a bundle that include DSL, at a rate competitive with the combined services it replaced.

Could you go back on dial-up? You might call it self-flagellation but I think I could. I had the routine down pat - visit the library for my DVD fix and use their T1 connection during the quiet hours. I once downloaded the Windows 7 64 bit version in less than an hour.

My parents only moved to DSL last year.

If I had to, probably. Broadband is one of the first things I'd drop should I find myself unemployed or facing other major economic setbacks, along with satellite TV and other discretionary spending on entertainment. I disagree with the notion that broadband access should be considered a Constitutionally guaranteed right.

We will pay for good service at a fair price. That's rare in the U.S. Service providers have received $ millions from the government to provide more/better access, but they've pocketed our money and give us less for a higher price.

Faster broadband at a reasonable price will attract more customers. It's almost theft to charge $150 for throttled 50Mbps service, but that's what providers are doing, while the sheeple keep paying. Business will increase tenfold when they charge $50 for 50Mbps service. It can be done, minus the incredible greed and callousness of the network providers.

There's the key phrase, although I wouldn't have used the word 'sheeple'.

Regardless of vocabulary, as long as the existing service levels are profitable, there's no reason for providers to upgrade. On the other hand, apparently most of those people are satisfied with the level of service their receiving for dollar spent, else they'd spend it somewhere else.

I don't see a huge increase in use as a result of reduced prices. We're regularly told that most people don't come close to max'ing out their monthly download allotment, and that all they do is check their e-mail and upload baby pictures anyway.

but all-too-frequently, people refuse to take it into consideration. They take all these things for granted in all their business models, future predictions, etc.???and these freedoms could all disappear in an instant if the shareholders who sit on warehouses of intelectual property and bandwidth finally get their way.

And when it all goes away, the internet will suddenly look a lot like radio and television. Let's not let that happen?

This, I think, is a prophecy.

Legislatures are interested to fill there income. Government believe they can reverse deficit finance budget by taxing the internet users, creating prohibitive laws to collect fines from loyal citizens.

Great article, right on the spot. I just hope we will be able to keep the Internet free.
Right now it seems that counties that scearm the loudest about censorship of the internet in China and Irak are the same coutries that propose to do it themselves (e.g. US, GB)

Flash cookies can be romved too btw, via Firefox and the addon betterprivacy