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

First, I agree that copyright holders need to be paid for their work. HOWEVER, they shouldn't be allowed to make me pay for the same work forever or over and over and over.
The fix: Set ALL copyrights to expire 3 years after inception or creation. That would seriously reduce any piracy problems. And eliminate the ability to make all software patents.

About taping a tv show - according tot he US government, taping a tv show or recording off of live radio stations does not constitute copyright infringement. It is classified as Fair Use. But this does not mean you can sell it or convey it to others.

Under the US Constitution, the USA is specifically barred from censorship due to the 1st amendment. However, that right has been eroded away.

The ONLY way to fix this problem is to overthrow the government and elect new officials that will follow the US Constitution as it is written, barring the courts from 'interpreting' anything.

The Judicial branch has far too much power for their own good.
All it takes is a back room deal or one of them PMSing and we all get screwed..

A total revamp of existing laws and form of government is about the only way to fix these and other problems.

Speaking of artists getting paid - would it be right for someone who painted your house to charge everyone that looked at it a fee of however much they wanted or it would be copyright infringement? Or charge YOU if they didn't pay? Or wouldn't let ANYONE that didn't pay be blocked from your house?

The Artists do need their money but it is the CEO's of the distribution companies that the greed comes from. Artists actually make very little as a percentage than the companies.

Ok, now for the nitty gritty. I claim full copyright for everything I ever post online or send via any electronic or material means, regardless of any illegal and unconscionable agreement that any site wishes to impose.

Ok, that being said, can I sue Google for reposting my statements online when you do a google search for my online name?

I don't ever recall giving any search engine the right to repost anything nor the right to track me no matter where I go.

Want to see? Then google your email address, online name(s), and real personal name.
It can blow you away the stuff they repost.

The biggest threat to the golden age of the internet is "the stupid." It's already permeating every corner of the web, and I'm afraid it can't be stopped.

You used to need a solid background in at very least HTML programming to post anything on the web. The majority of information retrieved in a young Google search was uploaded and hosted by a college grad-level user.

Search for information on changing brake shoes on a 1996 Mazda Protege, and you'd get expert advice from a professional who was excited about this brave new world, and shared his expertise concisely and thoroughly.

Now try it. You get page after page, site after site, of morons all bemoaning how hard it is to change brakes on their Mustang. Nobody asked that, but they feel compelled to commiserate, and although they've never owned a Mazda, why, here's a great slide show for some irrelevant model year radiator job. Anyone with a hotheaded opinion can push it into the Google with a smart phone while choking down a McRib. It's a tsunami, and it can't be stopped.

The geniuses who used to be the bell curve are now the fringe. The hoards of stupid have crashed the gate, and are hungry for bile-infused diatribes. Well-intended bad information is driving our everyday lives, and the coming generation will have infinite knowledge at their fingertips with only a gorilla-glass-thick depth of understanding with which to respond.

God have mercy on us all.

I agree 150%. The World Wide Web as become so polluted with peoples garbage. It is becoming more and more difficult to find accurate data that you actually searched for and not get 939,874 search results that are not relevant to your search. And what makes this even worse...... Most of them believe everything that they read or watch on the internet, are the facts instead of understanding that these Morons are posting their OPINIONS. HHmmmm..... Maybe that is why there is such a push to pollute the WWW. To make the TRUTH harder to uncover. Just a thought.

is alive and well and exists in cyberspace as well as "normal" space.

For many people, in this period of crisis, the free entertainement offered by internet (aka piracy ) is the only entertainement (not counting TV) . The loss of this source will agravate the social stress and tensions. Such actions are not wise.

the powers that be must keep up the bread and circuses. That way people won't notice what they are doing to curb our freedoms.

Microsoft didn't start charging me for free email. Although Hotmail and Yahoo both have paid email plans, I've never seen a reason to use them. If charges become manditory, I'll defect over to Gmail (or any of the hundreds of other places I can get a free email account).

Microsoft hasn't started charging for Bing search. If they did, I'll defect over to Google or Yahoo.

Google hasn't started charging for access to Android Market. If they did, I'd defect over to Amazon AppStore.

I've never actually seen a reason for Skype to exist. If I want to voice chat with someone over the Internet, the major IM vendors (Microsoft, Google, Yahoo) all provide that ability in their free clients. Video chat too. It's nice that Skype can bridge between PC and landline, but there's a cost associated with that... so I never use it. If I want to speak with someone, I call them on my cell (unlimited minutes) or from Google Voice (free within the United States). If I want to speak with multiple people at the same time for free, I use FreeConferenceCall.com. If I want to share screens, I'll use GoToMyPC or FreeScreenSharing.com.

Competition and a variety of vendors providing similar services nearly guarantees that these services will remain free.

If a service is popular, someone will provide it for free and be content with advertising revenue.

Now that Facebook is going public and we finally know they make about $4 per year per subscriber; they've more or less saturated their major markets (North America and Europe) and there's little opportunity for their to grow their subscriber base (and thus grow their revenue in any meaningful way); should we worry about Facebook charging membership fees? I doubt it... it would be the best thing that could happy to MySpace of whomever else enters the social space in the future.

This article is missing the big picture.
The more you erode these freedoms; including allowing poor people to watch stupid tv and listen to music, the more other important unseen parts of the internet start to erode.

Private ownership of personal data gets scooped up in these raids and then systematically copied to a government database and then deleted; some of which is bread and butter data; not unlike billions of dollars of untracked data that seem to disappear with the click of a button (poof gone), in the so called world of hedging stock market bets; you want to leave them in charge?

Sony wanted to charge taxes on CDs for lost revenue (this was way before their rootkits) and they even hotly contested VCR players.

The point is that there is something worth fighting for here.

I myself and most of my friends spend hundreds of dollars a year on dvds, blue rays and music cds. They don't want justice, they want control.

Whereas I agree artists deserve to be paid for their work, I dislike the approach people are taking. We're effectively giving the MPAA and the RIAA the ability to run a secret police and damage the internet in the process. I agree piracy is an issue, but so is the length of copyright, and even the length of some ridiculous patents (17 years).

As far as I'm concerned, artists shouldn't be allowed to bank on something for 75 years after their death. If you can't contribute something to the world once a generation or so, it should suck to be you.

I remember when I first found google; I told everyone they should use it; bah

"The fact is that censorship currently exists... where some school and public library computers are filtered."

Bringing this up trivializes the problem of real censorship. School and public library computers are usually being filter by their owners. This is not the kind of classical censorship of which we should be concerned. The owner of a computer who is allowing someone else to use it has every right to place restrictions on its use. (Unless, of course, the owner has a monopoly.) If a public pool restricts the use of pool toys, that is not a sign of fascism. The problem comes when someone passes a law prohibiting you from using pool toys in your own pool. Real censorship, against which we should be concentrating our efforts, comes when governments start restricting Internet access via privately owned equipment. (Unless, of course, they prohibit private ownership.)

With services like Fongo just about to launch I am not too worried about the immediate future. We continue to be able to do more and more at less cost. Let's not be too alarmist and continue to try to make internet access a right for everyone, free as the air we breathe.

One answer to the freedom threat is peer to peer networking. If every smart phone, laptop, and desktop out there could send small msgs to each other, using bluetooth and wifi, then you can not shut that down or censor it until it hits a server - and that may never happen. Combine that with the ability of each phone to get to what we now think of as the 'internet' and you get a peer-to-peer + server network architecture that would be hard to censor or take down. In fact, it would be hard or impossible to 'turn off' the internet. And recall that the hardware for this is already in the hands of millions - just not the software.

1: Government regulations - agreed. Government should mind their own business
2: Censorship - this should happen in placed like libraries and schools. Don't need perverts surfing the Dark Web with TOR browsers hitting Hardy Candy. enough said there
3: Taxes - I think the US is taxed plenty. Use taxes are ridiculous. I understand an attempt to reclaim sales taxes that are lost via web-based transactions. I don't necessarily agree, but I can see that trend ramping up as states continue to scramble to find revenue sources
4: Bandwidth limitations - This makes sense. why??? Well, bandwidth is supplied by hardware. Hardware costs money. Who should be paying for that??? Telecoms are not a charity organization. I would prefer to see tiered ratings, so little Jimmy who is running torrents day and night is paying a higher premium that grandma who checks here email once a day. As said, bandwidth costs money, its not free.
5: Access charges - This relates to bandwidth. WIFI costs a whole lot more than wired. Companies like McDonalds and Starbucks are eating the cost in hopes you will buy more of their stuff. Makes sense (kind of why the under powered Kindle Fire is so cheap). By the way, your Tuscon nirvana was probably being paid for by the taxpayers (unbeknownst to them).
6: Internet money - Internet money already exists. Hang out in the Dark Web a bit and you'll see transactions on a regular basis. Should we pay per view. No. But on a certain level we already are with all the side bar advertisements
7: Subscription-based income model - not sure why this is here as it hasn't happened and probably never will (unless you including your monthly broadband bill)
8: The end of free services like Skype - Like broadband, thing like Skype costs money. I'm amazed out how many things are free right now. Obviously, someone has found a way to monetize these free services. At a point where it is not profitable, these will go away and they should. As the saying goes, if you think things are expensive, wait until they are free. Some one always has to pay somewhere.
9: Copyrighted material - piracy is theft. I'm a software architect who works in security systems (including anti-currency counterfeiting and DRM systems). Do I think DRM can fix things, no. As long as there is hard media (CD, DVDs etc) there will be piracy. Had a technical solution on the shelf 15 years ago that would have curbed piracy significantly that the RIAA and MPAA were to cheap to purchase (as both groups are full of lawyers and not technical people). Oh well, their problem, morons. As said piracy is theft, though many of those who pirate product were never a real customer as many would probably not have bought the product to begin with if they couldn't steal it. They also are not calling on customer service lines either if there is a problem. Piracy is a technical problem, not a legal problem. Things like SOPA and PIPA do not fix the problem. Like most government interference they generally hurt legitimate users while illegitimate users continue breaking the law and stealing stuff. Want better solutions, look at things the gaming industry has been doing. I have no sympathy for the RIAA and MPAA who have screwed content providers for decades, but it is still theft.
10: Privacy abuse - This will continue (aka Facebook as a great example, but as I always tell people, get what you pay for). This is profitable (reference costs earlier). Companies like Facebook have been taking your "private" data (there is no privacy on the web so get use to it. Don't want people to easily get access to your personal data, don't post it). Stealing (identity theft) your personal data is also big business as well as corporate extortion by hacker groups, etc (remember I work in software security so I see the cyberwar every day were most people have no clue). Will this end, no, not as long as there is a profit motive attached to it.

This missing component is the greed within some of the major ISP's and communications providers at the executive management level. The desire for higher profits "now", "this quarter" for the primary purpose of maintaining stock values (which is how they are compensated on in the form of stock options and bonuses) drives the decisions to keep re-investment and operating costs down and profits up.
The re-investment into higher band width infrastructure would be a better model to follow for a true market based, opportunity driven service offerings. How many of us dream of the day when we are able to tap into that fiber optic pipe that is being tunneled through our neighborhoods?
In most rural communities, the only reasonable alternative to the ???dial-up??? dinosaur is a cellular 3G approach. Even that is in limited areas. However, some remote counties in northern Minnesota and Wisconsin are investing in the fiber-optic technology to provide connectivity for their businesses and home users. According to BusinessNorth, companies in northern Minnesota and northern Wisconsin alone have received more than $150 million in federal grants and low-interest loans to build fiber optic networks in rural areas.
In our major urban and suburban communities, the communications monopolies (Centrylink, Comcast, TimeWarner, AT&T, etc.) cannot justify the same level of investment. And why should they? As long as they can milk the cash cow for as long as they can they will do so. At least until an innovative startup provides a more reasonably priced alternative that cuts into their market share.

I only jumped on board this technology a few years ago.I personal can go back to telephone and paper and a good atlas map.
God has allowed this technology for His purpose to tell people about His Son coming to earth to die for us so we don't have to.
If you are still reading this YOU really ought to take a look at your life and ask..."if I died tonight where would I go?"
The Bible has the answer,it is Jesus Christ.

Piracy is not the issue. The issue is that the entertainment industry is upset that they no longer drive popular culture, and that you're getting your entertainment from other sources, that aren't related to them. The whole piracy thing is a loose ruse to cover this up because Washington wouldn't take them seriously, if that's what they were saying.

The internet has been disruptive to some traditional sale points, like books and music. It is the "clicks vs bricks" problem, internet sales tend to have a world wide store front that makes having a physical store less competitive.

Another danger for the internet is the wild west attitudes that encourage people to use fraud to make money. These are the spammers and malware attacks that prey on everything. I count unwanted ads and pop ups on websites as spam. This is a problem that everyone complains about but there doesn't seem be any fix for this.

To points 1, 2, 9, and 10:
https://btjunkie.org/goodbye.html

Unlike so many in the business, you always delivered. Goodbye old friend.

Sissy Sue hit the nail on the head. If you've ever played any of the countless of 1st person shooters out there, you know where we are headed. A police state, run by a corporation that has been given the task of policing our own populace - the world of Half Life 2, coming to fruition. Think it that far off? There are more "guns for hire" or PMCs or Private Military Contractors in Miiddle East wars right now than actual combat troops, protecting the interests of corporations doing "business" there. In 2008, it was a 100 Billion dollar business.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Private_military_company

As Donald Rumsfeld himself pointed out, PMCs are not subject to "Uniform Code of Military Justice." They carry guns. And as he said, "any idea that we shouldn't have them I think would be unwise." Of course he does. These are people "outside the normal avenues of justice." Just what forms of justice ARE they subject to?

SS's (too funny) view on how our own rights are being slowly eroded, need look no further, than road side checkpoints looking for drunk drivers. Here in Canada, it USED to be only on long weekends. The argument was, it was going to make the roads safer. And the story was, that it was ONLY going to be on weekends. Then suddenly, the story changed. It was now on RANDOM weekends. Now, its whenever. We all know the ultimate goal here - a permanent checkpoint asking for your "papers" everyday.

Here's the ultimate irony of all of this. Our own city, Winnipeg, is erecting a Human Rights Museum, the likes of which the world has never seen. It is to show the world, examples of past Human Rights violations and most likely, how we can keep this from happening in the future. Yet, while they spend close to Half a Billion dollars on this project, our own Human Rights are slowly being eroded, right under our own noses.

Those in power, will always continue to hunger for more power. It is up to the rest of us, to keep that power in check. As the article's author said, the worst thing we can do, is nothing.

While the point of data caps is clear enough, the usage of the term "bandwidth caps" is not correct. Bandwidth is a date rate expressed in volume per time as in megabit per second. Data caps are measured by the volume as in 5 gigabytes. Data caps are actually measured as a volume over time but that time is the cylce of usage and billing, usually a month. Data caps may or may not be incremental with bandwidth. A customer paying for 1.5 Mb/s bandwidth may have a data cap of 50 GB while his neighbor is paying for 6 Mb/s bandwidth and would likely have a much higher data cap.

Don't forget that the internet was invented by the U.S. Department of Defense. Paying a tax to use it would not be out of line. We are in more danger of losing our freedom to corporations, we do it every day at work when we check our rights at the door. GPS's are another wonderful invention that are free thanks to our government developing the functionality for our military and making it available to us. Our wonderful network of roads, public schools, subsidized healthcare, subsidized cheap food (far, far cheaper than anywhere else in the world as a percentage of income). I trust out government far more than I trust our corporations.

"You would think that most people would consider censorship of the Internet a bad thing. However, a BBC World Service poll showed that only 53% of the respondents felt ???the Internet should never be regulated by any level of government anywhere.??? And those are scary statistics if you want your Internet to remain free of censorship."

Please don't conflate censorship with regulation. They are not the same. I think some regulation is probably necessary just as cable TV is regulated and the public airwaves are regulated. Censorship is a different story. Prior restraint would, indeed, be dangerous territory but I don't see that happening in the U.S. so far.

Hello Dave. That's why they are separate items. I do get your point. I wonder what the 47% are thinking when they hear "regulated" in that poll? Ansu says "For example, to resist Internet Control "helps pedophiles", that's what that 47% are thinking." I think "censorship" since that has, so far, been governments primary focus of regulation.

Thanks for the clarification.

Well, I did, but you know what I meant

You make it sound like it's reasonable to expect some level of control, even desirable. It is not reasonable, exactly because it is not desirable.

You take for granted that the government is benign, but:
a) the Internet is truly international, so if one government exerts "regulatory control" then that control will affect people who are not citizens of that country.
b) some nations already exert "regulatory control" which amounts to censorship, and the more you let "our guys" emulate them, the more censorship of free thought will happen, period.
c) a western government is prone to listen to industry interests, and while this does not often amount to the traditional censorship of past ages, it can be just as damning. They already have us eating laws that weaken us, makes us incapable of effectively combating their hare-brained policies.
d) In the end, the slippery slope you suggest will end in a Lowest Common Denominator tyranny, where people are afforded only the freedoms afforded by the most draconic regulator.

Don't try to pawn off your BS position as "reasonable", it is not. It's simply yellow-bellied conformity, and your standpoint is actively weakening other people, selling them out to the corporate/political overlords.

Please shut up about this "reasonability" crap - you are really, truly harming people.
And no, my telling you to shut up is not censorship, merely an appeal to common decency.

/rant

Perhaps that's the next step with something like NFC chips. Before you watch a movie using your media player, you need to have a NFC chip enabled device, (in your phone, whatever), so payment can be made? This authorised payment goes through to a Content Service Provider, (an aggregator that takes payments for copyright holders), so you pay to watch/playback copyrighted material - no matter where it's downloaded from. This is probably the next step in DRM - ensuring that payment is made before playback.

Internet 3.0. It can be networks that are free of the restrictions, high prices, censorship.

It's fine to make a profit from an online business or network. It's not fine to sue competitors to keep them from providing a better product for less. That's happening all over the country.

We need real competition--not the local monopolies that steal from us. We need protection from networks and distributors. When they claim they need protection from US, it's a smokescreen.

Look around-- you are being nickle-dimed to death by the subscription model--- a great way to create reliable revenue streams instead of selling on merit and innovation and (ohh, no!) product improvement and merit. It is a sheme to keep you hooked and paying even if the product sucks next year. It is really getting bad...more and more software is being offered in annual rental instead of purchase...aka The Cloud. This is costing you and me a fortune. What are people paying for data-plan phones? You could feed a family of four on it. Bad news. I hate it and have told some providors sorry, no deal.

It's not costing me anything, at least not for a data plan since I don't have one.

If you are so upset, why don't you stop paying for the service when your subscription is up?

I for one agree, artists should be compensated for their work for sure. But when I think of "pivacy" I think of the person who video tapes the latest movie in the theater or selling large quanity's of CD,DVD's in a gas station parking lot, etc. If I record a low quality song from an obsure artist in the 60's I don't feel it's the same thing, being that the copyright long ago expired or is covered under fair use, or I can't find it anywhere being that it's been discontiuned and I have no intention of selling the recording or sharing it. See the difference? I think the RIAA and MPAA have really been embolden the last several years and have been given very broad powers that could be a real threat to all of us. I also feel a lot of "the greed" people in entertainment and elsewhere stems from, is the fact the in many cases profits aren't what they used to be and the money's drying up so a lot of them are panicking and trying to scramble to the last dollar.

All this stuff is computer virus.Get rid of virus and it disappears.

I believe the internet will be replaced bya new entity that cannot be regulated. Just as the Internet can always find a way to route a packet through massive redundancy, this new system will always find a way to bypass regulation as part of its core phylosophy. I am tempted to start working on it now! Long live the Undernet!

John W. Campbell as editor of Astounding Science Fiction was a huge influence upon Science Fiction's Golden Age. In fact, Asimov had said of Mr. Campbell: "the most powerful force in science fiction ever, and for the first ten years of his editorship he dominated the field completely.".

Find out more about Mr. Campbell at Wikipedia:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_W._Campbell

Seek out Mr. Campbell's Anthologies in second-hand bookstores - you will be astounded at the foresight of the authors.

These stories of the Golden Age of Science Fiction have so many great ideas for films. It is hoped screenwriters would tap into that treasure trove for ideas.

Cheers!

As much as modern technology is ingrained in our lives, are we that domesticated that we as a species would curl up and dies if we one day had to rough it? Believe me, I don't want to walk 2 miles down to the river to get water then and to boil it hoping It would still be safe to drink, amongst also having to hunt or foriage for food, etc. But at least I have an idea how to do those things, most people totally freak out the second the power goes on, really?! There's such a power struggle going on in the world right now among several different groups including the RIAA and those in power and it's slowly coming to a boil. Like the song goes, and it's true "Everyone wants to rule the world"

Government meddling is the biggest possible threat to the internet. Between protecting unnecessary IP rights, taxing commerce, meddling with free speech, claiming to fight terrorism or child pornography, etc....there's all sorts ways that the government could try and meddle with the internet that will lead to a bad result.

I see you forgot all "Via Satellite" internet access. I wouldn't think there are THAT many players in this arena... cheers!

According to Time Warner Cable, 10% of the users consume 90% of the bandwidth.
I pay for a set amount of bandwidth and I am not getting it.
Bandwidth hogs are those who use excessive amounts of bandwidth like watching streaming movies/shows, downloading huge files, etc.

Unless something better is done about it, metering will be the result. Make those who hog it all pay for their use.

Just like gasoline or utilities - the more you use the higher the cost, which is entirely fair.

If they would put throttles on the bandwidth hogs to slow their connections down after the first 150gb or so then the price can remain stable.
Or offer reduced prices during off peak hours. That would be a great idea. Sort of like a demand meter on a business electric meter.

Some points are not a threat by itself, the threat comes from an abuse or lack of balance: censorship vs "uninformation" (hoax and the like: publishing ex-girlfriend nude photos...child-porn...). Free services will continue to exist based on advertising. Skype could go into pay model, but there are still open source tools that will work with skype (Europe granted this by forcing M$ to share some code). About the privacy concern remember the mobile phone "ping" affair in Germany... this is probably one real threat nowadays not for internet, for us. But with the proper balance, is something good to have. Virus should be on this list, not only as a threat by itself, as they become tools for the actual threat... anyway this is human nature: none of the threats that is facing internet is new to us...