Fierce Telecom: Learn the No. 1 reason some Americans don't use the internet

Learn the No. 1 reason some Americans don't use the internet
By Roger Entner May 19, 2021 10:02am

The U.S. Government, through the NTIA, has been surveying internet usage since 2001. Since 2009, it has also been surveying reasons for not using the internet. Of all the studies that are currently under consideration to be used to justify the broadband stimulus plan, the government’s own NTIA Internet Use Survey, which was done before the conception of the plan, is the most unbiased and insightful. As universal internet access is a foregone conclusion in the current debate, the reasons why people are not using the internet have been reduced to just two factors — lack of availability and cost — when there is a lot more to the story.
...
What is the number one reason why Americans are not connected to the internet?

I know it is hard to believe that 13% of Americans are just not interested or do not need to use the internet, especially to those of us who live and die by the internet and are ultra-connected. No matter how much we spend on a national broadband plan to provide access to broadband internet or how much we subsidize internet access, when people don’t see the need or are just not interested, adoption numbers are not going to go up substantially.

Almost half of the 13% of Americans who are not interested in the internet are age 65 or older. A third is between 45 and 65 years of age, a surprising 1/6th is between 25 and 44 and an unsurprisingly low 2% is age 15 to 24. Another remarkable finding from the NTIA survey is that there is no significant ethnic or gender difference among people who are not interested in using the internet. There is also no statistically significant difference between people in urban and rural areas who don’t see a point in using the internet.

13% of Americans are not using the Internet because they see no need for it or just don't want to.

Facebook knows all and sees all

Well, maybe not all, but it sometimes seems pretty darn close. I haven't been a fan of Facebook for a long time, mostly because I don't like how their policies capriciously do things to aggravate users without warning or explanation. But the more I read the more I congratulate myself for suspending my account back in 2010. The thing that really annoys me these days is their censorship of content it finds objectionable, which includes content that is pro-Christian, pro-Israel, or otherwise politically conservative.

But, although very relevant news these days, that is not what I'm writing about today. Today's article is just to share a few links describing how far Facebook's data mining goes in order to build profiles on people for the purpose of targeting ads.

It is known that they maintain a "shadow profile" (a term they don't use and don't like to hear) on all their users. They track not only the contacts you've uploaded and the content you post/view/like, but they also tie it to the profile (contacts, content, etc.) of all your friends. And also people they think might be your friends - any other user who uploaded a contacts list with you in it is fair game here as well. Then they tie it to "web beacons" on sites all over the Internet to track what sites you visit, what you're searching/shopping for and what you purchase, including the browsing/shopping habits of everybody associated with you (including your friends and people they think might want to be friends). And then they tie it in with GPS location monitoring if you have granted access to the FB app/web site in order to discover where you shop, when you're traveling, and what events you are attending. And of course, the content of any text, photos and video you (or your contacts, friends or possible-friends) share via Facebook Messenger, What's App or Instagram also contributes to this profile.

There have even been accusations of them going so far as to listen in via your phone's microphone in order to target ads based on things you say, but Facebook explicitly denies this charge (everything above has pretty much been confirmed - Facebook doesn't deny any of it, they just don't like to talk about it a lot).

None of it should come as much of a surprise, but it looks pretty shocking when it's all piled together in one paragraph.

Sources:

• Gizmodo: How Facebook Figures Out Everyone You've Ever Met
• Reply All #109 Is Facebook Spying on You?
• Lifehacker: Facebook Isn’t Recording Your Conversations, But It May as Well Be

h/t to the Michael Tsai blog for the link that caught my attention this morning.

The Register: Marriott fined $600k for deliberate JAMMING of guests' Wi-Fi hotspots

Marriott fined $600k for deliberate JAMMING of guests' Wi-Fi hotspots

The Marriott has been fined $600,000 by the FCC for paralyzing guests' personal Wi-Fi hotspots, forcing them to use the hotel giant's expensive network instead.

The US watchdog today said the Marriott Gaylord Opryland in Nashville, Tennessee, used monitoring equipment to illegally boot hotel and convention center guests off their own networks, which were typically smartphone hotspots.

Meanwhile, Marriott managers encouraged everyone to connect to the hotel's Wi-Fi network, which cost from $250 to $1,000 to access.

Ever notice how the most expensive hotels charge the most for internet access?

For those who don't know, the Marrott Gaylord chain of hotels is incredibly expensive. A "cheap" room is several hundred dollars per night. And then they have the gall to charge an additional $250-1000 for internet access? And then deliberately jamming anybody who dares to try and access the internet through their own means? I'm surprised they didn't decide to jam the entire cell phone spectrum and tell people to use their room phones at $10/minute.

It's sleazy scumbag policies like this which convinced me (many many years ago) to avoid all those expensive "prestigious" hotels. When I travel, I stay at cheap places like Holiday Inn, where my room rate is 75% less expensive and where they include internet access and breakfast at no extra charge.

These self-described luxury hotels can keep their designer soaps pillow-chocolate. It's not worth paying hundreds of dollars extra per night and losing amenities that I consider critical when traveling (internet and breakfast.) Maybe they'll learn someday, but I doubt it. They're happy catering to business travelers who will just bill everything to the company without even thinking about the cost.

Comcast users: disable Gateway Smart Packet Detection [UPDATED]

(This is an update from an article I shared back in 2010)

I just ran across this article.

Apparently, the cable modem that Comcast ships to business internet customers has a "Smart Packet Detection" feature that has a nasty habit of making connections go flaky from time to time. According to one report I read, it was actually causing the router to drop every other packet, which will obviously make your user experience less than ideal.

I'm not sure what this feature is supposed to do, and Googling reveals nothing but recommendations that you turn it off. But if turning it off fixes your problems, then I'd recommend doing it. Comcast's support staff don't always know about this, so they might not tell you to try this unless you're persistent enough to get your call escalated to high-level techs.

UPDATE

It's not just Comcast business customers. As some of you may know, I recently (in July) switched to Comcast internet as a result of moving to a location that has no other high speed internet service. I was seeing all kinds of flaky behavior, typically manifesting as web pages that would hang or take forever to load. The netstat command would show hundreds of connections in the "SYN_WAIT" state, meaning the TCP stack is waiting for connections to be established. This is very similar to the linked article.

After re-reading the article today, I decided to visit the firewall settings on my modem/router (a Zoom model 5352). There was no "smart packet detection" setting, but there were settings for "port scan detection" and "IP flood detection". According to the manual, these settings look for and block that activity on both the WAN (internet) side of the router and the LAN side.

Of course, when you open 30 tabs at once in a web browser (or just one site that has a lot of embedded content), it results in hundreds of TCP connections originating from a single IP address on the LAN. The router is clearly misinterpreting this as an IP flood attack, and it blocks them. When I disabled these features, I once again got the performance I have come to expect from high speed internet.

I sent e-mail to Zoom letting them know about this. I think they need to update their packet-flood detection algorithms. I also think they should have separate configurations for LAN-side and WAN-side detection. I would like to detect and block scans and floods that originate from the internet, but not from computers on my LAN.

OK, we're officially addicted to broadband

Yesterday morning, I woke up to discover the FiOS was out. No dial-tone on the phones, no TV and no internet. I phoned up customer service (fortunately, we had cell phones!) and reported the problem. A tech came out to fix it today.

We went a day and a half without any connectivity and let me tell you, it sucked big-time. Some of the things we were unable to do without this:

• Jen was not able to do her college coursework (it's all on-line these days.)
• It was very difficult to manage household finances. (I needed to use a smartphone to check balances and could not pay any bills.)
• People calling us were all shunted to voice-mail, which I had to check via the mobile phone
• No TV whatsoever. Our DVR (leased from Verizon) won't boot up without network connectivity, so no recorded programs. Netflix obviously doesn't work without the internet either. We could play DVDs, but nothing else.
• Although I was on vacation that day, I planned on periodically checking my work e-mail. I had to do this using my phone. Let me say that sending a significant-size e-mail reply using a phone is a real pain in the neck
• No computer games. I have a few games loaded onto my hard drive, but they're all pretty old. Every game I play today is hosted on a web page somewhere.

Fortunately, it was an easy repair. The power supply for the ONT (the optical network terminal on the side of the house that terminates the fiber connection) had died. The tech replaced it in about 30 minutes and all was well, but I was unpleasantly surprised to discover how much our lives depend on high-speed internet these days.

Unfortunately, there's not a whole lot that can be done about it. Jen's college work and my financial activity simply can't be done without internet access. And her school work requires a high-speed connection because it involves multimedia and VoIP conference calls. And needless to say, telecommuting is out of the question without high-speed access (VPNs are painful and our corporate VoIP phone system is impossible on a slow connection.)

I suppose we could ditch the VZ-supplied DVR and go with a TiVo, which would boot up without internet access and allow us to play stored content, and we could use it (with an antenna) to get over-the-air broadcasts of local channels. I may have to think about this some more. And I think I need to get some good games loaded onto my Mac's hard drive!

On the other hand, it gave me plenty of time to catch up on my reading.

IETF: Yahoo breaks every mailing list in the world including the IETF's

h/t Hacker News

Yahoo recently upgraded the "security" of their mail servers in an attempt to curb spam. Unfortunately, they decided to use a protocol that is still under development, has serious known problems, and they configured it for maximum paranoia. The result is that they reject nearly all mailing-list traffic (legitimate or otherwise) that comes from a Yahoo user, potentially crippling the lists themselves. (Except for lists hosted by Yahoo's own servers, of course.)

Krebs On Security: Bug Exposes IP Cameras, Baby Monitors

Brian Krebs exposes a critical bug in popular web-cameras:

A bug in the software that powers a broad array of Webcams, IP surveillance cameras and baby monitors made by Chinese camera giant Foscam allows anyone with access to the device’s Internet address to view live and recorded video footage, KrebsOnSecurity has learned.

The issue came to light on the company’s support forum after camera experts discovered that the Web interface for many Foscam cameras can be accessed simply by pressing "OK" in the dialog box when prompted for a username and password.

All I can say is d'Oh!

The Internet is not (and has never been) secure

Wired: Someone’s Been Siphoning Data Through a Huge Security Hole in the Internet

Read the above article for a fascinating description of how hackers can (and sometimes do) redirect internet traffic, making it easy for them to snoop. The article cites recent incidents where domestic US internet traffic was redirected through several countries on its path from source to destination, presumably so the people who installed the corrupt routing table entries could take a look as it goes by.

Just in case you were under some illusion that the internet is secure, this should demonstrate clearly that it is not. Forget the NSA, this can be done by just about anybody who can write software and understands how the global internet operates. If your data isn't encrypted, then it isn't private. Period. This include your web sessions, your e-mail messages, passwords, etc. If you're doing something that you wouldn't want criminals in other countries to see, make sure it is over an encrypted channel.

New Plugin Allows Developers to Turn iOS Devices Into Bitcoin Mining Bots

New Plugin Allows Developers to Turn iOS Devices Into Bitcoin Mining Bots

Interesting concept, but a bad idea for any device running on batteries. I really don't want to use an app that deliberately maxes out the CPU load as a revenue-generation scheme. I'd much rather see ads than have my battery prematurely drained.

Now, for an app running on a computer plugged in to a power source (like a desktop system), it sounds like a great idea.

And that about wraps it up for Paypal

Over 10 years ago, I gave up in frustration over eBay's capricious bureaucratic decisions. And now Paypal has decided to screw me over in the exact same way. So now I'm rid of them too. And any other web site that is associated with them.

And good riddance. Read on to hear the entire (rambling, but hopefully coherent) story why.

Happy 20th birthday, World Wide Web

The Register reports:

Is this the first ever web page? If not, CERN would like to know

Eggheads recreate what could be the original website
By Brid-Aine Parnell • Get more from this author
Posted in Applications, 30th April 2013 11:24 GMT

Boffinry nerve-centre CERN has attempted to recreate the very first website to mark 20 years since the official launch of the World Wide Web.

It is feared the first ever web page is lost to the sands of time as it was changed daily and any backups are few and far between. However the team has pulled up a snapshot of the very first website dating from November 1992, which the eggheads say "may be the earliest copy we can find". The CERN bods are still hunting around for earlier versions.

The team also wants to use the original web server machine names and IP addresses to dish out the archived site to the planet. The effort coincides with the anniversary of CERN's statement on 30 April 1993 that made the technology behind the web available to all on a royalty-free basis, clearing the way for the online addictions we all have today.

Read the rest here...

Google Blog: A second spring of cleaning

Google Blog: A second spring of cleaning

... We launched Google Reader in 2005 in an effort to make it easy for people to discover and keep tabs on their favorite websites. While the product has a loyal following, over the years usage has declined. So, on July 1, 2013, we will retire Google Reader. Users and developers interested in RSS alternatives can export their data, including their subscriptions, with Google Takeout over the course of the next four months.

Mad at the internet (as usual) and looking for hosting

I've decided that social media is not trustworthy. I've been forming this opinion for quite some time and have decided that I no longer want to be a part of it.

As such, I have suspended my accounts at Facebook, Twitter and LiveJournal. I assume they'll auto-delete after a while.

For now, I'll be keeping this blog, in case I see stuff I want to share with the world.

Unfortunately, Google is far too entrenched in my life for me to turn it off at this time. That's going to require a bit more planning.

When I get the time (yeah, I know, I know), I plan on purchasing my own hosting account somewhere where I can host my own web site (including blog and photo pages) and mailboxes. Once that's in place, I will be able to get out from under Google as well.

If you have experience with low-cost hosting companies and have some recommendations, I'd love to hear them. (But note that I'll ignore any message that doesn't come from someone I know - I'm not going to accidentally give money to a spammer!)

I am not interested in any kind of "free" or ad-sponsored hosting service. Those are no better than Google and all the rest. They can't be trusted with personal information. As many have said before, if you're not paying for the service, then you are not the customer, you are the product. Well I'm sick and tired of being everybody else's product.

Finding Common Ground on an Open Internet - a joint statement from Lowell McAdam, CEO Verizon Wireless and Eric Schmidt, CEO Google

This message was posted to a popular internet tech blog and appears to be genuine. You might also find it of interest.

From: David Farber
Date: October 22, 2009 7:27:48 AM EDT
To: "ip"
Subject: [IP] Finding Common Ground on an Open Internet - a joint statement from Lowell McAdam, CEO Verizon Wireless and Eric Schmidt, CEO Google.

A Technology and Telecommunications Policy Blog
Thursday, October 22, 2009

Finding Common Ground on an Open Internet

The following is a joint statement from Lowell McAdam, CEO Verizon Wireless and Eric Schmidt, CEO Google.

Verizon and Google might seem unlikely bedfellows in the current debate around network neutrality, or an open Internet. And while it's true we do disagree quite strongly about certain aspects of government policy in this area--such as whether mobile networks should even be part of the discussion--there are many issues on which we agree. For starters we both think it's essential that the Internet remains an unrestricted and open platform--where people can access any content (so long as it's legal), as well as the services and applications of their choice.

Just when you thought Network Solutions couldn't get any more sleazy

We all hate domain-name squatters. They put web pages on unused domains, so your typos don't generate the errors they should produce, and they prevent legitimate companies from registering the same domains. But we used to think that the domain-name registry itself wouldn't be that sleazy.

Wrong! Network Solutions (the most popular, for historic reasons, DNS registrar) has set up a new service. When you use their "whois" server to look up information about a domain, and it's not used, they automatically register it for themselves and install a DNS-squatter page, with links to their "buy this domain" form. This makes the domain appear to be in-use, making it impossible to use any competing registrar.

If this isn't illegal, it should be.

Sears corporation installs massive amounts of spyware

Sears/KMart has set up a new "community" forum, supposedly to allow you to communicate directly with manufacturers. What they don't tell you (except in obscure legalese fine-print) is that if you sign up, they install spyware that redirects all of your internet traffic to a market research company. This includes secure transactions (like your banking and e-mail, including all of your account numbers and passwords.)

I hope some lawyer has enough balls to completely destroy them over this. People should be going to jail for this offense against humanity (and yes, that's exactly what I consider this.)