Navigating the Modern Internet

Facebook and Instagram, two social media platforms owned by Meta suffered outages this week. A company spokesman said the glitch was a “technical issue” and it was resolved within two hours.

It comes on the heels of another communication outage when AT&T Wireless lost service for several hours in late February. The two outages appear to be unrelated.

Outage detector Downdetector reported the outage and said it appeared to affect about 500,000 users. The outage affecting Instagram was about 10% of that total.

Some Facebook users reported getting messages saying they had been logged out of their accounts. Some users found they could not upload new posts, to either Facebook or Instagram.

The Downdetector chart below shows the outages spiked around 11:00 a.m. ET but quickly recovered by the afternoon.

Most of the reported problems had to do with the inability to log into accounts. About 17% of the reported problems concerned the app.

One of the under-reported frontiers in the government's junk fees crusade is the unnecessary fees that cable companies and internet service providers (ISPs) are charging consumers – fees that can jack up a basic month’s service as much as 25%. 

But that’s all about to change in April. Or – at least, it’s supposed to change.

The Federal Communications Commission (FCC)’s new Broadband Consumer Labels regulation requires providers to display clear, easy-to-understand, and accurate information about the cost and performance of broadband services by April 10, 2024.

Providers with 100,000 or fewer subscriber lines must do so by October 10, 2024. Those points of sale include online and in-store.

What a tangled web we weave when first we practice to deceive'

That would make a good slogan for providers that have their hands in this cookie jar. See for yourself – get out your latest internet bill and check if you find any of these disguised charges anywhere: 

• Overage Charges

• Equipment Rental Fees

• Installation Fees

• Administrative Fees

• Early Termination Fees

• Customer Service Fees

• Regulatory Fees

• Technology Service Fees

If any of those sound vague, then they’ve done their job. The less you understand what the heck they mean, the happier the provider is. 

Keep that in mind once your first bill after April 10 lands in your mailbox.

“Comcast and other ISPs objected to a requirement that ISPs ‘list all recurring monthly fees’ including ‘all charges that providers impose at their discretion, i.e., charges not mandated by a government,’” said Jon Brodkin of ArsTechnica. 

“They complained that the rule will force them to display the pass-through of fees imposed by federal, state, or local government agencies on the consumer broadband label.’”

Did you know that you can get Big Tech broadband for half the price?

When April rolls around and the new rules come into play, any ISP has to itemize the fees they add to base monthly prices, even the fees related to government programs they choose to "pass through" to consumers, such as fees related to universal service or regulatory fees.”

But the fact is that you’ve probably been paying too much for too long anyway. On the low end – the one where a consumer uses email, watches a little YouTube, and not much more – you can probably find a monthly $20 internet package. However, most consumers pay about $70 which seems to be the average monthly price for decent internet that can handle streaming.

What most consumers don’t even realize is that there are local ISPs that buy internet service in bulk from the Big Tech providers like AT&T and then resell it to their customers at incredible savings.

For example, IgLou – an ISP in Louisville Ky., – resells AT&T fiber service for $49.95, plus a $3.33 legit telecom access cost recovery fee.

And, guess who comes out to set it up? Yep, AT&T. They run the wire, they install the modems, they do everything they would do if you were dealing with them directly.

Plus, local ISPs often have smaller customer bases, allowing for more personalized attention and quicker response times when you need help. They also tend to have a better grip on the local challenges that providers have – like terrain or interference – which you’d be hard-pressed to find from someone sitting in a tech support center a half world away working for a large branded ISP.

If you’re going to explore this option

The pricing flexibility that you’re handed with a local ISP is probably the strongest suit. Most have far simpler and more transparent plans than large companies, with fewer hidden fees and easier-to-understand terms.

Be sure to explain to the sales rep all that you need your internet to do. If it’s just email and some YouTube videos and the occasional Facebook post, that could be a lot less than if you needed to stream Netflix at hi-rez or you’re going to be using it for work and uploading and downloading a lot of files. 

One thing to keep in mind: While the promise of going the local route sounds inviting, all providers are not the same. Make sure you carefully research what other consumers think of the ISP and compare plans, features and pricing offered by both local and national providers before making a decision.

AT&T is trying to muscle its way ahead of Verizon and T-Mobile and bring consumers an answer to the pain point of the cost for monthly internet service.

The company plans to expand the use of 5G broadband cellular network for the home with Internet Air, a new fixed wireless home internet service that gives consumers a Wi-Fi delivered signal at the remarkably competitive price of $55 – $15 less than the average monthly internet access cost. 

The company is being choosy about where it makes Internet Air available, though. It says it’s “hyper-focused” on selecting geo-locations that have decent enough wireless coverage and capacity to deliver a great in-home experience and still maintain high-quality wireless service for its existing mobile users.

Those lucky locations include: Los Angeles; Philadelphia, Cincinnati; Harrisburg-Lancaster-Lebanon, Pa.; Pittsburgh; Las Vegas; Phoenix (Prescott); Chicago; Detroit; Flint-Saginaw-Bay City; Hartford-New Haven, Conn.; Minneapolis-St. Paul; Portland, Ore; Salt Lake City; Seattle-Tacoma;  and Tampa-St. Petersburg (Sarasota). 

Ease of set-up

The cherry on top is that consumers can self-install the system in five steps and be up and running in less than 15 minutes. 

When customers open the box, they will scan a QR code to access simple instructions. Most of the set-up is handled via the AT&T Smart Home Manager app, which identifies the strongest connection spot in your home so you can put the device there. The company claims its Wi-Fi extenders will enable you to create a mesh Wi-Fi network throughout your home, eliminating those dreaded dead zones.

Cost pluses

The $55 a month price point is the standard issue cost, but Internet Air is also eligible for the federal Affordable Connectivity Program (ACP) which provides eligible households with a benefit of up to $30 a month (up to $75 a month on qualifying Tribal lands) to reduce the cost of broadband service.

The company is kicking off its promotion of the product by giving new and existing AT&T Wireless customers Internet AirTM for $35 a month in select zip codes and with an eligible wireless plan.

If a proposed rule by the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) becomes final it will be against the law to post a fake review online.

The FTC is trying to stop marketers from using phony review and endorsement practices such as using fake reviews, suppressing honest negative reviews, and paying for positive reviews, which deceive consumers looking for real feedback on a product or service and undercut honest businesses.

“Our proposed rule on fake reviews shows that we’re using all available means to attack deceptive advertising in the digital age,” said Samuel Levine, director of the FTC’s Bureau of Consumer Protection.  “The rule would trigger civil penalties for violators and should help level the playing field for honest companies.”

The FTC initiated the rule-making activity after reports that a growing number of online reviews are made up. CNBC cites a 2021 analysis that suggests as many as 31% of reviews found on e-commerce sites like Amazon, Walmart and Best Buy are suspected fakes.

The FTC’s proposed rule would prohibit:

• Selling or obtaining fake consumer reviews and testimonials: Both buyer and seller could be held liable. 

• Review hijacking: Businesses couldn’t use a review for one product to promote something different.  

• Buying positive or negative reviews: Businesses couldn’t post negative reviews of a competitor.

• Insider reviews and consumer testimonials: The proposed rule would prohibit a company’s officers and managers from writing reviews or testimonials of its products or services, without clearly disclosing their relationships.

Companies would also be barred from creating a website that claims to provide independent opinions about its products or services. They would also be prevented from unjustified legal threats to suppress unfavorable reviews.

ConsumerAffairs provides a place for consumers to post reviews of products and services and hundreds of thousands have done so since 1998. The company has strict protocols in place to insure review legitimacy.

“Our Moderation Team carefully evaluates reviews and images to ensure they meet our guidelines before publication,” the company said in a statement. “Only the most helpful and informative reviews and comments, regardless of their tone, are considered, provided they are factually accurate and include firsthand details and photos. ConsumerAffairs also uses intelligent software to help filter fake or spam reviews, ensuring a trustworthy platform for our users.”

The Federal Trade Commission (FTC) isn’t one to make its bloodhound's agenda public, but over the past few years, it’s been doggedly hunting down companies that use “dark patterns” to try to trick consumers into doing things they probably wouldn’t do otherwise.

Publisher’s Clearing House found itself in the agency’s dog house recently. So did Amazon, Credit Karma, Vonage, and the makers of Fortnite. 

The FTC’s sister agency – the Consumer Financial Credit Bureau (CFPB) – is also gunning for dark pattern users, accusing TransUnion. And as consumers started to pick up on these tricks, they headed to the CFPB’s complaint desk, too, filing grievances against Bank of America, Experian, CapitalOne, and others.

Needless to say, “dark patterns” have become the scariest elephant in the room right now.

What do these look like and where do you find them?

Researchers at Stanford University’s Dark Patterns Tip Line (DPTL) say that the inherent dangers lie in five basic consumer categories: social media, financial and insurance, education, smart devices, and health and wellness. 

As to how you spot them, Mark McCreary, co-chair of the Privacy and Data Security Group at Fox Rothschild, told ConsumerAffairs that these dark patterns are "intentional design choices" -- little tricks that companies use to nudge consumers into agreeing to terms or services they did not intent.  

"Identifying dark patterns can be difficult, but there are some things to watch," he said. "For example, if you go to a website and try to cancel a subscription, they may ask if you really are sure you want to, or offer you a discounted rate or free month. When you try to opt-out of promotional emails from, they may ask if you are sure and says you can change my mind by just closing the page."

McCreary said that what got the FTC's attention with Amazon was that users could not close their account easily online, but had to send a request to Amazon to have them close it.

"At that point, you have to complete a form that contains the many reasons you should not close your account, and only after navigating that can you proceed by again asking Amazon to close your account."

'Do this first, please.'

A good number of dark patterns are hidden in processes. For example, a dark pattern that financial and insurance companies might try is getting someone to input their personal and payment information for a “free trial” and, then, once that trial period is over, the company automatically starts billing users without notifying them that the free trial is ending and payment is set to start. 

Another questionable process the DPTL recently uncovered was with PictureThis – a supposedly free app but one that uses “a very deceptive means of tricking users to upgrade” to the paid version of the app which runs $29-49 a year. 

Cancel? You must be kidding.

The most egregious dark pattern is probably the one where it’s darn near impossible for a consumer to easily cancel a service or subscription.

In addition to the FTC's recent fervor over cancellation hurdles, DPTL’s research turned up several big brands using this tactic. Probably the biggest was AT&T, which the researchers said made it “incredibly difficult” for a customer to cancel, forcing them to pore through a laundry list of “how-to’s” which did not include how to cancel.

Rather, the company pushed that option to another section, telling the customer that they have to call a phone number and speak to someone in order to do that. 

The Stanford researchers said consumers many also find cancellation challenges with DirecTV, Wall Street Journal, MyLife, Hello Fresh, Stamps.com, and 1-800-Flowers.

You don’t really need that purchase expedited, do you?

One DPTL tipster recently reported that the NFL was taking advantage of the dark patterns opportunities, too, with a “tricky design choice.” One that denies the consumer a choice, not to mention costs them money if they don’t need an item rushed their way.

“When you purchase merchandise from their website, they default you to the expedited shipping fee, tripling the shipping cost, and you have to decline it rather than choose it,” the tipster wrote.”If you don’t catch it, you just paid a lot more in shipping fees than you should have to get your items.”

Is this for real? Yep. ConsumerAffairs tried it out on NFL.com when attempting to purchase a Josh Allen Buffalo Bills jersey. This is what we saw when we went to check out and, indeed, the default shipping setting was “expedited shipping” and $10 more than the “standard 3-7 days” option.

ConsumerAffairs reached out to the NFL to ask its reasoning for taking this posture, but did not immediately get a response.

How you can help

The FTC and CFPB are doing all they can, but staying informed and sharing what we know can go a long way in keeping dark patterns from creating expensive headaches.

If you notice a website or app that’s up to something suspicious or you feel forced into giving personal details or discover hidden fees, sharing that with DPTL and other consumer forums like ConsumerAffairs will help the cause and give federal agencies some added firepower.

To file a DPTL report of a dark pattern, all you have to do is go here and share some pertinent details.

In 2022, when inflation is near 40-year highs, consumers who are selecting an internet service say price is more important than ever.

The J.D. Power 2022 U.S. Residential Internet Service Provider Satisfaction Study found that the monthly cost of service now trumps performance and reliability, although all continue to be strong factors.

“More than half – 58% –  of a customer’s satisfaction is driven by the quality and consistency of the internet connection, and how the customer perceives the value of that connection,” said Ian Greenblatt, managing director at J.D. Power. “With customers being least satisfied with cost of service, a consistent experience at a reasonable price is table stakes for providers. Each outage or other problem causes a customer to review that price-driven choice for real value.”

The major internet service providers (ISP) ranking highest with consumers include Verizon, Midco, AT&T, Centurylink, and Xfinity. Verizon ranks highest in the East region for the 10th consecutive year with a score of 758, the only provider besting the regional average of 707.  Xfinity was second with a score of 706.

‘It just works’

“I quit Optimum Internet and went back to Verizon for my home wifi,” Naresh, of Madison, N.J., wrote in a ConsumerAffairs review. “The reason was very simple, they offered a much better price ($75 vs. $125), and the service is a workhorse, it just works.”

AT&T made a strong showing throughout the rest of the U.S. It was second to Midco in the North Central Region and ranked highest in the South region for the fifth straight year.

“This is a very concise and well-done internet experience,” Chace, an AT&T customer in Hinton, Tex., told us. “The other internets were expensive and failed miserably all the time! I have never had a failure or problem with this internet experience and I am very pleased with the service.”

AT&T also ranked highest in the West region with a score of 729, followed by Xfinity. 

ConsumerAffairs reviewers not that high on Verizon

Consumers posting ISP reviews at ConsumerAffairs don’t view Verizon as the best, actually ranking it dead last with an overall 1-star rating. Reviewers tend to downgrade Verizon over customer service issues.

AT&T secured the top spot among our reviewers with an overall 4-star rating. Xfinity and CenturyLink tied with a 3.9-star rating while Optimum scored 3.7 stars.

More than 20 internet service providers (ISP) are partnering with the U.S. government to reduce or eliminate the cost of high-speed internet service for millions of Americans.

The White House has announced that the ISPs -- including AT&T, Comcast, and Verizon -- cover more than 80% of U.S. households. Eligible households will pay no more than $30 a month for service. After a refund, millions of households will get free service.

Under the Affordable Connectivity Program (ACP), the government will work with the private sector to increase the number of connected homes in the U.S. and remove cost as a barrier. The program is part of the $1 trillion infrastructure measure Congress passed in 2021.

“From large providers like AT&T, Comcast, and Verizon serving dozens of states, to smaller providers serving rural areas like Jackson Energy Authority in Tennessee and Comporium in North Carolina, the commitments will allow tens of millions of ACP-eligible households to receive high-speed internet at no cost,” the White House said in a statement.

How to qualify

Households can qualify for this new benefit based on income. They can also qualify through their participation in one of several other federal programs, like Pell Grants, Medicaid, or Supplemental Security Income. 

People who are participants in those programs won’t necessarily have to take any action. The White House says the agencies that manage the programs will reach out to households that qualify for ACP through programs they help administer. 

For example, people who receive Supplemental Security Income should be on the lookout for a contact from the Social Security Administration. Contact will be made with participants who have a “My Social Security” account. The White House estimates that there are about 1.6 million people in that program.

Outreach efforts

Contact may also come from city and state governments. The White House said officials in Michigan; Massachusetts; Philadelphia; Mesa, Arizona; and New York City will send text messages to millions of eligible households.

The government has set up a website – GetInternet.gov – to help consumers see if they qualify. It also provides a way for households and individuals to sign up and find the participating ISPs in their local area.

The White House estimates that 48 million households—or nearly 40% of households in the country—qualify for the ACP either because their income is at or below 200% of the Federal Poverty Level, or because a member of the household meets qualifying criteria.

Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton has filed a deceptive trade practices lawsuit against the online used vehicle dealer Vroom Automotive, which saw sales grow rapidly during the pandemic.

In filing the lawsuit, Paxton noted that consumers have filed over 5,000 complaints since 2018 with both the Better Business Bureau (BBB) and the Office of the Texas Attorney General against Vroom and Texas Direct Auto, which Vroom owns.

In a statement, the BBB said it noticed an increase in complaints starting in January 2020 that focused on two areas. Some consumers reported that the cars they received via delivery were not the same vehicles pictured online, or that they were dirty or damaged.

“Consumers also stated they were having customer service and communication issues when trying to reach out to the company to address their concerns,” the BBB said. The organization added that consumers have also reportedly not received paperwork to get their cars registered, faced delayed deliveries for vehicles, and had issues concerning trade-ins.

Unhappy consumers air concerns

Similar reports have been posted at ConsumerAffairs, especially in recent months. Mary, of Davis, Calif., wrote in mid-April that she bought a Lexus in November and has waited five months for the car to be registered.

“Five months after buying my car and three months after the temporary registration expired and I still have no idea if they will ever register my car and no way to find out,” Mary wrote.

Todd, of Aurora, Colo., describes the process of purchasing a vehicle from Vroom as “a headache.” He’s waited even longer than Mary to get his license plates.

“Now six months later and we still do not have our plates,” he wrote in a ConsumerAffairs review. “When I call to inquire why, they say they need to log a ticket and send me an email. The email they send is a no reply email.”

To be fair, not all of Vroom’s ConsumerAffairs reviews are negative. Some consumers report a good experience, though many of the positive reviews are about the experience of selling a car to Vroom.

Rapid growth may contribute to issues

Auto industry analyst Cliff Banks, the publisher of TheBanksReport.com, says Vroom and its competitor Carvana are the only dealers that appear to be producing complaints about delays in titling.

“We're not seeing any issue with new car dealers or even large used chains such as Carmax, Echo Park, or Driveway.com,” Banks told ConsumerAffairs. “I think it's due to them both (Vroom and Carvana) trying to grow quickly and not having the processes in place as they enter new markets to adequately provide the services required in a vehicle transaction.” 

ConsumerAffairs reached out to Vroom for comment, but the company did not immediately reply to our request. In its last annual earnings report, Vroom told investors that it has encountered “operational challenges” due to its rapid growth.

“During the past six months there has been an increase in customer complaints, leading to an increase in such regulatory inquiries,” the report said. “We endeavor to promptly respond to any such inquiries and cooperate with our regulators.”

What to do

For customers dealing with these issues, the only recourse may be to submit a report about their experience. On forums where customers have aired their frustrations, many later amended their submission to say the issue had been resolved. It seems someone at the company is monitoring the reviews and responding.

It may also pay to file a complaint with the state attorney general’s office. WAVE-TV in Louisville recently reported that the Kentucky Attorney General’s office helped two Vroom customers resolve their issues.

In an effort to get broadband everywhere possible, the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) has adopted a rule that will give tenants in apartment buildings and those who work in office buildings better access to high-speed internet.

Going forward, the agency says landlords and building owners who have any sort of exclusive agreement with a broadband provider will need to disclose that to their tenants. The agency will also no longer allow any sort of deal that would block competitive access to alternative providers.

“One-third of this country lives in multi-tenant buildings where there often is only one choice for a broadband provider, and no ability to shop for a better deal,” said FCC Chairwoman Jessica Rosenworcel. “The rules we adopt today will crack down on practices that prevent competition and effectively block a consumer’s ability to get lower prices or higher quality services.”

Consumers finally get change

It’s no secret that consumers have needed more choices when it comes to broadband for the last several years. The FCC had this rulemaking move on its agenda for a while, dating back to 2017 under FCC Chairman Ajit Pai, but it never saw the light of day.

Consumers were clamoring for action long before 2017, though. ConsumerAffairs reviewer Josh, of Tell City, Ind., claimed back in 2016 that he was unable to get high-speed internet in his apartment building.

“[The AT&T rep said] that since they do not provide a product, but do provide a service, they are going to ignore the consumer laws here in America, and not give me the service I paid for,” Josh wrote.

More consumer-friendly rules

When President Biden moved into the White House, he signed an executive order that forced the agency to impose consumer-friendly rules on Big Tech and ISPs that were aimed at increasing competition and lowering prices for consumers. 

With Biden’s infrastructure bill becoming law, consumers should be able to enjoy several benefits, including more transparent prices, more affordable service, and better availability.

Under the order, Biden will encourage the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) to reintroduce a “broadband nutrition label” to provide consumers with greater price transparency and restrict early termination fees. The order will also direct the FCC to restore the net neutrality rules that were undone in 2017 that require broadband companies to treat all internet services equally.

Consumers who are frustrated by all the fine print used by internet service providers got a nice gift from the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) on Thursday. As an add-in to President Biden’s ​​Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act, the agency unanimously agreed to new rules that would require broadband providers to show easy-to-understand labels that allow consumers to comparison shop for broadband services.  

The new guidelines require broadband providers to display -- at the point of sale online or in a store -- labels that show prices (including introductory rates), plus data allowances, network management practices, and any other information that a consumer would deem important as part of their decision-making process.

This move couldn’t come at a better time. When it comes to the cost of internet service, the U.S. has a long way to go to be competitive. According to the CompareTheMarket, America is the 9th most expensive country for broadband – with it costing consumers an average of $66.13 per month.

Expectations from the proposed rule

If the FCC can get all the broadband companies pointed in the same direction on this initiative, the agency says it will make life easier for consumers when it comes to choosing a provider. It will also encourage those providers to innovate, compete, and offer consumers the lowest prices and the highest quality service.

“Americans today are benefiting from more choice, and they are seeing more competition for their broadband dollars than ever before. As a result, Internet speeds are up while prices are down,” FCC Commissioner Brendan Carr said. 

Carr said the Commission’s latest effort builds on its effort to make transparency a key component of everything consumer-related the agency has a say in.

“Right now, we have rules on the books, for instance, that require broadband providers to publicly disclose accurate information regarding their network management practices, performance characteristics, and commercial terms sufficient to enable consumers, businesses, and entrepreneurs to make informed choices,” Carr stated.

Broadband provider trade group NCTA says consumers can count its members in on the FCC’s proposal. “Cable operators are committed to providing consumers with relevant information about broadband services,” the group said in a statement.

In the internet service world of things where it’s all about speed, AT&T has decided to raise the bar by rolling out new 2Gbps and 5Gbps fiber-optic service – internet that’s effectively two and five times faster than anything out there at the moment, respectively.

The company said the new service will begin in 70 markets across the country to start with, but it plans to make it part of its current fiber footprint throughout 2022, eventually expanding to cover 30 million customer locations by year-end 2025.

AT&T thinks its timing couldn’t be better due to how – and where – people work in the pandemic’s new normal. According to a consumer survey that AT&T commissioned with Recon Analytics, 6 in 10 internet users not only purchased a new connected device in the last year, but they’re also connecting more devices – on average 13 in the average home between computers, TVs, etc. 

“The pandemic has significantly changed how consumers and businesses use the internet and what is required from a broadband provider,” said Roger Entner, Founder and Lead Analyst of Recon Analytics. 

What consumers can expect

Like any major technology shift, there are usually things that consumers need to consider before jumping in and committing to the service. In surveying the new offer, ConsumerAffairs found answers to questions consumers might have before switching to AT&T's new offering. Those include:

How fast? On top of what AT&T claims will make it the “fastest major internet provider,” the new service also brings in a relatively new approach called “multi-gig” speed – effectively making the 2G/5G speed go both ways rather than one speed for uploads and another for downloads. But the company doesn’t plan to rest its laurels there. It said it may offer even higher speeds down the road and has successful tests with 10G to prove that it’s possible.

Do you need new equipment? No. AT&T says you won’t need new equipment to run the service.

How much does it cost? AT&T says that with the new high-speed service, its customers are also getting “straightforward pricing” – no equipment fees, no annual contract, no data caps, and no price increases for 12 months. 

However, “straightforward pricing” does not mean this is a bargain. AT&T Fiber 2 GIG is $110/month + taxes; AT&T Business Fiber 2 GIG is $225/month + taxes; AT&T Fiber 5 GIG is priced at $180/month + taxes; and AT&T Business Fiber 5 GIG goes for $395/month + taxes.

Is there fine print to consider? With any major rollout like AT&T’s, there are little sticky wickets that can eventually surprise customers – like subscription length, additional fees, etc. In reviewing the fine print of AT&T’s new service, here are some things ConsumerAffairs found that are worth considering (note: variations on this might apply, so it's best to confirm these points with AT&T before moving forward):

• The introductory price can change or be discontinued at any time.

• The price for “internet 300” is for residential customers and is after a $5/mo autopay & paperless bill discount. That discount off the monthly rate doesn’t start until the account is active, and the customer is enrolled in both the autopay and paperless option. Up to the point where the discount kicks in (within 2 bill cycles), customers apparently pay the full plan cost. One other little oddity about the discount: customers have to maintain both the autopay/paperless bill option, as well as a valid email address, in order to continue getting the discount.

• There’s an “up to” $99 installation fee that “may apply.”

• One thing to note about speed: In AT&T's fine print, it says "actual customer speeds are not guaranteed."

Earthlink is rolling out a new wireless internet service – EarthLink Wireless Home Internet – that it says will provide high-speed coverage to rural communities and other underserved areas. 

It works by connecting to the strongest signal from nearby cell phone towers. It then connects the user's computer or network to the internet at 5G or 4G speeds. The service, however, is limited to certain areas of the U.S.

The company says consumers who sign up for the service will get a high-speed Wi-Fi router to enable easy and secure connections for dozens of devices in the home.

The company says the new service will provide an alternative for people who don’t have access to wired services at their homes. For example, many rural consumers often have to connect to the internet via satellite, which can be costly. Some of these services are “metered,” so a user gets access to a set amount of data each month.

Earthlink says the new wireless service is affordable – starting at $54.95 a month – and utilizes new technology to enhance speed.

"As we expand our business, our priority continues to be creating the right connection for all our customers," said Glenn Goad, EarthLink’s CEO. "We know that millions of people in underserved areas are dissatisfied with the internet options available to them and millions of others are frustrated with the service level of their current internet service provider. Now, there's a great new alternative. EarthLink Wireless Home Internet changes everything for them."

The company was an early arrival on the internet scene, established in 1994. It currently offers internet service through DSL, cable, satellite, and even dial-up.

Consumer reviews

Some reviews posted at ConsumerAffairs have complained that Earthlink blocks emails without warning. Cal, from San Francisco, says it might have to do with storage limits.

“Their limit of data storage is so small that you are constantly deleting and clearing important emails,” Cal wrote in a ConsumerAffairs review. “But you don't know that you are out of storage because the account doesn't show you are. EARTHLINK just blocks emails coming to you so you have no idea what email you aren't getting.”

Consumers posting positive reviews say the company is easy to work with and that its plans are affordable. Overall, reviewers give the company 3.5 out of 5 stars.

Earthlink says its new service expands the company's coverage by adding internet service on a mobile network to its existing high-speed fiber internet offerings. The service offers plug-and-play installation. 

Now that we’re in December and the holiday shopping season has started to pick up, a group of bipartisan U.S. senators has decided to bear down on the grinches that produce counterfeit products -- the kind that are not only rip-offs of famous brands but are also potentially hazardous to consumers. 

At a Senate Commerce subcommittee hearing on Tuesday, Sen. Marsha Blackburn (R-TN) denounced the growing number of unscrupulous third-party online retailers who bombard social media with ads and posts for the things they sell. She said these ads make it difficult for consumers to tell the difference between an authentic and a counterfeit product.

“We’re very concerned about what we see happening with some of the infiltration of counterfeit products,” Blackburn said.

How bad is it? In 2020, the total estimated merchandise value of counterfeited commodity products the U.S. seized due to intellectual property rights infringement for watches and jewelry alone came to $435.25 million.

Consumer protection laws called into question

Across the aisle, Sen. Richard Blumenthal (D-CT) -- who Blackburn has partnered with on issues like Instagram’s effect on teenage girls and Google and Apple app market dominance -- said it’s easy for dishonest sellers to portray themselves as legitimate and skirt regulations. He added that loopholes in consumer protection laws that allow this kind of behavior need to be tied off.

Specifically, Blumenthal says Section 6B of the Consumer Protection Act needs to be changed. In it, the Consumer Product Safety Commission (CPSC) is banned from publicly sharing information about specific manufacturers until ”reasonable steps” have been taken to certify that information is fair and correct. 

Blumenthal’s gripe with 6B is that it delays the CPSC from disclosing hazards that put consumers at risk.

Added concern over counterfeit toys

Members of the subcommittee and witnesses also sounded the alarm on unsafe products that consumers might give as gifts during the holiday season. Everything from counterfeit toys to malfunctioning decorations were discussed at the hearing.

“Unfortunately, the burden is on consumers to identify counterfeit, knockoff and mislabeled products — which can be difficult for those who are not familiar with lab testing certification, age warning labels and what the manufacturer’s brand logo looks like,” said Hannah Rhodes, the author of the U.S. PIRG’s recently released 36th annual Trouble in Toyland report.

Proof can be found in the statistics. The CPSC estimates that emergency rooms treated 198,000 toy-related injuries last year. “The best way to keep a child safe from injury from a toy is to keep an eye on them, look out for any broken toys and to ensure the toys are age appropriate,” Rhodes’ report suggests.

Parents need to look out for dangerous toys

Besides counterfeit toys, the U.S. PIRG’s report states that parents should pay attention to these types of toys:

• Second-hand toys. The group notes that the person getting rid of the toy, as well as the person buying the toy, may not have checked to see if it had been recalled. 

• Noisy toys. The organization said four of the five toys it tested made so much noise that they could hurt children’s hearing.

• Toys that could be ingested. As an example, the U.S. PIRG pointed out that Zen Magnets were recalled in August after years of controversy and injuries. However, there are still similar magnets available for sale that also cause problems.

Unhappy Chick-fil-A customers have filed a class action lawsuit against the chain, claiming that the food chain’s vow of only charging customers a flat, low-priced delivery charge is an empty promise. 

The plaintiffs claim that Chick-fil-A “deceives consumers into making online food purchases they otherwise would not make” and “gains an unfair upper hand on competitors that fairly disclose their true delivery charges.”

The complaint tries to make the point that Chick-fil-A promised its customers low-price delivery -- usually $2.99 or $3.99. But they say that promise was only made to make Chick-Fil-A delivery appealing for consumers in a crowded food delivery marketplace. The group claims the chain’s food prices on its website and app are 25% to 30% higher than in-store prices -- adding $1.10 to, say, a chicken sandwich for delivery. 

That markup makes "Chick-fil-A's promise of a low-cost delivery patently false,” the lawsuit alleges. “In fact, Chick-fil-A imposes hidden delivery charges on its customers in addition to the low ‘Delivery Fee’ represented in its app and on its website.”

To its credit, Chick-Fil-A does note that its menu prices for delivery are higher than at restaurants and that “additional fees may apply.” However, that clarification is an asterisk in small type at the bottom of the ordering webpage.

Chick-Fil-A is not alone in delivery price markup 

In a market study conducted by Gordon Haskett Research Advisors, researchers found that Chick-fil-A isn’t the only food chain marking up the price of its food when consumers go the delivery route. Starbucks, Chipotle, McDonald's, and others keep it hush, but list menu prices are 15.3% higher on average for delivery orders compared to pick-up orders, according to the Haskett analysis.

Who’s the worst? Chick-fil-A indeed had the highest delivery pricing premium of the 25 chains analyzed by Gordon Haskett, with menu prices that are 29.8% higher for delivery compared to pick-up. At Starbucks, delivery menu prices are 20.3% higher than pick-up; they were 19.6% higher at McDonald's. 

Restaurants say they’re just trying to stay afloat

The whole restaurant delivery situation is becoming complex. When the pandemic set in, consumers fell in love with food delivery mostly because of convenience and safety. At that point, third-party companies like DoorDash, GrubHub, and UberEats came to the rescue. 

That was good for everyone at first; but as restaurants saw how much delivery services were eating into their profits, chains had little choice but to try to make up that lost revenue.

Laying things out from a consumer’s perspective, the Haskett team broke down just how much a restaurant chain is likely to earn from a pick-up order versus a delivery order. In laying out a real-life example, analyst Jeff Farmer ran the numbers on a $20 Chipotle order using a delivery commission of 15%. 

Farmer estimated that once you take the cost of food, labor, and other variables out of the equation, Chipotle’s net profit on a $20 in-store or pick-up order is $4.10. If you subtract a 15% delivery fee,  Chipotle ekes out just $1.10 on a $20 order. Farmer notes that if Chipotle used a delivery provider that charged a $6 commission — which is in the 30% range typical of Grubhub or UberEats — it would actually lose $1.90 on a $20 order. 

For a Chipotle delivery order to net the restaurant as much money as a pick-up order would, Chipotle would have to raise menu prices by 15%, according to Gordon Haskett's model. That would mean a $9 burrito would cost $10.35 on the delivery menu. 

The internet took on added importance with last year’s arrival of the COVID-19 pandemic and resulting lockdowns. Over the last year, customers have had a chance to critically evaluate how their internet service provider (ISP) performed.

In its latest internet customer satisfaction survey, J.D. Power found two-thirds of customer satisfaction is driven by the quality and speed of the internet connection. The research firm said the pandemic has raised the bar in terms of expectations.

“The internet essentially became as or more important than other home utilities when the world nearly came to a halt in early 2020, and its importance has remained as businesses and schools have adjusted to new working environments,” said Ian Greenblatt, managing director at J.D. Power. “While overall satisfaction had been increasing since 2018, it has declined since last year, showing that as the necessity of internet service has increased, so have the expectations of customers.”

Results varied by region

J.D. Power broke down the results regionally. Verizon had the highest score in the East region — 758 out of 1,000 —followed by Xfinity, with a score of 725.

AT&T ranked highest in the North Central region, with a score of 732, followed by WOW!, with a score of 730. AT&T also ranked highest among customers in the South region, with a score of 753, followed by Xfinity, at 740.

Midcontinent was the top choice in the West region, with a score of 754, followed by AT&T, at 728.

Those results are roughly in line with how ConsumerAffairs reviewers rate the companies on a national scale. On a 5-star system, Verizon is rated at 3.9, AT&T is at 3.8, and Xfinity is at 3.7.

ConsumerAffairs reviewers weigh in

Nathan, of Georgetown, Kentucky, gave AT&T a 5-star rating last December, saying his family relied on its internet connection during the pandemic.

“We have several children that have been attending school remotely and have not overloaded the service yet,” Nathan wrote in a ConsumerAffairs post. "Another benefit of having AT&T internet is complimentary HBO Max — a fantastic perk that really adds value and entertainment to the mix.”

A number of Verizon reviewers criticized Verizon’s customer service, but for Cecelia, a ConsumerAffairs reviewer from Sayreville, New Jersey, Verizon seems to check all the boxes.

“Choices are limited in this area, and I've tried them all,” Cecelia told us. “So far, Verizon is much better overall — connectivity, reliability, service, and pricing.”

Elon Musk’s Starlink service continues to fire on all cylinders. Musk-owned SpaceX says its Starlink satellite internet company has grown to 90,000 users in 12 countries and continues to pick up more. If it maintains the growth rate of 20,000 subscribers it added in the past month, it would have close to a quarter-million users by the end of the year.

Starlink is a bit late to the game in the world of internet service providers, but its idea is novel. The service plans to build out a constellation with thousands of internet-beaming satellites that can bring high-speed internet to consumers no matter where they live around the world. To date, the company says it has launched 1,700 satellites into orbit.

In addition to delivering internet service to homes, the company has asked for regulators to give it permission to test out the possibilities for in-flight service and overseas/overland transportation like cargo ships and trucks.

Still to come

In its report to the FCC, SpaceX said its plans also include the rollout of “next-generation satellites” that will feature “faster speeds,” “lower latency,” and “more backhaul capacity” to greatly expand its user base. Latency is a key hurdle for the company and a negative for most satellite internet providers that are trying to compete with land-based cable or fiber delivery services.

However, the bigger hurdle for Starlink will be finding a price point that most consumers consider affordable. When ConsumerAffairs looked into what Starlink was charging for service, the hardware was $499, plus $99 a month for service, not to mention taxes and shipping. 

Compared to the $60 monthly average most people are paying, Starlink has a ways to go. It’s a hurdle that even Musk agrees is the company’s biggest challenge.

A new study suggests that internet users aren’t getting what they want. The team at HighSpeedInternet.com asked around 2,000 Americans just how happy they are with the speed, price, and reliability of their internet connections this year. 

The study concluded that consumers are less satisfied with their internet connections this year, stemming mostly from experiencing frustrations related to the pandemic. For more than a year, COVID-19 forced many people to count on internet service more than ever -- to work remotely and for families with school-aged children to do their classwork virtually. 

The winners

On the positive side, EarthLink, AT&T, and Verizon came in as the top 3 providers for customer satisfaction this year. The researchers said all three of these providers offer fiber internet connections, which ranked higher in every category compared to other connection types. 

Each of those internet providers is also neck and neck in the good score department with ConsumerAffairs reviewers. Earthlink earns 3.8/5 stars, AT&T earns 3.8/5 stars, Verizon earns 3.9/5 stars.

One of the reasons Daniel from Cleveland, Ohio, gave Earthlink 5 stars was because, rather than own and operate its own infrastructure, the company has partnership agreements in place with local ISPs like Spectrum and AT&T to install internet service on the ISP's network. 

“That's not a problem because for some reason the Internet service costs less when you go through Earthlink to get it,” Daniel wrote in his review. “Any installation problems that you have are therefore caused by the ISP (Spectrum or AT&T) technician, not Earthlink,” he said.

Good but not great

The researchers say it’s important to note that customer satisfaction ratings reflect customer sentiment but are not an exact representation of actual quantitative internet performance. That proved to be the case for Xfinity and Spectrum.

The study’s researchers said those two cable providers dropped “significantly” in this year’s ratings compared to 2020. However, while “significantly” sounds like the bottom completely fell out for those companies, it’s not that bad. In all actuality, 87% of Xfinity and Spectrum customers in the study -- as well as Xfinity and Spectrum reviewers on ConsumerAffairs -- said their speeds meet the needs of their household.

If there's any particular knock on Xfinity and Spectrum, it’s price. As an example, Helix of Farmington, N.Y., said Spectrum is generally “very good, however they raised the rates significantly in the past 2 years. $80 a month for internet service is too high.” 

Cedrick of Lilburn, Ga., feels the same about Xfinity. “I have been with [the service] for now for four years. I have enjoyed the speed, the price is a little on the high side but we don’t have too many choices,” he wrote in his review.

Fiber lovers and bundlers love their services

When it comes to DSL, cable, or fiber internet, the fiber customers are the happiest internet users. They feel they get a better bang for their buck on speed, price, reliability, and customer service than those who use DSL or Cable internet connections. 

The researchers also found that internet customers are prone to bundling services when they can. The team found that customers who bundle have a significantly higher satisfaction rating compared to those who don’t. The majority of those surveyed (58%) say they bundle their internet with TV service from the same provider. 

Space X’s satellite internet service, Starlink, could be providing high-speed internet to users in every country before the end of this year, Reuters reported. 

At a web conference on Tuesday, SpaceX president Gwynne Shotwell said the company could offer global coverage as soon as September once all 1,800 satellites reach their operational orbit. That will be contingent on securing regulatory approvals. 

"We've successfully deployed 1,800 or so satellites, and once all those satellites reach their operational orbit we will have continuous global coverage so that should be like [the] September timeframe," Shotwell said, speaking as part of the virtual Macquarie Technology Summit.

The launch will follow a beta testing program through which SpaceX generated significant interest. The company offered interested consumers the option to pay a $99 deposit in exchange for the promise of coverage sometime this year or next. 

"We've got almost 100,000 users. Half a million people want to be users, but we need the electronic piece part situation to settle down so that we can actually build the user terminals for the folks that want the service," Shotwell said.

Last December, SpaceX received $885 million in grant funding from the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) to bring its satellite broadband service to consumers in 35 U.S. states. Starlink internet is currently available as a beta service in only a handful of countries, including the U.S., the U.K., and Canada. 

Internet service provider Frontier Communications had been hit with a one-two punch from the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) and the law enforcement agencies of six states. 

The FTC, Arizona, California, Indiana, Michigan, North Carolina, and Wisconsin have collectively sued Frontier for not delivering internet service at the speeds it advertised.

The company currently provides residential DSL internet service to approximately 1.3 million consumers across 25 states. The FTC says Frontier promoted various internet tiers to consumers using a variety of methods -- including mail and online ads -- and sold them to consumers both online and over the phone. 

The complaints piled up

Dating back to January 2015, the FTC said its complaints desk has been piling up with thousands of consumers complaining about Frontier’s failure to make good on its internet speed pitches. At the top of the list were complaints that things requiring larger transfers of data, such as streaming video and gaming, were impossible when they shouldn’t have been. Many customers complained that the speeds were so slow that they couldn’t even perform typical online activities that should have been possible at the speed tiers Frontier had sold to them.

People also raised plenty of red flags in ConsumerAffairs reviews.

“The slowest high speed internet on the planet. But that doesn't deter Frontier from charging me 110 dollars a month for phone I don't need (can't get internet without it) and internet speed of .4 mps. A call is usually 30 mins or way more. Stay away if you can. Unhappy in Arizona,” said Robert of Yucca, Arizona. 

Another reviewer in Tennessee pointed out that he lives in a rural area and that Frontier is his only option for internet service. Of course, that makes dealing with service problems much more difficult. While it may be a bitter pill to swallow right now, the Federal Communications Commission is currently working to close the digital divide in rural America.

The Federal Communications Commission (FCC) has announced two new developments that will help more consumers get connected to the internet. 

First, the agency has reminded consumers that it will begin taking applications for its $3.2 billion Emergency Broadband Benefit program starting Wednesday, May 12. The program gives low-income consumers discounts of up to $50 a month for broadband service and up to $75 a month if the household is on tribal lands. A one-time discount of up to $100 on a computer or tablet will also be given to eligible households. 

Next, the FCC has announced its unanimous adoption of a $7.17 billion program that aims to get more Americans high-speed internet at home. The program was established to enable schools and libraries to purchase computers, tablets, Wi-Fi hotspots, and broadband connectivity during the COVID-19 pandemic. 

“Far too often, students, teachers, and library patrons lack the access they need to broadband

and connected devices. This need has become even more apparent during these unprecedented times,” said Jessica Rosenworcel, Acting Chairwoman of the FCC. “Between this Emergency Connectivity Fund Program and the Emergency Broadband Benefit Program, we are investing more than $10 billion in American students and households.” 

The FCC noted that as many as 17 million children in the U.S. -- particularly those from communities of color and low-income households -- don't have access to broadband, which stands in the way of remote learning during the pandemic. 

Rosenworcel noted that these investments will help close the “Homework Gap” for students across the country and give “so many more households the ability to connect, communicate, and more fully participate in modern life.”

The FCC has announced that enrollment in its emergency broadband benefit program will begin May 12. 

The program gives eligible consumers discounts of up to $50 a month for broadband service and up to $75 a month if the household is on Tribal lands. A one-time discount of up to $100 on a computer or tablet will also be given to eligible households, the FCC said.

"As of May 12, 2021, eligible households will be able to enroll in the program to receive a monthly discount off the cost of broadband service from an approved provider,” the FCC said. The agency added that consumers can also sign up for the subsidies at this website. 

In the announcement, FCC Acting Chairwoman Jessica Rosenworcel said the program is intended to help close the digital divide. During the pandemic, a lack of internet access has been a barrier to opportunities for a number of Americans. 

“Families in every corner of the country have been struggling to get online throughout this pandemic, Rosenworcel said. “For those families, we now say help is around the corner.” 

The subsidies will pave the way for more Americans to “access the internet to carry out their day-to-day life, so they can reach the virtual classroom, take advantage of telehealth, and seek new employment opportunities,” she added. 

Helping disconnected Americans get online

Congress approved the subsidies back in December. Although it took several months to set up, the discount program is now set to roll out in less than two weeks. The program is open to: 

• Households that participate in an existing low-income or pandemic relief program offered by a broadband provider; 

• Lifeline subscribers, including those that are on Medicaid or accept SNAP benefits; 

• Households with kids receiving free and reduced-price lunch or school breakfast; 

• Pell grant recipients; and 

• Those who have lost jobs and seen their income reduced in the last year.  

A list of ISP providers participating in the program can be viewed here. The FCC is also launching a "Companies Near Me" tool closer to the May 12 start date.

The Federal Communications Commission is encouraging consumers to test their broadband internet speeds using its speed test app. The agency’s Acting Chair Jessica Rosenworcel says doing so will help bolster the FCC's mission of collecting more accurate information on broadband speeds in different parts of the U.S. 

“To close the gap between digital haves and have nots, we are working to build a comprehensive, user-friendly dataset on broadband availability,” Rosenworcel said in a statement. 

“Expanding the base of consumers who use the FCC Speed Test app will enable us to provide improved coverage information to the public and add to the measurement tools we’re developing to show where broadband is truly available throughout the United States.” 

Crowdsourcing speed test data

Closing the digital divide has been a top priority for the FCC in recent years. The agency is currently striving to improve the accuracy of its coverage maps in order to paint a clearer picture of where improvements are needed. 

Currently, these maps primarily feature data from ISPs like Comcast and Verizon. Studies have found that the FCC’s estimates of how many Americans lack access to a broadband connection starkly contrast other data. 

A 2019 study from Microsoft found that around 163 million people could not access the internet at or above broadband speeds. At the time, the FCC had put that number at an estimated 25 million people. The agency is now asking consumers to share their broadband speeds to help enhance the accuracy of its broadband maps. 

Using the FCC’s Speed Test app “helps crowdsource data about broadband across the country that we can use to build better maps showing where service is and is not,” Rosenworcel tweeted. 

The FCC’s Speed Test App can be downloaded from the Google Play Store for Android devices or the Apple App Store for iOS devices. The FCC says it will protect the privacy and confidentiality of consumers who decide to share their speed test results. 

Consumers who were affected by online retailer Fashion Nova’s violations of the Federal Trade Commission’s rules regarding shipping notifications will soon receive refunds. 

The FTC said it’s sending out $6.5 million in payments to more than half a million consumers impacted by the retailer’s violations of its Mail, Internet, or Telephone Order Merchandise Rule.

The agency said Fashion Nova violated the rule in several ways, including by promising consumers fast shipping of their orders by including phrases like “Fast Shipping,” “2-Day Shipping,” and “Expect Your Items Quick!” However, the agency says it regularly failed to deliver on those promises.

Fashion Nova also violated the FTC’s rules by never giving consumers the opportunity to cancel their orders and receive refunds. Finally, the company used gift cards to compensate consumers for items that did not ship instead of providing refunds, which isn’t permitted under FTC’s Mail Order Rule. 

“The same rules that we have enforced for nearly 50 years against catalogers and other mail-order companies also apply to online sellers,” said Andrew Smith, Director of the FTC’s Bureau of Consumer Protection, in a statement. “Online retailers need to know that our Mail Order Rule requires them to notify customers in the event of shipping delays and offer the right to cancel with a full refund—not just a gift card or a store credit.”

Millions in refunds

All told, 518,552 consumers will receive a refund of $12.60 each from the FTC. Most of the payments will be sent via PayPal to the email addresses of affected customers, but a small number of consumers will receive mailed checks. 

The FTC’s order also requires Fashion Nova to refund some customers directly. The retailer has agreed to send out direct refunds totalling $2.26 million to customers affected by its shortcomings. 

Consumers with further questions can contact the refund administrator -- Rust Consulting, Inc. -- at 1-866-483-0376.

The Federal Communications Commission (FCC) says it wants to hear directly from consumers about their broadband experiences as the agency attempts to extend high-speed service across the country. 

Specifically, the FCC wants consumers to tell it whether service is even available where they live, and if so what kind of speed it offers. It’s part of an effort to extend internet service to underserved areas such as inner cities and the rural countryside.

“Far too many Americans are left behind in access to jobs, education, and healthcare if they do not have access to broadband,” said Acting FCC Chairwoman Jessica Rosenworcel.  “Collecting data from consumers who are directly affected by the lack of access to broadband will help inform the FCC’s mapping efforts and future decisions about where service is needed.”

Currently, the FCC relies on internet service providers (ISP) for this information. Officials say tapping into consumer feedback may provide a more comprehensive picture of which areas have good service and which ones do not.

A webpage to collect the data

Consumers are asked to go to this FCC webpage where they can detail their experience, both positive and negative. 

“Your experience with the availability and quality of broadband services at your location will help to inform the FCC’s efforts to close the digital divide,” the agency said. “We may also send you additional information by email in the future as we develop tools for consumers to share data with the FCC. You can also follow our efforts to improve the accuracy of these maps at www.fcc.gov/BroadbandData .”

Agency officials have complained that relying solely on information from the ISPs was inadequate and could in fact be misleading. For example, for a 50 square mile area to be considered as having broadband access, only one customer in the area had to have 25 Mbps download and 3 Mbps upload speeds.

Impact of COVID-19

The issue has taken on added urgency over the last 12 months of the coronavirus (COVID-19) pandemic. When schools closed last year, students had to attend class online, an issue in areas where service was spotty.

In a speech this week, Rosenworcel said nearly 17 million children in the U.S. fall into what she called the “homework gap,” meaning they lacked adequate access to the internet. Worldwide, she noted 67 percent of children are in that category.

“I believe this is the cruelest part of the digital divide,” she said. “We need to make it a priority to fix this homework gap and connect every student so they can have a fair shot at continuing their education.”

To help low-income households afford internet service during the COVID-19 pandemic, the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) has set up a program that allows qualifying households to get internet service for as little as $50 a month, as well as an opportunity to buy a computer or tablet at a discount.

The $3.2 billion Emergency Broadband Benefit Program will be made available within 60 days (by April 27, 2021) as providers sign up and program systems are put in place. FCC Acting Chairwoman Jessica Rosenworcel called the move historic. 

“This is a program that will help those at risk of digital disconnection. It will help those sitting in cars in parking lots just to catch a Wi-Fi signal to go online for work. It will help those lingering outside the library with a laptop just to get a wireless signal for remote learning,” she said.

“It will help those who worry about choosing between paying a broadband bill and paying rent or buying groceries. In short, this program can make a meaningful difference in the lives of people across the country. I have confidence in our staff that we will do this carefully, swiftly and the right way.”

Eligibility and what’s available

To get the broadband service discount for up to $50 -- and up to $75 a month if the household is on Tribal lands -- applicants will have to prove that they fit at least one of the following criteria:

• Existing participation in a low-income or pandemic relief program offered by a broadband provider;

• Lifeline subscribers, including those that are on Medicaid or accept SNAP benefits;

• Households with children receiving free and reduced-price lunch or school breakfast;

• Pell grant recipients; and/or

• Those who have lost jobs or seen their income substantially reduced in the last year. 

Additional details on household eligibility can be found in this document on page 20. As for the discount on a computer or tablet, the program will provide a one-time discount of up to $100 on either of those devices for eligible households.

A new study conducted by researchers from the University of Helsinki has found that young people who experience higher levels of loneliness could have an increased risk for internet addiction.

These findings come nearly a year into the COVID-19 pandemic, a time during which adolescents have missed out on a great deal of socializing. Instead, they have spent more time home by themselves, which the researchers say could ultimately lead to extensive time on the internet. 

“In the coronavirus period, loneliness has increased markedly among adolescents,” said researcher Katarina Salmela-Aro. “They look for a sense of belonging from the internet. Lonely adolescents head to the internet and are at risk of becoming addicted. Internet addiction can further aggravate their malaise, which can cause depression.” 

Compulsive internet use can turn problematic

For the study, the researchers monitored 1,750 study participants’ internet use from the time they were 16 through the time they turned 18. In addition to time spent on the internet, the researchers evaluated the teens’ social and home lives and analyzed how these factors ultimately impacted their mental health. 

The study found that loneliness played a big role in how the teens utilized the internet; those who felt isolated on a regular basis were more likely to spend excessive amounts of time in front of screens. 

It’s also important to note that loneliness didn’t just stem from not seeing friends. The researchers found that kids who came from homes with inattentive parents were also more likely to turn to the internet to pass a large majority of their time. 

The biggest concern with compulsive time spent on the internet was the impact it had on the participants’ mental health. Teens who spent a large portion of their time on the internet were also more likely to struggle with depression than those who spent less time online. 

Teens can grow past internet addiction

The researchers found that a lot of internet time during the teenage years doesn’t always correlate to the same patterns during adulthood. While this is true in some cases, they explained that once teens grow beyond their adolescent years, their internet habits tend to grow and evolve with them. 

“It’s comforting to know that problematic internet use is adaptive and often changes in late adolescence and during the transition to adulthood,” said Salmela-Aro. “Consequently, attention should be paid to the matter both in school and at home. Addressing loneliness too serves as a significant channel for preventing excessive internet use.” 

SpaceX CEO Elon Musk says consumers’ Starlink internet speeds “will double” later this year. In a tweet on Monday, Musk said the network’s latency is poised to decrease and that Starlink’s coverage will continue to expand. 

“Speed will double to ~300Mb/s & latency will drop to ~20ms later this year,” Musk said in response to a user who showed speed tests ranging between 77 and 130 Mbps. 

He added that Starlink is on track to reach customers in “most” parts of the world by the end of the year and achieve complete global coverage “by next year.” Musk stressed that Starlink is geared toward customers in “low to medium population density areas.” He said cellular service “will always have the advantage in dense urban areas.”

User base growing

Last week, SpaceX launched another 60 Starlink satellites into orbit, bringing the mission’s total up to 1,145. The company’s goal is to eventually launch a total of 12,000 internet-providing satellites.

In a recent filing with the Federal Communications Commission (FCC), SpaceX said that “over 10,000 users” started using Starlink’s internet service in the U.S. and other parts of the world in just three months following the expansion of the public beta program.

“Starlink’s performance is not theoretical or experimental ... [and] is rapidly accelerating in real time as part of its public beta program,” SpaceX wrote in the FCC filing. 

The company added that Starlink’s service is “meeting and exceeding 100/20 megabits per second (‘Mbps’) throughput to individual users.” Most users have seen latency “at or below 31 milliseconds,” according to the filing.

Service is priced at $99 a month, plus a $499 initial cost for the hardware required to connect to the network. 

Last month’s extreme stock market volatility in GameStop stock was the focus of lawmakers’ attention Thursday when some of the principals involved in the volatility were summoned before the House Financial Services Committee.

In the hot seat were Vlad Tenev, chief executive of online brokerage Robinhood Markets Inc.; Gabe Plotkin, the founder of hedge fund Melvin Capital Management LP; Steve Huffman, the CEO of the social-media platform Reddit and host to the WallStreetBets forum; Ken Griffin, the billionaire founder of the hedge fund Citadel LLC; and Keith Gill, an individual investor who acquired big positions in GameStop stock and options and called it to the attention to others on Reddit.

Members of the committee said they were trying to determine what exactly happened in late January when the stock price of GameStop and other struggling companies surged in value because traders using the Robinhood trading platform and posting messages on Reddit pushed the stock far beyond its fundamental value.

Part of the hearing focused on Robinhood’s move, in the wake of GameStop’s meteoric rise, to limit trading in the stock. Tenev used his time with lawmakers to apologize to customers for the restrictions Robinhood introduced in late January but said it was due to conditions beyond the company’s control -- specifically, that it had to comply with federal regulations.

‘Unacceptable’

"Despite the unprecedented market conditions in January, at the end of the day, what happened is unacceptable to us," Tenev said. He said it was important for customers to know that Robinhood is "doing everything we can to make sure this won’t happen again."

In the face of pointed questions from lawmakers, the Robinhood CEO insisted that Robinhood is helping its customers to build wealth and get their financial lives under control. He said the total value of Robinhood's customers' assets exceeded the amount of money they deposited on the platform by more than $35 billion.

"While markets fluctuate, this tells me that our business model is working for everyday Americans," Tenev told the committee.

Roaring Kitty

Gill, who goes by the Reddit name of “Roaring Kitty,” told the committee he based all of his investments in GameStop on a fundamental analysis of what appeared to be the company’s declining business, carried out over at least two years.

“I continued analyzing stocks on my own time and investing my family’s funds,” he told the committee. In early June of 2019, the price of GameStop’s stock declined on worse than expected earnings, and it began trading at a deep discount, below what I thought was its fair value. I was aware from public reports that a well-known investor, Michael Burry, was interested in GameStop. Because I thought the stock was undervalued, I purchased call options on June 7, 2019.”

Lawmakers repeatedly pressed Griffin and Plotkin about their hedge funds’ relationship with Robinhood and whether institutional investors have a better deal with Robinhood than individual investors.

In a petition to the Federal Communications System (FCC), asking for designation as an Eligible Telecommunications Carrier (“ETC”), Elon Musk’s SpaceX said that its Starlink satellite internet service is showing some positive growth, with upwards of 10,000 users.

SpaceX is asking for an ETC designation in an effort to prove that it’s meeting all the requirements pursuant to the $900 million in federal aid it received for the Rural Digital Opportunities Fund (RDOF). The Rural Digital Opportunity Fund is an FCC program that’s investing billions of dollars in the construction of rural broadband networks in an effort to narrow the digital divide in the U.S. 

“Designating Starlink Services as an ETC is in the public interest because it will enable the company to receive support that will facilitate rapid deployment of broadband and voice service to the Service Areas at speeds and latency comparable to terrestrial systems in urban locations,” SpaceX wrote in the filing.

Starting small with its eyes on a bigger prize

SpaceX isn’t trying to bring broadband to everyone right away. It’s only pursuing ETC in the census blocks of Alabama, Connecticut, New Hampshire, New York, Tennessee, Virginia, and West Virginia.

Nonetheless, SpaceX’s long-term plan is to build a “constellation” -- an internet network with thousands of satellites -- in hopes of delivering high-speed internet to anyone in the world. The numbers don’t lie about SpaceX’s desire. In 2019, regulators approved SpaceX’s proposal to launch 11,943 satellites, with 4,425 of those satellites planned to go into orbit by 2024.

Comparing prices and service

While satellite speeds top out at 150 Mbps compared to cable speeds, which reach up to 1,000 megabits per second (Mbps), the national average speed is 42.86 Mbps. That’s sufficient for streaming HD video on a few devices, multiplayer online gaming, or downloading large files.

In the filing, SpaceX noted that Starlink’s service is “meeting and exceeding 100/20 Mbps throughput to individual users.” At that rate, the internet-of-things just moves quicker with less latency, allowing users to stream video in ultra high-definition (UHD) on multiple screens.

SpaceX began a public beta phase program of Starlink in October 2020, with service priced out at $99 a month compared to the average advertised internet package in the U.S. of around $50–$60 per month. Signing up for Starlink service will also cost another $499 upfront to order the Starlink Kit that gives the end-user a terminal, mounting tripod, and Wi-Fi router necessary to connect to the satellites.

If you’re a Verizon customer and had trouble getting online Tuesday afternoon, the problem wasn’t your device or your Wi-Fi. The carrier said it suffered an outage that affected customers in the Northeast.

Most of the outage occurred between Boston and Washington, DC, which covers millions of Verizon customers. The company said its network suffered “degraded service,” causing some applications requiring high bandwidth to stop working. 

Verizon said its engineers and techs began responding to trouble reports during the late morning on Tuesday, with issues lasting into the early afternoon. This left employees working from home and students attending online classes in the dark. Customers like “Flight’s Burner” took to Twitter to express their frustration.

“Why does Verizon want to have a major outage when I have class?” he posted.

Twitter users also reported that they were also having issues with Zoom, Slack, Gmail, and Amazon Web Services (AWS). A graph on Zoom’s status page shows a huge spike in trouble reports peaking around noon on Tuesday.

"We are aware of an issue impacting the quality of Fios service throughout the Northeast corridor," Rich Young, a spokesman for Verizon told CNN. "Our network team is fully engaged. We are working through the root cause and have already seen service levels start to restore."

FCC takes notice

While Verizon engineers worked to figure out the cause of the outage, it caught the attention of the Federal Communications Commission. Acting Chairwoman Jessica Rosenworcel wrote on Twitter that both her agency and the Department of Homeland Security were investigating because the outage interfered with Americans attending class and working remotely.

The Wall Street Journal reports that Kentik, an internet measurement company, tracked a 12 percent drop in data traffic to Verizon during the three hours or so that service was interrupted. At this point, all indications suggest the issue was limited to the Northeast region.

If your web browser has recently updated, or you’ve loaded some new browser extensions, you may be seeing a message when you visit certain free content sites.

“Please support journalism by allowing ads,” one of the pop-up messages reads. 

In the message, there is a large link that will disable the adblocker extension in your browser. There is a smaller link that will allow you to proceed to the site while continuing to block ads.

Dominic Chorafakis, with the cybersecurity consulting firm Akouto, says adblocking extensions aren’t exactly new, but it’s possible browsers have strengthened them in recent updates.

“Sites that rely on ad revenue, of course, don’t like this at all, and there is quite a bit of effort being put in from their side to detect when a visitor has adblocking in place and either ask them politely to disable adblocking or outright prevent them from viewing their content unless they disable it,” Chorafakis told ConsumerAffairs.

Not all ads are harmless

Should consumers oblige and disable their adblocker? It’s one thing to support certain websites, but it is quite another to open devices to ads that might be more than simply annoying.

“Malicious ads are a very real thing, and the companies that are making massive profits from internet ads are not doing enough to stop hackers from posting them,” Chorafakis said. “As a result, many legitimate sites end up serving malicious ads to unsuspecting visitors.”

Chorafakis said he makes it a point to keep adblocking enabled on his devices until he sees publishers do more to control the kinds of ads they display.

“I would rather not see a site’s content than take the risk of being served up a malicious ad if that’s how they want to behave,” he said. “If there is something that I absolutely must see but am being prevented by blocker detection, then I will temporarily use a different browser without adblocking that I have specifically for those very rare instances.”

Two business models

The issue highlights a growing dichotomy of the internet. There are companies that earn their revenue from services and subscriptions and those that earn money by showing ads and collecting data. 

Many news sites have erected a paywall that prevents consumers from reading their content unless they subscribe. Most TV stations and TV networks continue to allow viewing for free but show ads to produce revenue.

This split in the internet burst into the open last week when Apple changed its privacy policy and Facebook angrily responded with full-page ads in newspapers denouncing the move.  

Apple’s newly announced  iOS14 privacy changes will require app developers like Facebook to “provide information about some of your app’s data collection practices on your product page.” The change will also require Facebook to “ask users for their permission to track them across apps and websites owned by other companies.”

In the ad, Facebook maintained that Apple’s changes will be “devastating to small businesses” that rely on its ad network to leverage clicks and sales. 

It also highlights the internet’s divide between consumers who value privacy and are willing and able to pay for the content they view and consumers who are willing to accept some limits on privacy in exchange for free content.

The Federal Communications Commission plans to give SpaceX, Elon Musk’s space company, nearly $900 million dollars in federal aid to boost high-speed internet service in rural areas of the country. 

The government wants SpaceX to provide high-speed broadband internet to over $5.2 million unserved homes and businesses in rural America with its Starlink internet service.

The government aid was awarded as part of the first phase of its Rural Digital Opportunity Fund auction. SpaceX was one of the biggest winners of the auction. The company competed against more traditional broadband companies, including Charter Communications and CenturyLink.

SpaceX's Starlink service, which is currently in beta testing, utilizes a swarm of roughly 1,000 satellites in low orbit around earth. They travel around the planet at more than 17,000 miles per hour, beaming broadband to antennas on consumers’ homes. 

With the subsidies it will receive over the next decade, SpaceX is expected to cover 35 underserved locations. The company will be required to stick to the terms of certain conditions in order to secure the funding. Specifically, it will have to prove that it can provide broadband services to unserved rural areas for costs in line with terrestrial broadband offerings and adhere to “periodic buildout requirements” in the 35 locations.

Closing the digital divide

In a statement, FCC Chairman Ajit Pai said the allocation of the funds will help advance the agency’s mission of closing the digital divide.

“I’m thrilled with the incredible success of this auction, which brings welcome news to millions of unconnected rural Americans who for too long have been on the wrong side of the digital divide. They now stand to gain access to high-speed, high-quality broadband service,” he said. 

“We structured this innovative and groundbreaking auction to be technologically neutral and to prioritize bids for high-speed, low-latency offerings. We aimed for maximum leverage of taxpayer dollars and for networks that would meet consumers’ increasing broadband needs, and the results show that our strategy worked. This auction was the single largest step ever taken to bridge the digital divide and is another key success for the Commission in its ongoing commitment to universal service. I thank our staff for working so hard and so long to get this auction done on time, particularly during the pandemic.”

​Starting today, Microsoft Teams -- a popular video conferencing platform -- won’t work for consumers using Internet Explorer 11. Internet Explorer users will have to migrate to Microsoft Edge in order to use the service on the browser. 

In August, Microsoft announced that it would be dropping support for Internet Explorer. The company is ultimately hoping to get users to use the faster and more secure Microsoft Edge. 

"We’re announcing that Microsoft 365 apps and services will no longer support Internet Explorer 11 (IE 11) by this time next year,” the company said at the time. “Beginning November 30 2020, the Microsoft Teams web app will no longer support IE 11. Beginning August 17 2021, the remaining Microsoft 365 apps and services will no longer support IE 11.” 

The tech giant added that customers who use the browser after the above dates will have “a degraded experience or will be unable to connect to Microsoft 365 apps and services.” 

Microsoft acknowledged that making the change will be difficult for some users, but it said customers will “get the most out of Microsoft 365” when using Chromium-based Edge. The company also said the new Microsoft Edge features an Internet Explorer mode that allows users to host their apps in Edge. 

“We are committed to helping make this transition as smooth as possible,” the company explained.

Comcast has announced that it will roll out 1,000 free Wi-Fi “Lift Zones” in community centers across the U.S. in an effort to make sure low-income students have access to the internet.

The free Wi-Fi zones will initially be established in Atlanta, Baltimore, Chicago, Denver, Detroit, Miami, Philadelphia, San Francisco, Seattle, Trenton, Minnesota's Twin Cities, and Washington, D.C.

“These Lift Zones, which will be installed in community centers in local neighborhoods that our partners have identified and will run, will be places where students and families can get online and access the resources they need, especially while so many schools and workplaces have gone virtual,” Dave Watson, Comcast’s President and CEO, said in a statement.

Closing the homework gap

With virtual learning in full swing due to the coronavirus, wireless carriers have unveiled initiatives meant to help close the digital divide. T-Mobile announced recently that it’s accepting applications for its “Project 10Million” plan, through which it plans to provide free internet connectivity to 10 million underserved student households. 

Comcast said its plan to bring free Wi-Fi to local community centers will be a multi-year effort. In addition to free internet connectivity, the carrier said it will provide access to “hundreds of hours of educational and digital skills content to help families and site coordinators navigate online learning” at Lift Zones.

“What we’ve learned throughout this pandemic is that although at-home Internet connectivity is the number one barrier to remote or hybrid learning, connectivity is only one barrier that prevents our nation’s kids from logging in and participating,” said Evan Marwell, CEO and Founder of Education SuperHighway. 

“No one single answer alone will solve this problem. These Lift Zones can offer families much needed support when at-home connectivity is either not available or the student is unable to participate in their home environment.”

On Wednesday, the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) announced that it plans to scrap its previous plan for a $4.5 billion program to provide federal support for 4G LTE support in underserved areas. Instead, the agency says it will launch a $9 billion fund to bring 5G to rural areas of the U.S. 

FCC Chairman Ajit Pai said the new fund will help carriers pay for 5G deployments in areas with “unique wireless connectivity needs,” such as farms, ranches, and other areas that tend to face difficulties in obtaining access to wireless services or the internet.

“5G has the potential to bring many benefits to American consumers and businesses, including wireless networks that are more responsive, more secure, and up to 100 times faster than today’s 4G LTE networks,” Pai said in a statement. “We want to make sure that rural Americans enjoy these benefits, just as residents of large urban areas will.” 

“We must ensure that 5G narrows rather than widens the digital divide and that rural Americans receive the benefits that come from wireless innovation,” Pai said. 

The proposal also involves allocating at least $1 billion to help bolster efforts to deploy precision agriculture tools that require 5G connectivity. 

The FCC said it plans to formally propose the new 5G fund early next year. The funding will come from its Universal Service Fund, which uses money from surcharges on telephone service and provides subsidies to schools and libraries.

Inventor of the web, Tim Berners-Lee, has unveiled a plan to prevent the web from continuing on its path to becoming what he calls a “digital dystopia.” 

Acting on concerns that the web has become a breeding ground for misinformation, privacy violations, and political manipulation, Berners-Lee formed a non-profit campaign group called the World Wide Web Foundation. 

The World Wide Web Foundation, through which Berners-Lee has released a global action plan called the “contract for the web,” has already garnered the support of Facebook, Google, Microsoft, and more than 150 organizations.

Berners-Lee says the help of governments, companies, and citizens is needed now to keep the web from becoming a place of harmful content rather than a benefit to humanity. 

“The power of the web to transform people’s lives, enrich society and reduce inequality is one of the defining opportunities of our time,” he said. “But if we don’t act now - and act together - to prevent the web being misused by those who want to exploit, divide and undermine, we are at risk of squandering that potential.” 

Key elements of the contract

The contract asks companies to respect consumers’ data privacy and urges governments to ensure that everyone is able to get online and access all of the internet, according to its website. Additional commitments to help protect the web include: 

• Web users should have access to any data held on them.

• Users should be able to object to data being held.

• Users should be able to prevent their data being processes.

• The Internet should be affordable.

• Web services be accessible.

“The web was designed to bring people together and make knowledge freely available. Everyone has a role to play to ensure the web serves the public good,” the website says.

Berners-Lee is set to attend a four-day UN Internet Governance Forum in Berlin on Monday. Ahead of the event, he tweeted that failing to take immediate action in defending “the free and open web” puts the web at risk of becoming a “digital dystopia of entrenched inequality and abuse of rights."

The Federal Communications Commission (FCC) has voted to require internet service providers (ISPs) to better map their coverage areas so gaps in broadband coverage are more clearly defined.

The agency’s ruling concludes that there is a “compelling and immediate need to develop more granular broadband deployment data.” To that end the FCC has created the new Digital Opportunity Data Collection.”

Critics have long charged that the current mapping system leaves a lot to be desired. Although ISPs are required to map coverage within census blocks, the ISP doesn’t have to cover the entire block in order to show it. In fact, in can cover just one home in the area to claim coverage of the entire census block.

Under the new set of rules, the FCC will only report geospatial broadband coverage maps from fixed broadband internet service providers of areas where they make fixed service available. The object is to present a clear picture of where high-quality fixed broadband service is offered.

Consumer input

The new rules also establish a means for consumers to provide input on the accuracy of service on providers’ broadband maps. The feature will use a crowd-sourcing portal to collect input from consumers as well as from state, local, and Tribal governments. 

Over time, the alleged inaccuracy of coverage maps has become a bipartisan issue with Republicans joining Democrats in pushing for changes. According to industry insiders, it was that growing political consensus that prompted ISPs to offer their own reforms.

The change may be most important for underserved rural areas. There has been conflicting information about the availability of high speed internet service in these areas, with ISPs generally claiming more available service than local consumer groups.

In February, the FCC offered to give nearly 200 carriers in rural areas of the U.S. an additional $67 million as part of its Connect America Fund.

Government subsidies

The agency said it would give the carriers the money if they agree to “significantly expand” access to broadband with at least 25Mbps downloads and 3Mbps in uploads. If the providers hold up their end of the deal, the FCC claims that as many as 110,000 consumers across 43 states would have improved internet service.

The move came after lawmakers from both parties took issue with an FCC draft report that said internet service to rural America had improved. Rep. Rob Wittman (R-Va.), whose district covers a wide area of rural Eastern Virginia, said in February that nearly 50 percent of consumers living in rural Virginia lacked access to high speed internet and 29 percent don’t have any internet service at all. 

FCC Commissioner Jessica Rosenworcel, one of two Democrats on the Commission, took issue with the draft report that noted significant progress.

“Millions of households -- in rural and urban communities -- have no access to high-speed service,” she wrote in a tweet. “That’s a fact.”

Less than three months after the FCC reported strong rural broadband growth, the agency has come forward with an admission that those figures were inaccurate. FCC Chairman Ajit Pai says the estimates published in a draft report back in February were off by almost two million.

The number of U.S. consumers without access to a fixed broadband connection by the end of 2017 was actually 21.3 million. The agency said previously that the figure dropped by 25 percent in one year, from 26 million to 19.4 million between 2016 and 2017.

The admission follows a March report from an advocacy group called Free Press, which first discovered the inaccuracy. The group found that a new ISP called BarrierFree wrongly told the FCC that it started serving nearly 20 percent of the country in just six months.

“BarrierFree’s over-reporting in this manner not only produces wildly overinflated deployment claims for itself and these eight states: it also has a substantial impact on the putative change in deployment at the national level,” the organization said. “Indeed, BarrierFree is claiming to be the only ISP offering service in 15 percent of all Census blocks that were listed as unserved in the June 2017 Form 477 data.”

“We are unable to determine exactly why BarrierFree reported in this manner, or why the Commission failed to notice this apparent grievous error before boasting about the December 2017 results in its recent press release,” FreePress continued.

The group added that this isn’t the first time it has found the FCC guilty of over-reporting.

“Free Press highlighted it explicitly in 2014, prior to the Commission taking over NTIA’s block-level deployment collection. In fact, this issue was of such concern, the Commission issued a clarification to its Form 477 filing instructions specifically telling carriers that it ‘would rely on the ordering or installation of a not-yet leased circuit . . . to provide service in a census block not currently served should not treat that census block as having service available.”

Agency responds

Pai issued a statement in which he acknowledged the inflated figures but praised the agency’s progress in closing the digital divide.

"Fortunately, the new data doesn't change the report's fundamental conclusion: we are closing the digital divide, which means we're delivering on the FCC's top priority,” Pai said. “We're achieving this result by removing barriers to infrastructure investment, promoting competition, and providing efficient, effective support for rural broadband expansion through our Universal Service Fund programs."

The FCC has revised its 2017 broadband growth figures numbers in an updated draft.

The Federal Communications Commission (FCC), in a draft report, says the U.S. has made great strides in closing the “digital divide” and expanding broadband internet services in rural areas of America.

Rural counties have consistently lagged behind metro areas in the deployment of fast internet because consumers are spread out and it’s expensive to serve them. Increasing service to rural areas has been an FCC priority for nearly a decade but expansion of service has come at a slow pace.

“We’ve been tackling this problem by removing barriers to infrastructure investment, promoting competition, and providing efficient, effective support for rural broadband expansion through our Connect America Fund,” FCC Chairman Ajit Pai said in a statement

The draft report says the number of Americans who lack access to a fixed broadband connection dropped by 25 percent in one year, from 26 million to 19.4 million between 2016 and 2017.

Minimum speed

To be considered broadband service, an internet connection must achieve a minimum speed of 25 Mbps/3 Mbps. The report says a lot of the progress has come in rural America, where 5.6 rural consumers got faster internet over the course of 12 months.

Earlier this month, the co-chair of the Congressional Rural Broadband Caucus released a letter he wrote to House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) that urged her to include broadband spending in a potential infrastructure package.

Rep. Rob Wittman (R-Va.), whose district spans a wide area of rural Eastern Virginia, says President Trump’s proposal for an infrastructure bill should include funding for technology infrastructure too.

“With that in mind, I am urging you to prioritize policies in the 116th Congress that will help promote broadband investments and bridge the digital divide between urban and rural America,” Wittman wrote in the letter.

Virginia an underserved state

According to Wittman, nearly 50 percent of consumers living in rural Virginia lack access to high speed internet and 29 percent don’t have any internet service at all. He says obstacles include government red tape and regulations, cost of service, and varying geographic factors.

FCC Commissioner Jessica Rosenworcel, one of two Democrats on the Commission, took issue with the draft report that reports significant progress.

“Millions of households -- in rural and urban communities -- have no access to high-speed service,” she wrote in a tweet. “That’s a fact.”

The five commissioners -- three Republicans and two Democrats -- will meet later to vote on whether to adopt the draft as official FCC policy.

Federal Communications Commission (FCC) Chairman Ajit Pai, a Republican, and Commissioner Jessica Rosenworcel, a Democrat, aren’t on the same side regarding the net neutrality debate. However, they both agree that the lack of high-speed internet access in many rural areas is something that needs to be changed.

More than a third of the U.S. population lags behind in connectivity, putting residents in many rural areas at a disadvantage when it comes to job creation, economic opportunity, and being connected to others in their community.

“It really would be a game-changer for rural America if every town in this country were connected,” Pai said in an interview with CNET. “And that idea is bipartisan in nature.”

But Pai and Rosenworcel acknowledge that financial hurdles must be overcome in order to deploy broadband in many parts of the country.

"In big cities and urban areas where you have dense populations, the cost of deployment is lower," Rosenworcel said. "When you get to rural locations it's harder because financing those networks, deploying them and operating them is just more expensive."

Closing the digital divide

Rosenworcel added that the issue of financing shouldn’t prevent the dream of bringing broadband to every American from becoming a reality.

"That's not a reason not to do it. We're just going to have to get creative and find ways to connect everyone everywhere,” she said.

In order to achieve the goal, Pai says it might take a "national mission when it comes to broadband.” That mission would be similar in scale to what the government did when it brought electricity to rural America in the 1930s, Pai and Rosenworcel said.

"We were able to get electrification to happen in rural, hard-to-reach parts of this nation," Rosenworcel said. "We need to be able to do the same with broadband."

Fixing map inaccuracies

Rosenworcel said another challenge currently being reckoned with is the issue of inaccuracies on the FCC’s current broadband map.

"Our broadband maps are terrible," she said. "If we're going to solve this nation's broadband problems, then the first thing we have to do is fix those maps. We need to know where broadband is and is not in every corner of this country."

To help the agency get a better idea of where broadband is needed, Pai and his administration have come up with a new process of requesting input from the public.

"We've asked the American public, state and local officials, and carriers, consumer groups, farm groups in rural states to challenge those maps and tell us where they're inaccurate," he said. The goal, said Pai, is “to make sure with respect to wireless connectivity that we have a clear-cut idea about where those connections are and where they aren't."

Rosenworcel wants to take the plan a step further by dispatching FCC staff from field offices to go out and check the maps. She also believes the FCC needs to go to the public for this information.

"Every one of us knows where we get bars on our phone," she said. "We need to figure out how to crowdsource all that energy out there in the public and develop a map that isn't just made here in Washington but is made by all of us."

The Federal Communications Commission (FCC) is on the verge of making one of its largest plays ever -- a decade-long goal of investing in broadband in rural America to help 700,000 homes and businesses bridge the broadband divide.

The FCC has designed a Mobility Fund framework to dole out up to $4.53 billion to advance 4G LTE service, predominantly in rural areas that would not be served in the absence of government support.

The importance of having high-speed internet access leaves little doubt that the Commission’s move is spot-on. More than a third of the U.S. population lags behind the connectivity most of America takes for granted and puts them in a losing position regarding job creation, economic opportunity, and being connected to others in their community.

In America’s urban areas, 97 percent of the people have access to high-speed fixed service. However, once you get out of the city, that number slides to 65 percent. Doing the math, that’s as many as 30 million Americans at a digital disadvantage.

“Mobility is one of our country’s greatest gifts,” wrote FCC Commissioner Mignon Clyburn in a statement announcing the initiative. “This untethered means of being connected has unlocked new markets for commerce, been a public safety lifeline for millions and to sum it up most succinctly, has improved and transformed all of our lives. Mobile health monitoring options are bringing about better patient outcomes, and mobile hotspots are helping children who are not so privileged complete their homework.”

Getting to the heart of the  matter

FCC Commissioner Ajit Pai got out from behind his desk and headed out on the road to find out how the FCC can narrow the digital divide and widen digital opportunity. By the end of August, Pai hopes to have hit towns both large and small in more than 35 states and two U.S. territories.

Here’s a video of how Pai’s tour is playing out.

The long and short of it

The FCC knows that making this happen is no small task. It will require kickstarting rulemakings focused on hastening the deployment of both wireless and wireline networks and modifying rules that have put a damper on axing old technologies in favor of new ones.

The Commission also knows it can’t do this by itself. According to Chairman Pai, the FCC will be asking for input on ways to enhance and simplify the funding system so carriers have the type of support they can count on and the incentives to buy into the plan.

“In the short term, we provide $180 million in one-time funding to mitigate the effect of the budget control mechanism for the current funding year adopted by the prior Commission,” commented Pai.

Pai went on to say that in the longer term, the FCC will be strengthening its Universal Service Fund and reinvesting in what works. Its Alternative Connect America Cost Model will devote $360 million toward additional broadband deployment.

A coalition of advocacy groups have filed a lawsuit against the federal government and Attorney General Jeff Sessions in an attempt to stop enforcement of the Fight Online Sex Trafficking Act (FOSTA), a law that won bipartisan support and the president’s signature last spring.

While sex trafficking is already a crime, regulators who championed FOSTA claimed that their new legislation would prevent pimps from prostituting women against their will by also holding any online service that they used to commit the crime liable.

For the first time in over two decades, entities ranging from Backpage.com, a classifieds website that is known to profit from prostitution ads, to CloudFlare, an internet content delivery network that simply counted a social networking site for sex workers among its clients, may risk criminal prosecution or lawsuits based on users’ third-party content

(The United States government is already prosecuting Backpage on pimping and money laundering charges, but the case was brought against them before FOSTA went into effect).

A “vaguely defined” law

Critics who fear widespread internet censorship note that FOSTA fundamentally changed the Communications Decency Act, the law partly credited for allowing the internet to thrive. Under FOSTA, any website or online service that authorities determine to have helped “facilitate” sex trafficking could be included in a sex-trafficking sting or vulnerable to lawsuits.

Sex workers, even those who work in legal industries like pornography, saw many of the online services that they had depended on for their safety and income disappear overnight. Community workers said that FOSTA would do little to deter prostitution and instead would send more sex workers to the streets and into unsafe situations.

Human Rights Watch, which includes sex worker safety and internet free speech among the many issues it champions, is now included in the group suing the feds to stop what they describe as a “vaguely defined” law.

“FOSTA says third parties can’t post content that promotes or facilitates prostitution but doesn’t define what it means by ‘promote’ or ‘facilitate,’” Human Rights Watch explains. “Fear of prosecution may prompt websites not to share our research findings, or individuals not to share our advocacy on social media.”

Joining Human Rights Watch in their legal effort is the Woodhull Freedom Foundation -- which is another human rights’ group -- the Electronic Frontier Foundation, and the Internet Archive, which both promote internet freedom-of-speech issues. A sex workers’ activist, a massage therapist, and a law firm that often litigates First Amendment cases are also joining the effort. (The Electronic Frontier Foundation and the law firm are representing the plaintiffs as their attorneys but are not parties to the suit themselves).

The lawsuit reflects “a cross-section of concerns” held by internet and free speech activists and sex workers, one community organizer told RollingStone.

The lawsuit is asking for a preliminary injunction, which would prevent authorities from criminally prosecuting or suing online businesses under FOSTA should a judge rule in the plaintiffs’ favor.

Earlier this week, Comcast announced that it’s ending its practice of throttling heavy internet users that are clogging the network.

The company’s congestion management system had been in place for a decade prior to the announcement. However, it had been “essentially inactive for more than a year,” Comcast told the Verge.

“As reflected in a June 11, 2018 update to our Xfinity Internet Broadband Disclosures, the congestion management system that was initially deployed in 2008 has been deactivated,” Comcast said in a statement.

“As our network technologies and usage of the network continue to evolve, we reserve the right to implement a new congestion management system if necessary in the performance of reasonable network management and in order to maintain a good broadband internet access service experience for our customers, and will provide updates here as well as other locations if a new system is implemented.”

Throttling no longer necessary

Comcast says congestion isn’t as burdensome to its servers and modems as it used to be, so it’s no longer necessary to throttle speeds to slow down heavy internet users.

Users should be aware that although the company has disabled its throttling system, it will still maintain data caps and charges for overages in 27 states.

Comcast made its announcement the same day net neutrality regulations were officially repealed. Under the new Restoring Internet Freedom Order, companies may have more freedom to block, speed up, or slow down access to specific online services, or offer premium internet speeds at premium cost.

At the same time net neutrality rules were rolled back, the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) also updated its transparency rules. Comcast likely made its announcement in an effort to comply with the new rules.

Facebook and Qualcomm are teaming up to bring super-fast WiFi to cities across the country for "a fraction of the cost" of fiber, the companies announced Monday

The partnership will use Facebook’s Terragraph technology to build a multi-node wireless system based on 60GHz technology from Qualcomm, with the ultimate goal of bringing high-speed internet connectivity to dense urban areas.

The social media giant has been working on Terragraph for several years in an effort to replace fiber broadband with 60GHz millimeter-wave wireless. Facebook first unveiled Terragraph at its annual developer conference back in 2016, touting it as a wireless service that could deliver faster and more reliable coverage in dense urban areas.

Improved connections and speeds

The technology was designed to offer a replacement for fiber or cable in homes and businesses. It works by utilizing a large number of antennas, channel bonding, time synchronized nodes, and TDMA protocols -- enhancements that help direct signals around urban obstacles like concrete buildings, serve more users, and reduce costs.

Qualcomm will integrate its upcoming chipsets with Facebook’s Terragraph technology, enabling manufacturers to build 60 GHz millimeter wave solutions using the unlicensed 60GHz spectrum and provide Fixed Wireless Access (FWA).

"With Terragraph, our goal is to enable people living in urban areas to access high-quality connectivity that can help create new opportunities and strengthen communities," said Yael Maguire, vice president of connectivity at Facebook.

Trials slated to begin next year

The collaboration will hopefully help to reduce congestion in overcrowded urban wireless networks.

"Our collaboration with Facebook will bring advanced 11ad and pre-11ay technologies to market increasing broadband penetration and enabling operators to reduce their capex [capital expenditure] for last mile access," explained Irvind Ghai, vice president, product management, Qualcomm Atheros, Inc.

"Terragraph cloud controller and TDMA architecture coupled with Qualcomm Technologies solution's 10 Gbps link rate, low power consumption, and early interference mitigation techniques will help make gigabit connectivity a reality."

Trials of the new technology are expected to begin in mid-2019. The companies didn’t announce which cities would receive the service first, but Facebook previously suggested that Terragraph would be tested in San Jose.

Ads for major corporations that are household names are routinely shown on YouTube videos identified as “extremist content,” according to a CNN investigation.

The TV network said it counted at least 300 businesses and organizations whose ads have run on videos about white nationalists, pedophilia, and even North Korean propaganda.

When an advertiser places a buy on YouTube, its message is inserted into the site’s content, sometimes playing before the start of a video. YouTube, which is owned by Google, often tries to match the advertiser's message with the tone of the video, but sometimes the ads are placed at random.

The CNN report found five U.S. government agencies had paid for ads that were paired with the out-of-the-mainstream videos, meaning U.S. tax dollars went to the videos' producers.

In addition, the analysis found ads for Hershey, Facebook, Nordstrom, Amazon, Hilton, Netflix, Adidas, and Under Armour on these videos. When contacted by CNN, the companies said they were not aware they were sponsoring extremist content.

Under Armour pauses ads

A spokesman for Under Armour told CNN the company is suspending its advertising on the video platform until it can investigate how its messages are being displayed.

YouTube gives advertisers a tool that can be used to target advertising messages to certain demographics and user behavior. They can block specific topics and employ a filter that keeps ads away from videos pertaining to sensitive subjects.

A spokeswoman for YouTube told CNN that the company has worked with advertisers to implement better controls, stricter policies, and greater transparency when it comes to ad placement.

“When we find that ads mistakenly ran against content that doesn’t comply with our policies, we immediately remove those ads,” she said.

YouTube policy

A year ago YouTube made changes to the way video producers can monetize their videos on the platform. The change requires video producers to rack up at least 10,000 lifetime views on their channel before they have the option to have ads appear in their videos.

YouTube made the change, not to weed out extremist content, but to crack down on copycat creators – those who copy videos from other sources and put them on their channel.

Cloudflare has released a free website performance and security tool called 1.1.1.1., billed as “the fastest, privacy-first consumer DNS service.”

At a time when prying eyes seem to be popping up everywhere, hackers are having field days, and the net neutrality rules are being tossed aside by the Trump administration, having someone ride in on a white horse might just be the answer consumers were looking for.

Cloudflare plans to stake its reputation on the promise that 1.1.1.1.  will be “the internet’s fastest, privacy-first consumer DNS service.” The company vows to wipe clean all logs of DNS queries within 24 hours.

Making internet browsing more private

DNS stands for “Domain Name System” -- a system of computers that allow users to browse the internet by connecting Internet Protocol (IP) addresses to a website’s server. In the simplest of terms, it’s what gets an internet user to the site they want to go to.

“Cloudflare's business has never been built around tracking users or selling advertising. We don't see personal data as an asset; we see it as a toxic asset,” wrote Matthew Prince, co-founder & CEO of Cloudflare.

“We began talking with browser manufacturers about what they would want from a DNS resolver. One word kept coming up: privacy. Beyond just a commitment not to use browsing data to help target ads, they wanted to make sure we would wipe all transaction logs within a week. That was an easy request. In fact, we knew we could go much further. We committed to never writing the querying IP addresses to disk and wiping all logs within 24 hours.”

Unfortunately, the DNS servers also allow Internet Service Providers (ISP) to identify any site that’s visited, which raises questions of privacy. In the wake of the criticism Facebook took over the misuse of its users’ data and Equifax’s hack last year, putting privacy back into the hands of the user might be a welcome relief.

An ISP typically takes care of the DNS for the end user, but the downside is that it gives the ISP a way to track and log every website you visit. Data like that, as the world found out in the Facebook data brouhaha, is worth money to data collectors that do deep dives on internet users’ browsing histories. With 1.1.1.1. keeping that information out of the grasp of an ISP, it makes it that much harder to track and tally a web surfer’s site visits.

Did someone say “fast” and “easy”?

DNSPerf analyzes the speeds of DNS providers worldwide. In its latest survey, Cloudflare’s speed ranked first with a query speed of 13.06ms -- twice as fast as Verizon ROUTE, nearly four times faster than GoDaddy, and almost five times faster than Google Cloud.

Whether you’re a novice or a geek, Cloudflare claims that setting up 1.1.1.1 takes two minutes and requires no technical skill or special software. All an interested Internet user needs to do is type 1.1.1.1 into their web browser to get started.

Who is Cloudflare and why do they want to help us?

Cloudflare claims to “run one of the world’s largest networks, powering more than 10 trillion requests per month.” The company’s customer base is made up of everything from local blogs to international Fortune 500 companies. And in its attempt to raise venture capital, tech giants like Microsoft, Qualcomm, and Google have all stepped up to write a check.

Cloudflare’s partner in 1.1.1.1. Is APNIC (Asia Pacific Network Information Centre, pronounced A-P-NIC), a not-for-profit, membership-based organization whose primary role is the distribution and management of internet protocols such as IP addresses. APNIC’s members include ISPs, universities, telecommunication providers, and others in the Asia Pacific region’s 56 economies, which include China, India, and Australia.

The marriage of Cloudflare and APNIC came out of a parallel desire to help build a better Internet. Cloudflare could provide the network and APNIC had the IP address (1.1.1.1).

“We talked to the APNIC team about how we wanted to create a privacy-first, extremely fast DNS system,” commented Prince. “They thought it was a laudable goal. We offered Cloudflare's network to receive and study the garbage traffic in exchange for being able to offer a DNS resolver on the memorable IPs. And, with that, 1.1.1.1 was born.”

The Federal Communications Commission (FCC) has approved Elon Musk’s SpaceX plan for a 4,425-satellite broadband network.

The broadband service -- which is currently set to go by the name “Starlink” -- would deploy satellites that operate 700 to 800 miles above Earth. The FCC will require SpaceX to launch at least half of the units in its 4,425-satellite constellation within the next six years.

"This is the first approval of a US-licensed satellite constellation to provide broadband services using a new generation of low-Earth orbit satellite technologies," the FCC said in a statement. "With this action, the commission takes another step to increase high-speed broadband availability and competition in the United States."

Providing broadband to rural and remote places

FCC Chairman Ajit Pai presented Musk’s plan for approval back in February. In his presentation, he told fellow commissioners that satellites can help extend broadband to consumers who live in rural or remote places where fiber optic cables and cell towers don’t reach.

"Although we still have much to do with this complex undertaking, this is an important step toward SpaceX building a next-generation satellite network that can link the globe with reliable and affordable broadband service, especially reaching those who are not yet connected," Gwynne Shotwell, president and chief operating officer at SpaceX, said in a statement.

SpaceX plans to start launching operational satellites for the network starting next year. It will be competing with rival space internet provider OneWeb. Musk has said he hopes Starlink will have more than 40 million subscribers by 2025.

As internet-connected devices become more widespread, a growing number of consumers admit to spending a majority of their day online.

About 26 percent of adults in the U.S. say they’re online “almost constantly,” up from 21 percent who said the same in 2015. Forty-three percent of respondents said they go online “several times a day,” according to a new Pew Research study based on January data.

Overall, the researchers found that 77 percent of Americans go online on a daily basis. Just 11 percent said they only use the internet several times a week or less; the same percentage said they don’t use the internet at all.

Higher for younger adults

Time spent online each day was higher for younger adults and people in higher income brackets, the research found. Thirty-nine percent of 18- to 29-year-olds now go online almost constantly and 49 percent go online multiple times per day.

Americans between the ages of 30 and 49 aren’t too far behind, with about 36 percent using the internet almost constantly (an increase of 12 percentage points since 2015). Just 8 percent of those 65 and older go online almost constantly and just 30 percent go online multiple times per day.

Mobile connectivity a key factor

Adults with the ability to access the internet on the go through a mobile device are especially likely to be online for a significant portion of their day.

A majority of mobile internet users (89 percent) go online daily and 31 percent go online almost constantly. By contrast, 54 percent of Americans who don’t use a mobile device to go online do so daily and just 5 percent say they go online almost constantly.

Role of household income

People in higher income brackets are also more likely to be on the internet frequently.

About 35 percent of adults with an annual household income of $75,000 or more are on the internet almost constantly and 91 percent use it daily, according to the study. Just 24 percent of people making less than $30,000 are on the internet almost constantly.

People living in non-rural areas are also more likely to be online a lot. Among adults who say they’re online almost constantly, 32 percent live in urban areas, 27 percent are suburban residents, and only 15 percent are rural residents.

With so many smart devices available for home use, it's probably not surprising that some of them could cause conflicts, resulting in internet outages.

That's apparently the root cause of issues being reported by some consumers who have a Google Home Max smart speaker, Chromecast, and a TP-Link Archer C7 router. They've reported that when all the devices are activated, they sometimes lose internet connectivity.

"My Google Home Max arrived today. Initial setup was fine, everything was working (Assistant, streaming services), but then my Wi-Fi network went down, which required a hard restart of modem and router to fix," a poster named Allistair reported on a Google forum last month.

"It took it going down a few more times for me to realize the Max was causing it; whenever I tried to stream radio or Spotify, the Wi-Fi died and had to be restarted."

Alistair was also using a TP-Link Archer C7 router. The company now says it has gotten to the bottom of the issue.

Key origin of the issue

"Following initial research and investigation, our engineering team is confident that they've determined one of the key origins of the issue," TP-Link said in an online support bulletin. "From what we have gathered so far, the issue appears to be related to some of the recent versions of Android OS and Google Apps."

According to the support team, devices running Android OS and Google Apps use the "Cast" feature to send regular signals to the router to maintain a live connection. Under normal operations these devices are supposed to send the signals about every 20 seconds.

However, TP-Link engineers say the devices will sometimes send out a massive number of signals in a much shorter time span. This typically happens when the device comes out of its sleep mode. The longer the device is asleep, the more signals it will try to send.

"This issue may eventually cause some of the router’s primary features to shut down – including wireless connectivity," the company said.

What to do

To correct the issue, consumers will need to reboot their devices to release the memory. The company also advises consumers to temporarily disable the "Cast" feature on Android devices until a software update is released.

Media reports indicate consumers are experiencing similar problems with other brand name routers, including those from ASUS, Linksys, Netgear, and Synology.

Meanwhile, 9To5Google.com reports a Google engineering team is at work to "quickly share a solution."

The GOP plan to trash net neutrality took a big step forward today as the Federal Communications Commission voted 2-1 along party lines to move ahead with chairman Ajit Pai's "Restoring Internet Freedom" proposal.

The lone Democrat on the commission, Mignon Clyburn, was heated in her opposition to the plan, as were protestors who braved 90-degree temperatures to demonstrate in front of the FCC's offices.

“While the majority engages in flowery rhetoric about light-touch regulation and so on, the endgame appears to be no-touch regulation and a wholescale destruction of the FCC’s public interest authority in the 21st century,” Clyburn said.

Today's vote is not final. There must now be a period of public input, but the outcome is pretty clear: Pai and GOP lawmakers are determined to get rid of the Obama Era regulations that treat broadband providers as utilities who must treat all traffic equally.

Competitors sidelined

Net neutrality advocates say that without the rule, big companies like AT&T and Verizon will be able to put their content on a fast track while sidelining the competition. Broadband providers say they have never done that and never will.

“Pai pretends to care about the open internet, but his unworkable proposal takes away the rights of internet users," said Craig Aaron, president of Free Press, an advocacy group that has bitterly opposed the rollback. 

“The chairman’s willingness to trot out alternative facts about broadband-industry investment and recycle long-debunked talking points should worry anyone who cares about the free and open internet," he said. "Pai’s intent is clear: to destroy the internet as we know it and give even more gatekeeper power to a few huge companies like AT&T, Comcast and Verizon."

Net neutrality supporters have vowed to use the public comment period to stir up more public opposition to Pai's plan. HBO comedian John Oliver has been doing just that the last few weeks. He has set up a website that makes it easy for consumers to submit their comments to the FCC.

The site is GoFCCYourself.com. 

Google built its empire around keywords and made much of its ability to sort through gazillions of files without any boring old human editors, but it's now discovering the importance of those pesky things called facts. 

The problem, as seen in the recent election campaign, is that just about anybody can write just about anything and, if it contains the right keywords in the right structure, earn a place in Google's search results and even in its Google News feed.

Embarrassed by the sheer tonnage of baloney in its feed, Google has rediscovered fact-checking and is now rolling out a Fact Check tag in Google News search results.

"When you conduct a search on Google that returns an authoritative result containing fact checks for one or more public claims, you will see that information clearly on the search results page," said Cong Yu, a Google research scientist and Justin Kosslyn, product manager at Jigsaw. "The snippet will display information on the claim, who made the claim, and the fact check of that particular claim."

Alternative facts?

Not every story will be fact-checked, and there may even be cases where there are what might be called "alternative facts" -- different stories reporting on a given topic or event from different points of view.

"There may be search result pages where different publishers checked the same claim and reached different conclusions. These fact checks are not Google’s and are presented so people can make more informed judgements," Yu and Kosslyn said in a joint blog posting.

Jigsaw helped Google develop a fact-check tagging system. More than 115 organizations participated.

Facts and "true facts"

One thing that often sets off consumers who are on the prowl for what they consider "biased" news is a public statement by, say, a political figure that cites supposed facts that may or may not be correct.

News organizations seldom have the time or resources to fact-check every statement that comes out of a politician's mouth but often consider they have done their job, at least for the moment, if they quote the statement accurately and attribute it to the person who made it.

For example, a news report might say: "The governor said that he had never met with the convicted contractor." Whether the governor is being truthful may not be determined until later, leaving the careful reader to hold their judgment in abeyance pending further investigations.

Google's new system enables publishers to fill out a form that basically says where they got and verified the information. This won't tell us whether the governor was lying, but it will at least make it possible to know that he made the statement in question. Sometimes that's as good as it gets. 

For around five years now, consumers have been able to start a YouTube channel and automatically enroll in the site’s partner program. Basically, it’s the avenue that content creators go down to monetize their videos by adding advertisements, paid subscriptions, and merchandise.

The wide availability of the program is at least partly responsible for YouTube’s success as the largest video platform, as consumers have flocked to the site to share their videos in the hopes of going viral. But now, it looks like that’s all about to change.

In an announcement made Thursday, YouTube stated that it will be imposing restrictions on its partner program. Going forward, video makers will have to accrue 10,000 lifetime views on their channel before they have the option to monetize their videos. YouTube said the change should help crack down on copycat creators – those who copy videos from other sources and put them on their channel – and ensure that advertisements don’t appear on questionable content.

“This new threshold gives us enough information to determine the validity of a channel. It also allows us to confirm if a channel is following our community guidelines and advertiser policies. By keeping the threshold to 10k views, we also ensure that there will be minimal impact on our aspiring creators. And, of course, any revenue earned on channels with under 10k views up until today will not be impacted,” the announcement reads.

Misplaced ads

The policy change couldn’t come any sooner for companies who advertise on the site. At the end of March, marketers in the UK were outraged that their advertisements were appearing on extremist videos. YouTube quickly apologized for the “number of cases where brands’ ads appeared on content that was not aligned with their values.”

In a company blog post, Google Chief Business Officer Philipp Schindler expressed regret over the misplaced ads. “We know that this is unacceptable to the advertisers and agencies who put their trust in us,” he said, adding that the companies would be working to take “a tougher stance on hateful, offensive and derogatory content.”

That very well may be what the new 10,000 view limit achieves. The new policy states that a review of a creator’s channel will be initiated after they hit the requisite number of lifetime views on their channel. If the content is original and doesn’t violate the rules, then the creator will be allowed to enroll in the partnership program.

However, if the channel blatantly copies content from other sources or is found to have activity that goes against the site’s policies (i.e. racist or derogatory videos) then the channel may be terminated. Users can check the community guidelines for more information here.

Are your cyber assets exposed? If so, you're not alone. A new study by Trend Micro finds that no fewer than 178 million internet-connected devices in the U.S. are exposed to hacking.

Very simply, an exposed cyber asset is a device like a router, webcam, or DVR that's connected to -- and visible on -- the public internet. Such devices can be used to spy on their owners and can often be taken over and used in cyberattacks on others.

The study looked at the ten largest U.S. cities and found that Los Angeles has the highest number of exposed assets, followed by Houston and Chicago.

Interestingly, the study said that the majority (79%) of exposed DVRs are in Chicago and more than three quarters (80%) of all exposed DVRs are made by TiVo.

Internet-connected cameras that are most exposed include home cameras made by D-Link and security cameras made by GeoVision and Avtech

What to do

The router is like the front door to your home's internet. If it is not secure, criminals can break into your local connection and potentially monitor your activities and even, in some cases, make off with your private data.

An unsecured router can also be turned into a "zombie," meaning that it can become part of a "botnet" (the cyber equivalent of those roving bands you see on The Walking Dead). While this may not affect you directly, it turns your home into a crime scene and makes you part of the global networks that support terrorism, child pornography, and identity theft.

The most basic security step is to never buy a used router. Second is to always change the password on any router you buy. The password you choose should be long (preferably 16 characters or so) and complex -- a combination of upper- and lower-case letters, numbers and symbols.

Write the password down, but don't leave it in plain view where visitors can see it. It's important to note here that we're not talking about the password you set up for wi-fi (which can be a little simpler if you wish) but rather the administrator password for the router. 

Thie third step is to buy a router that has an embedded security solution. Trend Micro notes that it has partnered with ASUS to pre-install a security layer on ASUS routers. Similar solutions are available from other vendors.

Trend Micro offers a free guide to securing your router. 

In recent years hackers have shifted their primary aim from individual consumers to large retailers and corporate networks because it offers more bang for the buck.

It's a good thing too, because most of us individual consumers are sitting ducks.

Make no mistake, hackers still launch attacks on individuals. It's one way they harness millions of individual zombie computers to carry out their various nefarious deeds. And Keeper Security, a cyber security firm, says consumers make it easy for them by using pathetically-easy passwords.

In its blog, the company said it reviewed the passwords that leaked to the internet from data breaches in 2016, looking for the year's most common passwords. Incredibly, it found nearly 17% of consumers are still using “123456” as a password. That was number one. Believe it or not, the eighth most-common password in 2016 was “password.”

Main takeaways

Keeper Security says the main takeaways from its analysis include the fact that the list of most-used passwords hasn't changed much over the years. In other words, we haven't gotten very creative.

“While it’s important for users to be aware of risks, a sizable minority are never going to take the time or effort to protect themselves,” the company writes. “IT administrators and website operators must do the job for them.”

Long passwords are best, but four of the top 10 passwords on Keeper Security's list, and seven of the top 15, are six characters or shorter. Those passwords are no match for hackers' state-of-the-art tools that can break those flimsy passwords in seconds.

Less random than you think

Some consumers may think they're well ahead of the hackers by using passwords like “1q2w3e4r.” When you look at the sequence of numbers and letters it may appear random, but it's not. If you'll glance at a qwerty keyboard, you'll quickly see the combination is assembled by moving diagonally to the right from the number row to the top letter row. It's little more inventive than “123456.”

The company says email providers should be doing a better job of using their services for spam delivery, and the way to do that is by enforcing tougher password rules.

“We can criticize all we want about the chronic failure of users to employ strong passwords. After all, it’s in the user’s best interests to do so,” the company writes. “But the bigger responsibility lies with website owners who fail to enforce the most basic password complexity policies. It isn’t hard to do, but the list makes it clear that many still don’t bother.”

Keeper Security said it had no trouble finding passwords published on the internet. It says there were at least 10 million of them, the result of 2016's data breaches.

As we have recently seen, everyday devices that connect to the internet – the so-called Internet of Things (IoT) -- are vulnerable to cyber-attack.

Last month, a hacker harnessed tens of millions of these devices to launch denial of service attacks that temporarily blocked access to major web destinations like Amazon, Netflix, and Twitter.

Apparently, it wasn't that hard to do. These devices, for the most part, are largely unprotected by security software. How many IoT devices are in your home? Probably a lot more than you think.

The IoT includes things like your router, your DVR, and your printers. But it might also include your refrigerator, smart lighting system, and your thermostat.

Invasion of the botnets

A clever hacker can easily penetrate these devices and insert a botnet, ready to take over the device and follow the hacker's orders. Botnets have taken over PCs for years, using them to send out spam emails. Now that they can seize millions of other devices, they are even more of a threat.

Security Intelligence, a cyber-security publiction, raised the IoT security issue two years ago. Back then, it pointed to several potential pitfalls.

First, with so many devices – and some estimates predict 30 billion connected devices by 2020 – it will be next to impossible keeping security on them up to date.

Because there will be so much data moving through the IoT, how do you tell the good data from the potentially harmful data? And with companies using proprietary implementations, it could make it harder to find hidden or unknown zero-day attacks.

What to do

While there are step consumers can take to make their IoT more secure, California Attorney General Kamala Harris says manufacturers of these devices have not done a good job of telling consumers how to do it. A first step, she says, is for consumers to change the default passwords for any and all devices that connect to the internet.

To do that, find the default login information in the user manual, or in some cases, on the device itself. If it isn't obvious, do an online search for “default router, DVR, or webcam username and password,” then check for the name and model of your device.

You then use the default log-in to access your account and change the password.

Ultimately, Harris says manufacturers need to do a better job of making their devices more secure to start with, and regularly updating their security protection.

Once upon a time – let's say five or 10 years ago – the average internet user could enjoy a wide range of free content on the internet in relative peace.

Suddenly, there are ads everywhere. Not unobtrusive display ads like you find in newspapers and magazines, but pop-ups that entirely obscure the page, and video ads that start playing as soon as you land on a page.

If you are trying to read an interesting article, sometimes it is next to impossible because you have to stop every few seconds to try to close an ad, or stop a video from playing.

Mark Havenner, a vice-president at The Pollack PR Marketing Group in Los Angeles, traces the escalation in annoyance to just two years ago.

“Pop-ups have been around forever and they've always been disruptive,” Havenner told ConsumerAffairs. “Online advertising has never really worked. We've seen data that suggests disruptive advertising has a negative effect.”

The Facebook factor

But around 2014, he says, Facebook began to score spectacular results with “native” advertising. Native advertising blends in with the content of the site you are on. If you are looking at your Facebook timeline, you get video ads mixed in with everything else. The difference is, the content of the ads matches things you are more or less interested in. It's more effective for the advertiser but less obtrusive for the reader.

Because Facebook has been so successful with that strategy, Havenner says nearly all advertisers are now trying to replicate it, even though it might not be practical for their kind of site.

“When you're on a news site, that's different than being on Facebook,” Havenner said. “On Facebook you're looking at content. On a news site, you're just reading articles, you're not actively looking for something like a video ad. But advertisers want to catch your attention, so they just start playing them.”

Not all internet advertising is as infuriating as the ads that interfere with how you are trying to use the web.

Hulu and YouTube play commercials within videos. Hula commercials come within the content, much like TV commercials would. YouTube plays commercials at the beginning of videos but most of the time you can skip out after a few seconds.

“That kind of advertising doesn't mess with people,” Havenner said.

Ad dollars moving online

Another part of the problem is that a huge transition has taken place in how people consume media. Television viewership is down, with most of those eyes moving to the internet. The advertising dollars have followed and web publications are fighting for them.

If you want to blame someone for the annoying state of the internet, Havenner suggests blaming the online publications that allow jarring and disruptive advertising. Because of it, he believes these publications are losing readers. If so, does that mean there's hope for the future?

“I suppose there is,” Havenner said. “If they start losing readership over it. They see the analytics and see that when that ad is displayed people left their site. So I would hope they would make changes.”

Havenner's advice to fed up consumers is to simply avoid going to sites with obtrusive ads. Eventually, he says, advertisers will get the message.

A century or two ago, grizzled High Plains drifters would claim to be the fastest gun in the West. That evolved into duck-tailed dragsters competing for the fastest 0-60 readings.

Now? It's Comcast vs. Verizon facing off for the title of "fastest Internet" in America. 

No, it's not quite as exciting, but there are big bucks and corporate egos at stake. So when Comcast runs ads claiming that its XFINITY service "delivers the fastest Internet in America," Verizon takes offense.

Not one to suffer in silence, Verizon took its complaint to the National Advertising Division, a self-regulatory body that polices ad claims. After surveying the situation, the NAD said Comcast should throw down its arms and be a bit more modest. 

Verizon wins

The problem, NAD said, is that Comcast's ads convey the impression that Comcast is faster than Verizon for all customers, regardless of where they live and what service tier they purchase.

"Given that user-selected data plans vary widely in download and upload speed capabilities, one reasonable consumer may take away from Comcast’s claim that 'XFINITY delivers the fastest Internet in America' is that in a head-to-head speed tier comparison XFINITY is fastest at any speed tier," the NAD writes.

In fact, Comcast's ad claims are based on crowdsourced data from Ookla's Speedtest.net, which said last year that XFINITY offered the fastest internet service. The NAD said the claims don't stand up to scrutiny.

"Ookla’s award is based on the fact that XFINITY delivers its fastest internet download speeds (the top 10%) to more consumers in America than other ISPs," the NAD found. "The fact that XFINITY delivers faster download speeds to more consumers may reflect the popularity of Comcast’s top speed tiers....Thus, the Speedtest results are not consumer relevant to which ISP delivers the fastest speeds in each tier of service and may only reflect the popularity of an ISP’s 'fastest' speeds."

Comcast wins

If this sounds about right to you, consider that last month, another watchdog -- the National Advertising Review Board -- sided with Comcast in a dispute over Verizon ads that bragged "FiOS Internet is Rated #1."

Verizon's claim was based on a PC Magazine customer satisfaction survey. The NARB ruled that surveys measuring customer satisfaction "should not be used to show objective superiority with respect to measurable performance."

The who's-on-first disputes basically illustrate the difficulty of deciding what is "best" in any field. What is best for most people is whatever works well for them at the time, considering cost, convenience, and other factors that differ with each person.

Sometimes it's pretty simple, though. News photographers, when asked what camera is best, invariably answer: "The one you have with you when you need it."

For hackers and cybercriminals, ransomware is literally money in the bank.

If a target clicks on a link in an email, designed to appear as though it is from a familiar source, the malware is unleashed on the victim's computer, encrypting every file.

The only way for the victim to regain access to these files – photos, documents, or multimedia files – is to pay the hacker a ransom in Bitcoin. The threat has grown exponentially, ensnaring individual consumers as well as businesses and organizations.

Researchers at the University of Florida (UF) now say they have developed a solution, a software tool that will stop ransomware in its tracks. They call it CryptoDrop. The researchers say it works in a very different way than antivirus software.

Limiting the damage

Instead of identifying the ransomware before it can download to a target computer, CryptoDrop springs into action a nanosecond after the process begins. As a result, only a tiny fraction of files get encrypted.

“Our system is more of an early-warning system,” said Nolen Scaife, a UF doctoral student and founding member of UF’s Florida Institute for Cybersecurity Research.

Scaife says CryptoDrop steps in to prevent the ransomware from completing its task. A victim might lose a few photographs, but that is the limit of the damage. There is no reason to pay a ransom.

The UF researchers say antivirus software has a hard time stopping ransomware because it needs to have seen the malware before in order to be effective. But hackers are constantly tweaking their ransomware bugs, making them unrecognizable.

CrytoDrop is like a security guard, always looking for signs of a ransomeware attack. When it sees the malware encrypt a file, it springs into action to stop the process from going further.

Instead of looking for a particular software profile, it is instead looking at what the software does. If hackers come up with a new malware every week, it won't matter.

Growing threat

In the last few years ransomware attacks have targeted hospitals and even police departments. In 2015 police in Tewksbury, Massachusetts, admitted that they'd had to pay an untraceable $500 Bitcoin ransom to the hackers who'd encrypted the department's computer files.

Also last year, a new form of ransomware emerged, in which hackers planted child pornography images on victims' phones until a ransom was paid.

It's gotten so bad that some companies now build ransoms into their operating budgets, expecting that sooner or later they'll have to pay up. The UF researchers, however, say that might not be necessary.

“We ran our detector against several hundred ransomware samples that were live and in those case it detected 100% of those malware samples and it did so after only a median of 10 files were encrypted,” Scaife said.

The research team says its prototype works with Windows-based systems and the researchers are now seeking a partner to put it on the market.

Value investor Warren Buffett is said to be among a group of investors making a bid to acquire the core assets of Yahoo, the moribund internet portal that has been slowly sinking into obscurity.

Press reports, citing unnamed sources, say that Buffett's Berkshire Hathaway has teamed with Quicken Loans founder Dan Gilbert and other investors to make the bid. AOL parent Verizon had been seen as the leading contender to acquire Yahoo's assets.

Buffett is not a fan of high-tech investments and generally sticks to bread-and-butter companies like railroads and food processors, although his group has become a leading investor in community newspapers. 

Yahoo and other websites are generally regarded as technology companies, as illustrated by the way their managers mangle their media components but underneath all the tech hype, a website like Yahoo is not fundamentally different from a TV network or newspaper.

All provide content that is primarily ad-supported but most tech ventures for some reason put editorial functions in the hands of engineers, often producing results that are similar to what would happen if newspapers turned over publishing duties to their pressmen.  

Content still king

Through his investments in community newspapers, Buffett has been seen as voting for the concept that content is king, especially in smaller communities where a local newspaper has a virtual monopoly on local content. 

Gilbert built Quicken Loans and went on to become a professional investor, taking chunks of numerous high-tech and traditional ventures. He also owns the Cleveland Cavaliers.

Verizon's interest in Yahoo is thought to center on the added heft it would bring to AOL, which has emerged as the cornerstone of Verizon's attempt to become a major content player. 

Others thought to be circling Yahoo include Bain Capital, Mitt Romney's former company, and other private equity firms. 

Yahoo once ruled the internet roost with an elaborate catalog of online resources but was displaced by Google's keyword-driven cataloging strategy. It has suffered through an endless series of CEOs, including the incumbent, Marissa Mayer, who left Google to attempt a Yahoo turnaround that most analysts agree has fallen flat.

When AT&T; bought DirecTV, it was seen as a rather traditional -- even backward -- move. After all, the common wisdom is that satellite TV is old hat, soon to be replaced by streaming TV.

Could be, but DirecTV has what in the retail world would be called inventory -- it has contracts with top content producers, everyone from ESPN to HBO, and AT&T; is now in the process of making much of that content availble as streaming video.

It will be making cable TV programming available without the cable or the satellite, much as Dish Network is doing with its Sling TV. It will also have a mobile version and a free, ad-supported version, the company said.

Few details

AT&T; announced its plans for the service earlier this week but released few pricing or content details. That's because it is still renegotiating its contracts with the program producers, some of whom may not be too eager to see their shows streaming on the Internet. 

Cable companies aren't thrilled with the prospect either. As we reported last week, the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) is investigating whether cable companies are putting pressure on program producers to keep their shows off the Internet.

It's not pretty to watch but the cable and TV businesses as we know them are starting to crumble. Consumers are fed up with constantly rising cable rates, ridiculously dated proprietary set-top boxes and other absurdities of the now-fading cable monopoly era. 

Streaming pioneers like Netflix have a head start, but AT&T; and other big players bring a lot of heft to the game. AT&T; not only owns DirecTV but also has its own cable networks, as do Verizon, Comcast, and other big telecom and cable players. They may not be consumers' favorites, but they wield a lot of negotiating power with program providers.

Separately, AT&T; has said it is working on a system that will let advertisers buy ads through a digital interface similar to that used by advertisers who buy those ubiquitous Google ads. That system could presumably be used to buy ads on the streaming video channels as well.

Anyway you look at it, this is an adventure series that will last a lot longer than 13 weeks. Stay tuned.

A long era of uncertainty over the future of Internet taxes may be coming to a close. With a 75-20 vote in the Senate today, Congress passed the Permanent Internet Tax Freedom Act (PITFA), which bans taxing Internet access.

Summed up by Congress, the act “amends the Internet Tax Freedom Act to make permanent the ban on state and local taxation of Internet access and on multiple or discriminatory taxes on electronic commerce.”

While billed as a pro-consumer measure, the measure was supported most fervently by the cable and telecommunications industries.

"We applaud the Senate on today’s passage of the Permanent Internet Tax Freedom Act (ITFA)," said Michael Powell, president of the National Cable & Telecommunications Association, the cable industry's trade association. "Internet access is more than a convenience, it’s critical to the daily lives of Americans."

"By keeping Internet access free from state and local taxes, ITFA will permanently keep down the cost of connectivity, enable more American consumers and businesses to get online and allow the Internet to further power economic growth. We urge President Obama to sign this important legislation to make ITFA permanent once and for all,” said Powell. 

Permanent tax ban

PIFTA makes permanent the Internet Tax Freedom Act (ITFA), which was first passed in 1998. It placed a temporary ban, or moratorium, on taxing Internet access. 

The key word here is “temporary.” ITFA was never made permanent, even though it received bipartisan support. Some senators consistently prevented the tax ban from being made permanent. Sen. Dick Durbin (D-Ill.), for one, wanted to make passage of PITFA contingent on passage of another piece of legislation called the Marketplace Fairness Act (MFA), which stipulates that consumers must pay sales tax on online purchases.

After being promised a vote on a new MFA in 2017, Durbin finally relented and agreed to the bill’s passing, ending 17 years of annual ITFA extensions. 

The bill now awaits the signature of President Barack Obama. Whether he intends to sign it is unknown. If he does, states who have taxes in place for Internet access will need to cease collections by 2020.

A coalition of consumer groups wants the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) to keep broadband providers from serving targeted ads to subscribers.

It's part of a growing wave of resistance to marketers tracking consumers and serving ads that match the profiles that are built from such tracking. On another front, Internet pioneer Brendan Eich is launching a new browser, Brave, that blocks targeted ads and inserts more general advertising.

While websites themselves are beyond the reach of the FCC, broadband providers including telephone and wireless companies and satellite TV providers are not. and the groups say the FCC should crack down on them.

"Providers of broadband Internet access service ... have a unique role in the online ecosystem," the organizations say in a letter to FCC Chairman Tom Wheeler. "Their position as Internet gatekeepers gives them a comprehensive view of consumer behavior and until now privacy protections for consumers using those services have been unclear."

The 59 organizations signing the letter include the Consumer Federation of America, Electronic Frontier Foundation, and Free Press. The Electronic Privacy Information Center submitted a more detailed letter.

"Chilling effect

They are asking the FCC to adopt rules that would prohibit broadband providers from collecting and sharing data about consumers without their explicit consent. The watchdogs also say the FCC should require providers to notify consumers about data breaches, and should require providers to "clearly disclose" data collection practices.

The groups also say the prospect of online surveillance "can create a chilling effect on speech and increase the potential for discriminatory practices derived from data use."

Wheeler has said he intends to propose new privacy rules, something the FCC is able to do because of its recent decision to reclassify Internet service providers as common carriers. That move subjected broadband providers to some of the same confidentiality requirements rules as telephone companies.

The commission currently advises broadband providers to follow the “core tenets of basic privacy protections” but has not yet enacted specific privacy regulations.

"The capital asset of the 21st century is information, and it ends up being information about you and me," Wheeler told talk show host Charlie Rose last November. "You and I ought to have a voice in the collection of information about us. Nothing about me without me, is what the expression is."

The post-millennial generation Z, recently dubbed the “Founders,” has never known a world without smartphones. Many parents of teens can attest to the fact that their children are constantly tethered to their phones, or more specifically, to the social media outlets within them. The word “addiction” comes to mind, but are teens actually addicted to social media?

The term “social media addiction” is tossed around frequently, but Mark Fabbri, Director of the Psychology degree program at South University, cautions against using the term “addiction.”

“Addiction is a word that should not be used lightly to describe a set of behaviors,” he said, adding that the word should only be used in relation to a compulsion to consume something or engage in a set of behaviors to the point that it significantly interferes with the person’s life.

Does it exist?

In contrast, however, are those who believe social media addiction does exist. Neil Vidyarthi, managing editor of Social Times, says he personally believes social media can be addictive, using Facebook as an example.

“There’s a voyeuristic tendency none of us realized would be so high,” says Vidyarthi. “That’s why there are 500 million users spying on one another. We’re all interested in what others are doing.”

And the ability to “spy” seems to be of particularly high value to the Founders generation. This is the first generation that has been able to assuage their teenage insecurities and gain validation through the use of social media.

Peer affirmation

Clinical psychologist Marion Underwood believes teens are addicted to the peer connection and affirmation they’re able to get through social media.

“To know what each other are doing, where they stand, to know how many people like what they posted, to know how many people followed them today and unfollowed them,” said Underwood, “That I think is highly addictive.”

In the CNN Special Report, “#Being 13,” a group of teens offers up glimpses into their social media-addled minds. Thirteen-year old Gia said, "I would rather not eat for a week than get my phone taken away. It's really bad. I literally feel like I'm going to die.”

Quotes like these certainly lend credence to the assertion that social media addiction is becoming — as the kids say — “a thing.”

Addiction vs. Overuse

Still, Fabbri cautions that there is a big difference between addiction and overuse of social media. “Any action can become addictive if it has a negative, significant impact on a person’s life, but I would caution using the term addiction outside its intended definition," says Fabbri. "A person can spend too much time in social networks but still are able to function adequately in life.”

Adam Singer, social media practice director for LEWIS PR points out that it may just be that social media channels are becoming the predominant form of communication, especially amongst younger generations.

“When the phone was the predominant form of communication, did we say that teens had phone addiction? Probably not,” he says. “This is just the normal mode of communication for them.”

My internist is the ultimate geek. He has been lugging a MacBook from one exam room to another for years and is a pioneer at integrating software into every aspect of his medical practice.

So when I started a small community news site and offered him free ads for a year, he excitedly accepted. I designed and posted the ads but was puzzled when he didn't mention them on my next visit, even though he talked about other aspects of the site.

One day, he brought the site up on his laptop as we were discussing it and I realized why he hadn't seen his free ads: he was running an ad blocker. I said nothing but wondered how he would like it if I started running a payment blocker, something that would magically stop him from being paid for our visits. After all, how much does it take to give somebody a flu shot and lecture them about cigars?

This, on a much larger scale, is the dilemma now facing websites and their readers and advertisers. Websites, especially those that provide news and other content that is expensive to produce, need revenue. But readers are becoming fed up with the sheer number of ads and the obtrusive and noisy nature of many of them and are fighting back with ad blockers.

Survival threat -- or payback?

For sites already struggling to keep the lights on, this represents a real threat to their survival. But critics say sites have brought this on themselves by flooding their pages with huge pop-ups, auto-play videos and those follow-you-everywhere ads based on what Big Data thinks you're interested in.

Some sites are fighting back, installing software that blocks ad-block users. Others are putting together public relations and, yes, ad campaigns urging consumers to be a little more ad-receptive.

Ad-blocking is all anybody in the ad business is talking about these days. Last week, just in case you missed it, was Advertising Week, when the ad biz celebrates itself. But last week's conferences weren't quite as buoyant as usual, as advertisers and their agencies contemplated the prospect of consumers shutting them out.

Ideas bounced around just the way they do in the brain-storming sessions that produce the ads that fill our lives. Cries of, "better creative," "tighter targeting," and "ads people love" filled the air.

But AOL CEO Tim Armstrong shot down some of the more exuberant cries, berating his fellow media and ad execs for discussing the issue without any consumers in the room.

"Everyone is spending all their time talking about ad blocking right now," he said, AdAge reported. "Everyone should be spending all of their time talking about why consumers feel the need to block ads. ... Few things are more annoying than pop-ups on mobile."

Fox Networks Group President of Ad Sales Toby Byrne agreed and said publishers, marketers, and agencies should work to provide a "better ad experience."

Newspapers grouse

Newspapers, which used to complain constantly about such things as the cost of newsprint, now grouse bitterly about ad blockers, denouncing them as just another form of theft. This ignores the sad fact that many newspaper sites are so packed with ads and subscription come-ons that news-hungry readers are being driven away -- to Business Insider, the Huffington Post, Buzzfeed, and so forth.

Being a lifelong content producer, as we're now called, I have always eschewed ad blockers, regarding them basically as akin to stealing candy from babies. But duty calls, so a little while ago, I loaded a Google Chrome extension called AdBlock.

I hate to say this, but I should have done it years ago. Part of my daily drill involves looking at major newspaper sites, something that over the last few years has come to rival a dental visit. But today I whipped through five or six of the usual suspects in record time, even managing to look at a couple of Tribune and Gannett newspapers which have up until now been completely barricaded behind full-screen ad blitzes.

Not only are there fewer ads to sit through, the pages actually load like lightning, making it possible to see if there's anything worth reading before it makes the transition from news to history.

There's a lot more to this argument, and the giants of the Information Age are trying to figure out which side they're on. Consumers should do the same. Anyone who regularly reads, uses, or otherwise benefits from a site should be willing to look at a few ads or pay a few dollars.

But the reality is that, thanks to ad blockers, no one needs to voluntarily submit to a daily blizzard of ads that obscure the content and render the whole experience an exercise in frustration. It's up to publishers, advertisers, and marketers to figure out how to put out an appealing and profitable product.

Build it, as they old saying has it, and they will come.

AOL has come a long way from the 1990s, when it was little more than a dial-up Internet service. Then it subsisted largely on the $30 monthly subscriptions it got from flooding the country with direct-mail sign-up offers on CDs.

Now AOL has a stable that includes the Huffington Post and engadget and boasts that it is an advertising-driven content-producing Master of the Universe. Its recent acquisition by Verizon for $4.4 billion removed any remaining doubts about its stature and viability. And last week's deal in which it took over ad sales for all Microsoft products further established its credentials as a major player in online advertising.

So why is this globe-girdling colossus still charging seniors and the non-tech-savvy $30 a month or more for a service they most likely don't use and often don't even know they have -- charges that many unwary consumers have been paying for more than a decade? And why does it make it so infernally difficult to cancel that many subscribers simply give up in despair?

Good questions. Verizon did not respond to requests for comment on whether it intends to assume any responsibility for AOL's conduct. 

No escape, no mercy

You would think that, by now, AOL would have finally grown up and released its remaining hostages but everyday we hear from people like Shari, who runs a small computer repair shop in Hercules, California.

“We have a customer who is an elderly woman of 80 years old who has been paying $29.99 a month for I do not know how long.  Her card recently expired and it’s the one that AOL has been billing.  Jackpot! They cannot bill her anymore,” Shari said. “However, they are now threatening to send her account to collections.”

Shari told her customer that AOL now has a free email service and persuaded her to make the switch. Solution? Not quite.

“I am trying to get into her account to change it from the $29 plan to the $0 plan but we are having trouble resetting her password because the only option they give is to send a text message to her cell phone and she does not have texting capabilities. They sure do make it hard," Shari said. “I want to help her with both changing the plan so its free and also get this collection situation taken care of so she is not pestered by these crooks.”

"They make it impossible"

Strong language? Maybe so, but not unusual. Complaints like these have been around forever and continue pouring into our database from customers all over the country.

Listen to Lou of Bakersfield: “This company should be ashamed of themselves. They make it impossible to cancel an account. I would think there is legal protection against making it impossible to cancel a recurring charge. But that is what I am finding after spending hours -- yes, hours -- trying to simply cancel an account.”

Even those who succeed in switching to a “free” account often find out it’s not so free after all. That’s what happened to Donald of San Ramon, Calif.

“Had free AOL and they billed me $234.00 for this year. Called them direct and they put me on hold for 42 minutes. Called them a second time and was put on hold for 71 minutes. I finally hung up without talking to anyone. The worst customer service I have ever received.”

Lori of Philadelphia doesn’t yet know how much AOL has billed her but she knows it’s a lot.

“Way back during the dial-up era, we had an AOL account that we used primarily for a business we had. The economy tanked, as everyone knows and 8-10 years ago, I called and canceled the account. Or so I thought. … I never really questioned it until the bank statement came today with a charge of $38.99 for AOL Service.”

Lori got on the phone and, when she finally got through to someone, she was told that it was her fault for not looking more closely at her credit card statements and she would be responsible for all the past charges -- an amount that could easily be $4,678, assuming a monthly charge of #38.99 for 10 years.

“I have spent my entire adult life either in sales or customer service and have NEVER dealt with such blatant thievery hiding behind incompetence,” Lori said.

Stealth retention programs

None of this is really very surprising. It has been going on since AOL was mailing out those CDs. Way back in 2005, AOL signed a settlement with then-New York Attorney General Eliot Spitzer, agreeing to reform its customer service procedures and make it easier for customers to cancel.

"This agreement helps ensure that AOL will strive to keep its customers through quality service, not stealth retention programs," Spitzer said.

In 2007, AOL paid $3 million in an agreement with 48 states and the District of Columbia and promised to make it easier to cancel and collect refunds.  

In 2011, a ConsumerAffairs story took note of continuing complaints about AOL’s cancellation procedures. “I have tried to cancel my AOL account for over five years,” Thomas, of Grand Terrace, Calif., said. “I set it up years ago and never used it. I don't even own a computer any more.”

Thomas said he has called AOL “for years” without result.

What to do?

So is there anything consumers can do to reliably and permanently cancel their AOL service?

Perhaps the easiest solution is to send a certified, return-receipt-requested letter to AOL's headquarters:

AOL 
770 Broadway
New York, NY 10003 

The letter should simply say something along these lines:

Dear AOL

I hereby cancel my account provided under the user name [user name] and revoke any existing authorization to draft my credit card, debit card, PayPal account, checking account or any other financial account you may have accessed.

I further request a full refund of all payments from [date] until the present time.

Very truly yours

etc., etc.

There is no guarantee that this will work, but it doesn't cost much to try.

What else?

If nothing else works, you can always file a complaint with your state's attorney general. Just search for [Your State] Attorney General. They all have online complaint forms.

You can also complain to the Federal Trade Commission and the Federal Communications Commission. The links will take you to their complaint pages.

You can even write your Congressional representatives. Not nearly enough people do this and those who do are often surprised by the quick response they receive. Every Member of Congress has a staff that is dedicated to handling inquiries, complaints and requests from constituents. You're paying their salary, so let them hear from you.

Both the House and Senate have pages that will help you find the right person. 

Verizon is buying AOL for an estimated $4.4 billion, saying the purchase will help its efforts to "drive growth in video and digital platforms," subject to the usual regulatory approvals. AOL owns major content brands including The Huffington Post, TechCrunch, Engadget, MAKERS and AOL.com.

“Verizon’s vision is to provide customers with a premium digital experience based on a global multiscreen network platform," said Lowell McAdam, Verizon chairman and CEO. "This acquisition supports our strategy to provide a cross-screen connection for consumers, creators and advertisers to deliver that premium customer experience.”

AOL still makes much of its money by billing customers for dial-up servicers many consumers don't even know they still have. Others think the monthly charge is for AOL email, which is actually free. Those who discover the charges often have a difficult time trying to cancel.

A 2013 class action lawsuit accused AOL of ripping off non-tech-savvy seniors, citing the case of Harvey Dunn, then 76. He was still paying AOL for outmoded dial-up service, which he was no longer using since he had become a Time Warner client.

When Dunn saw the monthly $17.95 charges on his credit card bill, he didn't realize that AOL was charging him for content and email services it gave away free to others. 

Nearly obsolete

"AOL is well aware that the vast majority of its paying customers are not using its nearly obsolete 'dial-up' services, and misunderstand what they are paying for," the complaint stated. "AOL's technology allows it to easily tell which of its paying customers are using AOL's dial-up ISP services. AOL knows that plaintiff, and millions of other consumers have absolutely no use for their paid accounts, or AOL dial-up service they do not need and are not using."

It was recently estimated that 2.6 million Americans were still paying AOL for dial-up service. The company was something of a pioneer, introducing an easy-to-use Internet dial-up service in the 1990s. Its attempts to become an advertising-supported content provider have returned spotty results, apparently making AOL reluctant to turn its back on all those widows and orphans sending in their $20 or $30 each month.

If anyone thinks Verizon will be quick to release customers still stuck with its outmoded dial-up, McAdam's press release listed AOL's "subscription business" as among its "key assets."

Verizon says the acquisition will help drive its LTE wireless video and OTT (over-the-top video) strategy. The agreement will also support and connect to Verizon’s IoT (Internet of Things) platforms, creating a growth platform from wireless to IoT for consumers and businesses, the company said.

How often does this happen to you -- you type a search query into your smartphone, click on the first link and find yourself at a site that looks like a schematic of an anthill? You know -- tiny letters, paragraphs that run off the page, photos the size of a deer tick. 

It happens to everyone. A lot. And the reason is that way too many sites that rank highly on Google have for whatever reason not bothered to make their sites "mobile-friendly" -- a phrase that simply refers to having a separate format that automatically displays to users who are using a phone or small tablet.

It's hardly a secret that mobile devices are steadily replacing desktop and laptop computers, after all. You may not be aware of it but your browser communicates with every site you visit, passing along information about your operating system, browser and device, among many other things, so it's not as though the world's webmasters don't have access to the information.

Currently, it's reported that 29% -- nearly one-third -- of Google's search queries come from smartphones and tablets and the number is growing fast.

Why would a site not want to accommodate those visitors by presenting a layout that's easy to read and understand? Good question. While it's obviously a no-brainer for retail sites, the simple truth is that consumers aren't just using their phones and tablets when they're out and about, perhaps looking to duck in somewhere and buy something. They're using them at home, at work and at school as well. It's no longer unusual to watch television with one eye while nosing around on an iPhone with the other, so every kind of site needs to make itself mobile-friendly.

If you've muttered to yourself that someone should do something about this little annoyance, rest assured. Someone is and that someone is Google, a name that gets attention from web publishers everywhere.

Web aflutter

The web is all aflutter today because come April 21, Google will be making a major modification to its search algorithm. This is something that happens every now and then and is greeted with the awe and trepidation usually reserved for the unveiling of a new Apple product.

Earlier Google algorithm changes have resulted in many previously successful sites being shoved off the edge of the earth. Companies large and small have literally gone out of business in some extreme cases when they were banished from the first few pages of search results. 

Major changes over the past few years have been aimed at eradicating sites that trafficked in stolen content or played games with keywords, hoping to lure visitors who were looking for topic Y only to find a site that instead specialized in topic X. Or even XXX.

The change now pending could be even more far-reaching. It is intended to recognize -- and reward -- sites that are optimized for mobile users. In other words, if your site looks good on an iPhone or other mobile device, it will be more likely to rank highly in Google's index. If not, well ... you can always get a job driving for Uber.

Google takes heat for some of its ventures but no one can say it doesn't try to stay ahead of trends on the web. While those who lose out in the algorithm upgrades are understandably critical, there's general agreement among experts that Google does its best to deliver honest, useful results and that its algorithm adjustments are made with the consumer's best interests in mind.

So the results come April 21 should be mostly good for consumers, even though they're likely to take a big bite out of the traffic totals for many sites that have failed to look out for mobile users.

Smaller sites

For smaller sites that use WordPress and other popular content management tools, it's not that hard to get into the mobile era, experts assure us. To test this theory, I went to one of the small community sites I manage and ran Google's mobile test and found my site did about as well as I did the summer I took intensive Russian. Flunked, in other words.

Ah, but salvation sometimes is easy for little guys. I loaded a small plug-in (free, open source) called WPtouch Mobile, activated it and ran the test again, with much better results. If you have a small site, you should do the same. If your site is built in what webmasters call "flat HTML," you may have to do a little more work but it's not all that difficult. Easy-to-use programs are available from comanies like CoffeeCup. That's the good news. 

233 big bad sites

The bad news is that for a large site, becoming mobile-friendly is no simple task. You could just as easily invent a new and improved version of the aardvark as totally rework a site that sprawls over thousands and thousands of pages and has all kinds of complex interactive elements.

Big sites that have retooled for mobile users have spent months and hundreds of thousands of dollars, if not more, trying to prepare for April 21, a date that is now circled in very thick red ink on web developers' calendars.

Not all big sites are going to make the deadline, however. Some are working feverishly but others appear to be asleep at the switch, a ConsumerAffairs survey found.  

We looked at the top 1500 sites, as determined by Quantcast, and found that fully 233 did not pass. Among the flunk-outs were 8 sites in the top 100, including MSN.com.

Perhaps because they are not as plugged into audience statistics and generally don't sell advertising, .org sites seemed to be over-represented in the no-pass list, including PBS.org and ConsumerReports.org. 

But other no-shows were a bit more puzzling. They included RollingStone.com, which has recently flunked a couple of other tests we could mention. (At the last minute, RollingStone completed an upgrade and now passes Google's test). 

And then there are the .gov sites. Flunk-outs include irs.gov, weather.gov, nih.gov and senate.gov. It's perhaps not a surprise that many of them didn't make the grade. Given the speed at which government moves, it may very well be that efforts to upgrade mobile readability are just about to get started after a few more studies and may even begin to show results in a few more fiscal years, which would probably be considered -- as the old saying has it -- good enough for government work. 

What about the states? Same story: va.gov and wa.gov lead the no-shows with many trailing behind.

So what?

What does this mean to Joe and Jill Consumer? Maybe not much in the abstract but in terms of the Google searches we all rely on for day-to-day tasks, it may very well mean that some familiar sites no longer pop up where we expect them. The next logical conclusion is that some sites we may not know about will get their chance to rise to the top and may turn out to be not only more user-friendly but much more useful all around.

After all, a site that pays attention to its technology to make sure it delivers the most useful possible product to its visitors probably pays attention to the other parts of its business as well.  

Those who criticize Google for gobbling up so much of the known universe may want to pause and be thankful that, unlike other companies that grab a big share of the market, it at least keeps stirring the barrel, keeping things frothy and fresh rather than stable and stale.

Despite the discomfort it causes webmasters, it should make life easier for consumers. 

The operator of an alleged “revenge porn” website has been banned from sharing nude videos or photographs of people without their consent and will have to destroy the intimate images and personal contact information he collected while operating the site.

The Federal Trade Commission’s complaint against Craig Brittain alleges that he used deception to acquire and post intimate images of women, then referred them to another website he controlled, where the women were told they could have the pictures removed only if they paid hundreds of dollars.

“This behavior is not only illegal but reprehensible,” said Jessica Rich, director of the FTC’s Bureau of Consumer Protection. “I am pleased that as a result of this settlement, the illegally collected images and information will be deleted, and this individual can never return to the so-called ‘revenge porn’ business.”

According to the FTC’s complaint, Brittain acquired the images in a number of ways, such as by posing as a woman on the advertising site Craigslist, and offering nude photos purportedly of himself in exchange for photos provided by women. When women provided him with the photos, Brittain posted them on his site without their knowledge or permission.

In addition to collecting and posting the images himself, Brittain solicited viewers of his site to anonymously submit nude photos of people to his site, according to the complaint. He required submissions to include sensitive personal information about the people in the photos, including their full name, town and state, phone number and Facebook profile.

Bounty system

Brittain also allegedly offered a “bounty system” on his site, wherein users could offer a reward of at least $100 in exchange for other users finding pictures and information about a specific person. Overall, Brittain’s site included photos of more than 1,000 individuals, according to the complaint.

Brittain’s site also advertised content removal services under the name “Takedown Hammer” and “Takedown Lawyer” that could delete consumers’ images and content from the site in exchange for a payment of $200 to $500. Despite presenting these as third-party services, the complaint alleges that the sites for these services were owned and operated by Brittain.

We've all read a lot of stories about attorneys general suing big Internet companies but when's the last time you read a story about a big Internet company suing an attorney general?

It's odd but that's what's happened in the ongoing scuffle between Google and the attorney general of Mississippi, Jim Hood (no relation to the author of this story).

Hood has been a leading critic of Google and, along with AGs from other states, has persuaded Google to block at least some search queries for child porn and to stop carrying ads for illegal drugs. But Hood says more needs to be done and he and 23 other AGs have written letters over the last year requesting meetings with Google. Stymied by a lack of positive response, Hood issued a 96-page subpoena asking Google to produce various documents.

Google did produce some documents, although Hood says they were so jumbled as to be useless, but it also filed suit against Hood in a Mississippi federal court accusing him of conspiring with the movie industry.

Cloak-and-dagger

How, you might ask, do movies come into it? Well, Google contends that powerful movie industry lobbyists have been using Hood to bring pressure on Google to make it harder for consumers to find pirated movies and other contraband on the Web.

Hood was supposedly being influenced by a former Mississippi attorney general who is now a lobbyist for the Motion Picture Association of America (MPAA), according to a recent report in The New York Times. 

But Hood says he was merely trying to protect consumers in his state from child sex trafficking, illicit drug use and other evils, and says Google is using the recent Sony hacking scandal to draw an overblown picture of influence-peddling in the entertainment business.

"Feeling emboldened with its billions of dollars, media prowess and political power, some of [Google's] more excitable people have sued trying to stop the State of Mississippi for daring to ask some questions," Hood said in a prepared statement. "We expect more from one of the wealthiest corporations in the world."

Besides its allegations of cloak-and-dagger activities, Google argues in the suit that Mississippi and other states do not have jurisdiction over the Internet. Hood says he and the other AGs are simply trying to enforce their states' consumer protection laws.

Hood has now called a "time-out," saying he hopes that cooler heads prevail. But whether Google will withdraw the suit remains a question. 

Time to update your Adobe Flash Player, right now: Adobe has issued new patches, the second this month, to fix critical security errors in Flash for Windows, Mac and Linux. This patch is being released outside of Adobe's usual security update cycle, since the previous patch didn't quite fix the problem — or, rather, since hackers were able to quickly develop new ways to work around the patch.

Sophos' Naked Security blog referred to this latest security patch update as a “booster dose” for the previous one. Sophos also went so far as to advise its readers to “Try uninstalling Flash to see if you can live without it. As this incident reveals, Flash is popular with crooks, who put plenty of effort into working out how to exploit it.”

But if you keep Flash installed, try changing your browser settings to require the “click-to-play” or “Ask-to-activate” option, which requires your permission every time before Flash runs on your computer.

And definitely check to make sure you get this patch, although most Adobe users have Flash set to update automatically.

Bad news for bloggers as well as their readers: IT researchers in Finland recently discovered a four-year-old comment security bug estimated to affect up to 86 percent of all current WordPress sites.

Finnish IT firm Klikki Oy announced on its own blog that it

has located a critical security vulnerability in WordPress. The problem affects version 3 of the blogging and content management system. According to WordPress's statistics as of November 20, about 86% of all WordPress sites used a vulnerable version. At the time of reporting (September 2014), the percentage was about 90%. In order to exploit the vulnerability, the attacker needs a text entry field such as the comment form which is enabled by default.

WordPress 3 was first introduced in 2010; according to Klikki Oy, the security bug has been present all that time.

By the way, while WordPress was created as a blogging platform -- you know, for people who work at home in their pajamas -- it has since become by far the most widely used content management system anywhere. It users include CNN, eBay, the Guardian and just about everyone else, so don't assume you never visit WordPress sites.

What it means

As a practical matter, what does this mean for blog readers or producers? Blogs that don't allow comments – those with no text entry fields, in other words – basically have nothing to worry about, even if they use WordPress 3. Klikki Oy clarifies that, “The exploit requires a text entry field. A site using a vulnerable version isn't always exploitable.”

As for those blogs which are vulnerable … that's a different matter. If your WordPress 3 blog (or even a blog you occasionally visit and read, whether you leave comments or not) allows the posting of comments without requiring authentication, then a hacker can post a comment containing malicious code targeting any site visitors or administrators.

Klikki Oy was also able to use the exploit to successfully hijack a WordPress site administrator's session – a hacker could then have used that ability to lock the administrator out of his own site, and use it for malicious purposes of his own.

Blogs powered by WordPress version 4.0, released in September, are not vulnerable to this comment bug. However, late last week WordPress released a security update for 4.0, to fix some unrelated cross-site scripting problems.

Starting next month, Mozilla and Yahoo will both be implementing some changes to their respective business models: Mozilla will abandon Google in favor of making Yahoo the default search engine on its Firefox browser, and Yahoo will start honoring some of its customers' Do Not Track requests for a change.

Mozilla first made this announcement in a Nov. 19 post on the Mozilla Blog, noting that “Search is a core part of the online experience for everyone — Firefox users alone search the Web more than 100 billion times per year. … Google has been the Firefox global search default since 2004. Our agreement came up for renewal this year, and we took this as an opportunity to review our competitive strategy and explore our options.”

For now, any Firefox browser comes equipped with a Google search window (usually in the upper-right corner of the toolbar). Of course, any Firefox user is free to that setting, so that the search window instead goes to Bing, DuckDuckGo, or other options. Starting sometime in December, the default will change from Google to Yahoo Search, powered by Bing – though, again, Firefox users will have the option to change those default settings if they wish.

Mozilla added that “Under this partnership, Yahoo will also support Do Not Track (DNT) in Firefox.”

That is a significant change from Yahoo's previous policy. Last April, Yahoo made a point of announcing that it wouldn't even allow Do Not Track requests to be made — which, arguably, was a better (or at least more honest) policy than what it had before: allowing Do Not Track requests, then ignoring them.

Not that Yahoo was or is unique in that regard: most browsers that accept “Do Not Track” requests tend to ignore them. Google Chrome's Do Not Track Page, last updated in October 2012, says this:

Does Chrome provide details of which websites and web services respect Do Not Track requests and how they interpret them?

No. At this time, most web services, including Google's, do not alter their behavior or change their services upon receiving Do Not Track requests.

"Personalized experience"

So in April, when the “Yahoo Privacy Team” updated Yahoo's policy blog, it boasted about making “a personalized experience” for users: “As of today, web browser Do Not Track settings will no longer be enabled on Yahoo. As the first major tech company to implement Do Not Track, we’ve been at the heart of conversations surrounding how to develop the most user-friendly standard. However, we have yet to see a single standard emerge that is effective, easy to use and has been adopted by the broader tech industry. … The privacy of our users is and will continue to be a top priority for us.”

So what happened to change Yahoo's mind about Do Not Track since then? The Do Not Track initiative thus far has (unsurprisingly) proven spectacularly unpopular with advertisers, presumably because they figure that the more data they have on you, the greater their chances of making money thereby.

Last June, an ad-industry trade group called the Digital Advertising Alliance urged a web-standards group to abandon their Do Not Track efforts, for fear that ordinary web users like you and me might be tricked into inadvertently having our online activities not-tracked when we'd actually prefer everything we do be tracked non-stop, or something:

Microsoft, for one, now turns on the do-not-track signal automatically for some Internet Explorer users.

The ad industry says that do-not-track signals set by default don't reflect a user's preference to avoid tracking across Web sites. But the industry also says there's no good way to distinguish between a signal set by a user and one set by a developer.

So, as of last summer, Microsoft's policy set it apart from such companies as Google and Yahoo: they wouldn't honor Do Not Track requests even when they received them, whereas Microsoft made Do Not Track a default setting.

Fast-forward to this month and Mozilla's upcoming changes to its Firefox browser: the Yahoo Search function coming to Firefox is powered by Microsoft Bing. Will Yahoo henceforth honor Do Not Track thanks to a newfound appreciation for user privacy, because they can't avoid it with Microsoft, or for some other reason?

She's inspired

Yahoo CEO Marissa Meyer didn't say one way or other, in her blog post trumpeting the new arrangement between Yahoo and Mozilla, Meyer made no mention of privacy or Do Not Track, but discussed how the new arrangement was sure to be wonderful for Mozilla, Yahoo and all customers thereof, and added:

Our teams worked closely with Mozilla to build a clean, modern, and immersive search experience that will launch first to Firefox’s U.S. users in December and then to all Yahoo users in early 2015. The interactive and integrated experience also better leverages our world-class content and personalization technologies.

Search inspires us because we think it’s something that will change and improve dramatically, and because fundamentally, search is about human curiosity — and that is something that will never be finished.

When 2015 arrives in a few weeks millions of Americans will resolve to lose weight. What will be their first step in planning a strategy?

For many it will be sitting down at their computer and using a search engine to find the best weight loss programs. But it may surprise them to learn that to get the best advice, they need to go beyond the first few results that pop up.

A study appearing in the American Journal of Public Health shows that when using a common search engine like Google, the first page of results on the subject of diet and exercise is likely to display what the authors call “less reliable sites,” instead of more comprehensive one. Further, the results may contain sponsored content that makes unrealistic weight loss promises.

The research started from a personal observation. François Modave, chair of the Department of Computer Science at Jackson State University, led the study after hearing friends and family spout information they got from the Internet – information he knew to be hokum.

It didn't take long to put 2 and 2 together, since he knew the first links that appear in an Internet search, no matter what the topic, get nearly 90% of all clicks.

Putting it to the test

We decided to put Modave's observation to the test. Using Google, we entered “weight loss programs” in the search field.

The first three results were clearly marked as advertisements. The first non-sponsored link was for Dr. Oz's 2-Week Rapid Weight-Loss Plan Instructions, perhaps not the most authoritative source. Next was an article in US News about The Best Weight-Loss Diets. That was followed by Nutrisystem's corporate website.

The fourth entry was Healthy Weight Loss, a page on the National Institutes of Health's (NIH) website.

When we conducted the same search using Bing, there were no government health websites or independent medical authorities among the first page of search results.

Note to government webmasters

The researchers say federal agencies, academic institutions and medical organizations need to work a lot harder at search engine optimization (SEO) to get their links on top of searches.

Until that happens, Modave says it's up to consumers to be more critical when doing online searches for important health information.

In 2012, Modave and his team looked at 103 websites for questions about weight loss and rated the content based on available evidence-based guidelines for weight loss.

They found medical, government and university sites ranked highest, along with blogs. They also found a lot of dubious information. Most of the websites couldn't manage a score above 50%.

Additional research

And it's not just weight loss where an Internet search can present you with some less-than-objective information. As we reported earlier this year, researchers at the University of Florida (UF) found overall health information obtained online was not only lacking in quality, but could be hazardous.

The UF researchers made an interesting discovery. The broader the search topic, the more reliable the web sites in the search chain. For example, “ear infections” linked to reputable sources higher in the list than a highly specific topic, such as “vaccines for newborns.”

The takeaway? It's similar to what the Jackson State study concludes.

“Based on these results, health consumers and patients may feel assured that they can find some high-quality health information when using a search engine,” said study co-author Christopher A. Harle. “However, consumers and patients should know that searches for some health topics, such as nutrition or fitness, may result in more information that is potentially lower quality.”

Who can hear better than a dog? Why, a cat of course. Dog owners might not like hearing that but facts are facts -- cats have Bose speakers when it comes to hearing.

Those little pointy ears can detect a larger range of sounds than most ever thought -- a not too shabby 11 octaves, to be precise, which is two octaves more than a human, and one octave more than a dog.

Cats need supersonic ears so they can hear a mouse when he comes around or a bird lands nearby and starts scratching a log. It's all in the name of being a hunter. If you watch a cat you can see him listening when his body is quite still and you see only his ears move back and forth.

Very cool cats

This past week some very cool cats were given the treat of listening to music that human ears could not hear with shrill, high-frequency cat-only versions of Jay-Z, BackStreet Boys and the "Back to the Future" soundtrack.

The cats seem to like it but if you have ever had a cat, you know that they aren't big on being exuberant so not a ton of emotion was displayed. The piano that they heard it on was built so humans could hear the sounds as well but the cats were listening via the cat mode -- rocking out to the ultra-high frequencies.

The keyboard for cats was made as part of the viral protest called  “The Pussycat Riot.” The protest, known also as #ThePussycatRiot on social media, is part of a campaign against countries such as Russia and China that censor the internet.

"It is imperative we recognise and challenge the powers that restrict not only the public’s access to the simple joy of funny cat content, but to information as a whole," their website says, continuing: 

Freedom is knowledge. Knowledge is power. Cats know everything.
From the very heart of the Internet we raise our banner with #ThePussycatRiot: a new protest movement to unite the cats of the world and their owners in opposition to cyber censorship. We aim to raise awareness of the oppressive regimes preventing people from freely enjoying the boundless wealth of mankind’s innovation and creativity... And cat videos."

Who doesn't love a good cat protest?

If you need to learn how to do something, chances are you can find more than one video on YouTube to walk you through it.

The Google-owned video service has nearly 3 million instructional videos – some from professional sources and some from amateurs. And therein lies the problem, say the professionals.

If the amateur is knowledgeable, experienced and knows what they are doing, chances are their instructional video will be very helpful. But if they are not, you could get into trouble by following its advice.

The problem is knowing the difference – and there is no way to really know until you follow their advice.

Lots of do-it-yourselfers in the UK

In the UK, Electrical Safety First, an electricity safety non-profit education group, conducted a survey to ask people if they would use a YouTube video to perform a home improvement project themselves. It found more than half said they would.

In the area of electrical do-it-yourself jobs, the survey found that 39% of homeowners would consult YouTube to rewire a small appliance while 34% would use a YouTube tutorial to rewire a light fixture. Incredibly it found 7% said they would try to rewire an entire house with YouTube's assistance.

All of this worries Electrical Safety First, which says the availability of online instructions may be putting people at risk. For example, fitting a new bathroom or rewiring a house are complicated tasks that should be carried out by qualified, licensed experts.

1 in 16 cause significant damage

The group claims that 1 in 16 people have caused significant damage to their property or have had to pay for costly repairs because of botched DIY after following advice found online.

“The Internet is a fantastic resource and the new generation of YouTube DIYers shows just how much we have come to rely on it,” said Emma Apter, spokeswoman for Electrical Safety First. “But there’s only so much online videos and tips can tell you and not everyone will have the knowledge or experience to carry out more complicated tasks. Ask yourself: ‘If I have to Google this, should I really be doing it?’ If in doubt, get a professional in – it could save you a lot of time and money in the long run.”

Health misinformation?

Consumers might run into the same problem if they rely too much on YouTube for information about their health. Researcher writing in the October issue of Emergency Medicine Australiasia investigated the accuracy of YouTube videos on CPR, checking them against the 2010 CPR guidelines.

It concluded that the majority of YouTube video clips purporting to be about CPR are not relevant educational material. Of those that are focused on teaching CPR, only a small minority optimally meet the 2010 guidelines, the study found.

That's not to say there isn't reliable, relevant information on the Internet. The trouble is finding it.

Medical researchers at Johns Hopkins say you will get better results if you restrict your search. Instead of searching the topic on YouTube, start your search at a reputable health data site – such as Johns Hopkins Medicine Health Library.

Marriott has been fined $600,000 for violating the Communications Act of 1934 (section 333 of which forbids “willful or malicious interference” with radio communications signals), the Federal Communications Commission announced.

What did Marriott do wrong?

By the company's own admission, its employees at the Gaylord Opryland Hotel and Convention Center in Nashville deliberately disabled customers' personal mobile wi-fi hotspots, so that anyone wishing to connect to the Internet would have to pay to use Marriott's network — and exhibitors at the conference facility say Marriott charged them anywhere from $250 to $1,000 per device for that connection.

In addition to paying the fine, Marriott agreed to stop blocking personal wi-fi networks, and must submit a compliance plan and agree to FCC inspections every three months.

There was no mention of Marriott having to refund any actual convention-goers or hotel guests who paid up to $1,000 for use of Marriott's connection after their own wi-fi ability was illegally disabled.

Anything connected to the Internet has the potential to be hacked (which is why anybody who keeps up with the news hears a new “protect yourself and your confidential information after this latest database hacking” warning every week or so).

This is to be expected, once you remember that the Internet – also known as the “World Wide Web,” formerly the “information superhighway” – was built specifically to make it easier for computers or computerized devices to share information, whereas computer or online “security” tries to do the exact opposite: keep information secret.

You can make it easier to share something, or you can make that something harder to steal – but using the same tool for both, simultaneously, doesn't work too well.

So it's no surprise that home-based Internet-connected “smart” devices are vulnerable to hacking as well. There have already been real-life incidents of hackers taking remote control of wireless baby monitors – sometimes to yell at the baby, othertimes to secretly spy on the family.

The same potential holds for Internet-connected or wi-fi-controlled smoke alarms and thermostats – you enjoy the convenience of being able to control those devices from afar, but run the risk that a hacker might do the same.

Reverse-engineered

And later this month, at the 2014 Black Hat Europe security conference in Amsterdam, researchers Javier Vazquez Vidal and Alberto Garcia Illera plan to demonstrate crippling security weaknesses they found in a still-unnamed brand of smart meter: Vidal and Illera reverse-engineered the meter and discovered they could remotely hijack control of one, even to the point of completely shutting it down.

The flaw Vidal and Illera found in their reverse-engineered meter (which, according to the Dark Reading security blog, is widely believed to be a brand in common use in Spain) is in a microchip found in each device. That microchip, in turn, holds a pair of symmetric AES-128 encryption keys.

A knowledgeable attacker who lifted those keys could then send commands to the smart meter, and do anything from “steal” electric power to shutting down the power altogether. The keys are also easy to spoof — a hacker could, for example, spoof his own meter so that his power consumption appeared to be coming from his neighbor's house, and his neighbor gets the resulting huge electric bill.

Very scary things

Illera said that after he and Vidal discovered how easily they could crack into the smart meters, “There were very scary things we found. You can practically turn the lights off in a city or neighborhood” with them.

What's worse is that the smart meters are installed by [presumably Spanish] local electric companies, not by electrical customers themselves, which means people who have these super-hackable smart meters in their homes are legally helpless to fix the problem, Vidal said. “The only ones able to solve this situation are the electrical companies who are placing them. Since we do not own the meters that we have at home — they are rented — we cannot do anything about it… Besides, it could be considered [by the power company] as manipulation” of the meters.

You can't go a week anymore without hearing news of yet another massive computer-security breach.

Sometimes it's a business-specific hacking: “Everyone's at risk who used a credit or debit card to make payment at a given restaurant, retailer or service provider in the past year or so.”

Sometimes it's a bank-specific hacking: “All clients of this particular financial institution are at risk.”

Then there's the healthcare hackings: “Beware if you sought treatment from any hospital, physician or medical center in this network.”

And the government hackings: “This state's licensed drivers are at risk after hackers broke into the DMV database.” “That state's income taxpayers are at risk.”

Car insurance or security companies have started putting out lists of which makes and models of automobiles are at the greatest risk of hackers hijacking their vital control systems. And as people equip their homes with Internet-connected “smart” devices, they risk hackers taking control of everything from their baby monitors to their HVAC systems.

Global risks

In addition to these relatively “localized” computer-security problems, there's also the occasional gigantic security flaws affecting the entire Internet: the “Heartbleed” open-source security flaw discovered last April put almost every password-protected online account at risk. The current “Shellshock” flaw discovered last week in software widely used in UNIX, Linux and Mac OS X systems can apparently let hackers take control of any computer that visits a compromised website.

Of course, there are certainly ways you can reduce your vulnerability to some online security flaws – I for one pay with cash in lieu of credit card anytime I can (though as a practical matter, credit cards are mandatory if you want to go on vacation: renting a hotel room or a car is impossible without one). This cash-only policy is partly to avoid the temptation of spending/charging more than I should, but mainly so I needn't bother getting a new credit card every week after my last one got compromised in the database hacking du jour.

But unless you completely drop out of modern mainstream society, staying out of all hackable databases simply isn't possible: if you hold a job, pay taxes, have a driver's license or visit a doctor, your personal information is at risk.

Can't patch the holes?

And if you're old enough to have adult, or at least teenage, memories of life before the Internet, you might occasionally grow frustrated enough to wonder: how did we reach the point where pretty much our entire system of business, finance and government is reliant on this constantly insecure network? Can't we patch these security holes, and fix the Internet?

Jose Pagliary, writing about “the cybercrime economy” for CNN, suggests the answer to that last question is “no.” Or maybe it's even the wrong question: these massive security flaws aren't a sign that the Internet is broken, so much as an indication the Internet is being used for purposes it was never intended to serve. As Pagliary said (bold print from the original):

The Internet was never meant for this. We use the Internet for banking, business, education and national defense. These things require privacy and the assurance that you are actually who you say you are.

The Internet, as it was designed, offers neither. When the Worldwide Web was built 25 years ago, it existed as a channel for physicists to pass research back and forth. It was a small, closed community. The scientists at Stanford trusted the researchers at the University of California - Los Angeles.

In other words: the whole point of the Internet was originally about making it easier to share information – remember the “information superhighway?” – whereas for modern “online security” concerns, the point is to prevent unauthorized sharing (read: “theft”) of information.

You can make it easier to share something, or you can make that something harder to steal – but try accomplishing both tasks at once, with the same tool, and you've got a problem. And that, in a nutshell, is what's wrong with “Internet security.”

Pagliary notes:

In 2014, it's still standard to send Internet communication in plain text. Anyone could tap into a connection and observe what you're saying. Engineers developed HTTPS nearly 20 years ago to protect conversations by encrypting them -- but major email providers and social media sites are only now enabling this. And sites like Instagram and Reddit still don't use it by default.

Not everyone favors privacy

One problem Pagliary does not mention: in a post-Edward Snowden world, where it's common knowledge that the NSA engages in warrantless monitoring of pretty much all American electronic communications, some members of the American government actively oppose certain forms of Internet security.

When Apple bragged last month about the secure encryption it uses on it iPhone 6, for example, FBI director James Comey said he was “very concerned” about what he considers “companies marketing something expressly to allow people to place themselves beyond the law.”

Yet even assuming encrypted communications win out over law enforcement's desire to read communications at will, that alone wouldn't be enough to make the Internet “secure,” thanks to problems not just in the software itself, but in the very culture that creates it.

Pagliary said “software is a hodgepodge of flawed Lego blocks. The big, ugly secret in the world of computer science is that developers don't check their apps closely enough for bugs. ”

Even professional developers – those getting paid for their efforts – don't have time to properly vet their software, in the fast-paced world of computer and Internet technology where anything more than a few years old is most likely obsolete. Pagliary notes that the problem's even worse with open-source software (like Linux) made and maintained mostly by unpaid volunteers:

Sometimes, that flawed code becomes widespread. Most of the world relies on open-source software that's built to be shared and maintained by volunteers and used by everyone -- startups, banks, even governments.

There's an illusion of safety. The thinking goes: So many engineers see the code, they're bound to find bugs. Therefore, open-source software is safe, even if no one is directly responsible for reviewing it.

Nope. Last week's shellshock bug is the perfect example of that flawed thinking. Bash, a program so popular it's been placed on millions of machines worldwide, was found to have a fatal flaw that's more than 20 years old.

So what do we do? We live in a modern society where our allegedly confidential and secure data is stored in and shared by an inherently insecure system – yet abandoning the Internet clearly isn't a feasible option (and few would want to try it, anyway). How do we leave the corner we've painted ourselves into?

Maybe we can't. Pagliary ended his piece with a quote by Scott Hanselman, a programmer and former college professor living in Oregon, who made this analogy: “It's not Toyota having a recall. It's like tires as a concept have been recalled and someone says, 'Holy crap, tires?! We've been using tires for years!' It's that level of bad.”

Social media may now provide the favorite way to communicate but email – boring old email – remains indispensable for most people. So when someone comes along and says they've improved email, people tend to listen – albeit with some skepticism.

But Dave Baggett, who studied computational linguistics at MIT in the 1990s, has been turning heads in the tech world lately with his new email app, Inky. Baggett, co-founder of software start-up Arcode, wanted to produce an email client that did more to help consumers manage their email – especially consumers who have multiple email accounts.

The result is a free and eye-pleasing program that pulls all of your email accounts into one place.

Streamlined

“We've made it much more streamlined compared to something like Outlook,” Baggett told ConsumerAffairs. “With Outlook there's a hundred controls on the screen. We tried to boil that down to a small set of controls that are intuitive but retain all the power.”

To do that Inky has to be a little different. It has to think and make decisions.

“My background is all about trying to extract information from text,” Baggett said. “I wanted to make a mail system that would understand your mail. It knows what your mail is about, instead of being a passive observer.”

All sorts of emails come in on a daily basis. There may be a daily deal. You may be on the distribution list for a dozen newsletters. Some of these messages are more important than others.

Sorts by relevance

One of Inky's tasks is to sort through all these messages and make sure the important ones – emails from your boss or spouse – don't get overlooked.

A shipping confirmation may come in from Amazon, with a tracking number. You're busy, so Inky retrieves the tracking number and figures out the location of the package.

“That smartness is what I think is the underpinning of email 2.0,” he said. “We certainly won't be the only ones that do this, but I think we're at the leading edge of this, the way I think email is going to work.”

Inky is currently available for Windows desktop and Mac OS X. The mobile app is limited to the iPhone but an android version is planned for release before the end of the summer.

Simple set-up

To use it you simply download the app to your device and start entering your email addresses. Consumers who have multiple email addresses know that can sometimes be a cumbersome process with a smartphone.

With Inky, you just enter the email address and the password. It does the rest.

“We put a bunch of work into figuring out how to automatically connect to your account, just from your email address and password,” Baggett said. “You'll see other clients do that for the major ones, like Gmail, but not for email addresses from Godaddy. I wanted to make it so that it was 2 pieces of information, you type them in, and it connects.”

Privacy

Baggett said he built the system around privacy. He set out to make Inky different from other email apps and program, which he says store consumers' email on servers.

“That means their employees can read your mail,” he said. “They'll tell you they don't read your mail and they have safeguards, but they still can. And of course, law enforcement can get to it that way too.”

As Baggett explains it, Inky simply downloads your mail to your device. It doesn't get in the middle of the connection between your device and your mail server.

“Your mail never touches our network,” he said. “We have no ability to read it.”

Baggett thinks privacy is something consumers should care about. But even in the wake of revelations of NSA snooping, he thinks he may be a little ahead of the curve.

“I'm not sure this emphasis on privacy matters to people yet but I believe that someday it will,” Baggett said. “I don't see share moving because of privacy issues. I don't see people moving off Gmail because of privacy concerns. But I wonder if one day it'll start to shift.”

Last week we reported on non-disparagement clauses many companies are now slipping into their wordy terms of service agreements. Our piece highlights the importance of reading these documents when making an online transaction.

But who has the time to wade through all that legalese? And sometimes it might take a legal mind to even understand what it means.

Fortunately, some brave soul has volunteered to do it for the rest of us. The website TOSDR.org – which stands for Terms of Service – Didn't Read – has reviewed terms of service agreements for social media sites like Twitter and Facebook, as well as a host of sites that sell products and services.

Cutting to the chase, it reviews each of these sites' terms of service agreements and, in bullet point form, gives consumers a thumbs up or thumbs down review of the most important clauses.

Rating the sites

For example, Google's terms of service agreement gets an overall “C” rating. But among the important points, TOSDR.org gives all “thumbs down” ratings.

It notes that Google keeps your searches and other identifiable user information for an indefinite period of time. That's changing in Europe, however, as Google has responded to a European Union edict by deleting search data under the EU's Right To Be Forgotten law.

Other negative factors include Google's use of your content for all existing and future services, its tracking your movements on other websites and its sharing of your personal information with third parties.

Oh yes, if a government agency asks Google for your data, it doesn't have to tell you.

YouTube, owned by Google, earns a “D” rating. TOSDR.org lists five points it sees as negatives.

The terms can change with no notice; YouTube may remove your content without telling you; the copyright license is overly broad; the legal period for cause of action has been reduced; and deleted videos aren't really deleted.

Things earning a positive rating

Earning a “B” rating, meanwhile, is SoundCloud. a streaming audio service. It wins a “thumbs up” for allowing you to stay in control of your copyright; collected personal data is only used for limited purposes; and when changes to the agreement are made, you have 6 weeks to review them.

What about big retail sites? Amazon, for instance, hasn't been assigned a letter grade yet but does have five “thumbs down” notations. Terms can change with no notice; Amazon tracks you on other websites; it enables advertisers to target you by default; it won't promise to tell you if a government agency asks for your data; and provides no transparency on law enforcement requests.

While these bullet points might prove helpful in assessing whether you want to do business on a particular website, it should be noted that they are simply opinions – what TOSDR.org has gleaned from reading these sites' terms of service agreements.

Consumers, of course, should read the terms of service agreement for themselves. But TOSDR.org's Cliff Notes version is probably not a bad place to start.

Not that you'd have any use for such a service, but a developer has created a search engine for illegal items — like Google, only for the black market.

Grams is not affiliated with Google although they look similar, with the same multicolored font against a plain white background.

The other difference is that Google searches the mainstream Internet whereas Grams searches the Dark Net, which might be described as the Internet's secret evil twin — though not particularly well-known in mainstream circles, it's been around since the World Wide Web was still ARPANET, and you can't even log on to the Dark Net unless your computer's outfitted with anonymizing software.

Once you're on the Dark Net it's still hard to find anything, since the web addresses change all the time (if you're running an illegal market, you don't want to stay in one place for too long). Hence, Grams the search engine.

When the developer discussed Grams on his (or her?) blog, the sample screenshot showed search results for MDMA, the illegal drug also known as ecstasy. That was a clever PR move on behalf of Grams' developer — after all, though MDMA is undeniably illegal under U.S. law, there are many who believe “Taking MDMA (or other illicit drugs) is a victimless crime, and should therefore be legal.” From that perspective, a presumably secret search engine like Grams strikes a blow for liberty, in the “help evade unjust laws” sense of the word.

Problem is that apparently, Grams can also be used to commit crimes with genuine victims — such as, searching for stolen credit card numbers to commit identity theft.

Media outlets ranging from SFGate to Ars Technica listed stolen card numbers among the types of items Grams can help you find.

That said, it's not certain if Grams will last, as it might be illegal in two different ways: one, for helping to facilitate illegal activities and two, for using a style and color scheme that's an obvious ripoff of Google's.

Technology is all too often used by pedophiles and those who cater to them. Now a Dutch non-profit has turned the tables and is putting technology to work stopping pedophila.

Computer animation experts working for the Terre des Hommes International Foundation (“For children, their rights and equitable development,” according to its website) have managed to overcome the “uncanny valley” and create a CGI avatar good enough to fool webcam-watching pedophiles.

The avatar, named Sweetie, looks like many young Filipinas recruited to the sex trade. Appearing to be just 10 years old, she spends her days online fielding offers to perform sex acts online. 

“Sweetie” had 20,000 visitors during the eight weeks she spent online last year. Luckily, she wasn't a real little girl forced to perform on camera for paying pedophiles, but a computer-generated avatar created by Terre des Hommes, and controlled by researchers in an Amsterdam warehouse.

During the initial interactions, the researchers gathered information about the predators through social media to uncover their identities. Online contact was cut off before any simulated sexual acts were performed.

Worldwide campaign

Sweetie is part of Terre Des Hommes' campaign to stop webcam child sex tourism, which it calls a “quickly spreading new form of child exploitation that has got tens of thousands victims involved in the Philippines alone.”

TdHIF's website also includes an eight-minute video discussing the child webcam sex industry and Sweetie's part in fighting it (the video contains no sexually explicit content but you might want to avoid watching it at work anyway, as certain parts of it could sound incriminating if overheard out of context).

Of course, Terre des Hommes is hardly the only group working to combat child pornography on the Internet; so is every reputable tech company out there.

Last November, for example, Google launched an anti-child porn initiative involving changes to its search algorithms (to make child pornography harder to find or share online), image-recognition technology to automatically identify potentially problematic pictures, and individual human oversight to, for example, distinguish between exploitative images and harmless photos of kids in the bathtub.

A software flaw in a server extension called "heartbeat" is creating data leakage, dubbed "heartbleed," which in turn is causing severe heartburn for hundreds of thousands of web and email server administrators worldwide.

The flaw afflicts servers that use a package called OpenSSL, one of several extensions that enable SSL -- secure socket layers -- to encrypt data moving to and and from their sites. 

What that means for consumers is that personal information -- including passwords, account numbers and other sensitive data -- can be, and perhaps already has been, exploited by hackers.  

Sites ranging from the FBI to Yahoo and everything in between have been affected. The flaw also potentially affects ATM machines that communicate via the web. Google is not affected by the problem and data on Google servers is safe, several experts agree.

What to do

So, what's a consumer to do? Unfortunately, the answer is "not much." Experts say that this would be a good time to take a few days off from doing your banking and e-commerce chores, to avoid revealing your password and other data to anyone who hasn't already stolen it.

Unfortunately, other experts say this would be a good time to reconcile your bank and investment accounts daily. 

If you must use an ATM, it's safest to use one at your bank, rather than an out-of-network machine. While this may not eliminate web-based data transfers, it should at least minimize them.

This is not the time to change your user ID and password. It's best to wait a few days until the vulnerability has been patched. Changing your password now simply makes the new one vulnerable to thieves.

Ironically, SSL is used to secure websites, by encrypting data traveling between the user and online sites. Normally, sites that use SSL are much more secure than sites that don't. 

This is one of those times when the front door is locked tightly but the back door is open and swinging in the wind. 

Sites around the world are racing to update their server software but it's not an easy fix and it may take several days for larger sites to have everything locked down again.

Common server operating systems that may be affected by the problem include Debian, CentOS, RedHat, SUSE Linux and Ubuntu.

When policymakers refer to the “digital divide,” most often they are referring to an economic disparity in who has access to the Internet.

Because high speed Internet usually costs $40 or more a month low-income consumers, it is argued, often lack access. The digital divide has also separated rural consumers from urban dwellers, since high-speed Internet has been harder to find outside the city.

But there appears to be another digital divide, having nothing to do with how much money you have or where you live. It has to do with how old you are.

It's true that millions of seniors are very active on the Internet and are very comfortable using it. But it is equally as true there are millions of seniors who aren't.

When asked to explain why enrollment under the Affordable Care Act was so far short of goals, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV) struggled last week for an answer before finally blurting “people need to be educated on how to use the Internet.”

The response drew jeers from Republicans but Reid may have been trying to articulate something real that may only now be dawning on policymakers.

Enrolling in Obamacare has to be done online. Millions of people are challenged by that.

No longer optional

Using the Internet was once a helpful option for people who needed to interact with corporations and government agencies. But recently it has gone from being an option to being mandatory.

If you'll indulge me I'll recount a couple of personal examples from just the last two weeks.

My neighbor Doug, a retired engineer in his early 80s, called me in a panic. It was time to file the neighborhood association's tax return with the state, which had been his job for years.

He had just discovered that now it must be done online. Though he had a computer and used the Internet for some things, he was either unwilling or unable to try to file the return online.

The previous week my father and step-mother wanted to bid on a foreclosed property being auctioned by Citrus County, Fla. The county had automated the auction process, requiring it to be carried out online.

But not to worry, the county provided a training class in how to do it. Of course, the course was in the form of a webinar! Completely befuddled, they turned to me for assistance.

Glass half-empty?

A 2012 report by the Pew Research Internet Project found that, for the first time, more than 50% of Americans 65 and older used the Internet. But that means nearly 50% don't.

And “using the Internet” can mean different things. It can mean sending an email or checking Facebook for the latest pictures of the grandchildren.

It doesn't necessarily mean filing a tax return or signing up for Obamacare. Yet the assumption now is that everything can be and should be done online.

To save money, businesses and government agencies increasingly interact with the public only online. Have a question that isn't listed in the FAQs? Good luck talking to a human being.

For consumers comfortable with technology, getting things done online is often faster and smoother. But for a rather large segment of the population, the often mandatory requirement that you use the Internet means they can't fully function in today's world.

Internet portal AOL has agreed to pay about $90 million to acquire Gravity, a software startup that tracks users to show them personalized ads and content.

"The web is moving to the era of personal, and a personal web filter will reshape how consumers get information and services," said AOL Chairman and CEO Tim Armstrong. "Gravity is joining AOL to lead the personalization transformation of AOL's brands and platform partners."

Gravity already works with a group of publishers and advertisers, including Sony, Intel, USA Today and GAP. Since the launch of the Gravity API last year, there have been more than one billion personalized page views per month on some of the biggest publisher sites on the web, and its technology has increased engagement by 240% compared to sites that do not have personalization, AOL said in a prepared statement.

Overwhelming amount

"Every day we're presented with an overwhelming amount of information to consume on our favorite websites and apps," said Gravity CEO Amit Kapur. "It's time to move beyond searching for the best content to having the best content search for you. We believe that by combining AOL's vast brand, publisher and advertiser network with Gravity's interest graph technology, we can do just that."

Gravity "personalizes the Internet beyond search and social by applying a personal and real-time filter to the ever-growing volume of digital information available for consumption," the company said.

Gravity's patented technology creates "Interest Graphs" based on individuals' interests, preferences and habits and allows publishers to offer a tailored and relevant selection of editorial and advertising content to readers.

A new series of awards recognizing outstanding reporting of consumer issues launches this year, a joint project of the Media Policy Center, ConsumerAffairs, and Woodbury University.

Awards will be given for the best reporting in five major categories: print, the internet, radio, television and magazines.

The overall winner will also receive the Martin H. Bosworth Award for Outstanding Consumer Reporting. The award is named for the late managing editor of ConsumerAffairs, a consumer news and information center now in its 16th year. Bosworth was 35 when he died at his Los Angeles home in 2010 of a circulatory disorder.

“Martin was a tireless and fearless crusader for the everyday consumer. His outstanding work benefited millions of individuals and lives on to this day in ConsumerAffairs’ reporting and consumer empowerment efforts,” said James R. Hood, the site’s founder and editor. “He was a big guy with a big voice and consumers lost a real champion when he was taken from us long before his time.”

One of the first peer review sites on the Web, ConsumerAffairs, founded in 1998, publishes consumer reviews that empower consumers to collaboratively find the products and services that best suit their needs and helps them identify shoddy practices and outright scams. Its news reports deal with automotive, personal finance, health, travel and other consumer issues.

The Media Policy Center addresses issues of social welfare, public policy, education, the environment, and health care. Its primary goal, through media, is to inform, challenge, and ultimately engage a responsive citizenry and to encourage full and meaningful debate and participation across the political, social, and economic spectrum.

Dr. Edward Clift, Dean of the School of Media Culture & Design will be representing Woodbury in this new enterprise. “We are excited to be working with Jim Hood and the team at MPC,” said Dean Clift.

This is the second projec