Is this the end for unlimited wireless data plans?

Have we seen the end of unlimited data plans for wireless carriers?

Did you know that cellular companies are barely making money on voice plans?

Apparently the big operators like Verizon and AT&T are making fractions of a penny per minute in actual profit.

I am sure when you are the conveyer of billions of cellular minutes each month that are being used up by an ever-growing and hungry consumer base, you will see a nice high number in profits — or so one would think.

However, let’s set the record straight and identify the fact that as of five years ago, cellular companies were making exponentially more than they are today and they are not happy with the loss in revenue.

So, how did the cellular companies adjust to regain and recoup the lost profit?

The answer is add-on products like text messaging, picture message and data plans. It is clear that cell phones are more than just phones for more than 50 percent of cellular subscribers in the U.S. alone.

Processing text messages costs the cell phone companies almost nothing, yet they charge quite a bit for people to be able to send one.

According to multiple sources, about 72 percent of all cell phone customers in the U.S. have a texting plan, which is about 207 million Americans.

More text messages are sent daily than phone calls are made.

On average, a person sends 357 text messages versus 204 phone calls per month.

For something that costs virtually nothing for the cellular companies to provide, they definitely have found a money maker and are milking it without question.

Even more than text messaging, the cellular or wireless industry has been inundated with Internet or data traffic.

It has more than consumed the airwaves that we rely on for cellular technology and has been growing far beyond the capacity the cellular providers were ready for due to devices like smart phones, data cards, tablet PCs, etc.

The airwaves are so clogged up now that the FCC is looking to take some satellite spectrum or frequencies and auction them off to the cell phone companies because there just isn’t enough space to handle the growth.

Well, the obvious question is, “What are the cellular providers going to do about the problem and what effect will their solution have on you and me?”

We’ll take an up close and personal look at the answer to this question next week.

- George Bardissi

Fed control of the Internet: Good or bad?

We ended last week’s discussion with the fact that a proposed bill has now been introduced and is at the congressional level, which would give the president the power to not only seize control of the Internet, but lso shut it down should it pose a threat to national security.

Furthermore, we asked several important questions, which as promised we will now answer.

Because of the intense nature of the proposed bill and the unlimited power that it would give our president, there has been an attempt to put a means in place that would try to impose limits and restraints on the extent to which the president could go in carrying out the power given him in the proposed bill.

This has been done by way of the creation of a new paragraph that has been included in the bill and that seeks to create what would be termed a National Center for Cyber Security and Communications (NCCC).

This agency would have incredible oversight capability, but would be restricted from having the ability to order any entity to conduct surveillance of Americans unless it’s legally authorized to do so.

Don’t forget that thanks to the Patriot Act the government could claim they have authority to seize the Internet or spy on anyone and then get a warrant after the fact.

Now, when you put all of that and this new bill together, in my opinion it is a disaster waiting to happen.

I am a movie buff and I know that “Enemy of the State: starring Will Smith may have seemed like a far reach, but when you look at the pending bill that is now on the table, it is very clear and overwhelmingly obvious that if passed, the bill will put the Internet totally at the mercy and control of the federal government, thus making it very possible to enact what we saw happen in the movie.

I think we all can understand the government’s concern for cyber warfare.

Just recently the military created, appointed and opened the doors to a Cyber Security division aimed at protecting the military networks from an outside attack.

It is very clear that the Internet is open to attacks, especially when other countries do not have as much control set up to shut down piracy and hacking.

If the U.S. government wants to try and put up the brick wall before something happens, I call that being prepared.

However, if being prepared also comes with the fact that the control of the private Internet would basically be handed over to the federal government with no questions asked, I don’t know about you, but I call that a real big “deal breaker.”

Whatever happens and whatever your view is on the subject, we would love to hear your feelings and opinions.

Do you feel like you’re being watched, like right now while you’re on the Internet?

- George Bardissi

Feds not ignoring the internet anymore

Several months back we wrote an article about how the government seemed to be quite far behind in terms of the Internet and the laws that we are governed by in today’s digital age.

It seems like the federal government may have read our article or, more likely, is finally starting to understand the legitimate threats that are possible through the Internet.

A proposed bill is now at the congressional level that is being sponsored by Sen. Joe Lieberman, who is an independent senator out of Connecticut.

Let’s take a look at the main points of this proposed legislation to see how it will affect the everyday American citizen and business.

The mainstay of the bill is surrounded by giving the president the emergency power to basically seize control or even shut down all or parts of the Internet in the United States.

This is not a small request nor should it be taken lightly. If this bill were to pass, private companies, which the government will name at a later time, such as Internet providers, search engines, or even private software companies, would have to comply with the federal government’s request to shut down, suspend or release control immediately, at the order of the president.

According to this proposed bill, the reason the federal government is claiming they should have this power and control is “to preserve those networks and assets that our country depends on for financial matters, security, power, transportation and so on. These are all areas of extreme importance in protecting the citizens and our country,” according to Lieberman.

As is the case with any law, there could be adverse affects that can be created by a legislation of this kind and could directly affect the private-sector companies.

Could there be unauthorized government access to private systems? What if the government shuts down a company or Internet provider by accident?

What happens to private server access that runs over the Internet?

These are all very important and pressing questions, but does the government have answers for them?

Apparently, in a recently added, revised bill there has been an additional paragraph added that in many ways is directed at dealing with the previous questions asked and we will both outline that bill and discuss its implications next week.

- George Bardissi