Now if we can get Net Neutrality out of the FCC........
http://www.computerworld.com/article/28 ... tbwcw.html
The Need for Speed
Moderators: Tunnelcat, Jeff250
-
Tunnelcat
- DBB Grand Master
- Posts: 13742
- Joined: Sat Mar 24, 2007 12:32 pm
- Location: Pacific Northwest, U.S.A.
The Need for Speed
The FCC, in one stroke of the pen, redefined a far faster broadband benchmark, up from their previous paltry 2010 speed definition and in doing so, essentially indicated that the market needs far more competition than it has now. Well DUH! The bonus out of this decision is that it's really putting a twist the Republican's and the telecom's panties. I'll go for the that. What, are they against a little healthy competition now?
Now if we can get Net Neutrality out of the FCC........
http://www.computerworld.com/article/28 ... tbwcw.html
Now if we can get Net Neutrality out of the FCC........
http://www.computerworld.com/article/28 ... tbwcw.html
Cat (n.) A bipolar creature which would as soon gouge your eyes out as it would cuddle.
Re: The Need for Speed
Careful what you wish for…competition gave me higher electric rates, and competition in the telecom industry turned logic on its head, because in the past long distance used to subsidize local, now local rates subsidize long distance.
There was a good reason the government originally created a monopoly out of the myriad of telecoms, and the pinnacle of stupidity, was when they reversed that decision.
There was a good reason the government originally created a monopoly out of the myriad of telecoms, and the pinnacle of stupidity, was when they reversed that decision.
-
Tunnelcat
- DBB Grand Master
- Posts: 13742
- Joined: Sat Mar 24, 2007 12:32 pm
- Location: Pacific Northwest, U.S.A.
Re: The Need for Speed
So, do you think the government, Reagan in this case, should have left Ma Bell (AT&T) alone and in one piece? If so, do you think the internet and cell phones would have been invented for public use? Remember, Ma Bell was a stogy old company resistant to change and we couldn't even own our own phones back then, we rented them. Sure, they'd built a bullet proof system, but it would have remained in the stone age because there would have been no reason to innovate new technology and grow the company. No reason to because they were a happy monopoly sitting pretty. Long distance rates were horrid as I remember from back then too. Just as the lack of competition and unwillingness to invest in infrastructure is keeping the U.S. in the internet slow lane. I'm rooting for Google Fiber to go into as many places as possible and kick ass. I'd like to see the damn cable company quake in it's boots. In fact, if I could get high speed broadband, I'd drop cable in a heartbeat. 
Cat (n.) A bipolar creature which would as soon gouge your eyes out as it would cuddle.
Re: The Need for Speed
The answer to that is obvious, yes…cell phone companies should have had to struggle as startups just like any business, instead the government gave them all kinds of advantages.
Well, I have a different perspective, and experience with that company, in fact IMO Ma Bell was the best damn company that ever existed, the employees were well paid and had a great working environment, with awesome benefits to boot.
When I lived in North Philly, most people had party lines, but we had a private line thanks to the fact that my grandmother worked for the company, she also got the pick of all the new phones that were available, I often heard her brag about her turquoise princess phone.
Why would you want to own your phone, in a hardwired type of situation anyway, I can understand ownership for cell phones. Also as far as innovation….pfhhh…Bell Telephone was the world leader in innovation, they invented the transistor, and were working on all kinds of new technology…why do you think they were inventing all kinds of stuff, just for the hell of it. As I remember it, they were always improving phone service, and at one point, it was the most reliable utility, by any measure. When Bell Telephone was in service you could see the quality difference…if you looked at any distribution point or D mark, all of the wires were neatly configured in the box, look at any connection box now…looks like a damn birds nest…total crap, and they don’t care…Bell Telephone did care. You could drop a phone off of the roof, take it in the house plug it in and make a call, try that with the crap you can “Buy” now.
No, the cell phone industry lobbyist bought the government hook line and sinker, just like the CFL people own them now. (ban on light bulbs to save the planet, and if you believe that…I have this bridge)
Do you know that at one time the “competition” could use the phone company's infrastructure cheaper than the company that installed it, I don’t know if that is still true, but it was at one time…competition, has become a buzzword that seems to be the end all to all things…sort of like “corporate greed”.
Competition also means lower wages…did you know that.
Just saying…there is two sides to every issue, and there is no magic button called “competition”.
Well, I have a different perspective, and experience with that company, in fact IMO Ma Bell was the best damn company that ever existed, the employees were well paid and had a great working environment, with awesome benefits to boot.
When I lived in North Philly, most people had party lines, but we had a private line thanks to the fact that my grandmother worked for the company, she also got the pick of all the new phones that were available, I often heard her brag about her turquoise princess phone.
Why would you want to own your phone, in a hardwired type of situation anyway, I can understand ownership for cell phones. Also as far as innovation….pfhhh…Bell Telephone was the world leader in innovation, they invented the transistor, and were working on all kinds of new technology…why do you think they were inventing all kinds of stuff, just for the hell of it. As I remember it, they were always improving phone service, and at one point, it was the most reliable utility, by any measure. When Bell Telephone was in service you could see the quality difference…if you looked at any distribution point or D mark, all of the wires were neatly configured in the box, look at any connection box now…looks like a damn birds nest…total crap, and they don’t care…Bell Telephone did care. You could drop a phone off of the roof, take it in the house plug it in and make a call, try that with the crap you can “Buy” now.
No, the cell phone industry lobbyist bought the government hook line and sinker, just like the CFL people own them now. (ban on light bulbs to save the planet, and if you believe that…I have this bridge)
Do you know that at one time the “competition” could use the phone company's infrastructure cheaper than the company that installed it, I don’t know if that is still true, but it was at one time…competition, has become a buzzword that seems to be the end all to all things…sort of like “corporate greed”.
Competition also means lower wages…did you know that.
Just saying…there is two sides to every issue, and there is no magic button called “competition”.
-
Krom
- DBB Database Master
- Posts: 16138
- Joined: Sun Nov 29, 1998 3:01 am
- Location: Camping the energy center. BTW, did you know you can have up to 100 characters in this location box?
- Contact:
Re: The Need for Speed
Competition can't magically solve all our problems, but the existing deregulated government sanctioned duopolies sure as hell won't.
Also Spidey, more than likely what raised your electric rates wasn't competition. The government, being a wholly owned subsidiary of most lobbying groups, likes to do things in the name of "promoting competition", but for the most part these actions are simple deregulation or even simpler anti-regulation (when it boils down to effectively a ban on competition). Electricity is a natural monopoly, there is only one electric grid, the energy you use in your house will always come over the same wires, and almost always come from the same power plant, probably even the same generator consuming the same fuel (except for when stuff is down for maintenance and power is rerouted from another source). If you deregulate it in the name of "opening it to competition", how is someone going to actually compete? Are they going to spend billions building a second electric grid and a second power plant, etc? Basically they said they were opening it to competition, but in reality all they were doing is saying "the government is not going to watch this natural monopoly as closely so they can do whatever they want now" which for the rest of us means "less quality for a higher price".
You are also probably right about the breakup of Ma Bell, it would have been smarter in the long run to recognize what phone/tv/internet really is: "data" and to regulate it as the natural monopoly it is. The duplication of infrastructure we have from the cable and phone networks is a giant waste of time and money and basically only ever harms innovation and the economy. Had Ma Bell been kept intact and properly regulated, it is fairly likely the billions in subsidies and tax breaks that phone and cable companies have soaked up in the last 35 years would have actually gone towards completing a national fiber-optic data network to every address in the US. Taxpayers have already paid, dozens if not more times in excess, sufficiently that America should have such a network and the only reason we don't is because the cable and phone networks are deliberately kept separate to present the illusion of competition which lets them easily dodge the regulations that would have made a proper network a reality.
It is for the same reason that cell phone companies operate two separate networks (AT&T's GSM network, and Verizon's CDMA network), it lets them pretend to be competitive while hording and rationing a publicly owned resource (RF bandwidth), it lets them dodge being properly labeled with the natural monopoly status they enjoy so they don't have to play by the rules.
------
So, back on the subject of internet service, the local cable company here in town (Charter cable) is being destroyed. Over the last year, the local phone company (TDS) has been deploying fiber optic service through to every address in town using the pole access they already own. The majority of the new fiber network went live late last year, and according to the techs they have an almost overwhelming number of signups to handle, enough to keep them busy for months. It is so bad for the cable company the retention office all but gives up as soon as they see the service address, they know they have absolutely no answer for this fiber network.
I signed up for the fiber service as soon as possible and got it hooked up the day after Christmas. Since then, being on a direct from the CO FTTH connection has given me a few chances in perspective... Some of the sites I read have articles discussing new technologies for DSL, and new standards for coaxial cable. Stuff like the next generation DSL "g.fast" which promises 1 gigabit* DSL service, or DOCSIS 3.1 cable promising the possibility of 1 gigabit** cable service. (*As long as your modem is within 300 feet of the CO with a laboratory quality 4 wire bonded set of phone wires. **Won't be ready for deployment till later this year, won't see widespread deployment for 3+ years.) I have concluded that the development of these new technologies is the result of fevered insanity. Anyone who claims that with the help of these new technologies coaxial cable or telephone network DSL will be able to keep pace with fiber-optic can only be described as raving lunatics.
This is fiber, today:
Even if you discount the bandwidth which fiber has been doing effortlessly for decades, the latency is incredible, it annihilates copper or wireless technologies on stability and jitter. The latency is so low and the bandwidth is so high that most pages are DONE loading before they would have even started loading on cable (and DSL is even worse!).
Someone needs to step up and force all these data companies to stop milking dead technology and keeping uselessly redundant networks just so they can cheat the rules. I'll take one good network over two bad ones, the short term oriented investment strategies that keep us stuck on copper is pure deranged thinking and the people that refuse to move past them should be recognized and treated as the mentally ill that they are.
Also Spidey, more than likely what raised your electric rates wasn't competition. The government, being a wholly owned subsidiary of most lobbying groups, likes to do things in the name of "promoting competition", but for the most part these actions are simple deregulation or even simpler anti-regulation (when it boils down to effectively a ban on competition). Electricity is a natural monopoly, there is only one electric grid, the energy you use in your house will always come over the same wires, and almost always come from the same power plant, probably even the same generator consuming the same fuel (except for when stuff is down for maintenance and power is rerouted from another source). If you deregulate it in the name of "opening it to competition", how is someone going to actually compete? Are they going to spend billions building a second electric grid and a second power plant, etc? Basically they said they were opening it to competition, but in reality all they were doing is saying "the government is not going to watch this natural monopoly as closely so they can do whatever they want now" which for the rest of us means "less quality for a higher price".
You are also probably right about the breakup of Ma Bell, it would have been smarter in the long run to recognize what phone/tv/internet really is: "data" and to regulate it as the natural monopoly it is. The duplication of infrastructure we have from the cable and phone networks is a giant waste of time and money and basically only ever harms innovation and the economy. Had Ma Bell been kept intact and properly regulated, it is fairly likely the billions in subsidies and tax breaks that phone and cable companies have soaked up in the last 35 years would have actually gone towards completing a national fiber-optic data network to every address in the US. Taxpayers have already paid, dozens if not more times in excess, sufficiently that America should have such a network and the only reason we don't is because the cable and phone networks are deliberately kept separate to present the illusion of competition which lets them easily dodge the regulations that would have made a proper network a reality.
It is for the same reason that cell phone companies operate two separate networks (AT&T's GSM network, and Verizon's CDMA network), it lets them pretend to be competitive while hording and rationing a publicly owned resource (RF bandwidth), it lets them dodge being properly labeled with the natural monopoly status they enjoy so they don't have to play by the rules.
------
So, back on the subject of internet service, the local cable company here in town (Charter cable) is being destroyed. Over the last year, the local phone company (TDS) has been deploying fiber optic service through to every address in town using the pole access they already own. The majority of the new fiber network went live late last year, and according to the techs they have an almost overwhelming number of signups to handle, enough to keep them busy for months. It is so bad for the cable company the retention office all but gives up as soon as they see the service address, they know they have absolutely no answer for this fiber network.
I signed up for the fiber service as soon as possible and got it hooked up the day after Christmas. Since then, being on a direct from the CO FTTH connection has given me a few chances in perspective... Some of the sites I read have articles discussing new technologies for DSL, and new standards for coaxial cable. Stuff like the next generation DSL "g.fast" which promises 1 gigabit* DSL service, or DOCSIS 3.1 cable promising the possibility of 1 gigabit** cable service. (*As long as your modem is within 300 feet of the CO with a laboratory quality 4 wire bonded set of phone wires. **Won't be ready for deployment till later this year, won't see widespread deployment for 3+ years.) I have concluded that the development of these new technologies is the result of fevered insanity. Anyone who claims that with the help of these new technologies coaxial cable or telephone network DSL will be able to keep pace with fiber-optic can only be described as raving lunatics.
This is fiber, today:
Code: Select all
C:\>ping www.google.com
Pinging www.google.com [74.125.196.104] with 32 bytes of data:
Reply from 74.125.196.104: bytes=32 time=30ms TTL=47
Reply from 74.125.196.104: bytes=32 time=30ms TTL=47
Reply from 74.125.196.104: bytes=32 time=30ms TTL=47
Reply from 74.125.196.104: bytes=32 time=30ms TTL=47
Ping statistics for 74.125.196.104:
Packets: Sent = 4, Received = 4, Lost = 0 (0% loss),
Approximate round trip times in milli-seconds:
Minimum = 30ms, Maximum = 30ms, Average = 30ms
C:\>ping www.dslreports.com
Pinging www.dslreports.com [64.91.255.98] with 32 bytes of data:
Reply from 64.91.255.98: bytes=32 time=18ms TTL=58
Reply from 64.91.255.98: bytes=32 time=18ms TTL=58
Reply from 64.91.255.98: bytes=32 time=17ms TTL=58
Reply from 64.91.255.98: bytes=32 time=17ms TTL=58
Ping statistics for 64.91.255.98:
Packets: Sent = 4, Received = 4, Lost = 0 (0% loss),
Approximate round trip times in milli-seconds:
Minimum = 17ms, Maximum = 18ms, Average = 17ms
C:\>ping www.cnn.com
Pinging fallback.global-ssl.fastly.net [23.235.40.185] with 32 bytes of data:
Reply from 23.235.40.185: bytes=32 time=8ms TTL=59
Reply from 23.235.40.185: bytes=32 time=8ms TTL=59
Reply from 23.235.40.185: bytes=32 time=8ms TTL=59
Reply from 23.235.40.185: bytes=32 time=8ms TTL=59
Ping statistics for 23.235.40.185:
Packets: Sent = 4, Received = 4, Lost = 0 (0% loss),
Approximate round trip times in milli-seconds:
Minimum = 8ms, Maximum = 8ms, Average = 8ms
C:\>ping www.foxnews.com
Pinging a20.g.akamai.net [216.165.156.26] with 32 bytes of data:
Reply from 216.165.156.26: bytes=32 time=3ms TTL=61
Reply from 216.165.156.26: bytes=32 time=2ms TTL=61
Reply from 216.165.156.26: bytes=32 time=3ms TTL=61
Reply from 216.165.156.26: bytes=32 time=3ms TTL=61
Ping statistics for 216.165.156.26:
Packets: Sent = 4, Received = 4, Lost = 0 (0% loss),
Approximate round trip times in milli-seconds:
Minimum = 2ms, Maximum = 3ms, Average = 2ms
C:\>ping www.microsoft.com
Pinging e10088.dscb.akamaiedge.net [23.194.126.155] with 32 bytes of data:
Reply from 23.194.126.155: bytes=32 time=9ms TTL=60
Reply from 23.194.126.155: bytes=32 time=8ms TTL=60
Reply from 23.194.126.155: bytes=32 time=8ms TTL=60
Reply from 23.194.126.155: bytes=32 time=8ms TTL=60
Ping statistics for 23.194.126.155:
Packets: Sent = 4, Received = 4, Lost = 0 (0% loss),
Approximate round trip times in milli-seconds:
Minimum = 8ms, Maximum = 9ms, Average = 8ms
C:\>ping www.descentbb.net
Pinging descentbb.net [173.254.28.83] with 32 bytes of data:
Reply from 173.254.28.83: bytes=32 time=47ms TTL=58
Reply from 173.254.28.83: bytes=32 time=46ms TTL=58
Reply from 173.254.28.83: bytes=32 time=46ms TTL=58
Reply from 173.254.28.83: bytes=32 time=47ms TTL=58
Ping statistics for 173.254.28.83:
Packets: Sent = 4, Received = 4, Lost = 0 (0% loss),
Approximate round trip times in milli-seconds:
Minimum = 46ms, Maximum = 47ms, Average = 46ms
C:\>ping www.descentbb.com
Pinging descentbb.com [192.185.41.34] with 32 bytes of data:
Reply from 192.185.41.34: bytes=32 time=50ms TTL=50
Reply from 192.185.41.34: bytes=32 time=50ms TTL=50
Reply from 192.185.41.34: bytes=32 time=50ms TTL=50
Reply from 192.185.41.34: bytes=32 time=50ms TTL=50
Ping statistics for 192.185.41.34:
Packets: Sent = 4, Received = 4, Lost = 0 (0% loss),
Approximate round trip times in milli-seconds:
Minimum = 50ms, Maximum = 50ms, Average = 50ms
Someone needs to step up and force all these data companies to stop milking dead technology and keeping uselessly redundant networks just so they can cheat the rules. I'll take one good network over two bad ones, the short term oriented investment strategies that keep us stuck on copper is pure deranged thinking and the people that refuse to move past them should be recognized and treated as the mentally ill that they are.
Re: The Need for Speed
The exact reason my rates have gone up is because in return for agreeing to “competition” PECO was allowed to drop its home residential heating rates. (which the PUC had in place for decades, so yes, the actual word for competition, should be de-regulation)
Everyone was told the “discounts” offered by the other suppliers would outweigh the difference…well…not even close.
I factored in the cost savings over the entire year with the discounted suppliers. Problem is, I have little usage during the rest of the year. (despite those evil incandescent bulbs) And actual usage is only a small part of the bill, during the off season. So you are only getting 7 cents off of 10 % of your bill anyway. (something like that)
Everyone was told the “discounts” offered by the other suppliers would outweigh the difference…well…not even close.
I factored in the cost savings over the entire year with the discounted suppliers. Problem is, I have little usage during the rest of the year. (despite those evil incandescent bulbs) And actual usage is only a small part of the bill, during the off season. So you are only getting 7 cents off of 10 % of your bill anyway. (something like that)
-
Tunnelcat
- DBB Grand Master
- Posts: 13742
- Joined: Sat Mar 24, 2007 12:32 pm
- Location: Pacific Northwest, U.S.A.
Re: The Need for Speed
There appears to be a dichotomy here. On one hand, a big monopoly like Ma Bell had good, bullet proof engineering behind their technology, as company policy, and they would have had the capital to upgrade to fiber, or some better technology, when it became clear that data would be the primary use of the phone system instead of voice. The only draw back is who decides which technological standard would be best to carry forward in the future and who would be the one set that technology in stone so to speak, and we all know technology is a constantly changing entity. If Ma Bell had gambled on the wrong standard for upgrading their infrastructure, then we'd all be no better off today with yet another bad standard that would be hard and costly to change all over again. If they had gambled on fiber once that technology became available, which seems to be the best standard currently for internet traffic, and they had made the effort to get it installed back when it came out, we'd all be far better off today. The bad side of a monopoly like Ma Bell is that they would be least likely to change things if it turned out that they'd made a standards miscalculation long after they had already spent the capital to upgrade to what they thought everyone needed. The plus side of having a regulated monopoly is that Ma Bell tended to keep their equipment well maintained, unlike most of the telecoms we have currently do.
On the other hand today in the U.S., we have a small number of telecom companies all competing against each other, but with a slew differing competing standards that no one seems to have agreed upon as "The Standard" for carrying internet traffic. Because we all know that every company or geek with a brain thinks that their standards are the greatest thing since everyone else's sliced bread and that there's going to be a standards war because of it. That's how Silicon Valley does things most of the time and Silicon Valley is driving the technological change right now.
Plus most of these competing telecoms are focusing on content and trying to be the only ones to serve up that content. Infrastructure upgrades? To costly, even though these bastards are rolling in cash and the glaring fact they need better conduits just to serve up all that wonderful content. They want to sell us the cart full of movies even though the horse required to pull that cart is old and dying. Still, because most of these companies are smaller than Ma Bell was, they don't have as much capital or regulatory clout for completing capital improvements either. But competition tells us that if a company wants more customers, they'll have to come out with a better product than the other guy at a cheaper price. But why would they do that if it costs too much to implement and the fact that there are very few competitors around to force them to upgrade? Google is trying, which is certainly stirring the waters of competition to lower price and increase speeds in those areas where one or two telecoms rule. But even they don't have the money to upgrade the whole country based solely on competitive reasons. Their well is only so deep. I know that Google is trying right now to secure pole rights, which they currently don't have, which would make it far easier to hang fiber than dig trenches for it in established neighborhoods. The telecoms are fighting hard against giving Google this access because we all know they don't want the competition. Damn, what a Gordian Knot.
Spidey, the only reason I liked owning my phone was that I could move it from house to house when I moved, without having to call in some damn service rep, wait around for him to show up for God only knows how long and pay a charge to do it every time. It was convenient to move in, plug in the phone to a modular jack and get the number switched to the new address. Plus, I now own the wires in my own house and can change or replace them if needed, without getting the phone company or some repair guy who charged ridiculous rates, involved.
On the other hand today in the U.S., we have a small number of telecom companies all competing against each other, but with a slew differing competing standards that no one seems to have agreed upon as "The Standard" for carrying internet traffic. Because we all know that every company or geek with a brain thinks that their standards are the greatest thing since everyone else's sliced bread and that there's going to be a standards war because of it. That's how Silicon Valley does things most of the time and Silicon Valley is driving the technological change right now.
Plus most of these competing telecoms are focusing on content and trying to be the only ones to serve up that content. Infrastructure upgrades? To costly, even though these bastards are rolling in cash and the glaring fact they need better conduits just to serve up all that wonderful content. They want to sell us the cart full of movies even though the horse required to pull that cart is old and dying. Still, because most of these companies are smaller than Ma Bell was, they don't have as much capital or regulatory clout for completing capital improvements either. But competition tells us that if a company wants more customers, they'll have to come out with a better product than the other guy at a cheaper price. But why would they do that if it costs too much to implement and the fact that there are very few competitors around to force them to upgrade? Google is trying, which is certainly stirring the waters of competition to lower price and increase speeds in those areas where one or two telecoms rule. But even they don't have the money to upgrade the whole country based solely on competitive reasons. Their well is only so deep. I know that Google is trying right now to secure pole rights, which they currently don't have, which would make it far easier to hang fiber than dig trenches for it in established neighborhoods. The telecoms are fighting hard against giving Google this access because we all know they don't want the competition. Damn, what a Gordian Knot.
Spidey, the only reason I liked owning my phone was that I could move it from house to house when I moved, without having to call in some damn service rep, wait around for him to show up for God only knows how long and pay a charge to do it every time. It was convenient to move in, plug in the phone to a modular jack and get the number switched to the new address. Plus, I now own the wires in my own house and can change or replace them if needed, without getting the phone company or some repair guy who charged ridiculous rates, involved.
Cat (n.) A bipolar creature which would as soon gouge your eyes out as it would cuddle.
Re: The Need for Speed
When we moved from North Philly, we brought our non-owned phones with us, and plugged them into the jacks that were already installed in our new house.
(some changes had to be made, because no two families want phones in the same place)
I'm not old enough to remember when all phones were hardwired into the wall, all of the phones in our house in NP were modular, and it was a breeze to move them, and I also installed a few jacks in our new house without any help from a service company. (this was all before the breakup)
I understand owning a cell phone, because they are very personal, and can be used with a variety of different carriers. But on the other hand, DirecTV owns the box at my TV, and I don't give a damn...why would I want to own it.
(some changes had to be made, because no two families want phones in the same place)
I'm not old enough to remember when all phones were hardwired into the wall, all of the phones in our house in NP were modular, and it was a breeze to move them, and I also installed a few jacks in our new house without any help from a service company. (this was all before the breakup)
I understand owning a cell phone, because they are very personal, and can be used with a variety of different carriers. But on the other hand, DirecTV owns the box at my TV, and I don't give a damn...why would I want to own it.
-
Tunnelcat
- DBB Grand Master
- Posts: 13742
- Joined: Sat Mar 24, 2007 12:32 pm
- Location: Pacific Northwest, U.S.A.
Re: The Need for Speed
I remember pre-1976, and phones were hard-wired in in most homes back then. Hence the need to call, and wait, and pay, for a service rep. Thank the tech gods for the modular jack. As for the cable or TV box, I wouldn't want to own one either. They're finicky pieces of hardware that the cable company can keep, and maintain, on their own dime. They certainly charge me enough.
Cat (n.) A bipolar creature which would as soon gouge your eyes out as it would cuddle.
Re: The Need for Speed
Given how shitty our FiOS DVR is, and how much they want you to pay for their "Quantum" service in order to get a decent one, I'd much rather own my own at this point. Though they'd probably fix it so that you couldn't transfer the damn thing between providers anyway. Huzzah for de facto duopolies!
Re: The Need for Speed
Well if they didn’t want proprietary equipment, you could just use your computer.