There are options from most of the carriers. I'm doing the Republic Wireless $10 unlimited talk and text, but with no data. Having a 4G phone with no data sucks, but the price is compelling, and I should be able to add a prorated data plan for the times when I expect I do need it. Having WiFi calls when I'm at a place with no cell reception is also nice. However, counting the phone, my bill is higher than if I had been able to keep my dumbphone on somebody's T-mobile family plan.

Ting is a great choice for Sprint, Airvoice is a great choice for AT&T, PagePlus is decent for Verizon.

One interesting option is FreedomPop, but they seem to be in beta. Earlier versions of FreedomPop phones had poor performance and very poor voice quality, but they're supposedly improving. It would be interesting to see if they go anywhere with that.

Netflix is one of the primary sponsors of Encrypted Media Extensions, also known as DRM for the Web.

Therefore, I consider Netflix an enemy of the Internet. Since they do nothing other than distribute DRM media, it's easy to boycott the company.

It was not $5. It was $40 for Windows 8 Pro. I would have upgraded my entire fleet of Vista computers to Windows 8 if it were $5, but I just settled for the XP computers.

I'm betting that when Vista runs out of extended support in 2017, either Microsoft will have come out with another OS, those computers will have become so painfully obsolete that they've been replaced, or I'll just install some Linux on them.

The magnitude 9 earthquake was Windows Rot. The tsunami was Code Red, Nimbda, and their many pals. And the reactor core is melting through the containment vessel, the Microsoft Support Lifecycle. Everybody better evacuate, and leave the OS to people with the protective suits and dosimeters, that is, air gaps or extremely restrictive firewalls.

Last year, I upgraded the OS on my last Windows XP computers to Windows 8.1. Same machines, new OS. Windows 8.1 boots up dramatically faster than Windows XP, does basic stuff more smoothly and more prettily, and crucially is still supported. It's not perfect (understatement of the year) but it works better than Windows XP, and even Windows 7 is a better choice for a PC in the current environment.

You and the other responses to JDG1980 have missed the point.

Electrolux made my vacuum cleaner, but once I bought it they have no right to it. I can buy my vacuum bags and filters from Electrolux, or I can get clones of them from other manufacturers. With advances in 3D printing, I may even be able to replace parts of the machine itself without involving Electrolux.

It's not so with "intellectual property." I can't simply hire somebody else to support my Windows XP when Microsoft chooses not to. I have to get it from Microsoft itself, and Microsoft charges punitive rates to support Windows XP. You can't actually buy Windows. What you buy is a license to use Windows, with all the contractual limitations that Microsoft can apply.

This is a violation of intuitive, common sense concepts of buying. I have software, I should be able to give my friend a copy of it. Microsoft says each person will individually pay Microsoft for it. The conflict goes back all the way to the beginning of Microsoft, when people shared copies of Microsoft BASIC with each other. Bill Gates disapproved.

The disastrous end of Windows XP just proves that free software is the only long-term practical software.

I can make unflattering assumptions about you, too, but I don't think that's a satisfying use of my time.

By the way, both alen and bonehead's assumptions are false.

Just because you bought the bargain-basement Lenovo doesn't mean I'm still using such a pathetically obsolete resolution. Also, basically everybody has a 1080p TV by now. "HD video call" doesn't necessarily mean "PC."

The ISPs aren't supposed to be modifying videos. Many video applications do detect resolutions and available bandwidth, and adjust their encodings appropriately.

You disregard the entire history of humanity and backups. Some OCD people will keep backups manually, but large-scale backups won't happen unless it's automatic and unobtrusive.

I can make unflattering assumptions about you, too, but I don't think that's a satisfying use of my time right now.

My friends have lots of pictures and videos of their kids. I certainly hope I don't find those on pornography sites.

Yeah, living in the woods, you expect to pay extra for communications of every sort.

My problem is that I'm living in a semi-major city, next to Silicon Valley, with a minor Internet Exchange right in the city and several major exchanges not far away, and it would cost me $80/month for 50/10 cable service. Meanwhile, in South Korea, 100Mbps service would cost maybe $31/month.

As TFA points out, faster and cheaper Internet is possible. It's just not done in most of the US for various reasons.

Well, lucky you, living in a city blessed by Google Fiber.

In the rest of the country, the Internet is generally slow. It doesn't matter if it's liberal or conservative. The government isn't forcing competition, and the government isn't taking the lead on building infrastructure, so the cable and phone companies invest way less on fast Internet than in almost every other industrial country.

Even in Silicon Valley, with its dense urbanization, left-leaning politics, and large population of knowledge workers, most of Silicon Valley has pathetic options for broadband. It's either AT&T, slow and expensive DSL, or Comcast, fast and very expensive cable.

Though, Kessler has a bit of a point with regulations. As you would expect, some of the knowledge workers in Silicon Valley have been trying to get fast and affordable Internet into the area. My current favorite is Sonic.net, but I'm keeping Monkeybrains in mind in case I move into range. It's been extremely slow going. Even AT&T is having problems, getting the permits necessary for their faster-but-still-slow U-verse upgrades.

The point is that the super fast Internet is way too expensive. You're fine with 20/2 now, but if you could have 100/100 for the same price, would you stick with 20/2?

Not everything is publish-subscribe. I want to be able to set up storage boxes in friends' houses or the cloud or whatever, so I can have off-site backups of my data. I want to be able to play with various decentralized communications programs. Some people your age are starting to have grandkids. It would be nice to talk to them in HD, like those science fictions of the 21st Century were saying we would be able to do.

Don't worry about what you'd use the bandwidth for. If you have bandwidth, eventually you'll find a use for it.

It's more than that. A boutique vendor can pay the $200 or whatever for a 1-shot OEM license of Windows 8.1, and charge it back to the customer, but the large vendors are in a relentless price war. They need the volume discount. I'm not sure about now, but back in the day an OEM wouldn't qualify for the volume discount unless every PC they sold ran only Windows. So, sell every PC for $100 more, or just do Microsoft everything. Your choice. No pressure.

It's not the copyright monopoly that makes me especially upset about Microsoft. It's the OEM contracts that forbid alternative operating systems. Those are a failure of free-market capitalism because large OEMs needed Microsoft so they could sell PCs to a majority market, but then Microsoft used the secret contracts to force the OEMs to use Microsoft software for all PCs they sold. Technically, they're free to take Microsoft's contract or leave it, but economically it's suicide for a large PC vendor not to sell Windows. Long after alternative desktops have withered and died, besides MacOS, only now are we seeing timid development of alternatives, such as the Dell Ubuntu Developer Edition laptops and the HP Android desktops.

There are other free-market violations, too. Microsoft abuses the patent system with terrible patents and paid lobbying to prevent reforms. Microsoft abuses the standards system with terrible standards and paid patsies. Microsoft abuses the media with terrible publications and paid shills. Microsoft is fully in support of the DMCA and DRM, of totalitarianism and censorship. Microsoft is an evil company.

There are still enough reasons to hate Microsoft. I generally try to avoid Microsoft products, but Microsoft still impacts me in various ways:

1. Abuse of patents. Not only shaking down Android and other embedded Linux companies, but lobbying against patent reform that would reduce the effectiveness of their warchest of dubious quality.
2. Abuse of standards bodies. OOXML is better than doc/xls/ppt, but it's not an actual standard like ODF is. Microsoft really messed up the ISO, there, for short-term financial interests.
3. DRM. After suffering a string of failed DRM schemes, Microsoft (with Google) is pushing DRM into web standards.
4. Totalitarianism. Microsoft is okay with it. Again, short-term financial interests win over any principles of human dignity.
5. Marketing. Microsoft has absolutely bonkers product names. It makes understanding their stuff more challenging.
6. Licensing. At heart, Microsoft makes money on preventing people from helping each other. They need to go to Microsoft to get their software properly developed and properly licensed.

Microsoft hate is not just about products. It's about the whole system. Microsoft is harmful and evil.

O.J. Simpson and George Zimmerman were acquitted. Not guilty.

Their circumstances were really different. O.J. Simpson certainly acted very strangely, starting with the chase in the white Bronco, but he could afford very good lawyers. After a farcically broadcasted trial they managed to reach a not-guilty verdict. Then, in a much shorter trial, O.J. was found to be liable for his ex-wife's death. I think I don't want to understand that logic.

George Zimmerman was on the phone with 911 when he shot and killed Trayvon Martin. There's no need to find Trayvon's real killer. The question was whether it could be proven that George was not acting in self-defense. They couldn't prove it, so he was found not guilty of murder.

I don't know whether George Zimmerman murdered Trayvon Martin, but I haven't been convinced that he should be punished for it. I certainly don't like the mainstream media's attempts to bait the US into a race war.