I AM THE LAW!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v...

I agree with your post, have no mod points, and have nothing else useful to add. :)

No one wants to be reminded that all of that debt and extra "education" may not have been required.
It is less disturbing for many to claim they made the best choice where there was no good one.

As soon as Google gets some penalty from a government regarding their use of a dominant position as a search engine to mandate that the use of their services requires using their social network (Google+), then I'll entertain the idea that Microsoft could get penalized for this.

Until then, I'm pretty sure MS is safe from the governments.

The first Xbox shipped with an ethernet connection when most people were on dial-up.

My point is that they could have played to the majority that have a high-bandwidth connection and leave the PS4 and the Xbox 360 for those that don't. Don't try to be everything to everyone.

They could have gone without a disc.Make it like a Steam box.

There are rumors they considered it, and I wish they would have. Chances are they could have still bundled the Kinect and been at price parity without the BD drive.

I was really looking forward to the discless console. I don't normally resell my games, and I have a gamer family of 4 with multiple consoles. For me, it was a huge win to buy everything digital and never have it damaged, be able to play it on every device without buying a second copy, etc...
Plus, they had the option to cut out the distribution layer. Even if they didn't lower the price for the digital copy, more money would have gone directly to the developer, and I'm sure some of it would have also gone to Microsoft.

They majorly screwed up the PR around this, though, and backed out. When all of the "always on" rumors started, they should have jumped on it explaining all of the benefits of a digital download only model. Instead, they did a "no comment" and everyone focused on the negatives.

TCP will re-transmit dropped packets, but this means by definition that some will arrive out of order.
The reason TCP is a bad protocol for voice is that you don't have time to reassemble the packets. The only way you can use TCP to insure that you have 100% packet in order (on a network you don't control, like the Internet) is to have a HUGE buffer. That buffer is delay. So, I might have perfect audio quality, even on a congested line, but there will be a noticeable 1-2 second delay.

UDP doesn't re-transmit, and this is perfect for VoIP because you ideally only want a 10-30ms buffer, and if a packet is outside of that, you just drop it & live without it.

They do. It is called HomeFusion. It costs $120/mo for 30gb, but is constantly used to incorrectly claim that Comcast has competition.

As for your other points:
-FiOS is in very few markets. If FiOS is no longer being deployed, it isn't true competition to Comcast. You can't claim they are true competition if they don't plan to compete for the same market. (5 million FiOS vs 24.1 million Comcast, with only Comcast growing)
-2016 sunset or not, my point was to rebut your claim that Verizon and Comcast are competitors. Their actions over the last year or so are not that competitive.
-DSL is a joke. The speeds do not compare, and the distance limitations mean that the reach will never equal cable.
-The link to Verizon works in Chrome & IE 11. Not sure what the issue is with your browser.

To be clear, you actually feel there is healthy competition for high-speed (greater than 10mbps, unlimited) Internet? Is that the point you're trying to make? That is the point I'm calling bullshit on.
If your point is something else, maybe we agree.

Yet, they are partners:
http://www.verizonwireless.com...

You mean the FiOS that they're not going to deploy anymore?
http://gizmodo.com/5503428/ver...

http://www.dslreports.com/show...

Tell me more fantasy of broadband competition. This is fun!

Keep in mind that the IPv6 address space is more like 64 bits in many ways than 128 bits, since the smallest size of a network should be 64.

The goal was for this to be the last IP version needed, period.By the time IPv6 runs out (if it ever does), something will have replaced IP, just like IP replaced IPX.

Last time I tried DD-WRT, getting IPv6 on there was a CLI bitch, and I don't think it supported PD at that time.

I'm using pfSense now & never looked back to a SOHO router again. If you have an old P4 lying around with 512 ram, throw an extra 10/100 NIC in there & give it a spin. If you like it, you can roll your own fanless case & get the power consumption back down to an appliance level.

For a while I used the linksys I had as an access point, then swapped it out for a UniFi & again, couldn't be happier for the price.

Back to the topic, you'll find that the current state of IPv6 is not only an ISP issue, but also a hardware & software issue. Even pfSense only recently really supported IPv6 properly with 2.1, and many other devices I've tried have varying levels of support.
Ironically, the most IPv6-complete item I've found is Windows 7/Server 2008R2.

While I'm on a kick recommending stuff, check out ipvfoo for Chrome once you get IPv6 working. It is helpful to see how many sites still don't support IPv6 native: https://code.google.com/p/ipvf...

I'm on Comcast, and I'm getting a /60 from them.

Your WAN interface might be on a /128, and that is fine. You need to make sure your gear is telling Comcast what size of prefix you want delegated to your router.

Of course, this varies by market, so it might really not be there yet, but read up on prefix delegation & make sure you've got your end setup correctly: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/P...

Also, don't trust the tech support with this. They are clueless. According to them, IPv6 isn't available in my market.

Exactly this.

People care more about their favored video service (Netflix, Amazon, iTunes) than their ISP.

The content providers need to show how the ISPs affect the speed, and who the best option in your area is.

Ok, I get what is going on. I'm assuming that the benefit is to self-driving cars, and I still think I'm right about that. More sensors mean better data for a computer to make better decisions.

Your point is that to a HUMAN driver, nearly all cars need to have it in order to provide useful information that human can react to. I'll agree with you there.

Woah, worthless?

You're telling me that if there are 2 self-driving cars on the road with 20 old non-network cars, there is no benefit for those 2 cars to coordinate?

What about the two smartcars coordinating their shared view of all of the "dumb" cars?
"Car 2, this is car 1. Dumbcar 249234 is next to me, in front of dumbtruck 2352 and has decreased speed from 72mph to 30mph and dropping."
"ACK Car 1, dumbtruck 2352 is directly in front of me. Reducing speed to increase space between myself and dumbtruck 2352, preparing to change to lane 3 when available"
*Obviously, they wouldn't talk like this, but could assign tags, coordinates & speeds, and this conversation could occur in milliseconds.

The idea is that the more sensors you have, the better the system works. Google and others are doing this with a single moving sensor platform now. A second one just makes both of them work better together, treating the non-connected cars as moving objects that must be avoided.

Looking at it another way, Waze is quite effective even with VERY low penetration rates. Imagine how much more effective Waze would be if every car made after 2018 was automatically plugged into it?

Lol! You're telling me that better than listening to someone in person I should record them & put it through a filter?

Sure. If there is background noise, I get it. Two people talking in a quiet room? No way.