...And the Cord is Cut

The deed is done. In my last post I described my reasoning behind dumping all but internet service from Comcast, and this morning I did just that. My bill has been cut from nearly $160 down to about $74 for 20Mbps downstream / 4Mbps upstream internet and a modem lease. The rep recommended a 'basic cable' package for $24 that would give me a $15 discount on the internet service, for a net increase of $9. Get out of my face with that - I'm not spending any money on standard definition content.

A $7/month lease on a junky cable modem won't do, so I purchased one from Amazon for $90. The Motorola SB6121 is a DOCSIS 3.0 modem; a future-proofed step up from the DOCSIS 2.0 modem provided. In addition to being given the thumbs-up from Comcast, you can quickly find a large amount of people that are successfully using this device with their Comcast service. Just to make sure that I wasn't being bottle-necked by my current modem, I ran a quick test and found that I was getting just about what was promised.

(Speedtest.net)

That said, for my current plan DOCSIS 2.0 is fine (it's good up to nearly 43Mbps downstream), and I really don't need a 3.0 device. However, the new devices are all 3.0, and if our pals at Comcast crank up the speeds out of the goodness of their hearts, I'll be ready. It should be here in 2 days, thanks to Amazon Prime, the love of my life.

For giggles, I checked the actual power consumption of the DCX3400 DVR to see if the report of it chewing up 150W continuously was correct. Turns out that this was way overblown, as a poster later on in the thread pointed out. Actual measured power:

• On and showing a picture on the TV with sound: 28W
• 'Off' with no picture on the TV, just the time shown on the box: 28W
• I didn't sit around to see if it goes into a standby mode, which I've read should be around 17W. 

Now, at the rates from last month, power costs about 15 cents per kWh when you add up all the various charges. Even if this device ran at peak power for the whole month, it doesn't amount to much - just $3.07/month. No big savings here, the box's power dissipation is inconsequential.

To sum things up, once I install the new modem and give Comcast back theirs, my new bill will be about $65 with taxes and such for 20Mbps down / 4Mbps up internet. This is about an $80 savings over what I typically have been paying, now that TV service is gone. And lastly, if you're a Comcast customer and plan on having internet for more than a year, do yourself a favor and buy a modem, don't lease one. A $90 top-of-the line modem pays for itself in a little over a year. Buy it here, so I get a kickback!

A Case for Cutting the Comcast Cord

Scrolling through the recent transactions posted to my credit card, I noticed that my Comcast bill for the month was about $15 higher than it usually is. Sure enough, whatever weird promotion I had just ended, and it was time to go finagle a new one with a Comcast rep. Then I stopped to think: Why the hell am I paying them over $150/month?! 

Here are some reasons why I've wanted to dump Comcast, and why you should too.

• Every year you have to jump through hoops with Comcast sales people to renegotiate some sort of a limited-time-offer deal to keep the monthly cost down.
• To qualify for a reasonable discount, I had to ADD phone service. Now I've got this giant clunky modem with a big battery (that I removed, otherwise you can't reboot the thing when there's a problem) which allows me to use the 'home phone' (that I do not know the number to, nor actually own a phone that would plug into this). For this device, I pay $7/month for. That's $84/year.
• I pay $7.00/mo for a DVR that cuts the ends off of shows, has a clunky SD user interface that is rarely updated, and draws a continuous 150W irrespective if it's 'off' or 'on'. ONE HUNDRED AND FIFTY WATTS ALL THE TIME!
• Comcast has apparently sold my 'home phone' number, because I frequently get a caller ID pop-up on TV when watching something off the cable box. Nobody knows this number, not even me, so these calls are quite clearly telemarketers.
• The quality of Comcast's HD video has been declining as they cram more channels into the same bandwidth. This post, from back in 2008 shows the problem very clearly. Today, the motion artifacts are so bad I get physically angry watching shows with a lot of movement. 
• And lastly, I don't really watch much TV. I really shouldn't be either. Neither should you. Go outside, fatty.

So here I am with my fancy home phone service that has no phone connected to it, and an 'HD Preferred Xf'' bundle whose main purpose is to allow screenings of new Jersey Shore episodes as they air. Here's my bill, now at nearly $160. That's over $1900/year!

I'm not normally one to try to aggressively cut costs out of my life at the expense of enjoyment (hell, I love me some Jersey Shore premiers), but this is now a matter of principal. I'm paying for a service that irritates me. Everything about it does. The quality of the HD video is not great, the equipment they provide me with is power hungry and comically outdated, and they make me renegotiate pricing all the time. It's simply not worth it, both in terms of money and mental frustrations. It upsets me, and Snookie can't get into enough wild situations (pun intended) for me to justify keeping the service.

So what's the plan? Well for starters, I've got plenty to do besides sit on the couch and watch TV. But when this needs to occur, as it does when I need to not think for a while, here are my content sources:

• Netflix streaming: I've been using this service for a long time and it's great. It's available on 3 devices connected to my TV (I use Apple TV primarily for this) and it's very cheap.
• Over the air broadcasts: I'm researching antennas to pick up these stations in the Nashua, NH area. Here I can get local news and most of the prime time programming that I'd want. Without a DVR, it's much less useful, so I may keep that.
• Amazon Prime Video: Amazon Prime is the best thing in the world for the free 2 day shipping alone, but they also include a Netflix-esque service that's now available on the PS3. 
• Hulu Plus: I'll start my subscription to this again, which I had previously cancelled for lack of compelling content. It's only $8/mo, available on the PS3, and has much of the newer programming that Netflix lacks.

Aside from the OTA programming, all these services come over my broadband connection, bringing up the concern of bandwidth utilization. Last month and much of this month were the heaviest months of Netflixing I've ever had, and I don't expect to ever watch that much again (think 7 seasons of Grey's Anatomy...).

So under the heaviest usage I could ever fathom, I'm a safe 100GB away from the 250GB trip point where Comcast gets upset.  The moral of the story here is that I can rely on streaming services and stay under my data cap without worrying about it.

So excited about this new plan, I called their 24/7 support line tonight to cancel all these extraneous services, but their offices were closed. Thanks for the 24/7 line, Comcast.

I can't wait to see this thing...

Josh Topolski on the 3rd generation iPad screen:

"As with any kind of screen technology, it really is the kind of thing you have to see in person. When you compare the old iPad to the new one, or to any other tablet for that matter, you'll start to wonder how you were ever able to look at anything else. I'm not saying that the screen alone is reason enough to buy this product, especially if you've got a tablet you're happy with right now, but I do think the quality of this display could make you a sudden convert. It's just really, really good."

I already am disgusted with the iPad 2 display and I cant wait for Friday.

iPad 3 Predictions - An Addendum

Well, I already wrote about my predictions for iPad 3 here, but then this happened. Let's talk about it, and talk about something that I had overlooked.

The sources were right, Apple will be unveiling the next iPad on March 7, 2012. In their invitation to the tech media, they included the picture at the top of this post, which got everyone all sorts of excited. Immediately, everyone started drawing conclusions from this image. There are two things that stand out, the latter of which I didn't even notice until I saw MG Siegler writing about everyone's reaction to it:

1. The resolution of the device in the photo is clearly superior to that of the current iPad. Several sites have replicated the photo to show the difference, like this one. We can assume this is confirmation of the higher resolution display.
2. There appears to be no home button, not even a marking where a capacitive button would exist.

So item 1: Check. Item 2: Well, this is less concrete. Siegler linked (see all the LOLs) to a whole slew of sites explaining why they thought this picture confirmed the absence of a home button. They contend that the screen is oriented in portrait due to the icon spacing and water droplets of the background, so we would expect the home button to be there. He contends that Apple would never leak such a major change to their design in this way, they never would do it.

Reminded of possibility that the home button could be ditched, I now believe that this design change is highly probable. Four and five finger gestures that replicate home button functionality already exist, and if you've read any of my previous posts you know that the current buttons fail. Getting rid of that button, in most instances would be fine. I disagree with Siegler here, at least in principal. 

First, this 'leak' is generating a ton of chatter, at least in the tech news arena. Just look at all those posts he linked to; everyone's talking about it! I think this generates much more press than Cook putting up a slide during the presentation that says 'look, no button', because really, it's cool but ultimately a non-feature. It's a very Apple simplification that on it's own isn't very exciting, but when it's surrounded in an aura of uncertainty, it's suddenly intriguing.

Plus, they're clearly giving away (presumably, unless we've all missed something) the best feature of the new iPad - the super-sexy-high-resolution screen. There's no way that they'll show us a 1024x768 screen after showing us this image, it would be a huge disappointment. If they're giving this away, why not slip something else in there? And while you're at it, shroud it in doubt. Now that's Apple. 

So did they give away two of the new features of this thing in the invite? Let's tack on 'no home button' to my list of predictions. See you Wednesday.

iPad 3 Predictions

Oh how the time flies. It seems like just yesterday I was being yelled at by Target security guards for photographing the goings on of iPad 2 release day. Nearly a year has passed and it's time for that device I gleefully paid $700 for to become an outdated piece of crap that I'm embarrassed to be seen in public with.

If you're in the market for a tablet - don't buy one right now! The third generation iPad is expected to be announced in the first week of March with availability later in the month. The date has further been narrowed down to March 7th, but all we need to know is that the announcement is expected in just a few weeks. It's almost upon us so let's round-up the rumors that have been tossed around. If we add up all these rumors, the new iPad will have...

• a retina display twice the resolution of iPad 2 at 2048x1536 (that's 4x the pixel density!),
• This has been rumored from numerous sources, and recently 'confirmed' when MacRumors landed a 9.7" panel with this exact resolution.
• a version that supports Verizon and AT&T LTE
• a quad-core processor with better graphics dubbed the A6
• one or two improved cameras as evidenced by the new camera hole in the case iLab got ahold of
• and maybe a smaller 8" version

The only thing that everyone can agree on is that the new iPad will have a retina display. The resolution is easy enough to figure out; they'll quadruple the current resolution, just like they did from iPhone 3GS to iPhone 4. Why is this the case? Simple: Apps trivially scale to this new resolution when each pixel becomes 4 new pixels. For example:

On a 4x resolution display (twice the number of pixels horizontally and vertically), apps designed for the original display will look exactly the same, as is shown in the left two pictures. When app designers get around to increasing the resolution of their graphics, they have 4x the amount of pixels to work with, making for much smoother and crisper graphics, like the rightmost picture. Compare an iPhone 3GS to an iPhone 4; the difference is astounding. The 3GS looks like a piece of junk.

I believe that the new iPad will have this new retina display for the following reasons:

1. No other feature is compelling enough to make this new iPad significantly better than the current generation. A faster processor, LTE, fancier cameras, etc - they don't amount to much, and Apple doesn't compete on specs. They already did a minor spec bump from the original iPad to iPad 2; now it's time for something revolutionary.
2. Folks have gotten a hold of the parts; 9.7" displays of this nature exist. However, this question remains: Will they be able to be produced in the massive quantities required by Apple and at low cost? I'm sure that they've been working on this since before iPad 2 came out, so I think we can say yes.

Here are my predictions on the other stuff and why:

• A version that supports Verizon and AT&T LTE
• Yes. The battery life of iPad 2 is incredible, so there's room to burn some more with a reasonably power hungry LTE chipset. LTE / CDMA / GSM chipsets exist that can handle LTE and fallback to Verizon and AT&T's slower networks when LTE isn't available. Since this device is mostly a big slab of battery (and may have a larger battery in the new version), it could handle the additional power requirements of LTE that have kept this feature from the iPhone. The new iPad would also serve as a great testbed for LTE when it comes to iPhone in the 6th iteration of that device.
• A quad-core processor with better graphics dubbed the A6
• Yes and no. I believe that there will be an A6 processor on-board, but doubt they'll bump it up to quad core. Various sources have reported on a quad-core A6, but some disagree and say it will stay dual core but with improved graphics processing. I think that significantly improved graphics processing will be included to handle the new high resolution display, but that it will remain dual core for cost and power reasons. Just because the market is being flooded with quad core Android devices doesn't mean Apple will follow suit, which is where this rumor likely originated from. The A5 is plenty fast (ever hear someone complain about an iPad 2 being slow?) and the cost and power trade-offs of moving to a larger and likely more power hungry quad core processor are not worth this spec bump... yet.
• One or two improved cameras as evidenced by the new camera hole in the case iLab got ahold of
• Sure, why not. I'd like to see cameras that can handle HD video chat with the great sensor of the iPhone 4S, but not much has been said about it. Some reports say that the new iPad will have a thicker case, which means they'd be able to put in a thicker, and better camera. I don't have any idea what the specs will be, but I suspect it will handle HD video chat. 
• A smaller 8" version
• No. I don't think they need another size. I suspect rumors about this are simply because people think that they need to compete with the smaller Kindle Fire and Nook Tablet, but in reality, they aren't really on the same playing field. Get those rumors out of my face.

Lastly, what are they going to call this thing? It's widely speculated that it will be dubbed the iPad 3, and occasionally you hear the term iPad HD tossed around. I believe that they won't ever use the HD moniker since HD implies one of two widescreen resolutions (720p or 1080p). I suspect it will be called iPad 3. 

We'll find out in just a few weeks what the actual story will be. Until then, try not to get nauseous looking at that chincy 1024 x 768 display.