After reading the article “Charter Cable boosts downloads to 100Mbps, keeps uploads limited to a modest 5Mbps,” I compelled to call Charter up to see if their service would be available in my area, and I did call.  Unfortunately, Charter isn’t servicing my area.  I guess I have to stick with my slow ISP for now.

Some people might not notice that even though United States is very techie, but the American general population is behind many other parts of the world in regarding to the Internet speed.  A commenter who wrote a comment below the Engadget’s article I mentioned above boasted he had only paid $19 for 100 Mbps download and 100 Mbps upload speeds in Lithuania.  If that is true, it’s just one example among many other examples that proves American general population is really behind in regarding to the Internet speed.

It’s not a surprise that we might see people who are giddy up and called Charter, because Charter is now providing faster Internet connections at cheaper prices than any other Internet service provider I’ve heard about.  For an example, its Express package which touts up to 15 Mbps download speed is almost as fast as AT&T’s most expensive package which touts up to 24 Mbps download speed, but the price for Charter Express package is only one third of AT&T’s fastest Internet package.  Charter Express package costs you $19.99/month.  The juiciest Charter’s Internet package would be 100Mbps download speed, and it costs roughly the same as AT&T’s fastest Internet package, but AT&T’s fastest Internet package touts only at 24Mbps download speed, about four times slower than Charter Ultra package.

If you look on Charter’s website, it shows that the prices for their Internet service are low as listed if only you bundle.  Does this mean you have to order their Internet service with something else too?  Perhaps, you have to bundle the Internet and TV services together to keep the price of the Internet service low and enticing?

I forgot to ask Charter’s salesperson about contract.  This is why I’m not sure if Charter requires you to sign a contract for however long before they can hook you up with the awesome Internet speed.  I’m so hoping Charter isn’t going the contract route, because it’s one more reason for some people to not upgrade their Internet speed.  I know I hate services that require me to agree to a contract enough that if I can help myself, I would stay away from such services at any cost.

Charter provides free Internet security suite known as Charter Security Suite to protect users from viruses, worms, trojans, and hackers.  I’m not sure the strength of their Internet security product.  Usually, Internet service providers would team up with well known security companies such as Symantec.  Maybe Charter is doing something similar for their security products too.  Nonetheless, I guess you have to find this out for yourself when you become a Charter customer.

Charter salesperson told me customers can also order $5/month Cloud Drive.  If I heard correctly, Cloud Drive would be free for the first month of service.  Cloud Drive allows customers to back up their data.  When I asked the salesperson how much Cloud Drive space a customer could have?  She said it is unlimited.  If our conversation has any merit, I guess $5/month, unlimited Cloud Drive is a sweet deal.  Still, I do not yet know how reliable Charter Cloud Drive would be, therefore I cannot really vouch for Cloud Drive until I really use it.

In conclusion, Charter touts amazing Internet packages that make me drool.  If Charter services my area, I would think about becoming a customer of theirs, but it has to do without contract and bundle.  I think Charter will eventually push other Internet service providers to provide better services, because it’s all about competition.  Unfortunately, it seems even though it’s already highly competitive among Internet service providers within the United States, other parts of the world have already touted faster Internet services for a long time already.  In regarding to the Internet speed for the general population, let hope someday we Americans will eventually lead and not play catch up, but today isn’t the day!

In addition to allowing users to backup data, Ubuntu One can sync files and folders across Ubuntu devices, including mobile devices.  Ubuntu One allows users to stream music to their mobile devices, but they have to pay $3.99 per month or $39.99 per year for this feature.  Streaming music feature will work with Android phones, iPhone, and iPad.  Users can subscribe to 20GB of storage for $2.99 per month or $29.99 per year, and this plan doesn’t support streaming of music.

Of course, Ubuntu One has a free plan which allows users to have 5GB of free storage.  Users can use smartphones and computers to access their files from Ubuntu One.  It’s like having additional hard drive or a partition on a computer.

Backing up specific files and folders to Ubuntu One is pretty easy, because you just drag and drop such folders to Ubuntu One folder.  When drag and drop files and folders to Ubuntu One folder, you basically retain the original copies on your system, and the backup copies reside on Ubuntu One’s servers (i.e., cloud service).

Whenever you delete files and folders from Ubuntu One folder on your system, the duplicate copies of files and folders on Ubuntu One’s servers will also be deleted.  This is how files and folders sync between your Ubuntu system and Ubuntu One’s account.  This is why it can be dangerous to delete files and folders inside Ubuntu One folder, unless you do not care of losing these backup files and folders.

You can be extra careful by just leave the files and folders where they are and make copies so you can paste these files and folders to Ubuntu One folder.  This way you have three copies of the same files and folders — two on system and one on Ubuntu One’s servers.  This way also fills up more space locally!

Anyhow, I’d created a video which briefly goes over Ubuntu One’s features and shows Ubuntu One in action.  You can check out the video right after the break.

In my opinion, users should not use Ubuntu One to backup the whole Ubuntu system, because Ubuntu One is more efficient in backing up regular folders and files of users.  To backup the whole Ubuntu system efficiently, I recommend users to use Deja Dup backup tool which comes by default with Ubuntu 11.10.

Has Netflix forever destroyed itself?  This question is quite important in this period of time for Netflix, because so many other players are willing to spend huge amount of money to build something that might be fit to compete against Netflix.  Just to name a few, Vdio, Amazon, Google, Dish’s Blockbuster, and Apple.

I don’t think Netflix is yet to be desperate, because it has several advantages that the competitors aren’t yet capable in matching or surpassing.  Let see, Netflix is still considering to be the best service.  It has more film titles than anyone else for instant streaming, and its CD/DVD by mail is still intact — has huge collections of films.  Although Netflix has raised prices higher, it’s considerably cheap, still.  People can instantly stream Netflix’s films on most devices and gadgets in the markets — this hasn’t been the case for the competitors.

I do think that by giving enough time, anyone can catch up to Netflix as long somebody is willing to spend enough cash to play the catch-up game and the customers are willing to switch to try out newer services so they can compare the formers versus the newcomers.  This is why I do think Netflix has to innovate more than just being the service which has acquired more film titles for instant streaming than anyone else.  Why?  Some customers might be contented with just enough film titles, because not everyone is able to sit down and watch all of them titles.  Nonetheless, good titles are very important, because only the titles people want to watch most will be able to promote the charm of the service.

How Netflix should innovate?  Netflix needs to add features and whistles and bells to its instant streaming service!  Let see, when I watch a TV show, I do not want to switch manually one episode to another, because I hate to get out of my couch or bed just to switch to the next episode of the series.  What can I say, people like me are born to be lazy, and I’m afraid there are tons of us out there!  Let see, Netflix might want to try incorporate social network features similar to Facebook and Google Plus into its own service, because it’s logical to allow users to communicate better.  Perhaps friends on Netflix might want to share favorite movies with each other and so on.  Let see, Netflix might want to bring live shows to users/customers.  Live shows have the potential to be game changer, because some people just want to be able to watch news the way they have been doing for ages on regular TVs.  There are so many things that Netflix can enhance its service, and by doing so I think Netflix can basically mute its competitors in way that it’s not even funny!  Let not forget to be simplistic and yet at the same time appearing to be capable!

In summary, Netflix isn’t that desperate yet, but it will be if it allows the competitors to catch up!  Netflix can enhance its service by tweaking its service in ways that appeal to customers more.  Netflix can dominate even more by controlling more popular film titles and TV shows.  Keeping the prices affordable, Netflix will be able to ensure its longevity.  Happy customers in the end will make things very costly for Netflix’s competitors.

Even a tiny possibility that Innovatio might get its way of declaring that everyone who has WiFi is infringing on its patents, you and I will be liable to certain penalties.  Imagine how many people like you and I are using WiFi as we speak!  How about the people from all over the world!  This makes me wonder — Can U.S. patents in relation to WiFi command any dictation over the WiFi usage outside of the United States?  You know?

If patents of WiFi that cannot dictate certain terms for the rest of the world but only within U.S., and yet WiFi is so widely use that one can make an analogy of it to utility, isn’t this unfair for the WiFi users within the U.S.?  Can that point alone make the idea of having patent on something as utility as purely impractical and will lead to chaos within the information industry?  Can that point alone justify the idea of having patents for WiFi — which parallels to how Cisco Systems and Motorola Solutions, Inc.’s calling for Delaware federal court to declare Innovatio’s WiFi patents to be invalid – to be abolished?

I think this case of Innovatio’s rampage on demanding for compensations on WiFi’s patents might fervently bring forth some of those mystical patent arguments, whether that be the arguments of patents on innovations that can be categorized as utility type or on something else which isn’t yet clearly defined at this point in time.  I’m certainly not in any position to argue on patents of anything, because I have no experience in this particular field at all.  Nonetheless, using common sense, I think WiFi users should not bear even the slightest responsibility of compensating for the infringement of WiFi patents, because after all users have had actually paid for WiFi products — agreeing that the makers of WiFi routers and so on to already price in the costs of patent licensing.  I insist that this is absurd and beyond my common sense!  What do you think?

Source:  http://patentexaminer.org/2011/09/innovatios-infringement-suit-rampage-expands-to-corporate-hotels/

Right after their announcement of partnership, Yahoo and ABC News announce that they will host an interview with president Obama which will make to be available on the websites of Yahoo News and ABC News.  The program will air at 2:35 PM ET.  You can actually submit questions that you want to ask of president Obama to Yahoo right now.  Yahoo will pick appropriate questions to ask president Obama when the show goes live.

What your opinion on Yahoo-ABC News partnership?  Do you think they will bring coolness to the next level?  Will these two will be able to become more relevant as Web 2.0 goes away gradually and Web 3.0 arrives meticulously?

Curious about Web 3.0?  I find article “How Web 3.0 Will Work“ to be interesting, because I believe that the line between Web 2.0 and Web 3.0 is rather blurry unless there will be innovations that surely define what is and what is not makes Web 2.0 and Web 3.0.  Of course, you can also care not for labels, and just say it is now that is more interesting than ever.

So, instead each tries to proceed with one’s own evolution, each has decided to join force and start a revolution together!  In conclusion, it will be interesting to see how Yahoo and ABC News work together.  Unfortunately, there is one looming rumor that may worry Yahoo users, and the rumor is about how Jack Ma, the founder and CEO of Chinese e-commerce giant Alibaba, wants to buy the whole Yahoo.  If the rumor is true and if the event has the potential to be fully realized, it will be even more interesting to see how ABC News will cope with such change.

Source:  http://www.forbes.com/sites/jeffbercovici/2011/10/03/with-abc-deal-is-yahoo-moving-away-from-original-content/

We all knows how smart hackers are nowadays, and to stay not anonymously on the Internet is to invite hackers and other strangers to get to know you way better, but as we know hackers and strangers who do not have good intentions toward an individual can do real damage with real information.  Of course, hackers and evil doers will have their own ways to acquire the personal/confidential information they need for them to carry out their agenda, but why should one make it easy for them to do so?  So, should we the people at least allow to lie about our ages in ethical and acceptable ways?  Sure, it’s easy for one to say one should not be on the Internet if one wants to lie about one’s age, but Internet nowadays is what people do!  We can’t just conceitedly saying that people should not do Internet when one has to lie about one’s age even though they clearly can or need the Internet for various noble reasons!

What do I mean of lying about ages in ethical and acceptable ways?  For an example, it’s illogical and illegal for one adult to pretend to be an eight year old child on the Internet no matter what noble intentions one has.  It’s obviously unhealthy and dangerous for an adult as a stranger to pretend to be a child, because you never know a stranger as an adult can mislead a child in ways that are unethical and criminal.  With that out of the way, it should be logical and safe for an adult to lie about his or her age on the Internet in ways that make sense.  For an example, a stranger doesn’t have to declare his or her age as 39 but 25.  After all, 25 is a legal age and this legal age can do almost anything as long it’s legal/legitimate (i.e., acceptable within laws) right?

So, I think the language of a law that will dictate how one should be prosecute in court for lying one’s age on the Internet should make sense and not to be strict to a point of impractical!  I fear that we are too rigorous in controlling how Internet should be to a point that we all go down the road where unhealthy censorship makes it hard for Internet to thrive in general.  I like Internet to be a place where creativity and positive social interactions thrive, but not let forget commons sense should thrive on the Internet too!  The examples that I’d given of how one can lie about his or her age on the Internet certainly do make one thinks about common sense on the Internet, right?  In the end, I do not know how the law will work, but I sure hope it will work in practical way for the Internet so the Internet will not be a place where idiotic lawsuits and unhealthy arguments will thrive.

To end this article, I want to say it clearly that I do not promote lying in anyway, whether that be in real life or on the Internet — but I prefer for one to be able to stay anonymous on the Internet, and whether that be for one to be able to choose a legitimate age, nickname, gender, fake address, fake phone numbers, and other personal information.  Of course, one has to follow rules and policies of a web service one has joined, but it should not be a crime for one to stay anonymous even though it’s clearly going against the rules and policies of a web service.  If a web service thinks it doesn’t like someone stays anonymous in its service, then it has the right to discontinue its service for such a person.  It’s necessarily though to acknowledge that a web service isn’t a body of a government, and so it should not be able to insinuate a person as a criminal in anyway even though such a person has gone against its rules and policies.  It’s obvious a person should be OK to go against a web service’s rules and policies as long he or she has not done anything wrong in the eyes of the real laws!  An example would be for a person to stay anonymous!

How about Netflix?  Netflix isn’t TV over the Internet, because it’s more of video streaming service.  If Netflix is TV over the Internet, then we can suffice to say that Netflix TV over the Internet can save us some money.  Why?  Netflix is so affordable even though its prices are now higher than before.  I think with $50 Internet connection from any ISP and $15 of Netflix’s Instant Streaming service together, we can still save some money from not having to spend on Cable or satellite.  Unless you don’t want to have Internet at all, it’s like one stone kills two birds at the same time, because you can have the Internet and Netflix at the same time.  Unfortunately, Netflix isn’t TV over the Internet, and so it’s impossible for folks who want true TV experiences over the Internet to cut their TV cords.

I think it’s suffice to describe a media type as TV over the Internet when people can watch live TV over their IP addresses.  YouTube is free to use and free to watch, and YouTube has some live programs; since YouTube is delivering over IP addresses, we can suffice to say YouTube is sort of TV over the Internet.  How come we can’t really say YouTube is a true TV over the Internet?  YouTube can’t deliver the range of live programs as Cable and satellite companies.  So, in a way we can recognize a service as TV over the Internet only when such service has enough live programs and those programs must be delivered over IP addresses.

Should TV over the Internet be any different in user experiences than traditional content delivering systems such as Cable and satellite?  I guess TV over the Internet should be smarter and allowing people to have more freedom of when to watch and what to watch —  more live shows the better.  Since live shows are live, it’s sufficing to say that it’s easier to say than distribute.  Fortunately, people are big spenders, even in bad economy such as this, as they’re buying up tablets and similar gadgets with little regrets.  Tablets and similar mobile gadgets allow people to watch live shows on the go anytime and at anywhere.  So, we can suffice to say that the demand for TV over the Internet is there, but the supply isn’t there!  That’s it, they demand smart, live shows on the go!  Smart as in allowing people to feel that user experiences from watching live shows over the Internet is better than the traditional content delivering systems.  Otherwise, we can suffice to say what’s the point, right?  After all, contents will be contents, and it doesn’t really matter what types of content delivering systems should people tap into as long user experiences are best.  Of course, affordable subscription plans will always be priced into the user experience formulas!

Many people cut their TV cords, because they feel so many programs they do not need to watch and yet they have to pay for them all.  It means the user experiences on outdated content delivering systems are no longer appropriate for a modern time such as today, because people are busier and consuming information way more faster and much more than ever before.  It’s easy to see why people do not like to pick up a TV Guide to figure out what channel has their favorite programs on what time so they can squeeze in couple hours in the day, away from work, just to relax and watch their favorite shows.  Nowadays, it’s more like I’ve two hours right now to waste, and so let get on the Internet and see what’s interesting!  Isn’t this obvious right now that TV has to be over the Internet, too?

There are too many factors that keep TV off the Internet!  Regulations and people who do not want to see TV over the Internet thrives are major obstacles for opening up TV over the Internet to the mass.  The technology is there, but TV over the Internet is something we haven’t seen widely adopted ever, therefore unknown consequences and benefits cannot be estimated and evaluated; unknown risks and benefits have prevented the advances of TV over the Internet.  Advertising models have to change too for TV over the Internet isn’t similar to the traditional content delivering systems.  It might be harder to gauge the Internet audience’s interests than the traditional content delivering systems’ audiences, because the folks who want to bring TV over the Internet to the mass may not have enough experience in figuring out their audiences just yet.  On the contrary, the folks who behind the traditional media had years of figuring out what their audiences would love to response to.  With so many uncertainties in the model of TV over the Internet, we can suffice to say the advertising folks and corporations may not take TV over the Internet as serious just yet, and this can prevent TV over the Internet to go forward in a big way.  Finally, I think/surmise that the biggest challenge of all is to convince people TV over the Internet is better and cheaper than traditional types of content delivering systems.

In conclusion, people want to move away from traditional media since the people of today aren’t the same people of many generations ago.  The Internet is something that has changed the way people behave in their daily lives such as shopping and watching TV and so on.  This is why it’s easy for us to see that TV over the Internet is the next big thing!  In order for this next big thing to work, TV over the Internet must save people money, otherwise it’s pointless for people to adopt TV over the Internet when they can just stick to the traditional media.  On top of saving people money, TV over the Internet must deliver the same capability and beyond the traditional media such as wide range of live shows, otherwise people will be reluctant to make a switch.  Everything will follow suit when most people make a switch from traditional media to TV over the Internet, because the audiences are the bread and butter for whatever industries that have to deal with TV (e.g., advertising agencies, corporations)!