Ordered a Kindle!

Today, I ordered an Amazon Kindle. I ordered the $189 white version with 3G, there's also a charcoal version and a $139 Wi-Fi version. I went with the 3G version due to it's international web browsing - for free - in most, but not all, countries. I am hoping to make it to the UK and Ireland to visit relatives early next year, and possibly even make it to other parts of Europe... not sure on that yet though! The Kindle is an e-ink screen, and far from ideal. But good enough for the news, GMail, Blogger, etc. At least, I hope so. We'll see.

I'm also buying it as the test platform for the Kindle version of a book I am writing... :) More details will come when I get the Kindle, along with reviews. But that'll be awhile because I went with the super saver shipping...

Verizon sells Frontier landlines, Verizon kills Frontier?

Okay, so, like a year or so ago Verizon sold a bunch of unwanted landlines to Frontier. Today, Verizon declared a technological war on Frontier. It's called Home Phone Connect, and - I'm sure coincidentally - it's being trial marketed to customers in a market largely served by Frontier. It's a landline to CDMA adapter. The device is free (with contract?) and the plans are about $10/month to allow it to share your family plan's minutes (same as an extra line on a family plan...) and $20/month for unlimited calling. Which is really odd, since it's using the same mobile network a Verizon mobile phone does. Presumably, they're assuming a landline replacement will see less use than a mobile. Or it's simply charging what people will pay :) That's cheaper than a landline.

Combine this with Verizon's plan to offer LTE network-wide by 2014, which will be at least as fast as the DSL the vast majority of Frontier subscribers can get, and should have higher data caps than CDMA, what will become of Frontier?

It looks to me like it's possible that Verizon sold Frontier areas they weren't upgrading because they knew that their wireless division had plans that would make those assets irrelevant in the market. Wouldn't that be insider trading or some other crime?

More TSA lies...

Okay, so y'all know how I feel about backscatter X-ray. It is potentially dangerous (the dose is very low, but according to the linear no-threshold model for radiation risks, it WILL cause some people to get cancer. Granted I'm not 100% convinced that LNT is accurate, but still). It is a huge privacy invasion. I'd urge anyone to opt for a pat-down instead, no matter how degrading it seems. Especially for children, who are more at risk from any radiation hazard. But let's add the TSA lying to the mix:



I want to make VERY clear the contradiction even CNN doesn't call them out on. The TSA claims the machines aren't networked and don't have transmission ability. They also claim that the images are viewed remotely. Which means that clearly they are transmitting the images over a network. End of story.

Alltel area GSM

Well guys and gals, the first Alltel markets have been converted to AT&T. I've read a few reports from people in these early markets. There are pros and cons and I don't have much to say for Alltel customers yet. No good data card speed numbers, wide area coverage comparisons, anything like that yet. What I do have, based mostly on AT&T's newest coverage map posted to their site is the answer to one of my big questions - what about GSM? See, AT&T uses two network technologies - GSM and UMTS. Almost all UMTS phones work on GSM. UMTS is simply "3GSM" or "3G GSM" to many. But see, the networks are separate. And GSM phones don't work on UMTS. Furthermore, most AT&T UMTS phones don't work on T-Mobile GSM; and most T-Mobile GSM phones don't work on AT&T UMTS. The "bands" - the slices of radio space used - are different. Even for phones that do work, as far as I know, AT&T and T-Mobile's roaming agreement doesn't allow UMTS roaming. Tracfone and most other prepaid handsets are cheap and strictly GSM.

Alltel, also, is a multi-tech company. They run CDMA and GSM. However, the GSM coverage area is far smaller than the CDMA coverage area. The Alltel GSM network is truly bad and exists only to provide roaming service for people who'd otherwise have no coverage. It's not a truly usable network for most people.

Well, what about GSM? We hear all this talk of 3G from AT&T, and never the letters GSM used in any official written communication. Alltel employees have mentioned GSM, but UMTS (3G) is part of the GSM family. To most people they're one and the same. But I've been suspicious all along, based on official filings and written communications, that GSM wasn't going to happen in the divested areas.

Unfortunately, it looks like I was right. The first markets have been added to AT&T's coverage map. 3G only. Former Alltel GSM is still listed as "partner" coverage. It's still not listed at all on the GoPhone map (even though several reports online indicate AT&T GoPhone's now work on the Alltel network at least in Montana). And that's not for lack of map updates - the 3G is all there in Nevada today. There's even a new category on the GoPhone map - "3G GoPhone - requires 3G capable handset" that applies to the Alltel converted markets. Reports on HowardForums indicate that when the phones fall back to GSM (as has happened to one person) it's the same old poor coverage GSM there is now.

Thus, it appears obvious that not only has AT&T not upgraded GSM, that AT&T GSM's future in our markets is bleak. AT&T hasn't even gone so far as to change the "partner" designation of the Alltel GSM network (even in Nevada) to native. Of course, that can be simply the time it takes to do the street-level thing AT&T does for native coverage. More bleak is that said "partner" coverage hasn't been added to the GoPhone map. Most concerning of all, however, is the new "3G GoPhone - requires 3G capable handset" designation.

That indicates to me that not only is the GSM not being improved, it may even disappear entirely. Unlike the CDMA network, I know of no FCC/DOJ mandate for AT&T to keep the Alltel GSM network. They may have contractual obligations with T-Mobile as part of the spectrum leasing agreement Western Wireless created (basically a somehow-legal non-compete agreement).

I have several friends who have T-Mobile prepaid. The $15/month unlimited texting is perfect for kids. My grandma has it because once you get Gold Rewards it's dirt cheap to maintain for an emergency phone. Obviously, T-Mobile roams on MTPCS CellularOne here so it's not a huge concern in Montana. But the additional coverage of GSM on the whole Alltel network would've been a good thing. Even more importantly, however, is what this will mean for T-Mobile, GSM Tracfone, etc customers in the Dakotas. Most of the Dakotas have no other GSM network. At best, it means that things aren't getting any better. At worst, well, who knows what AT&T has planned. But it's really curious.

Also, it's worth a last note that some Alltel customers might have an interest in AT&T having a good GSM network here - the Alltel BlackBerry Tour and Alltel BlackBerry Bold are GSM compatible, and can be used post-transition. But only on GSM, not on UMTS. If AT&T doesn't improve - or even makes worse/dismantles - the Alltel GSM network here, well, then that won't be a viable option unless you like really bad coverage.

Anyone know anything they can say for sure or simply share in my curious observations?

More On TSA Backscatter X-rays

Okay, I'll admit it, yesterdays post was an incomprehensible rant that had as much to do with potential overuse of CT medical imaging as it did about the backscatter X-ray systems the TSA bought. So today's is going to be quick simple and to the point:

Pilots are good, pilots fly planes. We trust pilots to take control of large, potentially missile-like objects and use them to safely deliver millions of people and packages every year. Any pilot could easily use their position at the controls to kill everyone on board and cause massive damage on the ground. But we don't trust pilots enough to allow them to carry a pocket knife on the plane, bypass backscatter X-rays, "enhanced pat-downs", etc. Because, hey, they could use anything they snuck on the plane to hijack control of... the plane they're already controlling. It's stupid, illogical, degrading, and - in the case of backscatter X-rays - potentially hazardous. If there is any risk from these machines, pilots are the most at-risk adult population (frequent flying children are probably the most at-risk).

The risk is extremely low, if there is any. It is assumed there is a tiny risk due to the linear no-threshold theory of radiation protection (LNT). LNT is designed to provide a margin of safety. The real risk is probably lower than LNT would lead us to believe. The ionizing radiation levels are small, the exposure time minimal, and the X-rays are very low energy which means that most of the energy absorbed is in the skin. Thus, the risk is almost (but probably not quite) zero. And any lower than almost zero is pretty much zero. However, you're still talking about intentionally exposing the general public to ionizing radiation for no individual benefit to them. That's highly questionable, ethically speaking. Making it more questionable is the fact that there are alternate security systems, including millimeter wave scanners that produce similar (but not quite as clear) images with the use of no ionizing radiation whatsoever (they use radio waves, much like a cell phone does). Why did the government buy the backscatter X-ray systems when millimeter wave systems would serve the same purpose just fine with no ionizing radiation exposure?

Just some more food for thought...

More Radiological Safety...

Okay, so any frequent reader knows I'm as radiophobic as people come. Radiation scares me to death. Not so much for myself, but for my friends I could never watch die a slow and painful death. My best friend had a sinus CT scan a couple years ago, doctor's orders. Found nothing of concern, but I know full well she has a chance, small, but not really that small, of dying from cancer induced by that scan. A sinus CT scan averages about 1 mSv of ionizing radiation exposure averaging multiple sources I've found. Nobody knows the exact risk - anywhere from one in 1,000 to no risk. I'm going to say one in 2,000 for the sake of argument. It's a number mostly pulled from a hat, but one that seems to be as valid as any other number. That's the same as your chance of dying in a car accident in the next four years. Sure, not a huge risk - but one that seems foolish to take if there is no benefit. Doctors will argue that they can save your life with the information learned. This is true only if they will save more than one in 2,000 lives. That's highly doubtful when such scans are taken "just in case" with no evidence to suggest the patient actually has anything more than an infection. CT scans are high-profit-margin procedures that also protect doctors from lawsuits for failure to diagnose. Make sure you know the risks and benefits, the exposure level, and most of all WHY a doctor wants to take a CT scan. Also, remember, there may be alternatives such as ultrasound or MRI that don't involve ionizing radiation exposure.

Now, that's all for a procedure that a doctor ordered for a patient's benefit. Sure, there's a risk; but it is hoped that any doctor ordering X-ray procedures expects the potential benefits to substantially outweigh the potential risks. I'm not convinced that they always do, but at least that's the concept.

What if instead of for potentially diagnosing you with a deadly disease, X-rays were performed as virtual "strip searches" in the name of security? Then would the risks be worth the benefit? It's happening today. Airplane passengers are now routinely X-rayed at many airports around the country and around the world. The government euphemistically calls it "Advanced Imaging Technology." To be fair, the doses involved are quite low. How low? Approximately 0.00002 mSv per scan.

To put this in perspective, let's look back to my friend's CT scan - that procedure has an average dose of just under 1 mSv. People are exposed to 3 mSv every year from natural background radiation (average, as high as 132 mSv in parts of Ramsar, Iran). A chest X-ray is approximately 0.1mSv. These numbers all vary so dramatically due to technique, equipment used, etc. The same procedure can involve dozens of times more radiation exposure in one doctor's office than in another.

If you did the math, you'd realize that by my own random estimates, that makes the risk from AIT scans one in millions, at worst. However, it's not the entire picture. The radiation exposure from these scans is concentrated in the skin, due to it's low-energy "backscatter" nature. However, the Sievert is supposed to account for these factors to determine whole-body risk. Therefore, we'll stick with the idea that the risk is only one cancer in millions of scans. It's certainly not very high. Some idiots don't even think before they post. One guy online is claiming that "It is undisputed within scientific circles that even a single x-ray increases a three-month-old’s chances of developing cancer in later life by at least 10 times" - now, the average American has a one in three chance of developing fatal cancer in their life. Therefore, a ten times risk would make their chance of developing cancer ten out of three. I love his math skills. Also, it's far from undisputed that there's any risk at all, and I've never heard anyone claim that the risk is a 300% chance of developing cancer from a single X-ray :) .

The problem is that there are 6.7 billion people in the world. Even if the risk from a backscatter X-ray scan is one in a hundred million, and the average person only receives two such scans in their life (many people will never fly, many fly every day, I'm assuming the average person makes a single round trip journey in their life), that would equate to 134 additional fatal cancers. Worth it for medical imaging that saves lives, when truly justified. But are those 134 people's lives worth it in the name of security when other techniques that don't involve ionising radiation (pat-downs, millimeter wave scans) are available?

What about the fact that the most frequent fliers - and therefore, the most frequently scanned individuals - are pilots? Pilots who can't even take a knife (potentially a quite useful tool) on the large missile-like object known as an airplane we're about to trust them to fly? That's absurd.

The good news is that, for now, you can refuse the backscatter X-ray. And I'd encourage you to do so. Partly because even a minimal risk isn't justified by no benefit to you. And partly out of protest of the concept. I'd especially avoid letting kids be scanned. Unfortunately, you will have to face the humiliation of a very in-depth pat-down. Sad times these are.

Two ads

Here are two ads, representing opposite sites of the same-sex marriage debate. I post them without comment simply for their interest as a reflection of the wide scope of the views held by Americans today:

Three Blu-Ray Players Reviewed... (It's Not Good Folks!)

Today, I'm going to give my impressions of three Blu-ray Disc players, the Sony BDP-S370, the Samsung BD-C5500, and the LG BD550. The Sony and Samsung players are actually the Costco versions, the BDP-SX37 and the BD-C5500C, respectively. The only difference is that Costco versions include an HDMI cable in the package, a Costco requirement. Other retailers want to sell you overpriced HDMI cables, despite the fact they offer absolutely no benefit over cheap generic HDMI cables. Yes, I went there. Moving on...

It's a "bag of hurt" - to quote Steve Jobs. None of these players are acceptable in my opinion. I wanted a player for two tasks - play Blu-ray discs and watch HD streaming Netflix. The good news, they all play Blu-ray discs fine, though Blu-ray disc playback is quite annoying compared to DVDs - Blu-ray discs are slow to load and hard to navigate. However, the fabulous picture and sound quality are worth the frustration. Blu-ray image quality is close to digital cinema.

Streaming Netflix, however, is another story. It doesn't work properly on any of the three players. All three required a firmware update out of the box. Netflix on the Sony is bad with or without the latest update. It's instant queue only, and movement (especially camera panning) is really jerky on HD shows. The Samsung exhibited the same issues until it received it's latest update, which added a full Netflix browser and far higher HD streaming quality. However, Netflix shows that are 4:3 will be stretched to fill the screen. Thankfully, my TV's zoom settings can undo this distortion, but it simply shouldn't happen. Additionally, one cannot switch from discs to Netflix without problems - missing sound (from a DVD), randomly pausing video (from a Blu-Ray), etc. For trouble-free Netflix playback, turn off the player after playing a disc and turn it back on. It also takes around 20 seconds to exist the Netflix app, which is rather inexplicable.

The worst of the bunch was the LG. The LG failed to maintain a high-speed internet connection (this is hard wired ethernet to 18mbps cable). I got incredibly choppy video that froze completely after about 30 seconds. An attempt to download the latest firmware update proved impossible, as it just kept sticking. The LG also was lacking a TosLink (optical S/PDIF) output, so I would have needed a coax to TosLink adapter had I wished to keep the LG.

In all, I chose to keep the Samsung in hopes that a future firmware update fixes some of the remaining issues, because it is the best experience today of the three. But it's not good enough. These things ought to just work, out of the box, very well. No aspect ratio problems. No weird missing sound after playing a DVD. No jerkyness. No slower-than-a-snail network problems. For today, that's not going to happen with any of these players. I kept the Samsung because, when it works, it works very well. It just is finicky and needs rebooted - and needs you ready to play with picture zoom settings on your TV.

All three of these players, along with many more, are sold by Amazon.com and your purchase of *any* Amazon product through the links on my site supports us. I recommend the Samsung BD-C5500, quite hesitantly. The Sony BDP-S370 does have Slacker Radio which was a cool benefit, I tend to much prefer Slacker to Pandora...

Facebook Page Censorship

Everyone does it - censor their Facebook Page (I'm talking business pages here, not your wall). And sometimes it's necessary - I delete obvious spam and I would delete anything profane/hateful. Nothing else, though if I ever got a negative comment (no one comments either way now LOL), I would certainly provide a friendly response and hopefully turn the person into a satisfied customer. That's the way many big businesses, like AT&T, do things. Accept anything not too graphically profane, and comment on it.

A local chiropractor who I know (I am *not* his patient, I'm friends with his wife who is a fellow face painter. I haven't actually been to a doctor of any kind in years. Bad, I know...) is part of an office with a Facebook page. They post nutritional factoids and other random things. They (I don't know who actually posts to their Facebook page) recently posted something nutritionally that I didn't totally agree with. I posted that - not a really negative response but not overwhelmingly positive either. They responded, and we had some back and forth discussion and found out that we both really pretty much agreed, we just worded it a bit differently! A great Facebook interaction that gives me a more positive view of him, his office, and chiropractic as a whole!

On the other hand, another local business didn't see my comment to one of their posts the same way. It's a place that I love a lot. They are always posting what's new on their menu. Well, one of the things they posted honestly sounded terrible. I responded "Ew, gross..." and then I told them how GREAT most of what they had was, how much I loved it, and I was looking forward to my next visit. I would have thought that'd be great feedback on what their customers like, as well as a good "real-world" positive review. Quite the contrary, it was gone within hours. Deleted. And thus, I learned why there is not one even remotely negative word on their Facebook Page, which reads like everyone is in love with them. That's their right, obviously. But was it good business? I don't think so... deleting even slightly negative comments, or in my case - positive comments with one piece of critical feedback - does not build a relationship. Instead it isolates customers. What it told me was "we don't care what you think, so shut up and spend your money or leave." Will I still go there? Of course, I love the place. But will I feel as good about it? Not anymore.

It's your right as a business to choose how your run your Facebook Page. But don't be too quick to delete anything resembling a slightly negative comment. You may be telling one of your best customers that you don't want to hear what they have to say. And that's bad business.

Two-for-one 3G router review!

Okay, so I've tried TWO 3G routers. Both stink. Seriously. I am an Alltel customer with a Huawei EC168 modem. I am divested AT&T, meaning AT&T becomes my new carrier in a few months, and I'll certainly post back then with news of how these routers work with the AT&T USBConnect Lightning I'll be receiving. But for now, I can say this card, which is perfectly stable and works well on a computer, doesn't work well in these routers.

The first router I tried is the Encore ENHWI-3GN3. This device was on sale for $25 at Newegg. Newegg quickly quit selling this product, and good riddance. You got what you paid for. Frequent disconnects, and even when it worked, upload speeds were extremely slow.

Next up, I got a Zoom 4506. This same router seems to be sold as the TRENDnet TEW-655BR3G and the Aluratek 3G Router. Look closely at those three routers, you'll see they're clearly the same router guts with a different paint job. Still, the firmware is obviously different, so my experience can only apply with certainty to the Zoom product. And it's not a lot better. At first, it seemed pretty good. But I still faced a lot of disconnects and failure to connect. The battery is a nice feature, but I want (and NEED) a router that can stay rock solid... the Zoom product is not that. I think it has a lot more potential, but it's buggy as can be. It also requires a much stronger signal. I know, that makes no sense. But while you can get a nice fast solid connection almost anywhere with the modem directly in the computer, the 3G router only stays solid in the strongest of signal areas (even then, if you're lucky).

I'm looking VERY forward to trying both these products on the new AT&T network with the AT&T card I get. Until then, neither one is reliable and solid enough. If they remain bad on AT&T's network with AT&T's device, I'll probably buy the Cradlepoint PHS300 - Cradlepoint seems to be the go-to guys that are highly recommended on most of the forums and blogs.

Funny Christian Things: ClearPlay

Full disclaimer here. I am a Christian, but I'm not necessarily the most conservative Christian ever. That is to say, there are a lot of things about conservative Christianity I see as matters of style, not of faith. I'm a jeans, T-shirt, flashy lights, and loud music kinda Christian. I don't believe dancing is a sin, and I don't fit in at my grandma's church (literally and figuratively). However, I do believe in guarding my heart. I believe that we each need to fight with God on what is too much. I don't watch violent movies - just because they don't enlighten me, educate me, cheer me up, or have any other good effect on me. Not because of a few words here and there, but because of the content of the movie as a whole. I haven't ever kissed a girl, not because it's some sin, but because I want that magical moment to be on my wedding day; or at least to be with the girl I'm engaged to if for whatever reason we have to have a really long engagement or something.

It's with that context of looking at things as a whole that I find the ClearPlay system to be one of the funniest "Christian" things out there. And make no mistake, this is a Christian product. Sure, they don't mention religion on their site. But it's heavily marketed in conservative Christian circles, and the company that makes it is from Salt Lake City itself. If you're not familiar, the concept of ClearPlay is that you buy an overpriced DVD player, along with an also rather expensive $7.99/month (discounts available for annual) membership to a website to download special filter files. These files are then loaded onto the ClearPlay DVD player and are used to tell the player when to cut out scenes entirely (sex, violence, etc), as well as when to simply mute the audio for language.

This would even make sense, if the problem with these movies was the most egregious violence, sex, and language. The thing is though, that's not the problem. The problem is the content as a whole. Muting a word does nothing to change the attitude of a character. It does nothing to change the heart behind it. It just... mutes some sounds that are meaningless other than the meaning we attach to them. The silence has the same meaning. Sure, you can cut out some violent scenes, but a movie with a heart of violence will be no more uplifting with the violent scenes taken out.

Now, I'm not judging anyone here. If you want to watch an R-rated movie, go for it. I don't think it's an absolute sin (that's between you and God depending on how you handle things). But it sure isn't anything that's going to uplift your spirit, bring you joy, etc. However, don't deceive yourself - the ClearPlay HD Upconvert DVD Player isn't going to make the movie suddenly more positive, more joyful, more beneficial to your spirit. Thus, it's just another funny Christian thing that'll drain your money, and possibly even pull you further from Christ by getting you to watch content which you otherwise wouldn't have watched.

Chemtrails, the stupidest conspiracy theory ever (probably)

Today, I saw this extremely educational site about chemtrails. Normally, I'd laugh it off. But this site was just too goo to pass up, with it's promise of "Other Serious Issues" at the top. Last I heard, chemtrails weren't a serious issue. They were a conspiracy theory for those lacking enough intelligence to come up with good conspiracy theories. And yes, I'm sure I just offended someone. That's okay.

First, all the phenomena about the appearance of contrails can be explained easily by natural phenomena. Just like weather on earth, weather in the sky changes. Sometimes wind conditions will dissipate a contrail quickly... sometimes a heavy contrail will last in a still sky for hours. A contrail is, after all, just a cloud - albeit one formed by the heat of a jet engine's exhaust. Rainbow contrails? Sure thing - the sun hitting water droplets at the right angle (as in a cloud or contrail) will diffract the light producing a good old-fashioned rainbow, the way they've been made since the beginning of the earth! No contrail? Heavier contrail? Well, are you spraying chemicals into the air when the weather conditions make YOUR warm breath turn to steam? I didn't think so.

Now, not only do we have this issue, we have the issue of WHO is doing the spraying? After all, chemtrail accusations don't merely follow military craft. Plenty of people say they see chem trails coming from civilian craft. That means that there's LOTS of people have to be in on this conspiracy to maintain the spraying equipment on all these civilian, private enterprise, craft. One theory I've heard is that the chemicals are merely added to the jet fuel. Great, BURNT POISON, just what the police state ordered. Even better when instead of poison, the claim is viri. Sterilized viruses, even better :)

And before you ask, the grid pattern - ALL AIRPLANES FLY ON A GRID FOR AIR TRAFFIC SAFETY REASONS, just as you drive on streets. The grid of contrails you may see is the grid airplanes fly on to help air traffic control keep everyone safe!

Finally, and this is the real kicker. If I wanted to poison a group of people, I'm sure I could find a much more efficient - and safer - way to do it. Something my own people could avoid. Like say, the water supply, or groceries. Cheaper (less wasted poison), fewer people involved in the plot, safer for those on the inside. All around, a much better option for a good conspiracy theory. No, I don't believe the government is doing this either. But it can't be shot down by anyone with grade-school-level science knowledge in about five minutes as being completely absurd. So please, a good conspiracy theory makes me laugh, or possibly even be intrigued. But can we please stop the baseless and illogical ones like chemtrails? Thanks!

Facebook Places vs Foursquare

Yay! There's Facebook Places on the Android platform now... is that a good thing, or is it more of Foursquare? Well, I've been trying it for awhile, and I can determine it's better and worse than Foursquare. Let's take a look at how so.



First, the better - Facebook Places has all your Facebook friends. With me having 1000+ Facebook "friends" that is a huge deal. It means I actually have people to use Facebook Places with. As for Foursquare, a have less than half a dozen friends on Foursquare, none of which use it more than once a month.

Now, the worse - FUN. Foursquare has so much potential for fun! It's not simply about location sharing, it's a game. You get to compete with your friends for travel time, rewards, even incentives at certain businesses. That has a lot more potential.

My conclusion, if you're one of the few people who has friends on Foursquare, it's a no-brainer. Use Foursquare. But for most of us, Facebook Places gives us our friends. Nothing else really matters compared that that!

Did you know overpriced cables are a ripoff?

If you're going shopping for a new TV, you may quickly find that the store wants to sell you some incredibly overpriced cables... $50, $100, or even more. They make claims of all variety of entirely mythical benefits. Overpriced cables are the oldest trick in the consumer audio/video book, and numerous people still fall for them every day.

For many people today, the only cable you'll be needing to buy is the basic HDMI cable. This cable carries DVI video and S/PDIF audio in one convenient connection.  At one popular retailer you can buy a "Coffee" HDMI cable (2 meters) for $695.99. It has silver, a glowy light, everything. But the only difference between it and Amazon's $6.99 cable is that it supports the newest HDMI 1.4 standard with Ethernet. If you have a setup that needs that, Amazon has a cable with that support for only $8.99. The silver and the LED and everything do nothing. The cable quality is about the same; and a digital signal either works or it doesn't. If you want proof, go to a professional environment. There's lots of cables, and they're good, thick, sturdy, reliable industrial-strength cables. But none of them are $700, most are 1/100th of that. Electrons don't care about flashy lights or pretty colors. They care only about sturdy, well-shielded, well assembled cable that provides a clean and reliable connection. The cables on Amazon meet that need, at least in the low-stress home environment.

Another favorite site of mine, MonoPrice, has cables for even cheaper, and a wider variety (lower and higher quality grades)... though without the combined shipping benefits of Amazon. Check both out and decide which is best for you (if you do choose Amazon, consider buying through the links on my site as I get a small commission on ANY Amazon sale if you got to Amazon through my links). But say "no thanks" to overpriced cables next time you're shopping at your favorite big box store...