Internet / Cable Providers Can't Charge You For Equipment

[Crystallas]

Well I am running 250 mbps down and I am getting mostly all of it according to various online speed tests.

My household doesn't seem to have any bottlenecks that I can find. If my wife is streaming something and playing on her phone full bore I am still able to do everything that I want without any lag so I am assuming that from functionality we are talking about people punching above my weight in bandwidth.

My biggest concern is actually ping over bandwidth.

I do not have trouble with that very often unless the vpn is acting funny. It does have a minor effect on base ping, but I seem to be able to game without too much trouble and if it is ever a problem I can always exclude the game from the vpn. I haven't had to do that as of yet, but there was a time when I would just turn it off while gaming and then back on when doing other things from the same machine.

In any case it sounds like what you are referring to is more corporate side than consumer side.


What are your thoughts on 5g, and companies like Verizon being able to put a device in your house that runs unlimited data at 5g for 40 a month with no wires. I have to admit that I am interested in cutting the cable cord as soon as possible and I have even spoken with my wife about the fact that we are going to have to start doing all her tv watching on demand. She seems down with that so long as she can still get the shows she wants to see. Do you think this will be a bad ping choice with good dl speeds or will it be good all around?

You're fine then. My point was that a newer modem would still get some improvements for the end user, but why? Diminishing returns, something everyone weighs in on pending their situation. The first response was consumer, then airtime said rollout of docsis 4 would take 10 years, so I just added to/commented on that. So yeah, that got into the weeds more. I tried to keep it simple, but stuff like this isn't simple unfortunately. =/

5G is another complicated opinion. But mobile ISPs for someone with kids in the car and bouncing between babysitters, truckers who watch make-up tutorials driving on I-80, basically this is who benefits the most from any form of mobile based ISP. 5G has mesh features, so you really need to factor in dedicated network spots vs a ton of home users repeating off their landline ISP.

ie: Jane has Mediacom cable and T-Mobile phone. You live next to Jane and switch to Verizon 5G as your full-time ISP, tell Jane how much you like it, etc. Jane switches and both of you have shit signal now. WTF? Well Jane had a Cell-Fi repeater attached to her cable service and you were the beneficiary. You were sucking her bandwidth down and she already knew her cell service was barely working. So of course, you didn't know where the source was, and she thought her cable sucked which is why she switched. LOL!..... not to say this is going to be everyone's problem, but it's a true dilemma that will confuse the **** out of many normal users. One the carriers don't have a way to predict or solve until it breaks. Locking into a mobile only carrier puts you at risk of similar situations just because of the way 5G is designed. You'll still have legacy band services and '4G' is still part of the current gen. Not a blackout, just oddball interruptions.

 

[airtime143]

DOCSIS is a spec, so look at your modems certified caps first. Simple approach, if you are paying for 500Mbps service, but your modem is capped at something like 384Mbps, you're going to be limited. Still plenty fast, very usable.

The fact of the matter is, DOCSIS 4.0 brings very little to the table downstream. It's 80% an upstream improvement. DOCSIS 3.1 vs 3.0 isn't as significant. So if you find yourself streaming a lot, stuck doing a lot of xooming, that upstream is going to factor. Then you might do the math, see when your device pays itself off, and decide to upgrade at whatever point and time.

The downstream standard has actually changed significantly in the new generations.
Orthogonal frequency division multiplexing is worked in to the newer standards, and that smokes the shit out of traditional QAM carriers.
the basic gist is a wider variable of frequency divisions used concurrently, end result is the CMTS pushes data to your device at higher and higher profiles until the computer or source craps out. A constantly variable compression pushing to borderline failure rather than a static compression.

as for the comcast devices, if you pay for 1 gig and you dont get 1 gig consistently on speed tests, there is an issue that needs to be addressed... in all actuality it will give about a 10% excess, 1102 is the usual speed you should see.

as for other comcast customers using your gateway, true but misleading. Most business gateways out there do service verizon and xfinity mobile customers, but that is segmented from the account speed and has no bearing on your speed nor data limits.

additional bonus that I am not sure everyone knows- if you have a comcast account you can set your phone, tablet or laptop up to access any wifi spot for free- embedded businesses or free-standing units in the network.
It even works if you are a t-mobile (orwhatever) wireless customer and want to save your data. just use your primary comcast login through any of the wifi connections.

 

[Crystallas]

We were on modems for BYOE. Then went to carriers because I said be careful with some of the new modems that are getting limited B-Bin parts for commercial DOCSIS 4.0 hardware(great spec potential, bad reliability). See, each reply matches for carrier or end user. I responded to Burque about end user when he responded to a post about carrier, then airtime responded with carrier level in a post about end user. LOL. Needs to be untangled a bit here.

So my point about downstream is that it hasn't seen significant change. Yes, it improves. But if you look at the downstream performance curve, it's been so steady, almost predictable over the last 30 years (broadband carrier). And the same is true for upstream. DOCSIS 4.0 is the first break from those trends(broadband side, sdsl isdn would be bringing in another layer LOL, too complicated), as downstream will still progress similarly(real world in terms of use and adoption, not theoretical hardware), whereas upstream sees a huge spike. And this was in context to the end-user. The carrier level is a whole different boat. Not even important, because it's confusing when the topic is about buying a modem for the end user. Getting into the hardware side, that's why JEDEC is really in a strange place, because for once they can dictate within their board, how everything moves forward simply by agreeing to spec standards that can be put in place. The whole industry has this huge fear of sinking billions into whatever a next-gen tech is, only to see it fail. This is why 5G is being pushed, not because it's particularly great, but it's still an improvement, steady to usage. Why DOCSIS pushed out a new spec sooner than later, because it will be some time before another level of adoption. Bringing me all around to my original point. If you're going to buy a modem now, don't bother saving money and buying a DOCSIS 3.0 limited modem.

We're all struck in this fill-gap. Even the early release engineering sample hardware I have is mostly usesless. In the past, early access was way more fun and exciting, now it's just proof some things work and trying to build around tiny improvements in real world performance.

 

[airtime143]

We were on modems for BYOE. Then went to carriers because I said be careful with some of the new modems that are getting limited B-Bin parts for commercial DOCSIS 4.0 hardware(great spec potential, bad reliability). See, each reply matches for carrier or end user. I responded to Burque about end user when he responded to a post about carrier, then airtime responded with carrier level in a post about end user. LOL. Needs to be untangled a bit here.

So my point about downstream is that it hasn't seen significant change. Yes, it improves. But if you look at the downstream performance curve, it's been so steady, almost predictable over the last 30 years (broadband carrier). And the same is true for upstream. DOCSIS 4.0 is the first break from those trends(broadband side, sdsl isdn would be bringing in another layer LOL, too complicated), as downstream will still progress similarly(real world in terms of use and adoption, not theoretical hardware), whereas upstream sees a huge spike. And this was in context to the end-user. The carrier level is a whole different boat. Not even important, because it's confusing when the topic is about buying a modem for the end user. Getting into the hardware side, that's why JEDEC is really in a strange place, because for once they can dictate within their board, how everything moves forward simply by agreeing to spec standards that can be put in place. The whole industry has this huge fear of sinking billions into whatever a next-gen tech is, only to see it fail. This is why 5G is being pushed, not because it's particularly great, but it's still an improvement, steady to usage. Why DOCSIS pushed out a new spec sooner than later, because it will be some time before another level of adoption. Bringing me all around to my original point. If you're going to buy a modem now, don't bother saving money and buying a DOCSIS 3.0 limited modem.

We're all struck in this fill-gap. Even the early release engineering sample hardware I have is mostly usesless. In the past, early access was way more fun and exciting, now it's just proof some things work and trying to build around tiny improvements in real world performance.

to the bolded- 3.0 was a 1 gig down max, 3.1 is 10. 3.1 is an entirely different format of incoming carrier.
there is worlds of difference especially if his provider is migrating to 3.1 or above.

2.0 to 3 was basically a bandwidth thing.. allocation of available space. opening up bandwidth added speed.

3.0 to 3.1 is a completely different structure combining aspects of ancient 2 and upcoming 4.

a 3.0 purchase can get you a gig in the right circumstances if all goes right on some of the smaller companies networks.
However, if those companies migrate to a 3.1 standard, that knocks the knees out from under the 3.0 max users.
they rob the targeted service bandwidth to open space for the OFDM carrier which not only reduces available bandwidth for 3.0 users, it puts them in competition with each other.
in addition, any speed increase will not be available to the 3.0 user, and each re-allocation will trim them slower.

 

[Burque]

The downstream standard has actually changed significantly in the new generations.
Orthogonal frequency division multiplexing is worked in to the newer standards, and that smokes the shit out of traditional QAM carriers.
the basic gist is a wider variable of frequency divisions used concurrently, end result is the CMTS pushes data to your device at higher and higher profiles until the computer or source craps out. A constantly variable compression pushing to borderline failure rather than a static compression.

as for the comcast devices, if you pay for 1 gig and you dont get 1 gig consistently on speed tests, there is an issue that needs to be addressed... in all actuality it will give about a 10% excess, 1102 is the usual speed you should see.

as for other comcast customers using your gateway, true but misleading. Most business gateways out there do service verizon and xfinity mobile customers, but that is segmented from the account speed and has no bearing on your speed nor data limits.

additional bonus that I am not sure everyone knows- if you have a comcast account you can set your phone, tablet or laptop up to access any wifi spot for free- embedded businesses or free-standing units in the network.
It even works if you are a t-mobile (orwhatever) wireless customer and want to save your data. just use your primary comcast login through any of the wifi connections.

I do this with my phone, but about 75% of the time it connects up to an xfinity hotspot it is trash and I have to go in and turn it off.

I am not sure why it connects to these things and then never seems to have any bandwidth but it kind of a PITA tbh.

And I am talking about using it for the most basic online stuff, like won't load a simple web page bad.

 

[Burque]

You're fine then. My point was that a newer modem would still get some improvements for the end user, but why? Diminishing returns, something everyone weighs in on pending their situation. The first response was consumer, then airtime said rollout of docsis 4 would take 10 years, so I just added to/commented on that. So yeah, that got into the weeds more. I tried to keep it simple, but stuff like this isn't simple unfortunately. =/

5G is another complicated opinion. But mobile ISPs for someone with kids in the car and bouncing between babysitters, truckers who watch make-up tutorials driving on I-80, basically this is who benefits the most from any form of mobile based ISP. 5G has mesh features, so you really need to factor in dedicated network spots vs a ton of home users repeating off their landline ISP.

ie: Jane has Mediacom cable and T-Mobile phone. You live next to Jane and switch to Verizon 5G as your full-time ISP, tell Jane how much you like it, etc. Jane switches and both of you have shit signal now. WTF? Well Jane had a Cell-Fi repeater attached to her cable service and you were the beneficiary. You were sucking her bandwidth down and she already knew her cell service was barely working. So of course, you didn't know where the source was, and she thought her cable sucked which is why she switched. LOL!..... not to say this is going to be everyone's problem, but it's a true dilemma that will confuse the **** out of many normal users. One the carriers don't have a way to predict or solve until it breaks. Locking into a mobile only carrier puts you at risk of similar situations just because of the way 5G is designed. You'll still have legacy band services and '4G' is still part of the current gen. Not a blackout, just oddball interruptions.

I feel that there could be some issues with anything like this.

I was more interested in your thoughts on 5g as being a good Ping and DL speed option when it reaches that tipping point of being fully capable.

I am not going to early adopt a wifi hotspot in my house and cut bait on cable right away, I was thinking if I waited another year or so of rollout, and had a 5g phone that was getting consistent connection at the house that then it might be worthwhile economically and speed wise to go with a permanent hotspot at the house instead of cable if it was at least equal in speed and ping but cheaper monthly.

 

[Crystallas]

The thing with networks in general. You have a lot of generation loss. Some areas have better hardware than others, some places don't have the best hardware, but they are closer to a farm/mirror that you personally may access more frequently. For a digital transmission, each large file needs to be checked and corrected for corruption, and in some cases means the equivilant of sending the file dozens of times between one point to another, because the paths are not 100% direct.

So notes about the tech in general are one thing, but then factor in what you have access to from the carrier, what you use, etc. Yes, captain obvious stuff. However, all that being said, you'll still be best suited by creating a matching upgrade path for whatever hardware, regardless of what the carrier does. IMO, you have 1-2 years on your modem with the exception being your patterns of usage change and suddenly require moar power and/or flexibility. Supplementing ISP services is tricky, because they have new sub discounts and you may want to factor that as well, trying to lock into a better deal with *both* cable and mobile means you'll be good for the 12-24 months(or in some cases, no deal, but the rates are simply introductory and available to everyone, but in 12-24 months go up a lot and sometimes so will your bill, hidden or up front.) We know 12 months is not a lot of time and staggering services helps too. All things to consider.

AT&T rolled out U-Verse glorified ADSL hybrid service, and then they made some deal with Directv, started to really **** with their customers. Sprint was known for this servo(*sp) plan that was for both phone and network 2G services, then pulled a major switch on the users when data plans started to matter more. Verizon had lock in plans, they pulled the same shit. Heck, this is all off memory, but I think everyone did this at some point. The introductory service price was excellent at first, then the users were limited later and didn't get what they paid for any longer with no real way to prove otherwise because all user habits with any communication devices never stay exactly the same over a multi-year period.

I think 5G is a stop gap technology. It's better than "4G" in almost every way, except broadcast over distance. 5G was designed for retrofit maintenance schedules. That means when old shit dies off, 5G hardware is a basic instalation that can work off existing infrastructure when needed. Nobody wants to comment on 6G theory for the purposes of drafting any form of standard, because the way networks are used will forever change once legacy radio frequency contracts die off and the FCC approves light transmission based communication. Any light based radio system will still be another slow adoption tech, so no use waiting on it or trying to push through a premature standard. Thus why I say repeatedly 5G as currently designed, is a stop-gap.

Side rant. *Not as bad as the 80s or 90s, mostly due to cost, going from 300baud to 9600baud in the 80's, one step at a time!! then the 90s just the same to whatever broadband system that changed everything. Kind of crazy how in 1997 personally having a 20Mbps service, then thinking about how 20Mbps was more than good enough for most people for 15 years. HELL, every grandma that doesn't watch videos is still good on 20Mbps NOW. As soon as HFR+UHD hits some tipping point, everyone gets reminded that 5G has too many physical limits to be a full-time ISP(I know, you said as a suppliment to your existing ISP, just throwing this out there). In the 80's/90's, it was the opposite, you upgraded because you started off bandwidth starved to start. Now we are very cautious to push standards because networks are critical and entertainment based content can crush vital services when the network isn't ready. Heck, security based transmission accounts for a huge amount of bandwidth that was not factored in 20 years ago, limiting compression and creating larger files to transmit mostly due to encoding, error corrections/checksums, and source verifications and certificate matching. Bloat on top of bloat.

 

[airtime143]

The thing with networks in general. You have a lot of generation loss. Some areas have better hardware than others, some places don't have the best hardware, but they are closer to a farm/mirror that you personally may access more frequently. For a digital transmission, each large file needs to be checked and corrected for corruption, and in some cases means the equivilant of sending the file dozens of times between one point to another, because the paths are not 100% direct.

So notes about the tech in general are one thing, but then factor in what you have access to from the carrier, what you use, etc. Yes, captain obvious stuff. However, all that being said, you'll still be best suited by creating a matching upgrade path for whatever hardware, regardless of what the carrier does. IMO, you have 1-2 years on your modem with the exception being your patterns of usage change and suddenly require moar power and/or flexibility. Supplementing ISP services is tricky, because they have new sub discounts and you may want to factor that as well, trying to lock into a better deal with *both* cable and mobile means you'll be good for the 12-24 months(or in some cases, no deal, but the rates are simply introductory and available to everyone, but in 12-24 months go up a lot and sometimes so will your bill, hidden or up front.) We know 12 months is not a lot of time and staggering services helps too. All things to consider.

AT&T rolled out U-Verse glorified ADSL hybrid service, and then they made some deal with Directv, started to really **** with their customers. Sprint was known for this servo(*sp) plan that was for both phone and network 2G services, then pulled a major switch on the users when data plans started to matter more. Verizon had lock in plans, they pulled the same shit. Heck, this is all off memory, but I think everyone did this at some point. The introductory service price was excellent at first, then the users were limited later and didn't get what they paid for any longer with no real way to prove otherwise because all user habits with any communication devices never stay exactly the same over a multi-year period.

I think 5G is a stop gap technology. It's better than "4G" in almost every way, except broadcast over distance. 5G was designed for retrofit maintenance schedules. That means when old shit dies off, 5G hardware is a basic instalation that can work off existing infrastructure when needed. Nobody wants to comment on 6G theory for the purposes of drafting any form of standard, because the way networks are used will forever change once legacy radio frequency contracts die off and the FCC approves light transmission based communication. Any light based radio system will still be another slow adoption tech, so no use waiting on it or trying to push through a premature standard. Thus why I say repeatedly 5G as currently designed, is a stop-gap.

Side rant. *Not as bad as the 80s or 90s, mostly due to cost, going from 300baud to 9600baud in the 80's, one step at a time!! then the 90s just the same to whatever broadband system that changed everything. Kind of crazy how in 1997 personally having a 20Mbps service, then thinking about how 20Mbps was more than good enough for most people for 15 years. HELL, every grandma that doesn't watch videos is still good on 20Mbps NOW. As soon as HFR+UHD hits some tipping point, everyone gets reminded that 5G has too many physical limits to be a full-time ISP(I know, you said as a suppliment to your existing ISP, just throwing this out there). In the 80's/90's, it was the opposite, you upgraded because you started off bandwidth starved to start. Now we are very cautious to push standards because networks are critical and entertainment based content can crush vital services when the network isn't ready. Heck, security based transmission accounts for a huge amount of bandwidth that was not factored in 20 years ago, limiting compression and creating larger files to transmit mostly due to encoding, error corrections/checksums, and source verifications and certificate matching. Bloat on top of bloat.

On the At&t point- i wouldnt trust a product or service from them ever again.
They roll out shit as a a cash grab, shift debt, and sell the arm off.

I dont now if you were around for the At&t attempted fiber grab or their short term cash flow solution of the wireless IPO... but after what I saw with them I dont trust a single move they make is genuine.


On the 5g point- It is going to cost a mint to get coverage at the frequencies they are trying to capitalize on. I dont know why they are running with that route but I am not to convinced it has a future.

 

[Burque]

The thing with networks in general. You have a lot of generation loss. Some areas have better hardware than others, some places don't have the best hardware, but they are closer to a farm/mirror that you personally may access more frequently. For a digital transmission, each large file needs to be checked and corrected for corruption, and in some cases means the equivilant of sending the file dozens of times between one point to another, because the paths are not 100% direct.

So notes about the tech in general are one thing, but then factor in what you have access to from the carrier, what you use, etc. Yes, captain obvious stuff. However, all that being said, you'll still be best suited by creating a matching upgrade path for whatever hardware, regardless of what the carrier does. IMO, you have 1-2 years on your modem with the exception being your patterns of usage change and suddenly require moar power and/or flexibility. Supplementing ISP services is tricky, because they have new sub discounts and you may want to factor that as well, trying to lock into a better deal with *both* cable and mobile means you'll be good for the 12-24 months(or in some cases, no deal, but the rates are simply introductory and available to everyone, but in 12-24 months go up a lot and sometimes so will your bill, hidden or up front.) We know 12 months is not a lot of time and staggering services helps too. All things to consider.

AT&T rolled out U-Verse glorified ADSL hybrid service, and then they made some deal with Directv, started to really **** with their customers. Sprint was known for this servo(*sp) plan that was for both phone and network 2G services, then pulled a major switch on the users when data plans started to matter more. Verizon had lock in plans, they pulled the same shit. Heck, this is all off memory, but I think everyone did this at some point. The introductory service price was excellent at first, then the users were limited later and didn't get what they paid for any longer with no real way to prove otherwise because all user habits with any communication devices never stay exactly the same over a multi-year period.

I think 5G is a stop gap technology. It's better than "4G" in almost every way, except broadcast over distance. 5G was designed for retrofit maintenance schedules. That means when old shit dies off, 5G hardware is a basic instalation that can work off existing infrastructure when needed. Nobody wants to comment on 6G theory for the purposes of drafting any form of standard, because the way networks are used will forever change once legacy radio frequency contracts die off and the FCC approves light transmission based communication. Any light based radio system will still be another slow adoption tech, so no use waiting on it or trying to push through a premature standard. Thus why I say repeatedly 5G as currently designed, is a stop-gap.

Side rant. *Not as bad as the 80s or 90s, mostly due to cost, going from 300baud to 9600baud in the 80's, one step at a time!! then the 90s just the same to whatever broadband system that changed everything. Kind of crazy how in 1997 personally having a 20Mbps service, then thinking about how 20Mbps was more than good enough for most people for 15 years. HELL, every grandma that doesn't watch videos is still good on 20Mbps NOW. As soon as HFR+UHD hits some tipping point, everyone gets reminded that 5G has too many physical limits to be a full-time ISP(I know, you said as a suppliment to your existing ISP, just throwing this out there). In the 80's/90's, it was the opposite, you upgraded because you started off bandwidth starved to start. Now we are very cautious to push standards because networks are critical and entertainment based content can crush vital services when the network isn't ready. Heck, security based transmission accounts for a huge amount of bandwidth that was not factored in 20 years ago, limiting compression and creating larger files to transmit mostly due to encoding, error corrections/checksums, and source verifications and certificate matching. Bloat on top of bloat.

I think that our first modem was a 300 baud on the Commodore 64... We dialed into the newspaper once and read a story. I think it took like 30 minutes plus if I remember correctly, I was a child at the time.

My first modem for my own pc was a 14.4k and I remember when I got a 56k and thought it was the best thing ever.

Regarding the 20 meg connection. When I first moved back here I had DSL for awhile and they checked my lines and said I was good to a 40 meg connection.... great! So I got it, and it was jittery and fucked up. Wouldn't ever work correctly. I had techs out and after a big ole pain in the ass they finally told me that it was some kinda issue with distance where it was supposed to work, but it was trying to overcompensate and sending the signal too frequently which was causing all these issues.

So I told them to lower my speed. We found that it ran smooth and constant at 7 megs but no higher..... 7 fucking megs. So I had it for about a year like that and it was just barely ok to use. Once we started trying to netflix or any other streaming it was over because it was constantly buffering, the switch to cable has been great and I like the speed I have now. I imagine at some point though there will be another major shift in what we use for our daily home internet.

 

[Crystallas]

On the At&t point- i wouldnt trust a product or service from them ever again.
They roll out shit as a a cash grab, shift debt, and sell the arm off.

I dont now if you were around for the At&t attempted fiber grab or their short term cash flow solution of the wireless IPO... but after what I saw with them I dont trust a single move they make is genuine.


On the 5g point- It is going to cost a mint to get coverage at the frequencies they are trying to capitalize on. I dont know why they are running with that route but I am not to convinced it has a future.

You know, it's really sad. We haven't had an honest major telecom company. Everyone plays so dirty. I know retired engineers that were a form of proxy for GTE in the 70s. They were kept as a separate entity from GTE just so they could datamine suggestions people were making over the network and then rush to patent things so they could leverage business deals and brand-protect. You can imagine the rest. And the sad thing is, every so often, you hear about these guys from different telecom companies. Just listening/reading communication and then building some invention based on popular data collected. Bell, now AT&T, started all of this shit.

But if you were to do anything with AT&T and wonder if it's going to be around in a decade as a realiable service or just something that gets divided to a junk partner. Look at what the Dallas offices invest in. AT&T keeps that group very stable. If IL gets some service but DFW doesn't, it's likely a flip or some trash they threw up to keep commitments with the government or protect specific patents so they don't expire since the IP rules are not enforced as written.

Another funny thing. If you ever wonder when each company itself felt they went too far with these invasion tactics, just look at when they changed names, or at least attempted to change names.

 

[airtime143]

You know, it's really sad. We haven't had an honest major telecom company. Everyone plays so dirty. I know retired engineers that were a form of proxy for GTE in the 70s. They were kept as a separate entity from GTE just so they could datamine suggestions people were making over the network and then rush to patent things so they could leverage business deals and brand-protect. You can imagine the rest. And the sad thing is, every so often, you hear about these guys from different telecom companies. Just listening/reading communication and then building some invention based on popular data collected. Bell, now AT&T, started all of this shit.

But if you were to do anything with AT&T and wonder if it's going to be around in a decade as a realiable service or just something that gets divided to a junk partner. Look at what the Dallas offices invest in. AT&T keeps that group very stable. If IL gets some service but DFW doesn't, it's likely a flip or some trash they threw up to keep commitments with the government or protect specific patents so they don't expire since the IP rules are not enforced as written.

Another funny thing. If you ever wonder when each company itself felt they went too far with these invasion tactics, just look at when they changed names, or at least attempted to change names.

The name changing is hilarious. Almost all of them jave been through a couple.

The best part is the internal "rationale" for it...blah blah blah corporate speak blah blah.
We all know it is because you pulled a teddy KFC.