Why You Want Net Neutrality, Even If You Don't Know It

So, you may have heard lots of (very boring) blather in the news about net neutrality recently.

You may not know what it really means, or who has what vested interest in a particular outcome.

Thankfully, I am here to save the day!

Hopefully, I can do so without being boring.

But let me start with a simple, direct statement, and then lengthy and hopefully interesting explanation will follow.

Net neutrality is a concept without which, network providers (the major players are Comcast, Verizon, and AT&T) could bone you six ways from Sunday without lube or the courtesy of a reach-around.

So let's begin by talking about what the internet actually is, how it works, and what you're paying for, versus what you think you're paying for.

Remember a few years ago, Senator Ted Stevens famously said "the internet is a series of tubes," and everyone mocked him publicly for his obvious ignorance?

Everyone but Senator Stevens was wrong.

See, "the internet," as you most likely understand it, is a fiction. There is no vast, swirling cloud of the sum total of all human knowledge in a secret containment vessel, hidden away in a long-buried subterranean laboratory run by the DoD.

Pictured: not a data containment vessel.

What actually exists are individual computers, and groups (sometimes called "server farms") of computers. Each of those places - call them a "node" for simplicity of jargon - contains something. Like a tank filled with some finite, limited, but interesting knowledge.

Or cat pictures.

Or Tumblr.

Whatever.

Those nodes are connected to one another by...

...

...A series of "tubes." Most often, these "tubes" are in fact fiber-optic cables, connecting two separate networks together; they're often less than a foot long.

Back up. What the hell is a network, then?

Well, it's several nodes, all linked together.

For example: if you're at a college, all the computers at that college, or a large portion of them, are linked together. That's a network.

In order for that network to be connected to "the internet," somewhere on that college campus is a box - or a rack of little boxes - called "routers." Their entire job is to figure out where incoming and outgoing data traffic is supposed to go; kind of like a super-fast system of...

...well...

...tubes...

Look, you've been to a bank drive-up window, right?

You know how you have the little container, and you stuff your check, ID, whatever, into it, shove it into the tube, and hit a button, and it goes away? This is what happens when you computer asks for information. That can be a song on iTunes, an ebook, a website, whatever, but your computer puts the request in a container - called a "packet" - and fires it off to the other end of the tube.

The router is a midpoint; it sorts all the containers to make sure they're in the right tubes.

Pictured: what a router does.

Now, at each network border, there's a router, or a series of them (depending on the amount of traffic,) which creates a route - thus the name - for your information, both outbound and inbound.

This happens really, really, really fast.

As in, your at-home little wimpy "router" from Comcast does this as many times a minute as the entire U.S. Postal Service manages in a whole year and then some.

Now, you may be wondering what this has to do with neutrality. We'll get there, I promise.

But back to the college campus...

The college - University of Downloadistan, whatever - pays someone, some company, to connect their campus network to the rest of the world.

To the student, this is transparent; they don't see any of the infrastructure, just the effects.

They click a link, a page loads.

But what really happened, was they clicked a link, their computer closed up the container with the info request, sent it to the college router. That router sent it on to the internet provider's router, which sent it on to another network router, which passed it along to another...

...ad nauseam, until the packet finally arrives at a computer that actually contains the web page the student wants; that computer opens the packet, takes the ID and check, stuffs the website data in, and sends it right back to the student.

Now, as the packet passes through each router, the router adds or updates the routing information on it; kind of like a dynamic mailing address, so that the data knows how to go back home after its hot date.

So, the student clicks, and within instants, the website is loaded and the student is none the wiser, not realizing that the data involved traveled in some cases literally thousands of miles to get there and back in the few seconds you were busy twiddling your thumbs waiting.

In doing so, it went through not one, but possibly hundreds, of individual networks - all connected by a series of tubes - to its destination.

Wait for it; we're getting the basics out of the way so the neutrality will make some sense, ok?

Now, if you're a private citizen, you most likely have an account with an ISP, or internet service provider. That would be Comcast, Time Warner Cable, Dish Network, Hughes, Verizon, AT&T, and some others.

What you most likely think you're paying for is an unlimited access pass to the collected sum of all human knowledge.

And cat pictures.

And porn.

And 4chan.

Pictured: 4chan.

Moving right along, what you're actually paying for is for the company in question to connect your computer to the series of tubes that connects all the other networks. The way that service is sold in the USA is by speed; the more you pay for, the fatter a tube you get. The fatter a tube you have, the more requests for information and gifs of dancing monkeys and Vine videos you can cram down it at one time, right?

Whoa there.

That's how it SHOULD work.

But only in a net-neutral world.

See, each of these networks has borders.

Pictured: not what those borders look like.

Information has a home; anything you're looking for is available for you to view, but it's stored in a physical place, even if you don't realize it.

Most of those physical places exist as individual networks.

Internet service providers, however, don't mostly have huge server farms like a university or corporation would; they have - drumroll please - you.

See, Verizon's "network," which has borders with the rest of the world's networks, consists of millions of individual people, each owning a computer.

In a net-neutral world, you ask for data; Verizon carries your request to the nearest border, passes it along to another network. Eventually, data comes back, and Verizon carries it to your house.

You pay Verizon to provide that service.

On the other end - somewhere - is a different network, run by a different company. Let's call them Level 3.

Now, Level 3 does the exact same thing Verizon does, except that their clients - instead of being single individual homeowners - are mostly corporations.

Netflix is one of those corporations.

So, in a net-neutral world, you open your browser, type in Netflix.com, and away goes your packet - through Verizon - to the border with Level 3. Verizon hands the packet to Level 3, Level 3 carries it to Netflix, Netflix refills the container with the webpage and sends it back; Level 3 carries it back to Verizon, Verizon carries it to you, you watch movies. Everyone is happy.

But... Wait.

Verizon ISN'T happy. Neither are Comcast or AT&T.

Pictured: a sad rich guy in a corporate boardroom.

They feel that their networks are being unfairly used - for the purpose that you specifically pay them to perform - because lots of data comes and goes from Netflix.

But that doesn't actually matter.

It's a cash grab.

Verizon and Comcast know that you don't know how this works. They're counting on it. They talk endlessly about it, because the more boring they can make it sound, the less attention you'll pay to it.

So they say that Level 3 is overloading their network by pouring so much data into it that it's slowing down connections for everyone else, because that border is getting congested.

You probably have a mental picture of the border between Verizon and Level 3 right now as some kind of Grand Canyonesque continental divide, a huge crevasse only bridged by a tiny rope bridge...

Pictured: What you probably think this looks like.

That's not an accurate picture at all.

Instead, the interconnection points between Verizon's network and Level 3's network are far more simple.

Pictured: network diagram of the Network Service Provider Internet Exchange Point in the Carrier Hotel in L.A.

Imagine a room roughly the size of a broom closet. Along one wall are two nearly identical metal frames, each holding several little flat metal boxes. Between those boxes are a series of cables, each about a foot long, connecting the sets of boxes together.

Not actually Level 3 and Verizon but you get the idea.

That's a network interconnection point. Level 3's border routers, connected to Verizon's, by about a foot of cable.

Now, they're congested; they're congested because they need more cables.

Verizon wants to charge Level 3, and Netflix, more money for the data that goes across those wires, because they're using an "unfair" amount of data.

But that data is there because you - paying Verizon customer - paid them to go get it for you.

And they know they can't simply demand more money from you for that service, so they're trying to make it look like Netflix is owned by unreasonable dicks, so you'll think of them as the bad guy.

Charge Netflix more, Netflix has to raise prices, which YOU have to pay.

Hmmmmmmm...

So, Verizon is trying to charge a company you already pay for the data, to carry the data you pay Verizon to carry.

Hmmmmmm.

Well, it's because there's some huge expense involved in upgrading, right? After all, it's not really fair to expect Verizon to assume all the expense of upgrading their service to actually support the demands they charge their customers to satisfy, right?

Sorry, that was overly sarcastic.

I meant to say that since Verizon already charges you to carry data at a specific speed, it's unfair to demand that they carry data at the speed they charge you for, because that data has to come from someone else like all the other data on the internet, but because it comes from Netflix it's made of sucks and bags of coal and ass cancer, and therefore hurts Verizon more to carry it, or something...

I wish I was kidding, but that's actually what Verizon is claiming...

...But wait, that's obviously bullshit, because...

...Level 3 offered to pay for the upgrades to the Verizon routers. Openly said "we will buy you the equipment, just plug in more goddamn cables," and you know what Verizon said?

"No."

Because their goal is NOT to provide you the service you pay them for, you see? Their goal is to profit off you on as many levels as possible. If Verizon launches a streaming video service - kinda like Comcast's "Xfinity" service - and they're competing against Netflix, they're going to lose.

But if they launch, and THEIR service is super, super fast, and Netflix is slow as hell - because Verizon is intentionally slowing down the traffic from Netflix so that their service looks better, despite the fact that you pay them to bring it to you - they win, and get your monthly service fee AND a subscription fee!

Yay, double-dipping!

If you feel like this is pretty epic douchebaggery, you're entirely right.

If you've read my articles before, you know what I'm gonna say:

But Wait, There's More!

See, it's not just that the villainous douchenazis at Level 3 have offered to pay Verizon's way through the congested links, no; as it turns out, Netflix actually provides - free - a service called the Open Connect Content Delivery Network.

What's that, you ask?

Well, it's the reason that Netflix doesn't experience slowdowns and congestion anywhere on planet Earth except the United States.

Because Netflix provides ISPs servers, containing Netflix data - big containers full of movies, you see - which can be plugged directly into the ISPs own networks, thus avoiding border disputes entirely.

And most of the major ISPs on Earth outside the United States have made deals with Netflix to do this.

Only in the United States do the ISPs have such sway over our governance that they can convince the government to let them even pretend their refusal to provide the service you pay them for is legitimate.

Net neutrality is the rule that says all ISPs have to treat data the same regardless of source.

If you don't have it, the ISPs get to not only refuse to provide you the service you pay them for, but they get to screw you out of extra money besides.

Now if you've read my articles before, you know what I'm gonna say:

But Wait, There's More!

Ever seen a Verizon ad? Or a Comcast ad?

In recent years, the primary thrust of their advertising has been to highlight their ability to provide the fastest, best streaming video service. Both companies loudly tout the ability of their networks to stream video onto any device you own, all over your house, or your neighbor's, or at McDonald's, wherever, because they're awesome.

Both companies also cap data. Both companies have made public statements to the fact that they want to change from a speed-based sales model, to a quantity-based model.

You want to know why?

Because they can charge you way, way, way more if they can charge you for the data, after you're hooked on streaming video services. Video streaming, especially at HD resolution, takes an enormous amount of data, thus the relevance of the speed of your connection; if you're trying to consume huge quantities of data, in the form of movies online, you need fatter tubes.

So they advertise fat tubes. (Look here to see how often Verizon and Comcast talk about their speed.)

Which they intentionally are trying to avoid giving you, specifically so they can gouge you for even more money.

Comcast earned roughly 1.8 billion dollars in net profit - that is, what they have left to throw in the Scrooge McDuck vault after they pay all their bills - in the first quarter of 2014. That adds out to not quite 8 billion dollars in profits expected this year.

Verizon made $11 billion in 2013.

AT&T made $18 Billion in 2013.

Do NOT let these companies snow you into thinking they're as broke as you are.

They're not.

And they're trying to avoid providing the service you specifically pay them for, despite other companies offering to help them overcome the technological hurdles they face utterly free of charge.

Understand that they're trying to steal from you, without your realizing it.

And don't let them succeed.

A Holiday Shoppers' Guide To: Buying An HDTV

[Edited to add something I inexplicably missed, viewing distance, and also some more links.]

I'm going to state right off the bat that this is not meant to be an exhaustive technical dissertation, or some kind of encyclopedia entry. But since I work in retail, and I get asked the same questions a LOT, it seems like it might be useful to my friends and readers to provide a little handy quick reference so they know what they're getting into.

So.

The majority of the questions people ask are about the meanings of several of the often-quoted statistics about HDTVs. Here's a handy-dandy short list of the major ones, and what they mean to you.

1. Refresh rate: These can range from 60Hz to 600Hz. Higher is better, to some degree, although this tends to top out, realistically, at about 240Hz. The number represents the number of times per second that the TV re-draws the entire image on the screen. The higher that number, the smaller the amount of blur around the edges of moving objects. The sole exception to this is in reference to plasma TVs, because their refresh rate works differently than the refresh rate on an LCD TV.

On an LCD TV, if the refresh rate is 120 Hz, that means it redraws the entire screen 120 times per second.

On a plasma TV, it draws the screen (typically) 600 times a second - but only refreshes the actual IMAGE 60 times per second, redrawing each frame of the image 10 times. Which means that a 600Hz plasma = a 60Hz LCD for the purposes of reducing motion blur. Any LCD over 60Hz will look better than a plasma, unless you're planning to spend $2000 on the plasma and $400 on the LCD.

2. Contrast ratio: This is a measurement of the difference between the brightest color and darkest color the TV can display. (Pixel "full on" versus pixel "full off.") Again, the higher the better; with a high contrast ratio, the TV will make dark colors look darker, and bright colors look brighter, without bleed-through or blurring.

3. Inputs: These are the number and type of connectors your TV has to attach other devices. The more, the better, although the legacy device inputs, such as component, composite, and coaxial, are less relevant, as the older devices cannot display HD resolutions anyway.

4. Resolution: Don't believe the lies. There are two, count 'em, TWO, actual, full HD resolutions. 720p and 1080p. There are a host of other resolutions (720i, 1080i, 480p, 480i) but the only two true HD resolutions are 720p and 1080p. Currently, 1080p is the best picture you can buy. If you're comparing two TVs, both are 1080p, and the salesman points at the other one and says "but this one has FULL HD," he's just trying to upsell you to something more expensive. 1080p is the best; there's nothing better; if you have 1080p resolution on your TV, you have all the HD there is.

What do the numbers mean? It's actually not as complicated as you might think. TVs make pictures by drawing tiny dots on the screen; the higher the number of dots, the better the picture. the resolution number is the number of dots the screen can draw along the vertical axis. 1080p, therefore, is a resolution of 1920×1080 dots on screen, for an approximate 2.1 megapixels of picture (to use digital camera terms. Different post.) 720p equates to 1280×720 pixels, or 0.9 megapixels.

If anyone wonders why a 14.1 megapixel camera can only take 720p video, that's a goooooood question.

What do the letters mean? I stands for "interlaced," and P stands for "progressive." (As a note, for a visual demonstration of the difference, click the progressive scan link; there's a graphic.) An interlaced picture means the screen takes turns drawing the picture, drawing the even-numbered horizontal lines half the time, and the odd numbered horizontal lines the other half of the time. This means the TV doesn't have to work as hard - and also means you get way, way, way more motion blur, because you're effectively getting half the refresh rate. A progressive picture means the TV draws ALL the lines on screen with each screen refresh, reducing motion blur and making for a far better picture quality. 

Now, we move on to some of the other questions I get asked a lot.

What the heck is the difference between HDMI cables? Answer: effectively, nothing. Unless you spend literally thousands of dollars on your TV to get the absolute highest end options available, there is absolutely nothing your TV can display with the $70 Monster cable some retailers will try to shove up your nose that your TV won't display with the one you get for $3.50 from Monoprice.  This is digital broadcasting, guys; either your TV is displaying all the picture there is in the signal, or you get the bouncy box on-screen that says "No Signal."

There ARE some differences, but they only come into play on the very highest-end TVs, and the $3.50 cable is rated to support those features... So any salesperson trying to argue that you'll get a better picture from the more expensive cable is flatly lying to you. (Although, to be fair, they may not know this either.)

What's the difference between plasma, LCD, and LED?  This is very common, and a good one, with a simple answer: Lighting. A plasma TV, simply, is a sheet of gas trapped between two panes of glass, that displays a picture when it is ionized; they burn huge amounts of power, are fragile, typically lower resolution than LCDs unless you pay a fortune for them, suffer from screen burn-in (where an image stays on screen even after you turn the TV off,) and generally only have one advantage over LCDs, which is price - you can get a 50" plasma for about the same price as a 40" LCD, although why you'd want a 50" 720p TV is utterly beyond me.

LCD and LED TVs are both liquid crystal displays. It's basically a pane of industrial crystal which displays an image when you send an electric charge through it. The difference between the two is the lightbulbs involved.

...I know, right?

But seriously, the TVs marked "LCD" are lit using the same CFL bulbs they're trying to force you to buy and use in your home lighting fixtures now. They're typically rated for 11 years of "continuous" use, defined as 5 hours a day, every day. They typically use about $30-35 bucks in electricity over that span of time.

The LEDs now... They use light-emitting diodes to light the screen, which offer some huge advantages and one equally huge disadvantage. First, they're lighter and thinner than regular LCDs, which means they require a lot less in the way of hardware to mount them; they burn about half the power that LCDs do - $18/year, versus $35 for the same size - and they are much longer-lived; LEDs typically are rated for 22 years of "continuous" use. They're also capable of more accurate colors; LEDs are monochromatic, releasing light in much narrower color bandwidths than the CFL bulbs do. They're also significantly more expensive than LCDs, costing as much as $100 more for even a small TV than the regular LCDs.

They're worth it; if you can afford it, the LED TVs are the best of the bunch right now.

[Edited to add] How big a TV do I need? This one, oddly enough, involves math. See, the size of TV you should get is based on how far you are from it when you're watching. There's a pair of calculations to do. 

First, find the distance from your seat to the screen in inches. For example, mine is about 8 feet - 96 inches. Then you take that distance and measure off a third of it. 96" * .33 = 31.68 = 32 inch screen is the smallest you want to get for my living room. 

Then you start over and take your viewing distance and divide it in half. 96" * .5 = 48 = 47" screen is the biggest you could comfortably watch in my living room. So, an 8 foot viewing distance means you should buy a TV between 32" and 47", no bigger, no smaller. In our case, we're shooting specifically for a 37", because at that size we can afford a much nicer TV than we could if we went up to the 42" size.

I will note here that some sources recommend using 2/3 of the viewing distance as the maximum screen size. I don't, because a 63" TV in my living room would cause people's heads to explode.

I will also note here that this changes if you are coming from a standard, 4:3 aspect ratio TV to a widescreen for the first time, and is VASTLY different for a front-projection TV.

Which manufacturer is the best?  Unlike the others, this one is mostly opinion. Samsung. I will, however, offer some evidence to support my opinion here. 

I am quoting, here: " Samsung customer service said their TVs are repairable in or out of warranty, including models with failed backlights. "

Which, in my opinion, says it all, right there. Of all the manufacturers I know, Samsung is the most dedicated to customer service; not only do they produce excellent products, but they will, flat-out, repair their TVs regardless of warranty. They REALLY want you to keep being their customer.

Contrast this with Panasonic: " In addition, we do occasionally run across a unit that just won't stay fixed or stumps our technical people as to the cause of the defect. … This is not a common occurrence, but when that happens, we will offer to replace the unit at a discounted price. "

Insignia: " Customers who bring in their products outside the warranty period will be assessed a repair cost based on the severity of the issue and the product parts that are available. "

Vizio: " Vizio replaced defective in-warranty sets with refurbished units which, in certain cases, also failed after their warranty period, according to a number of owners. "

So I guess what I'm getting at is that it's not just the quality of the product, or its price, that matters, but whether a manufacturer will stand behind its products.

Samsung does so.

I hope this has given you guys a bit more in your arsenal to deal with holiday shopping - and a few tools to use to brush off salespeople who are trying to baffle you with boatloads of lies, just to get a bigger sale.

A Sordid Tale Of Epic Personal Failure!

Also known as, The Day Dave Failed So Hard His Neighbors Got Black Eyes From The Force.

Now, you guys know me; I am honest to a fault, snarky, sarcastic, impolite, crude, tactless, and inconsiderate.

And that's on a good day.

But I also work in retail, and if you work in retail and care AT ALL about the quality of your work, you try really, really hard to be extra-nice to every single customer.

Some customers deserve this more than others; admittedly, it can make you grit your teeth a bit to have to happily and cheerfully process returns for customers who "rent" from your store by buying items YOU KNOW IN ADVANCE THEY INTEND TO RETURN, using them until the very last day of their return period, and then getting a full refund...

...Which they use to "rent" something else.

You also know that this is a fairly large proportion of the truly staggering quantity of returns that consumer retailers get, daily, with reasons given such as "I didn't like it."

OK; you're allowed to return things because you didn't like them. "Renting" from a retailer is Not Cool™, and you should try one of the fine establishments that exists for that purpose, but sometimes it's legit; you bought it, didn't like it, and want something else instead.

Now, because in addition to the fine list of sterling qualities about myself I listed above, I am also careful, conscientious, attentive to detail, goal-oriented, prone to double-checking myself to avoid mistakes, and dedicated to my work ethic, when someone has a problem, I will move heaven and earth to try to get it fixed for them. Good customer service is something you have to work at, every day, and I put a lot of effort into it.

Like everyone else, I sometimes succeed and sometimes don't.

Today was, through a confluence of events I was absolutely astonished by, an epic failure on a scale previously associated with ancient civilizations built directly on the slopes of volcanoes erroneously thought to be extinct.

An older couple came up to me and asked me if I could process a return for them.

Upon my asking, they told me that they had bought a small TV for their breakfast nook, and didn't like it; the sound, they said, was tinny and nearly inaudible.

Fair enough, and they were very polite about it.

So, since they wanted a replacement, but not the same model, I processed the return and gave them a gift card for the purchase price, so they could look for something with which they would be more satisfied.

Problem solved, right?

Nope, it's just Chuck Testa.

The alternative TV they chose as a replacement is a very nice one; just the right size for the space they have, with front-mounted speakers (something inexplicably becoming very rare these days,) and excellent sound, and only about $20 more than the one they had returned.

Unfortunately, despite the computer system's insistence that one was in the store, we didn't actually have one. Bear that in mind; it becomes a factor soon, I promise.

So, being the consummate salesman I try so hard to be, I informed them that we could order it for them from the company website and have it shipped to them; they thought that was a fine idea, and wanted to have it shipped directly to the store, so that they could simply pick it up on one of their frequent shopping trips.

We went to the computer kiosk, and fortunately the exact TV they wanted was listed on the site and available for order.

Awesome!

We put in the order, set my store as the pickup location - noting, as we do not have one in stock despite the computer's insistence that we do, that we wanted it to be shipped to the store instead of picked from local inventory.

They used the gift card for most of the purchase, and put the rest on their debit card.

And as soon as we processed the payment and placed the order, the computer, having realized that we actually have that TV in inventory, despite the fact that we in fact don't, immediately and irrevocably switched the order to be taken from local inventory.

That thumping sound you're hearing is my forehead hitting the desk repeatedly.

Now, the system that tracks orders made for local pickup is a time-sensitive one. You have a very limited window in which to cancel an order once it is placed, after which the order goes through to the store...

...And once it gets to the store, it requires fairly extensive manager involvement to clear it out of the system and reverse the charges.

So, very apologetically, I explained the situation to them; found them a comfortable place to sit down, and ran frantically around to try to make absolutely certain that the TV does not, in fact, exist in our inventory.

I was right the first time; we really, really, actually do not have it; the computer was wrong.

So I went back to the customers, and again very apologetically, explained that we would try to cancel the order and reverse the charges so that they could get a replacement TV without any further difficulty.

I went to the kiosk again, selected "track orders," punched in their order number, and the computer crashes.

That thumping sound you're hearing is my forehead hitting the desk repeatedly.

Again.

Time-sensitive, remember? So I wait, fingers crossed, as the glacially slow process of rebooting the kiosk proceeds.

Finally, the application opens back up, I select "track orders," put in their order number...

It offers me the option to cancel the order...

I select cancellation, and confirm it...

The system informs me that the order will be cancelled, and all charges reversed, if and only if I got the cancellation request into the system in time...

I click "close window," and the computer crashes.

That thumping sound you're hearing is my forehead hitting the desk repeatedly.

Now, bear in mind that this is Sunday; at this point, these folks are out their money until Tuesday at the earliest, and still don't have a TV.

Also bear in mind that under normal circumstances, electronics like me; I have been known to repair malfunctioning cell phones (on multiple occasions, no less,) by the laying-on of hands.

So this level of electronic malfeasance and sabotage was a first for me.

They were tired, and wanted to go home; totally understandable since this had consumed OVER AN HOUR of their time.

I also wanted to go home, since this had put me a quarter-hour late to clock out.

As I am not generally a fan of the practice of making promises that cannot be kept, as I've gotten older, I have cultivated a habit of not making promises unless I am one hundred percent sure  I can keep them.

Tonight, I promised my customers, after (again) apologizing to them profusely, that I will find a way to ensure that they are taken care of; they WILL get the TV they want. My intent is to finally and permanently resolve whatever the problem with the inventory is on Tuesday, and re-order it to be shipped, ensuring that it will actually "arrive" as opposed to being removed from local inventory.

Keep your fingers crossed; we'll see how I actually do.

...I need some ice for my forehead.