I actually really like this idea for elderly people who need a companion, but who can't really take care of another living creature. Not just elderly people in nursing homes, but ones who live alone as well. As a vet, some of my saddest moments are having to euthanize the last companion (dog or cat) of an elderly person who we know just lost their spouse. And who may not have family that visits that often. Many of them swear they'll never get another animal after the euthanasia, because it's too hard for them emotionally. And many of them at that point are having trouble cleaning up after the animal, remembering to feed them, or worse, giving them medications if they get sick. This is a perfect idea. It's a robot so it doesn't eat, sleep, have to use a litterbox. It can't trundle between their legs, risking tripping a person stuck with a walker or cane. And it won't die. Also, the elderly person doesn't have to worry about who's going to take care of their pet if they pass before it does. I've seen where that becomes a huge problem when family members are allergic, or dislike animals. Or worse when they want the animal euthanized to "go with them."

To play devil's advocate, is AT&T really being hypocritical? Alone, they didn't have the ability to bring cable TV to Americans. And without AT&T, DirecTV's internet options were laughable, or non existent. Satellite internet is currently terrible; expensive, slow speeds and poor connectivity. So technically merging these two just added a new cable, internet, phone company onto the market. And isn't that exactly what AT&T is arguing for?

Though, what should really happen is all the cable/internet services in the country right now be allowed to offer their services countrywide, not in their own regional monopolies. I was actually a little excited about this merger, until I realized that UVerse is not available in my area, and if Time Warner merges with Charter, I'm stuck using their terrible, expensive, throttled service.