dammed if you do
not always a fan of VM but there wasn't much else they could do. They took it to court and lost.
Perhaps annon should be taking on the media industry rather than third parties.
Virgin Media's main website dropped off the interwebs on Tuesday with hackivist collective Anonymous claiming responsibility for the DDoS attacks in response to the company's recent cut-off of The Pirate Bay. The telco said it had to down its "customer-facing" website for about an hour last night, after it was hit by …
Really? The BPI are fuckwits, and conform to so many of the stereotypes that it's untrue. The senior people barely know what an Interwebs is, much less if their Interwebs are Metel or Normel(tm).
Their early lameass online store got penetrated pretty much as soon as it went online, years ago, and defaced, and it took them ages to notice.
Oh, and they're useless, stupid and evil, too- having seen the things they hire consultants to explain to them, I am also amazed that they manage to cross roads safely.
AC for professional reasons.
"....Perhaps annon should be taking on the media industry rather than third parties." That would require some intelligent thinking on the part of the Anons to realise that. Besides, Anon skiddies DDoS the BPI, no-one notices, therefore no bragging rights. Anon skiddies DDoS Virgin and maybe a few people notice, and the skiddies can pretend to each other they're 1337 hax0rs. Don't fall into the trap of believing there is some higher, enlightened motive for their digital vandalism. Meanwhile, they're silly posturing over the Pirate Bay just makes them look like they're advocating theft as a lifestyle choice. Pathetic!
/Jolly Roger for the lulz, of course.
Problem though... Anonymous are idiots, scum and fucktards!
I would be more impressed (pronounced 'believing that they can live up to their own hype') if they were to announce BEFOREHAND that a site was going to be taken down. As it is now, they are just the IT industries version of the Zodiac killer. Claiming practically every outage, but only after its common knowledge that a site is down.
I don't like Virgin Media, at all. I don't agree with the blocking of the Pirate Bay either. However, I accept that VM have to comply with the court order and, on this occasion, I do not think they are at fault.
If anyone wants to protest the blocking of TPB, then I believe the more effective route would be some kind of legitimate action like writing to MPs to let them know we don't agree with censorship of this kind. If enough people did that, we *might* be able to nip the problem in the bud, and I hope we can because I find the ideas of judges and MPs that don't understand the internet calling for this kind of measure, and censorship of the internet in general, very alarming.
This does not send the right message to the right people.
Agreed, write a letter to your MP, but.....
"....we don't agree with censorship...." The legal action against the Pirate Bay has nothing to do with censorship, it is about the pirating and distribution of copywrit material. Now, you may or may not agree with the laws regarding piracy, but to deny the simple facts of the matter by dressing it up as "censorship" is just going to get you laughed at.
This post has been deleted by its author
@Matt Bryant: I actually don't disagree with you, and admit I may be guilty of jumping the gun and mixing different issues here, as I fear this could be the top of a slippery slope that will lead to censorship. The court order has been issued stating the ISPs have to block the site and that sets a precedent that could be used by other groups later, and there is already debate about trying to restrict access to adult content going on right now by blocking it. It looks like we may heading in that direction if we are not careful, if you join the dots. Joining the dots in that way isn't so crazy. Effectively what happened here is the site was blocked because it ran against the interests of one group, in this case, an industry making profits, except the evidence that pirancy is making this industry lose profits is widely debated and disputed in many corners. Next time, it might be the 'anti-filth' lobby, with inaccurate evidence that porn is harming the children. Then it might be the anti-gaming lobby, with questionable evidence that games are causing violence, then political parties wanting to wipe out opposing views... anything.
So, you're right, censorship is not the right word for this, I stand corrected. But it is a related issue and risk as it would be easy to slip into censorship from where we stand. In any event, there is a fine line. I do not disagree with the piracy laws, but I still disagree with this block because because I do not think it is the right approach to the problem:
a) the line has to be drawn somewhere. Should we block Google et al as they help people find illegal content too? What about the other torrent sites? Why is one being singled out?
b) Because of the precedent I ranted about in the first paragraph of this comment and the damage I feel it could do to the freedom of the internet
Oooo look the big bad VM have censored the web by blocking access to a site, I know what we should do, a DDOS attack.
There look what we just did.......censored the web by blocking access to a site.......
But we are not bad just defending your rights to a free web.
Thanks for that but I wanted to check my bill online and you have removed my freedom to do so......Tossers......
Hmm. Let me see...
- VM throttle my 30Mbit connection to 15Mbit if I download more than a certain amount at peak times
- no other ISP in my area is capable of providing more than 6Mbit *at any time of day*, regardless of what I or others are doing
Yep. Makes sense to ditch VM and go elsewhere, for sure!
"- no other ISP in my area is capable of providing more than 6Mbit *at any time of day*, regardless of what I or others are doing"
HAHAH, what planet do you live on?
every single ISP in the country* provides more than 6mbit (as long as you don't live down a well in the outer hebrides)
(*Talk Talk excluded for obvious reasons)
It's a bit more of the country than just wells in the Hebrides, my folks live about 15 miles from Cheltenham (ie, slap bang in middle england) and can get a max of 2Mb on their ADSL.
Mind you, they only have the choice between ADSL, dial-up and satellite.
Not everyone is lucky enough to live in a big town with copious bandwidth.
Nope, you fail...
I believe he said 'no other ISP in HIS AREA' (not the entire U.K.) can provide more than 6Mbit.
i.e. Whatever ISP he chooses (other than NTL which provide their own infrastructure to his door), all are subject to the limitations of his BT phone line quality, distance from local exchange etc... They might well advertise 'up to 8Mbit' but that does not guarantee those speeds in reality.
Ben, I'm taking it that your signing off as Muppet and not calling someone so because that would be a little childish wouldn't it...
I think the chap is making a reference to advertised speed vesus actual speed. Point being, often on ASDL, these values can be quite different. As pointed out though, Virgin isn't without is own "speed" issues.
The point being that you appear to think you know about the OP's ISP options than he does. You've either been looking in Mystic Meg's crystal ball, or you are assuming that the OP is a fool.
Judging by your downvotes, it seems that most people have made the judgement that your assumptions are not well founded.
I think you'll find its the equipment in the local exchange that dictates the broadband speed, the end users speed is also affected by their distance from the exchange and no, not every exchange provides ADSL2 or ADSL 2+. Check out samknows.com
(Talk Talk included for obvious reasons)
Yep, throttling. It's utterly terrible isn't it? Well ADSL in my area ( just about 5 miles outside of a major UK city ) is 1.2MB max even at "low tide" around midnight. Jumped to VM and it's consistently 50MB and moving 120MB very soon!
So you laugh it up all you like dillweed, as BT can stick their crappy little 25MB max ( with the right wind direction and sunshine ) fibre lines up their arses!
Oh and no one uses TPB these days anyway! Anyone with any sense uses private invite-only torrent sites where the users actually care about helping to supply each other with quality controlled ( public broadcast only I might hasten to add ) media!
I agree. I see people slagging off VM all the time but I'm happy with the service I get. I currently get 40 down/10 up which I think is pretty reasonable. I can download a DVD quality movie in a lot less time than it takes to watch it.
The speeds are about to double with no extra cost and if I'm being throttled (I don't think I am) then I don't notice.
This is the fairly boring standard of Anon these days "ohh, you did something we don't like, lets take down your website!". Seems to me this is their default volley and getting a bit boring.
Now.. if they managed to take down the whole of VM ISP.. now THAT would be a stand worthwhile of notice. As it is I think I along with many others are getting bored of Anon's "protests" as they do nothing except give people who are against this kind of censorship a bad name.
Bizarre logic you have there. Take down a website = boring and gives protest a bad name. Take down entire ISP = a "stand" worthy of notice.
Taking a "stand" involves principles. It means identifying yourself and saying this is what you believe and this is what should be done. It means actually accepting that you are willing to be inconvenienced yourself, on principle, to make a point. You are, literally, standing up for what you believe.
What you suggest is none of these, any more than DDoS attacks are. Taking down an ISP is not a "stand". It's more of a "punching someone in a crowd in the back, then hiding".
*That* is what gives give people who are against this kind of "censorship" a bad name.
This is an unwarranted move to interfere with peoples access to the the Internet.. It is driven by companies, who are unwilling to adapt to the market. If prices were low and quality high then the levels of copyright infringement (Note not piracy) would be greatly reduced. It is a dangerous road to embark on, and should be challenged. The PB wasn't actually hosting ANY copyrighted material. Does this mean that google should be blocked?
o Move from one of the five targeted ISPs. Loss of business is a good incentive to make them support your cause
o Downgrade your package
o Write to your MP http://www.- http://writetothem.com. Make supporting you easier than opposing you A written letter is even more effective. Phone their office if you don't get a response.
o Use a different DNS provider such as opendns - http://www.opendns.com
o Use a VPN so they can't see what your are doing. Also useful when using open wifi's
>>If prices were low and quality high then the levels of copyright infringement (Note not piracy) would be greatly reduced.
1)Mark why would copyright infringement be reduced but piracy wouldn't?
2)Bringing quality into it is dumb. The high-quality/popular items are the ones shared the most
3)I assert lowering price wouldn't have this affect... it is a mindset thing not a case of being unable to afford it
And here is the problem, as with a lot of emotive discussions on here. If you really want to actually help with a problem, you can't just state things as if they're true because you think they are.
What actual use are either of the following:
"If prices were low and quality high then the levels of copyright infringement (Note not piracy) would be greatly reduced"
"I assert lowering price wouldn't have this affect... it is a mindset thing not a case of being unable to afford it"
Neither is about the facts of the situation, they're just doing what politicians do every day, which is taking a stance based on opinion and carrying on.
Do you know how the music industry could actually work against piracy without investing lots? Just trial a really low cost service in one country and see if their sales figures increase, or if piracy declines.
The fact of the matter is, that there is no really definitive studies to tell one way or the other, and until someone produces something that does, then these comments are nothing more than opinion (wow, that sounds just like what I said on the death penalty comments, oh well).
"Move from one of the five targeted ISPs. Loss of business is a good incentive to make them support your cause".
Erm, I thought VM et al went to court to FIGHT the request to block tPB? So in fact they did stand up for your (and their) rights by spending their own money. But lost.
"If prices were low and quality high then the levels of copyright infringement (Note not piracy) would be greatly reduced."
Care to explain this intriguing argument?
Prices are determined by market forces. Whether they are "low" or not is a matter of opinion determined by the resources available to each consumer. Music and movies are not essentials. The producers have no obligation to provide them at the lowest price to the most people. Either way, how "low" does a price have to be before displacing "free"?
Quality is totally a matter of opinion. If the material is so poor, then why are people so set on getting at it? If quality needs to improve (in your opinion) then what incentive can you offer to drive this? High quality files can be shared for free just as easily as low quality files.
they have blocked TPB in a really half assed manner that makes it a doddle to circumvent, they have gone just as far as legally required and no more.
Of course why would you even need 100MB broadband if not for TPB and its Ilk, VM are just protecting their bottom line while trying to seem to be doing all they can to the court.
Censorship is bad. Always. Age restriction I don't qualify as censorship, but censorship can wear it as a disguise ("Think of the children!" argument). I do not think VM (or the court) has censored TBP, it's still trivially easy to access. If the court had wanted, they could have made the terms much more sweeping.
TBP is a source or copyright infringing material (amongst lots of other things) and this is either because people are not getting the service they want, or do not value the products at the price offered. The former is definitely the case - DRM only affects the legal consumer and drives them towards infringement to use material they believe they have bought. The latter would require a cartel, and such cartels do exist (RIAA, BPI etc); they exist only to prevent free-trade (region encoding, blocking imports etc).
TBP only exists as a reaction to the control/exploitation of the consumer. There has *always* been sharing. We're a social species! The sharing is not a loss, it viral marketing! Sure, jail the idiot banging out 100,000 hooky CDs every month, but people sharing the odd song/movie or two? Please, that's just human nature. Deal with it. And if you can't deal with it, piss off.
Despite (or because of?) heavy piracy the new Avengers movie still broke records. I utterly fail to see what these muppets are fighting. They seems to still be cashing it in.
Yes, always. Even for scary, hate-filled, garbage censorship is bad. Only by shining a light on it (whatever it may be) can one discuss why it is wrong, harmful, not supported by evidence, not compatible with good morals, just plain wrong etc.
Oh, and TBP is not illegal as they host no content. If you declare TBP illegal, you must also declare Google etc illegal for the same reasons.
So the logical extent of your argument is: Everyone should be able to see Child Porn, in order that they can see how bad it is?
I don't think it works like that. Neo Nazi sites, for instance, can show people who aren't attracted to Neo Nazi ideology that it's not a good thing, they are very attractive to anyone on the fringes. People will believe what they want and be seduced by it, just look at Greece - "We want to stay in the Euro, but we don't want austerity, so we'll vote for the people who say we can do that." "Where will the money come form?" doesn't even come into it.
"Everyone should be able to see Child Porn, in order that they can see how bad it is?"
A, child porn. Used to enact an emotional response and allow the other party to call me a lover of paedos (or whatever) should I say something that they disagree with. If you had posted under your El Reg name I would have answered.
As you didn't I call you troll. Good day.
@Big Yin - I don't ever post under my Reg name, due to bullying by some commenters, but I'm not trolling - Yes, I did use Child Porn to enact an emotional response, because it's a logical extension of your argument and demonstrates that some things should be censored/banned. I did not however say it to call you a Paedo lover. As I went on to further argue my point, I would have thought that it would have been clear that I'm not a troll.
There are two extreme camps: "let everyone have everything" and the "make sure the state censors anything which may be damaging to anyone" camps a both are wrong. Like with all arguments, the sensible way is somewhere in between.
'There are two extreme camps: "let everyone have everything" and the "make sure the state censors anything which may be damaging to anyone" '
A lack of censorship does not mean a lack of laws preventing harm to others. Censorship (as opposed to preventing harm) tends to be based on some idea of outraged morals "I disagree with that, lets ban it". I am not for one second suggesting we should be able to go into a shop and by "Kiddy Fiddling for Dummies", but there are laws/operations to catch those doing the harm and ensure the actual censorship is not required. I realise I may appear to be splitting hairs and not explaining myself well; but I do not see the prevention/protection from harm as the same as censorship. Consider censoring debate about child porn as opposed to the child porn itself.
Take a different example; S&M. Should that be banned/censored? (I know 'extreme' porn already is). Between consenting adults (even to publication of their activities) - no. They're consenting adults. Between one adult and an unconsenting adult? Or one unable to understand what is happening, or two you? There's no need to censor that - it's simple assault.
Censorship is much more about protecting some idea/perception we have from (potentially justified) attack. It used to be (still is, in some places) about protecting religion. Now it is about protecting from the perception of offence, or in the name of diversity, or for the children, or whatever. Doesn't make the censorship any less bad IMHO.
"A lack of censorship does not mean a lack of laws preventing harm to others."
Yes but it's the internet which is outside any one country's rule. I can do something in a country which doesn't have or doesn't/can't/won't enforce anti-pedo laws and put this online for British people to view. So the argument about stopping the people from doing the wrong in the first place doesn't really work.
In which case, if the government wants to enforce the law, you either need to block the supply, or snoop on the general public to find those consuming it. Which is worse, having illegal sites blocked or being watched to make sure you don't visit them?
"...Censorship (as opposed to preventing harm) tends to be based on some idea of outraged morals..."
All law is based on morals, beit censorship or not. Our legal code (in the UK, at least) is derived from Judeo-Christian morals, specifically the ten commandments and other biblical/pre-biblical teachings. There have been plenty of societies in the past where murder has not be the black and white issue it is today, where people have been allowed to exercise control over others up to and including death. It's just that in our society (as in most) it's considered immoral and that's the end of it. It's the same with theft, even the way we organise is arguably based on morals, in order that we can function as an efficient society.
Most people would argue that taking something society says you don't have a right to take, unless you've paid for it, is immoral. I certainly would.
@AC - Nothing, but a consistent handle is a step-up from a coward and the best yer going to get around here. Yes, I could have multiple handles, use throwaway account etc etc.
But I don't.
ElReg, good as it is, just isn't worth that level of effort.
Heck - how does another reader know that you are not me.
Are you me? Does that explain the blackouts and the voices?
there are specific laws to cover child porn that no one in there right mind would argue against.. what is being said is not everyone must see it but instead don't censor and let individuals decide. if you choose to look at it you can expect a visit from the police.
instead we are getting into a deadly cycle "i don't like x lets ban it" so x is filtered at isp level. next i don't like y etc etc. prime example look at all the recent media attention behind "cyberbullying" with celebutards even making tv shows of basiclly "wah someone said mean things on my twatter" next it will be ban those pages, but then wheres the line? some dark humored satire will be next to go etc etc.
mark twain said it best with (iirc) "censorship is like saying no one can have steak because a baby can't chew it "
"don't censor and let individuals decide. if you choose to look at it you can expect a visit from the police."
That logic would make supplying drugs illegal and possession the crime, which is pretty much the opposite to what makes sense.
Censorship based on arbitrary moral/ethical codes, I can agree that's bad. Censorship of things the law says are illegal is a whole other situation.
supplying drugs (specifically possession with intent to supply) is illegal and possession of controlled substances is a crime. i don't get the analogy.
Laws can be changed to easy and on a knee jerk to say if its illegal censor it look at the post 9/11 laws that got through with little debate/oversight and once they are on the books its hard to get them taken off.
it was illegal to say celebutard x has had sex with celebutard y due to super injunctions. as more and more things become subject to censorship because of legality status that could (and i am taking it to an extreme) be justification for blocking twatter/facebook etc as they contain "illegal" information.
""wah someone said mean things on my twatter" next it will be ban those pages, but then wheres the line?"
One of my 'friends' posted me a link to Justin Bieber's YouTube page on my Facebook wall. Without realising what it was, I clicked it. I was traumatised, and even now years later I still have nightmares. This sort of psychological bullying must be stopped. I urge you all to help in my campaign to ban Justin Bieber from the internet.
I really fail to see how anyone believes this is a defence. It's about intent... Google exists to allow people to search all public info on the web, except that they DO attempt to block some things from searches. Maybe poor attempts, but they show the intent.
Whereas TPB exists purely and wholly to help people find ways to download content they aren't allowed to have. Yes I know people use it for other things, but it's called the PIRATE bay for a reason.
In real life, knowingly aiding someone to commit a crime makes you an accomplice to the crime. It's just common sense.
So if TPB was called the Encyclopedia of Knowledge Bay, that would make it legitimate in your book?!? The name is irrelevant. I could host a torrent called Mamma Mia which could be a song of my own composition - the title doesn't necessarily mean it's related to Abba. Who can decide whether my torrent is "legal".
Anyway, piracy is about terrorising shipping - like we used to do back in the middle ages (where do you think the Queen's gold comes from?).
As for aiding someone to commit a crime, why not include the ISP, the phone company, the electricity provider etc - they are all "accomplices" to some degree. As are you (technically) when someone lends you a DVD - who decides where the line is?
Clearly you are not aware that TPB provides links to plenty of providers of non infringing material, exactly the same as Google.
Everyone knows that terrorist action always gets what you want, and never polarises public opinion against you.
Seriously, VM aren't 'involved in censorship' they are obeying the law. I don't see anon volunteering to have a whip round to donate money to VM for the fines they'd face if they didn't comply.
I don't agree with the courts decision to block access to TPB. I certainly don't agree with MPs/judges calling for these kinds of measure when they appear to not clearly understand the technology in the first place.
The second half of Virgin's statement rings true. Tackling piracy is down to at least in part decent legal alternatives at a fair price and maybe a little bit of education maybe.
That explains why I couldnt get access to VM's website. Im happy I didnt phone to complain, just used TIVO instead.
Blocking TPB... On balance I dont have a problem with it as I have never used it. I expect to get payed for my work and so expect to pay someone else for their work. However I understand peoples anger at the excessive pricing the music industry has been responsible for especially in the 80's.
I dont work for any affiliation of VM, but think they are great, and without them im sure Sky wouldnt be as cheap.
However I understand peoples anger at the excessive pricing the music industry has been responsible for especially in the 80's.
I suspect the majority of TPB's users weren't even alive in the 80s! Tragically, I was - but I still listen to a lot of the CDs I bought back then, thirty years on. Even at £15.99 for a CD and adding for inflation, that still isn't bad value for a classic Cure or Smiths album that forms the soundtrack of your youth and you can still enjoy decades later. Perhaps if today's consumers owned less music they might learn to value it more?
Virgin Media are not the bad guys here.......
Open Letter to Anonymous
Virgin Media are not the bad guys on this occasion.
The court has ordered some ISP's to comply with the blocking of the pirate bay. Whilst I do not agree with censorship I cannot stand by and watch you flush you chequered reputations down the drain with this cheap shot.
The courts and the government are the meanies, and Virgin are the little man.
Lots of cuddly hugs
...all the top ISPs should of just veto'd the court decision themselves. What's the worst that could of happened if they all refused to abide by the court order? If the Government wanted to revoke all the major 5 ISPs activity, we'd have no public network infrastructure left! Government and any media related industry don't realise that banning it just promotes it even more to the fact that most public joes didn't have a clue on what TPB was until the reporting media picked up on the story.
No-one deserves to be DDoS'd to be quite frank. If 'Anon' spent their time setting up effective online campaign groups, it would have a much more long lasting effect than taking down sites for a matter of hours. Even promoting VPNs and other such workarounds would push ISPs to rethink their position rather than being bullied by media companies via Governments and Court Orders.
On a minor point, I'm glad we're getting rid of VM in a couple of weeks. We use the net a lot to stream services, host consoles, download linux and demo ISOs (for me personally); the cut-offs are too harsh. I do admit I download from torrents as such from time to time, but only when I want to get American shows that aren't available here or will take an age to come out on DVD or some sort of media. Glad to be getting BTs Infinity. Okay, another top 5 ISP; but I don't want to have strict limits thanks very much.
The directors are tried for criminal offence and put in prison... oh look the company decides to give in.
Or simply issuing huge fines.
Or even if companies "can't be trusted to safeguard the vulnerable public from untrustworthy corporations" they could say all web-access has to be provided by the public sector.
if users want to access something blocking a site will not stop them.
there are ways to bypass blocks 1 example being a vpn (like hotspotshield which is free)
which can also be used to access geo restricted sites like hulu.
blocking sites is just a copout and the easy route and dosn't tackle the problem as a whole.
If there was a row of shops on your high street (yeah I know, unlikely these days). And one of them is selling or handing out stolen goods like clothes and TVs etc. I suppose you would only go in that shop and take what you want. And if the police shut the shop down you would say, 'well it took them a while to get around to doing that.' You wouldn't run about in a panic shouting 'they're going to shut ALL the shops - nooooo!' That's just a crazy over reaction, silly pirate thieves.
I'm not a big corporate I'm a one man company that sells my own software on the internet.
Pirates are not stealing from the rich and giving to the poor, they are just stealing from anybody they can. People come up with crazy excuses, but they are defending a theft, and they know it because they wear that stupid childish mask.
It said on the bbc the other day, that as people are circumventing this block with other methods, the government is considering greater control over those methods used, i.e. proxy web server and VPN.
First they came for my torrent site, etc. etc.
I do wish them luck. God knows they would if they only could.
active military trolling in this sector is shutting down our internets, and you are just going to take it.
haha fucker now you know why they is been flying helicopters over your house daily. does it feel good in your brain to have that knowledge? no.
y u no do anything?
I'm a Virgin Media customer who was blissfully unaware of the DDoS attack. Can't remember how long ago I decided to quite VM as my homepage - it might have been around the same time that it became a DigitalSpy rivalling celeb-fest to co-incide with their sponsorship of Big Brother.
What did I choose to replace it with?! theregister.co.uk
Multiple ISPs were told by the court to block the pirate bay. All of them stalled, except for Virgin Media. BT stalled the hardest, and even asked for more time to "consider their stance". Virgin Media carried out the block almost immediately, which I can tell you, as a Virgin Media customer, was a lot quicker than it takes to get repairs at my local exchange, or an engineer to come and visit when there's a problem at home!
took me all of 20 seconds to bypass it.. proxy anyone? there's even people doing bypass it "the hard way" for a bit of fun
I don't condone "freetards" as el-reg likes to put it, neither do I condone the blatant profiteering that has marked the music/movie industry for so long. I think artists/programmers should get fair money for their efforts, and I'm happy to pay them for it. the problem is the labels and the megacorps that want money for nothing.
blocking pirate bay is like flicking peas into a black hole... pointless, laughable and a complete waste of time (and peas). Virgin media have it exactly right.. give consumers a viable alternative and they'll come flocking (myself included) :-)
Makes a change, they did something useful and stood up for the silent majority who hate filtering in any way, shape or form because it breaks the Internet while making the real "Bad Guys" use VPNs, ghostnets, and other more devious methods including the wireless pendrive hidden in convenient house brick installed in convenient building project without anyone noticing, which makes blocking them even harder.
What next, banning pendrives in the post "just in case" they contain CP/terror/etc or this week's must have movie?
Seem to recall an article suggesting that boxes of media such as blank DVDRs are being opened up and checked to see if they are really blank or just filled with pirated movies and then resealed.
I always liked Richard Branson, he seems a reasonable guy from what I see he just want's to push the limits. I stuck up for him in the "let virgin fly" campaign, and they now fly in America.
But when it comes to the label Virgin Media, it's like it's being ran by festering failure. Their video promotions seem to be locked down to corporate broadcasts, my attempts to contact them were all unresponded to. That's fine, there's thousands of other labels out there who will be more than happy to flood shows with their videos. So I didn't hold it against them.
I am hearing about their internet portion of their (what is it 400 companies?)
All of this festering failure can't have been made by Branson, I suspect the people running his stuff are the source of the failure. There has to be some truth in sites like Virgin Media Sucks . Com otherwise people wouldn't bother to register such a agitating domain name.
I am not telling anyone what to do, but I was Branson, I would dump virgin, and if I had them as an ISP I would not renew. If that means no communications, that's what it means. Blocking access at the ISP level is the same as not having communications anyway. If they can block TPB, they can block anything they want.
All of this spying and terrorism bs has gone to far. The banksters are the terrorists controlling our governments and pointing the fingers at us as the new terrorists. This won't end well.
Richard Branson doesn't own Virgin Media. He has a 15% stake.
Unfortunately cable internet wipes the floor with ADSL so it would take a lot more than blocking 1 site for me to consider leaving. With cable internet I pay for 30Mbs and get 30Mbs. With ADSL I would pay for 20Mbs and get 1.5Mbs!
Shame you haven't caught up with VDSL (cheaper for 40Mbps down / 6 Mbps up we've been rated as). We're jumping ship to it from VM as the individual throttling is just getting too agressive, even for most of the average users wanting to push more video through their internet connections.
In general, VM is extremely good for the connection itself (very rarely get any downtime), but I have heard of stories where USPs are getting hammered with subscriptions and slower speeds are getting to end consumers with dropped packets.
I am not joining any side here, but i would like to point out that writing a letter to your MP is something people from 70s (and before) suggest as the 'right' way to influence our so called representatives.
I have done this on a couple of occasions, and i was even blessed to have an MP who had previously had a career in IT, however said MP for Slough has about as much influence in the running of the country and implementation of these laws as my dead cat.
We are shown over and over that the way to attract attention is through media stunts and catchy sound bites that can twittered around the globe. If Anon are mostly script kiddies then maybe they are just using ways they think will work in this media obsessed world, however ill advised these actions may be.
Seems a bit unfair. There wasn't much Virgin Media could do. I think they need to turn their attention to the people that supported the ban. The media companies, the politicians etc
TPB is still available on Virgin Media. You just need to spend 5 seconds on Google to work it out. If you can't do that then you shouldn't be allowed to use the internet.
Reported on: Mon 07 May 2012, 07:27 PM
Estimated fix time: Tue 15 May 2012, 06:00 PM
Fault reference: F001989870
This fault first developed on Saturday 5th and by adding time everyday putting the fix time back ever further Virgin media are proving to be less than honest. I hope we will get a refund for the month of May, as the service provided does not even match the slowest dial-up I can buy!