Posts by Roger Houghton

The BBC wants to slap a TAX on EVERYONE in BLIGHTY

Re: Poll Tax?

Quite. In fact it'd be charged in exactly the same way as the existing licence fee except applied to more households.

Re: I like the BEEB

Yes, where will it end? They'll be making the healthy pay for the NHS next.

Re: If you emmigrate

Licence, FFS.

Re: "universal levy could be put on every household"

Programme, FFS.

Re: Things change.

Not that anyone's proposing a poll tax. The idea is to have a property tax (as recently adopted in Germany), i.e. exactly the same as at present but universal rather than tied to ownership of a TV. Result will be a lower licence because it'll be paid by 100% of households.

Re: @ Moeluk

If you watch the trash (and that's a wholly subjective POV) that's your choice. I only watch (and listen to) quality stuff on the Beeb.

Open source project gives cars the Ikea treatment

Re: Old hat

"Whatever happened to the Africar?"

http://eandt.theiet.org/magazine/2013/05/interview-tony-howarth.cfm

Plastic iPhone 5Cs? Nah, we'll flog India our OLD iPhone 4 models - report

Re: Can't agree

The 99% of iPhone owners who don't fit your somewhat tiresome 'fanboi' stereotype.

Kim Dotcom's locker may be full, but the cupboard is bare

Re: It don't work that way...

Copyright isn't anyone's natural right - it's something granted my government. In a democracy the majority could choose to abolish or, as now, restrict it. Afraid your argument doesn't really work.

Mega launches with mega FAIL

Re: Response

Now five hours but still at 0%.

Response

No problems registering and validation email arrived immediately. However my initial test upload of a 1 Mb file is still at 0% after 15 minutes.

Apple Mac Mini (Early 2009)

Re. Two monitors?

"Does that mean you can have different pictures on both, or is it just the same screen duplicated?"

Different or the same - it'll do either.

UK.gov thinks internet should be run like BSkyB

Re. "Storm in a teacup" Really?

"Yeah, you're right, ISPs should be allowed to provide only the parts of the internet that are used by more than 90% of the population."

But that's what they're allowed to do at the moment. I don't see any current ISP offering a restricted service, though; just advertising exaggerated speeds and 'unlimited' downloads while not telling you about their traffic management practices.

Re. "Storm in a teacup" Really?

"ISPs should be allowed to provide only the parts of the internet that are used by more than 90% of the population."

But what's in it for the ISP? Surely it's cheaper and a lot easier not to have to filter your customers' activities. More work for less income seems a strange choice for an ISP.

Storm in a teacup

This story is nonsense. There's nothing in the proposed amendments about government control of Internet access. It's solely about the regulator - whether ISPs are allowed to sell a service with restricted access if they wish. There are no proposed powers to stop ISPs from offering full access to the Internet if that's what people want to buy. The regulator can no more prevent ISPs offering an unrestricted service than OfCom can dictate which telephone numbers BT allows you to phone.

Imagine...

"Imagine, for a moment, a world in which half the ISPs permitted their customers to access Google (or even Wikipedia) and the other half did not."

After which imagine a world in which the half not offering the full access try to sign up any new customers while the other ISPs are pinching all their existing ones.

Don't panic

It's about what ISPs are allowed to offer, not what the government will permit you to see. The original version would mean ISPs couldn't offer a cut-price restricted connection while the second would allow it (i.e. exactly what the situation is at present - the AOL model). No doubt it follows lobbying by ISPs but the regulator does not have power to dictate which model an ISP adopts.