Posts by Andrew Orlowski

It's official: India bans Facebook's Free Basics

@Ashley

I suspect most people trying stop very poor people using Free Basics don't know what it is. Free Basics is like a crappy Compuserve channel with the weather forecast thrown in. You can't get the full internet. Nobody could mistake it for the full internet. But that's still useful if you earn $1 a day and the full internet is way beyond your budget.

The presumption of Western activists (who are invariably white and wealthy) is that Indians are too stupid to tell the difference between the crappy free walled garden and the full internet, and will stay with Zuck's crappy walled garden for all time. We therefore have to step in and save them from themselves.

Meet the new colonialism. It's got a modem!

So. Are Europeans just a whining bunch of data protection hypocrites?

Maybe it isn't clear what the argument here is.

"In the Shrems case they were asked a specific question - given what we now know about US TLAs accessing data, does safe harbour provide the level of protection needed for FarceBork Ireland to export data to FarceBork US ?"

Walden's point is that they didn't "show their working", so the judgement isn't legally robust. If the CJEU were to roll the dice again (and it's a dead cert they will be asked to), the pips may come up differently.

"a full legal analysis isn't needed"

If you're the Supreme Court, yes it is.

Stylish Vaio biz mobe is flying this way – ah, it's got Windows 10 inside

I'm testing WM10.

Much improvement since December, but a long way to go to meet the reliability of WP81.

I could say thats a "typical comment by Franco", but it's Friday.

Re: WP

You haven't been paying attention. WP8.1 is rock solid. I'm using it now.

W10M on the other hand...

T-Mobile USA’s BingeOn is a smash hit. So what now?

Re: "Throttling" is the "nice" word for it

"It's simple. No picking winners."

T-Mobile hasn't picked winners. That's the point. But it's still declared witchy, and evil, and must be stopped.

"You handle all data equally"

#facepalm

Re: a limited resource, especially wireless

Thanks Tom 13 - there's a strong overlap between "copyfighters" and neutralists, for sure.

Re: unfair hybrid charging

"People don't want their data to be the same...until it's the other guy's data that's the winner."

Networks try really hard to do this as fairly as possible - but they have never *not* discriminated at all. They have to discriminate on service, or the internet wouldn't work.

BingeOn may be uncompetitive if it excluded particular services or companies, but it doesn't. It offers the consumer a quality-price trade off that they seem really happy with.

I am enjoying it all enormously, because critics are simultaneously complaining that they can't get in, but once they're in, it's the end of the world.

Now Google the phrase: "The food is terrible and such small portions"

Re: @Tom13

"So if the FCC, FTC, and Courts hold it isn't a violation for T-Mobile, it follows that it isn't a violation for the big US providers either."

No, sorry. Antitrust has never worked like that. It's triggered by market share, and evidence of market distortion. Always has been. No Court has ever followed that logic.

See my a) b) and c) above. BingeOn just doesn't trigger competition issues. The fact it triggers a witchcraft panic tells you more about the witchhunters than it does about the nature of the witchiness that they object to.

I've listed things in the past that the US consumer can do to get a better more competitive market. Competition legislation is definitely one of them, particularly at the state level. Organising mass switching is another - you only get better service if you threaten to leave. People seem to be too lazy to do this and wish the Gubberment would just wave a magic wand and fix everything.

So this is all about control. The absence of rational standards for fighting anti-competitive behaviour, and the insistence instead on random witchfinding, means Net Neutrality is becoming a revolutionary cause that is devouring its own children. No Net Neutrality revolutionary wants to be seen to be 'soft', and face be denounced by his comrades as a sell out, so the onus is on finding witchiness in places nobody else has yet been able to find it.

Where strong Net Neutrality has been passed, ISPs can't differentiate themselves on speed or quality (bad, illegal, burn the witch) so a bad market becomes even worse. We know how this story ends.

Like...?

Other than the downsampling trade off, I can't think of one. Perhaps you can name it?

Video services give up control over display resolution on mobile devices, on the 4th largest mobile network, in return for a shot at a larger market. Netflix and HBO are pretty happy to take up that deal. And Netflix is one of the biggest whiners about Net Neutrality, if not the biggest.

"BingeOn picks winners"

Er, no. T-Mobile would be clobbered if it did, and refused access to good faith, credible video services. It's open to all. YouTube isn't being discriminated against - it just refuses to take part, therefore it is "discriminating" against itself.

Nice example of the FUD people seem to repeat, though.

Re: Clarity

"You damn well know why: It's because zero rating one video service over another is anti-competitive"

You obviously think so. We have lots of rules to judge whether an actor is being anti-competitive - on none of them does a) the 4th largest player in the market (ie, the smallest national mobile network) introducing a b) opt-out service, which c) doesn't block anyone meet these criteria.

Europe decided that the best way to deal with anti-competitive telcos is empirically, through the precedents, case law etc of antitrust. Not a random, make-it-up-as-well-go-along neutrality smell test.

What your comment really illustrates is that neutrality is about control, not actually remedying or regulating the market.

Re: unfair hybrid charging

All data isn't "the same" though. People don't actually want all data to be "the same", and would riot if it was treated as such.

So you've just created a rule, a standard, whatever you want to call it, that real world networks, and users don't want.

Re: "Throttling" is the "nice" word for it

Throttling is something you do to kill something. T-Mobile is evdidently not killing video.

T-Mobile here is attempting to find a middle ground that maximises welfare for the largest number of users with a finite resource. It isn't going to please everyone, but "murdering", "throttling" is clearly not applicable.

You need to be more specific about what neutrality means here. The problem with Professor von Shriek, is that it means whatever she wants it to mean at any moment. And if something smells bad to her, it isn't neutral. Like witchcraft, then.

Did you know ... Stephen Fry has founded a tech startup?

Re: If they offer you clickbait just say 'no'

Go right ahead, Dan. I think you'll feel right at home there.

Congratulations, copyright infringers: You are the five per cent

Re: Re: The customer defines value

It's also true.

You've posted the same argument over and over again, for as long as I can remember. Your handle changes, the tune doesn't.

Five reasons why the Google tax deal is imploding

She left ages ago, for Uber.

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2015/05/14/rachel_whetstone_quits_google_for_uber/

UK can finally 'legalise home taping' without bringing in daft new tax

Re: The government gave a specific reason when they created the exemption

When I buy the right to listen to some music it makes no difference to the musician what technology I use to listen to that music. The musician has not lost anything, so the correct amount of compensation is 0. That was the government's clearly stated reason for the lack of compensation from the beginning.

"Thanks to this ruling, we must now fund a quango to calculate"

Er. No.

"Time for Orlowski to demonstrate the value of a compensation scheme..."

Time for you to calm down a little, I think. Any mention of paying musicians seems to send some Commentards round the bend.

"When I buy the right to listen to some music it makes no difference to the musician what technology I use to listen to that music. The musician has not lost anything..."

<slaps forehead>

The state has stepped in and removed a property right. A commercially valuable property right. Which is also your right (and you would care if you were creative in any way). Under international treaties this can't be done without compensation. There are good reasons for this, even if they escape you.

"...spent on their behalf on tasks like pointless litigation and lobbying for more pork"

I do suspect that if Herr Kroes found himself being paid as reliably as musicians get paid for use of their sound recordings, he would be noisily backing a lot of "pointless litigation" on behalf of Herr Kroes.

'I never understood this compensation crap to begin with."

You must be a gift to any boss who employs you.

Please send your details to El Reg - we could use someone like you around the office.

Re: Re: Very good, but...

". i.e. it was compensation for pirated copies."

No, only if you regard the Government as a pirate. Which I suppose you can, a lot of the time. But that's by the by. See the my explanation elsewhere in this thread.

Re: Still Waiting

Because you haven't bought the right to make a copy.

This is a commercially valuable right that's traded. For money. You have this right too. Anybody stealing this right from you (like a Government, through a copyright exception) needs to pay you.

Nowadays with MP3s, the right is bundled in, and you can wonder why it wasn't years ago. But that's different question.

Boozing is unsafe at ‘any level’, thunders chief UK.gov quack

Re: The Great Thing About the Internet

Spoken like a true modern academic, Sir!

Ie. Completely ignoring those 84 studies, and using anecdotes instead.

(/s).

Eurocrats deserve to watch domestic telly EU-wide, say Eurocrats

Re: "Even though the EU’s own research shows nobody apart from Eurocrats really care"

It annoys Eurocrats in particular.

14 strikes and you’re out. Or not. Emails reveal how Cox lost Safe Harbor

Re: Re: Burdens

"Cox received 65,000 or so complaints over a couple of months. No wonder they ignored them, I ignore spam too."

Yep, and that's why the Judge stripped them of DMCA 512(a) safe harbour.

Your an ISP... it isn't spam, you can't ignore it, and when your subscribers repeatedly infringe (and 'fess up) then you need to kick them off. That's what the law says you need to do, to quality for safe harbours liability exemptions.

As a result of pandering to freetards, Lloyds has dumped Cox, and Cox's shareholders are on the hook for billions. Great work, guys.

If this is how you do Due Diligence @YoungOne, remind me never to invest in one of your companies.

Re: The judge could be totally wrong!

Yes, that's why we summarised it for you.

You win Today's Award, Roland6

Re: Re: The judge could be totally wrong!

Great idea!

But we'd soon run out of prizes.

Music publisher BMG vs US cable giant Cox: Here's why it matters

Re: Informative

Thank you. What a fabulous username (!)

Re: Points

"Troll" is an emotive word. It implies there is no moral justification for the communication, and no legal justification for it either. BMG would argue that they are perfectly entitled to attempt to fight on behalf of the people they represent, who are not rich or powerful, because rights that aren't enforced aren't really "rights" at all. And that would leave creators powerless.

But here's a thought experiment.

If ISPs went some way to acknowledging that those rights exist - and most now do - there would be no Rightscorp at all. As it is, Rightscorp's business model isn't a profitable one. Perhaps Rightscorp doesn't need to exist at all?

Grow up, judge tells EFF: You’re worse than a complaining child

Re: Not the point

"I really don't understand the copyright holders. "

It's quite obvious you don't. But here goes.

Cox Communications is trying to differentiate itself from other big US ISPs by making itself freetard-friendly. All the other ISPs signed up to dealing voluntarily (ineffectively maybe) with hardcore Torrenters. "Come to Cox, oh ye 'tards, and Torrent away - you will be safe here."

You don't have to agree with either party in this case to understand their grievances and fears. I devoted a paragraph to what ISPs fear from litigation from copyright holders.

Understanding people's position is a useful skill to acquire in life.

Good point about them giving their catalog away for a pittance, though. Vinyl earns more than YouTube:

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2015/11/20/lessons_from_rdio_and_vinyl/

BlackBerry Priv: After two weeks on test, looks like this is a keeper

Re: what about the camera?

re. Paul Shirley's inevitable whinge:

I can EXCLUSIVELY reveal that we ran our Priv review two weeks ago:

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2015/11/06/blackberry_priv_review/

Do try and keep up, lad.

Google-chaired think tank says Google's No.1 for digital rights

Re: Well Andrew you may very well not like the way I respond to this and...........

I've been writing about privacy since CCTV came into the UK 21 years ago. But thanks :-)

You won't get privacy unless you can assert ownership rights. There won't be a functioning "digital economy" without ownership. And Silicon Valley doesn't want anyone but itself to assert ownership. So the greatest con trick ever pulled is persuading people to give up their rights voluntarily.

Most people get this, but on tech forums (I already see a reference to the RIAA/MPAA) the propaganda is still effective.

BlackBerry Priv: Enterprise Android in a snazzy but functional package

Re: Re: Reviews

Hmmm. Two days in the hands of the "Gaming Editor".

(I don't think any further comment is necessary).

Android Security: How's BlackBerry going to fix it?

Re: Sounds like the problem is Android devices not getting patches...

"There’s our ability to patch vulnerabilities much faster than other Android smartphone makers, and other features I didn’t mention. It’s why I firmly believe PRIV will be MORE resilient than everything else."

http://blogs.blackberry.com/2015/10/tempest-in-a-teacup/

Strike one – First net neutrality gripe against an ISP is nixed by FCC

Re: As A Consumer, I Should Not Be Forced to Pay Twice

@Big Ed

"And under true net neutrality, all traffic should be treated equally and routed over the best connections available at the time."

The problem (as we've explained many times for almost a decade), is that the public internet is hardly touched by most traffic these days - most traffic goes over private arrangements. Traditional peering depended on reasonably symmetric traffic flows. Video changed all that. So if you're delivering media into the network, and you want to keep your customers, you pay.

What this means is that for you to enforce your preferred regime of traffic rules, by necessity you will be regulating private agreements. This requires clear definitions of harm, etc, that nobody has bothered to think up yet.

I am not arguing that you shouldn't try - although personally I would think the disadvantages outweigh any benefits - but that you should know what you are doing before you start. Otherwise, you are making it up as you go along. If you want a lasting "net neutrality" regulatory regime, that is bulletproof and passes through Congress, you need to define this stuff clearly.

Team Microsoft: Device Police... 'Are you pumped? I'm pumped'

Re: Bonus quiz

No, they really said that.

Re: Quiz

No, not (e)

Re: Oh dear

"Anyone who picked up on the theme of the event being hardware...? I for one would've been somewhat surprised if an event billed 'device day' had started with a 3-hour showcase of a desktop O/S."

*straw man klaxon*

Microsoft usually shows off new features of the platforms along with the hardware - but not so much this time. In context, Microsoft has the biggest change to its mobile platform since 2009 coming up - just a month away, I'd have expected lots of teasers of new features showing how exciting this is going to be, to crank up the hype. It is an omission worth noting.

"Windows Everywhere... but not here I'm afraid."

Mobile first? Microsoft decides to kneecap its Android users instead

Re: Exchange tasks? Rich? @Philip Storry

I can't decide whether you are trolling, or whether you just haven't learned what the software can do.

eg: "No filtering of tasks by anything worth a damn except the date and priority."

This might be helpful:

http://www.techrepublic.com/blog/10-things/10-ways-to-get-the-most-out-of-outlook-categories/

Some third party clients manage to support Categories just fine. This Android client even allows you to perform SQL queries using the Exchange categories.

https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=org.myklos.inote

Remember The Milk, Wunderlist or Todoist only exist because Microsoft has forgotten what's in Exchange, and can't be bothered to look.

It's the white heat of the tech revolution, again!

@ Bob Wheeler

Here you go.

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2013/12/13/uk_innovation_nesta_fentem/

and

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2013/12/20/andrew_fentem_interview/

Blanchflower, Murphy and Mad Mazzer remind me of Lessig. They've all created an alternative reality in their heads. Some (or much) of the time it's the polar opposite of the reality that isn't in their heads.

PETA monkey selfie lawsuit threatens wildlife photography, warns snapper at heart of row

Re: Edited for objectivity

" "Composition and intent" are in no danger from this case, because those are the criteria which Slater hasn't demonstrated he's fulfilled; although you wouldn't know it from reading this article."

He most certainly has. You're doing that thing where you don't like the reality, so you invent a new one.

There is a sanction to prevent cases like this, Rule 11.

".... a district court may sanction attorneys or parties who submit pleadings for an improper purpose or that contain frivolous arguments or arguments that have no evidentiary support."

http://www.lectlaw.com/def2/s110.htm

PETA's lawsuit would appear to fulfill several criteria.

Oh yes it is

"No-one is trying to invalidate the copyright"

The plaintiff is suing to seize Slater's copyright on behalf of a monkey. They're trying to invalidate his legal rights, his claim on copyright, ie appropriate his property.

"This isn't a pro/anti-copyright matter, or even a pro/anti-Big-Copyright issue --- it's an animal rights issue."

Slater makes his living from trading his copyrighted works, there is a political campaign to make this more difficult, so it is very much about copyright.

Trying to ignore reality and replace it with the whacky version of reality that exists inside your head rarely works out well.

OnePlus 2: Disappointing Second Album syndrome strikes again

Re: Re: Bizarre

It's a Reg tradition to dwell on the niggles because, while most of the niggles won't bother most people, some might be a deal-breaker for a few.

(People used to say we were being unfair for manufacturers continuing to use resistive touchscreens, for example. "They're just as good as capacitive touchscreens, just press harder!" )

The bundle here is so immature and incomplete it would be weird not to mention it.

Re: Bizarre

https://www.xkcd.com/386/

Should take down mean stay down? EU’s Big Internet quiz leaks

Re: Take down => Come up somewhere else.

I understand your argument. It follows that no laws should be imposed on unethical and criminal behaviour anywhere on the internet.

https://projects.eff.org/~barlow/Declaration-Final.html

I'm not sure about the reasoning you use to get there - making the "should" into a "can" using a technical justification. Nothing can be made "unrouteable" except by removing it, but this may simply be a lack of technical understanding on your part.

The same logic actually applies to almost every law. Don't do because something bad might happen. You might arrest the wrong people. (It happens). Etc.

You are also right in appreciating that your position isn't a very popular one. When you allow corporations, criminals and governments to act without legal challenge or sanction, it is not hard for ordinary people to imagine the consequences. I'm sure you can see them too, if you try. The absence of laws isn't a utopia - it means the strong can bully the weak.

WinPhone community descends into CANNIBALISM and WOE

"At least it still has the best keyboard."

+8

Re: Fanboys

"Has anyone ever actually seen a fanboy in reality?"

Maybe they just "do it with the lights out?"

"I'm not sure Andrew is ready yet to accept Microsofts Win8/10/WP strategy has nothing to do with what we need, it's a cynical strategy to impose what's good for Microsoft and only Microsoft.

Of course it is. As everyone (and not just fanbois on fansites) has rumbled by now.

Tech, telcos, and digital crusties gang up against the EU's Digital Single Market

Because...

European consumers don't benefit if the diverse native cultural output they can access today is replaced by bland and homogenous Hollywood pap. You've destroyed the village.

This is the argument made in this piece, and it's one you are trying very hard to engage with. Hollywood would actually benefit from the loss of European production.

"Whether this is subsidies, discriminatory tariffs or road tolls or geo-blocking doesn't matter."

Actually it does matter, because cultural diversity is something the EU explicitly says it wants to preserve, not destroy. To support Ansip's DSM proposals, and argue effectively for them, you have to understand the points being made.

Apple's big secret: It's an insurance firm (now with added finance)

Good points.

Huawei's Mate S is as good as anything else. It's a very nice design and it's hard to believe it has the same sized screen as an iPhone 6 Plus, even when you're holding them side by side. This won't be cheap, though.

Mate S: Huawei 'beats' Apple to force-touch phone launch

Re: it's useful kit

The toy scales app only gives readings for objects between 100g and 400g

For drugs, I guess you need to go wholesale.