Posts by Chris Williams 207 publicly visible posts • joined 12 Jul 2007
"It's impossible to retune DVB-T kit to receive the new mux allocation if no DVB-T muxes are being broadcast from a particular transmitter group, no?"
Indeed, self-evidently.
So I think your question was "if there's no digital TV in your area does this affect you?" The answer is no.
Erm, it doesn't matter if the switchover hasn't happened yet in your area. If there were no DVB-T transmissions in your area at the moment, it would be pretty pointless having a set top box or an IDTV, non?
"Could you please explain how and why anyone with a IDTV or set-top box who live in an area where DSO has not yet begun should re-tune their equipment tomorrow?"
How - I don't know what TV you have. Look in your manual once you've replaced your computer's CAPS key.
Why - if you want to watch channel Five you'll need to. If you don't, you won't.
Well the government hasn't published leislation but, so far as their concerned so far a landline is a terrestrial voice subscriber account, no matter who the network operator/unbundler/reseller.
what if a house has a DACS splitter is this one or two landlines?
It's one.
does a cable connection become a landline if it's used with VOIP?
Nope.
what about the definitons of landline that include microwave connections?
Not clear what you mean.
One might assume it includes Virgin, if so why exclude those who pay for satellite or mobile broadband (it becomes a landline at some point surely?)
They're not landlines.
How about hybryd systems that switch between the two?
Still not a landline.
Hi Jacqui,
I checked whether something like your friend's explanation could be to blame, but no.
As the footnote to the story says, there were 370,000 checks in March, compared to the monthly mean of 325,000. So a little above average, but nowhere near explaining more than 13 times the number of errors.
- Chris Williams
Absolutely, there's a strong public interest. Thanks to our friends at the Department of Constitutional Affairs (now Ministry of Justice), however the Interception of Communications Commissioner* is exempt from FOI by dint of not being listed as a public body in Schedule 1 of the Act.
Ostensibly this because much of his role involves scrutiny of MI5, MI6 and GCHQ. Why he can't give us the particulars of police gaffes is unclear to me, but there you have it.
Am pursuing further information via other channels.
- Chris
*And the two other former judges responsible for scrutiny of the use of surveillance powers, Sir Peter Gibson and Sir Christopher Rose.
Afraid it is.
"Connectivity has employed the KCOM Group to run its call-centre in Carr Lane, city centre. A spokeswoman for KCOM said it was too early to tell if demand for the service would create any new jobs.
"She said: "As this service has not yet been launched we cannot currently say whether it will create any new jobs in our call centre, but if it does, we will advertise those vacancies locally."
http://www.thisishullandeastriding.co.uk/news/KCOM-centre-launches-mobile-phone-directory/article-1082538-detail/article.html?cacheBust=gW725Xt2Fc04&authid=0qMQPKz9pd7vUpgN5sJLhlGseCJU4ERL9kHRa5ndcGaYbWDyvW1245247203980&success=true#community
See also: http://www.theregister.co.uk/2007/08/17/kingston_rebrand/
Who does your research?
Erm, neither Chris. Just the facts.
See Europol's recent report on the project to the Council of the EU here: http://www.statewatch.org/news/2009/jun/eu-europol-use-of-personal-data-in-the-check-the-web-project-9604-09.pdf
Sample quote: "The Check the Web project was born and Europol had the responsibility to develop a portal to facilitate the exchange of information on Islamist extremist propaganda on the Internet."
No Dan, the Interception Modernisation Programme and Mastering the Internet are separate from the EU data retention directive and far further reaching.
IMP is likely to require new primary legislation, which hasn't been written yet. I suggest you read the consultation, linked to in the story. Best,
- Chris Williams
Hi Peter,
There seems to be some confusion on this point, so I've edited it from the story while I clarify. The 1997 Police Act applies in all cases, and I think RIPA applies if the hack is ongoing - i.e. a trojan than phones back to SOCA on an ongoing basis.
They seem a bit shy about it though. The 2006 suveillance commissioner's report says: "The powers and duties of the Commissioners in scrutinising, and deciding whether to approve, authorisations under the 1997 [Police] Act and under RIPA or RIP(S)A, are explained in my predecessor’s Annual Report for 2000-2001 and are available from the OSC website."
Unfortunately, the 2001 report has to be ordered and posted [anyone got a copy?]. Will attempt to clarify this for the next story I do on this subject (should be soonish). Best,
- Chris
Calm down dears. There seems to be some confusion here. To clarify:
"Remote" means not in the same place.
"Seized" means physically obtained by the police.
So, they want powers to gather data from hard drives that are physically located in police facilities around the country and pool any intelligence centrally. Their thinking that because most regional forces have little to no computer crime expertise, this will help reduce the backlog.
As the story says, what it means legally isn't clear at the moment, or they're not saying, but rest assured The Reg is on it. Cheers,
- Chris Williams
Duncan,
BT said Cleanfeed blocks a *page* 35,000 to 40,000 times per day. I reported that, and the headline reflects it accurately.
You write: "sometimes they block an entire site, or an entire page, when the only thing that should be listed is a single image."
Err, yeah. If you have a problem with the IWF's policy of blocking pages and returning 404 (i.e. you cannot connect to the destination server, the whole page is blocked), rather than individual files I suggest you take it up with them. But thanks for your insightful media commentary and brilliant numerical analysis. Now go away.
- Chris Williams
Hi Jamie,
Today is December 15 and I assume the work is ongoing, but it's a bit confusing, and I suspect the result of some PR jiggery pokery.
Their announcement says: "By the end of 2008 Virgin Media will have completed deployment of its next generation infrastructure to 40 per cent of the network".
They repeated this figure during the briefing as "it will be available to..."
So I suspect they are able to sell it to 1.5m today (the updated figure given by CEO today), and a few more by the end of the year. Whether the 40 per cent that have the tech on their line will be able to buy it is unclear, so I've tweaked that sentence to reflect.
- Chris Williams
Hi Graham,
This story is not borne out of some a priori desire to sneer at the Indy, but of frustration at our newspaper colleagues' repeated failures to understand what is being proposed. It's important if we're having this debate that people understand what powers are being sought, how and why, rather than simplistic railing against "big brother".
The government has done its best to keep important details of IMP secret, and I've done my best to uncover them, with some success. I'm a bit old fashioned and think that on a story such as this facts are always more powerful than opinions, though the view you express will no doubt be a common one, provided misinformation is kept to a minimum... which is why I wrote this story.
- Chris Williams
No. Your snip removes the key part of the sentence.
"any work of defence, arsenal, naval or air force establishment or station, factory, dockyard, mine, minefield, camp, ship, or aircraft belonging to or occupied by or on behalf of His Majesty, or any telegraph, telephone, wireless or signal station, or office **so belonging or occupied**,"
BT exchanges are neither property of - nor occupied by - the crown.
- Chris
The Register 
Biting the hand that feeds IT
Copyright. All rights reserved © 1998–2025
