Posts by Chris Williams 207 publicly visible posts • joined 12 Jul 2007
Hi Ross,
"Trying to circumvent the press office is a beginners mistake."
I find your attitude disturbing. It is the job of the press to interrogate those in power, not to give PR operatives something to do. If journalists only ever went though official channels what wouldn't we know?
That the Iraq WMD dossier was sexed-up
That Richard Nixon covered-up Watergate
About the My Lai massacre
That the Birmigham six were innocent
The effect of thalidamide on foetal development
And countless other facts that make those in power uncomfortable.
Now I'm not necessarily making a direct comparison with the seriousness of those situations here, but as a principle, disallowing journalists from speaking to public servants directly is a dangerous road to travel.
I'm a reporter. It's my job to find out the truth, not to lead campaigns. The Home office press office wouldn't tell me the truth, so I asked a man who knows. You are saying that the Home Office is correct to threaten that it will not answer *any* questions because I did this? Respectfully, you are either very wrong, or do not want to live in a democracy. Fortunately, I think you're in a minority there.
- Chris
I'm not pushing for a kneejerk response here, but do I think taxpayers have a right to expect Ofcom to be open about how it plans to address public concerns (i.e. what information has it asked for), to communicate what its powers are in respect of a situation such as this, and generally be a bit more on the ball about an issue that it claims to have been monitoring for three years. ATB,
- Chris Williams
In the three months to March 28 2008 Freescale made a net loss of $245m. In the three months to December 31 2007 it made a net loss of $525m.
http://media.corporate-ir.net/media_files/irol/17/175261/fsl_q108_er_with_tables.pdf
Background here: http://www.forbes.com/technology/2008/04/21/freescale-semiconductors-earnings-tech-enter-cx_bc_0421freescale.html
- Chris Williams
"I know this sort of story gets you all excited, but try to get at least some facts correct. I'm no fanboy of Phorm's tactics (death's too good for them, IMHO). Nonetheless it would help if you dropped the tabloid urge to throw in as much "damning evidence" as you can (when it clearly doesn't hold water). Just makes this reader think what else you've got wrong (probably quite a lot)...."
FYI: http://www.theregister.co.uk/2008/04/08/phorm_censors_wikipedia/
- Chris Williams
"Are you trying to pretend your article titled 'Why is the iPlayer a multi million pound disaster?' wasn't an attack on iPlayer?"
No, I'm talking about the article this comment thread pertains to. That one is an attack on the P2P iPlayer, which cost a ludicrous sum of money, took more than 4 years to develop and is used by one ninth of the streaming viewership.
"Doomsday scenario" is borrowed from a conversation with an exec at a major ISP. Fact is they're worried, and BT isn't about to help them. Again, this article is about what the BBC *is actually doing*. It knows there's a problem, otherwise it wouldn't spend money and effort investigating this technology, you'd hope.
The subsidy you refer to was for digital switchover of *broadcasting*, not for on demand internet services. If we covered 4OD I assume you wouldn't read anyway, because we're so boring. All the best,
- Chris
Charles, the success of iPlayer has added to a problem for an industry that was already struggling with its supply line costs. The article is discussion of one way the BBC is considering helping - could you point out where I attack iPlayer please? Are you suggesting there isn't a problem with bandwidth?
I haven't bothered to comment on 4OD because it's not paid for with public money, isn't used anywhere near as much, and is therefore much less interesting to the majority of readers.
They're not connecting to your computer, or "looking inside" it. They are connecting to a BitTorrent swarm that you are participating in.
Your analogy needs tweaking: in the context of a public filesharing network nobody needs to snoop in your house. All the enforcers do is spot you in the street and note it down.
Hi,
They do not have to intercept packets, or assume that everyone who uses BitTorrent is a pirate. If your IP address is part of an infringing BitTorrent swarm, it is easy to detect publicly. What's changing is that if the ISPs are cooperating, the rights holder need only report your IP address to them and they will send the warning. There's a bullet point explanation here: http://www.theregister.co.uk/2008/02/28/filesharing_downing_st_petition/
No packet inspection required - there is no court involvement. You'll find that ISP terms and conditions forbid copyright infringement - it's just that until recently there was no prospect of it being enforced.
- Chris
Hi John,
It's only used (and affectionately) because if the Steve Jobs angle. I encourage you to read Fake Steve Jobs if you haven't already - he coined the term and is probabaly the best non-news tech read right now.
Operating systems, free or not aren't really my bag, but how about I promise not to do it again if you promise not to take things so personally? Cheers,
- Chris
P.S. Andrew hates Christmas.
"Finally, Chris Williams, could you please contact BT again and see if they are willing to admit that they already trialled this service last summer (illegally). I am seriously considering starting a class action against BT for the trials last summer even though I am not a BT customer."
I have asked this question half a dozen times now. The most recent yesterday they were still "looking into it".
I'll keep asking and if I ever get an answer, Reg readers will be the first to know.
- Chris
Sorry everyone, try this document instead: http://www.productsandservices.bt.com/consumer/consumerProducts/pdf/Changes_to_BT_Pricing.pdf
"From 1st April 2008 the Evening rate for UK geographic calls will change from 4.5
pence for calls up to an hour, to 1.5 pence per minute and a 6p set-up fee will apply."
"If they analyse the traffic that implies copying to a computer, right? And if they're having to analyse (DPI etc) it that means they don't know what's in it? And they'd have to analyse ALL of my traffic- at least for a given time period- to build up a full file (if they just went for filenames, expect a whole load of things labelled "Song1.mp3" up for download!)"
I'm at risk of sounding like a stuck record, but FFS Adam. Did you read the article?
They will not analyse traffic
They will not analyse traffic
They will not analyse traffic
They will not analyse traffic
They will not analyse traffic
They will not analyse traffic
They will not analyse traffic
They will not analyse traffic
They will not analyse traffic
- Chris
Hi everybody.
Thanks for your input on this. I'm arranging to meet up with Phorm ASAP to try and get some answers on some of the technical points that have been raised here. If there's anything specific people would like me to put to them, please post a comment. Thanks,
- Chris
"That still doesn't explain how the adverts are going to be delivered or how they might interfere with the sites the user is visiting."
They will be delivered in the usual way, via web publishers. Just as Google uses search queries and page content to target text advertising, Phorm will use browsing history to target banner ads from advertisers that have signed up to the Open Internet Exchange on websites that have also signed up.
It won't "interfere" with sites as such, but offer them a way to serve you ads that you're supposedly more likely to click on, which means more money for the publisher.
- Chris
"Huh? Deep packet inspection is the technique being discussed by the BPI."
You are incorrect, but it isn't surprising you have this impression given the misreporting of the issue elsewhere. Please read this story to understand how the proposed system has and would operate.
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2008/02/15/tiscali_bpi_agreement/
- Chris
Tom,
"I'm seeing an annoying trend with high-level female IT staff not actually knowing what the hell they're doing, and displaying this for all and sundry via the nations media."
That would be *Anthony* Rose. Suggest you get your facts right before displaying your attitudes for all and sundry via the nation's media. Regards,
- Chris
Gosh, I don't have it in for Facebook as a service. Nor am I suggesting that it can't be fun. Free online storage space is indeed useful and the vast server farms its investors fund without return have indeed fired a classic example of human herd behaviour.
However, I do have it in for the Valley web designers, bloggers, PR people, VCs, UK national press and anyone else who swallows preposterous idea that it is worth $15bn, or is changing the world in any way.
The sooner this myth is busted the better.
To reiterate: I'm not suggesting membership or usage of Facebook - or its forerunners or imitators - is any reflection on anyone. I include myself in the sentence "It was the unquestioning bovine herd-brain in all of us that fired its explosive growth, with millions powerless to resist invitations from their 'friends'".
The point is that Facebook, MySpace et al have tried, and are failing, to profit from flogging your data to marketeers, and now its easier to opt-out.
- Chris
Hi all, I've removed that line for now. BBC Worldwide indicated to me this morning there was no DRM, but it seem those with better technical skills than me have reason to doubt this, so I've asked for a detailed clarification, and will update this story when they get back to me. Cheers,
- Chris
"BT were practically forced into providing almost 100% broadband coverage in the UK, consequently they have to charge more for broadband than competitors who can pick and choose which exchanges to unbundle"
Yes, because the national network BT profits from was built with billions of taxpayers' money.
Tiscali is not passing the unbundling savings on to ex-Pipex customers.
You're correct, it's a BT charge, but what it actually means is that because of the way the market works (or doesn't work) people don't know what's coming. Everyone is at fault - Ofcom, BT and the unbundler.
Everyone in the industry knows about the charge but they leave consumers to carry the can one way or another.
The Register 
Biting the hand that feeds IT
Copyright. All rights reserved © 1998–2024
