BBC Blog Network

User Profile

pengipete

Listed below are comments made by pengipete between Wednesday, 27th May 2009 and Friday, 7th August 2009.

«Newer
Older»

Caption Competition 11:17am on 07 Aug 2009 You can cross now - the green man is flashing.
BT and the iPlayer 01:43am on 23 Jun 2009 BT is trying to run two distinct scams here -with a third one being a possiblity given the timing of this attack on the BBC.

Firstly, BT are taking money from customers to pay for bandwitdh but they are not buying the full amount of bandwith to provide a full service to those customers. This is why they have to resort to throttling and their so called Fair Usage Policy. They work on the basis that internet use - and therefore bandwidth requirement - is intermitent. The model they use expects people to load a webpage in a second or so and then spend a few minutes reading the information before downloading more data. Because of this they were able to share bandwidth between several users - often 25 at a time - on the basis that it is statistically unlikely that they will all be downloading at exactly the same time. Clearly this model is entirely unsuitable for the modern internet where streamed data means that each user may need access to their full bandwidth for prolenged periods.

Secondly, BT are a content provider in their own right and are therefore in competion with the BBC. BT's Vision service generates income by selling the same content that the BBC provide free of charge via iPlayer. To force people into using their service, BT threaten to throttle and even cap anyone watching streamed TV without using their Vision service. They then exclude the Vision servoce from their Fair Usage Policy despite the obvious fact that it still uses bandwidth. If watching streamed TV is "unfair" to other users, why isn't Vision equally unfair? It makes no sense and is little more than an anti-competition move by BT.

The third possible reason is that the BBC have expressed reservations about BT's proposed use of the Phorm spyware/adware system. This may sound like a conspiracy theory but there are signs that BT may have used this line before.

In 2006, the UK government tried to force ISPs - including BT - to monitor their network traffic. BT's then boss responded by saying that BT would never do this - he even said it wasn't possible to do this. He uttered that famous phrase - "We are mere conduits".

It was within weeks of this that the government met with Phorm following an introduction from BT - and BT subsequently began secret trials of a system that is specifically designed to monitor internet traffic.

It doesn't take much imagination to believe that BT were given the green light to use this illegal system by a government that wanted access to the data they could gather. In return for this, BT would get a projected £85,000,000 in advertising revenue.

BT seem to be trying the same tactic with the BBC - saying "let us use Phorm and give us a good press or we'll take you to the cleaners".

BT are bullies of the worst kind and I really hope the BBC tells them where to get off. All it will take is one ISP to say that they won't restrict access to streamed TV and BT will lose customers. Maybe then they sack the idiots who keep coming up with these stupid ideas and get on with providing the servoce that their customers are paying for.
Interesting Stuff 2009-05-22: BBC & Phorm FOI Request 04:08am on 28 May 2009 It's not rocket science.

Would you write to every single company and individual in the World asking them not to break your rules? Of course you wouldn't.

Don't let Phorm twist it around - the decisions here should be theirs not yours. If they want to use your website they have to do so within your rules - not theirs.

Tell Phorm where to get off and let them know that it's your website and that you make the rules here - not them. If they can't obey those rules then they don't use the website.

IF they refuse to follow the rules then you'll have to decide whether you should allow anyone to use the website who openly announces that they will ignore those rules and exploit your website for commercial gain. Presumably you already have the facility to block unwelcome visitors - use it if necessary.

You've allowed Phorm to take control and twist the whole thing around. You do not need their permission to do anything on your own website.

If Phorm can't create a product that follows the same, perfectly reasonable terms and conditions as the rest of us then that's their problem. It just goes to prove that their product is flawed and shouldn't be used.

By analogy, if Ford made a car that couldn't be driven at less than 40mph without stalling, should we raise the speed limits to suit them or should we tell them that they can't use that car on the road until it can follow our rules?

It's not down to the BBC to prop up a product that doesn't work properly - it's up to Phorm to make one that does.
Interesting Stuff 2009-05-22: BBC & Phorm FOI Request 11:40pm on 27 May 2009 Bluecar post #147

Calling you "Dephormation Pete" rather suggests that PointOfOrder is involved with Phorm's StopPhoulPlay website - they've been getting their facts confused since day one - including suggesting that you and Dephormation Pete are the same person.

It doesn't say much for Phorm when they can't even get something as simple as that right. Makes you wonder why I don't trust them to look afetr my personal data.
Interesting Stuff 2009-05-22: BBC & Phorm FOI Request 8:13pm on 27 May 2009 MarmaldeDuke post #137

I'd say it's pretty obvious why the BBC are awaiting the EU's decision.

They expect that Phorm's systen will be deemed illegal for reasons unrelated the consent of the ISPs' customers and that they - the BBC - will be able to avoid having to make (and defend) a decision.

It is all very short-sighted though.

The issue is not going to go away. Either Phorm will be altered to fit the law or another company will come along very soon that meets the EU's requirements and the BBC will still have to decide what to do.

For the BBC...

Stop worrying about this one company and focus on the big issues.

Is the BBC going to allow any company to copy and use the contents of the BBC website for commercial gain?

The answer - written into the BBC charter - is a resounding "NO!"

The only reason that this appears complicated is that Phorm have decided to ignore the existing rules for BBC websites forbidding the commercial exploitation of content and are insisting that they are a special case that needs to be directly told not to break the BBC's existing terms and conditions.

Stop pussy-footing around this company. You wouldn't allow me - a licence payer - to break your rules so stop bowing down to this buulying company just because it involves writing down what is already BBC policy.

If you don't want to make a decision, just write to Phorm and tell then that they either obey the BBC's rules or they stay off the site. If that's not enough for them - it's their problem.

That's how you would treat me - do the same to Phorm!
Interesting Stuff 2009-05-22: BBC & Phorm FOI Request 5:29pm on 27 May 2009 POO #129

You're not revealing anything about Alexander Hanff in referencing a previous court case - especially one that happened in the USA and which is closed. Mentioniong it once - where relevent may be reasonable but tagging it next to his name everytime you write isn't.

Even I can see that he doesn't work for Phorm or the BBC and the constant mention of that case is off-topic and is only intended to defame him.
Interesting Stuff 2009-05-22: BBC & Phorm FOI Request 4:29pm on 27 May 2009 POO #122

No-one equated Phorm with a paedophile - as well you know.

You stated that the BBC can not do anything that would adversely affect a commercial organisation. I merely illustrated that the BBC can do exactly that and cited a simple example of a commercial internet based money-spinner that the BBC would not have to skirt around even if it cost someone money.

It showed that business interests can and do take second place to what is actually right.

Making money through unacceptable use of the internet is not a new problem and the BBC have already agreed - according to the FOI documents - that Phorm will be abusing their website for profit.

What we are talking about here is what they should do about it and why they are waiting for the EU's decision.

Even if Phorm's system is not illegal, is it actually something that the BBC should allow on their websites?

Video recorders are perfectly legal to use - that doesn't mean that the BBC must allow me to record their broadcasts and use them in any way I please.

Being legally compliant does not mean that the system is incapable of being used unlawfully. YOu car has an MOT certificate - it doesn't stop you speeding or parking on a double yellow line.

The BBC as to decide whether or not Phorm presents a risk that outways the commercial clause in their Charter.
Interesting Stuff 2009-05-22: BBC & Phorm FOI Request 3:46pm on 27 May 2009 POO #117

"I don't think the BBC are in the business of making decisions that affect other corporations in such a negative and hostile way, especially when those corporations are not actually at present doing any of the things they have been accused of."

The BBC are allowed and expected to protect their content and the licence fee payers. The mere fact that taking action may affect a commercial organisation is secondary.

One could just as well say that news coverage of paedophiles' arrests harms the commercial value of the websites these people visited or the pimps who supplied their pray.

The issue here is not simply that Phorm can make money off the back of the BBC website. It's the fact that in doing so they are a privacy risk to users and a breach of copyright for anyone submitting content.

Like it or not, even a "small band of campaigners" includes more interests than one advertising supplier and those "campaigners" are licence fee payers and have as rights.

Just because Phorm have a large budget doesn't make them right. The BBC themselves will know that even a single voice can have a huge impact by exposing something that is inherently wrong even if it means going up against a large comany or an entire government.

Constantly trying to belittle people who expose the flaws in Phorm's business model only makes Phorm look desperate and afraid of the facts.

For the record - again - not everyone here is a member of any organisation or campaign. How are you going to defame or belittle me when you can't tag on cheap labels?
Interesting Stuff 2009-05-22: BBC & Phorm FOI Request 2:48pm on 27 May 2009 Re NickReynold #112

It looks like we'll need to keep firing off those FOI requests if we want to know what's really happening.

What was the point of asking for our input if the decision to do nothing has already been made?

One suggestion has been repeatedly made here - block Phorm now and decide whether to unblock it after the EU commission's decision - has the huge advantage of costing nothing and avoiding the potential risks in the meantime.

What is wrong with that?
Interesting Stuff 2009-05-22: BBC & Phorm FOI Request 01:13am on 27 May 2009 I reported post #106 on the basis that it states that people opposed to Phorm are unemployed, have mental health problems and are slobs.

The response I recieved is as follows...

"Further to your complaint about some of the content on a BBC blog (reference number P24807103), we have decided that it does not contravene the House Rules and are going to leave it on site."

Th BBC are using the "defamation" rule to remove anything even vaguely insulting to Phorm but allowing an off-topic and purposely offensive post from Phorm's spokesman.

It seems pretty clear that this forum is not a genuine attempt by the BBC to address the issues raised by the FOI documents. It is nothing more than a distraction intended to make people feel like something is happening - the same thing that BT did on the beta forums.

«Newer
Older»

^ Back to top

BBC MMVI

The BBC is not responsible for the content of external internet sites

BBC.co.uk

BBC Blog Network

Find and talk to the BBC's bloggers.

User Profile

pengipete