Originally Posted by AlexanderHanff (Post 34574014)

Actually no, much more shocking than that, but I don't really want to go into it.

Originally Posted by icsys (Post 34573848)

@BT
You keep spouting "BT sought expert legal advice before commencing the trial."
Well, how about disclosing who these 'experts' were? and disclosing the advice you were given?

Originally Posted by Privacy_Matters (Post 34574005)

Hows about approaching a newspaper that is sympathetic to our cause?

Also, when folk post their FREE ads in the FOR SELL section of their local paper, do you think they could get away with a small image as such?

eBay? A nice banner strategically placed beside the item for sell?

Originally Posted by Hank (Post 34574030)

Originally Posted by Dephormation (Post 34574035)

...

Originally Posted by AlexanderHanff (Post 34574036)

I was hoping that was real but no auction found for that listing number.

Alexander Hanff

Originally Posted by Dephormation (Post 34574035)

Originally Posted by Bobcat (Post 34574045)

Hugo Drayton, Phorm's UK CEO believes...

"The ISPs are the Internet and they're being expected to roll out ever better networks to support functions that they do not gain from," he says.

Originally Posted by AlexanderHanff (Post 34574047)

Actually it was £84M over 4 years if I remember correctly which means even if they did pump the profits into cheaper prices it would amount to a reduction of just 44p per month (based on BT having 4 million customers) and that's if they put all the money back into cheaper prices (pre-tax)

Alexander Hanff

Originally Posted by SelfProtection (Post 34574060)

Don't forget the cost of all the extra monitoring Hardware & the ongoing Power Consumption. This doesn't look like a good business model for an ISP when taking all this into account.

The only real winners would be the Advertising Agencies & Phorm.

Originally Posted by Hank (Post 34574053)

Er, wrong Hugo.

No, no, Hugo... The ISPs are NOT the internet and that is the point you have missed setting up Phorm.

No. The internet is many things, but it is NOT the ISPs.

Before the internet we had letters, faxes and phone conversations. The Post Office was not the communication, they were the conduit for it.

The ISPs provide a conduit for data and that IS the way it WILL stay!!

The internet is enabled by the conduit and the communication on it is ours, the readers/listeners and the content providers.

When will you get this through yours and Kent's thick heads?

How low does your share price have to go?

:mad: :mad: :mad:

Hank

Originally Posted by AlexanderHanff (Post 34574069)

Yeah the power usage (although I would have to double check the BT report) for the entire Phorm network would be about 300KW/h so using my electricity price as a very rough guide that comes too:

7200 KW per day @ 12p per KW/h comes to:

£864 per day or £315360.00 per year if the servers run at peak 24/365

Obviously this is a very rough estimate it is impossible to say how much power their systems will drain and I have no idea how much BT pay for their power but I assume it is a great deal less than my domestic rates; but it does provide a basic illustration. It would seem that power costs could be around the 1% mark when you take into account the £84M over 4 years.

That's assuming they still use the cookie option, without cookies Load Balancing could be a real problem.
The cookies were being used to prevent infinite loops 1% was the figure quoted I believe.

This was of course before this became Public knowledge, the first thing a User does is to try to block unwanted sites.

How can BT or Phorm detect & drop these loops in a hostile environment without cookies?

The Nebuad System may well have the same problem.

Alexander Hanff