Quote:
Originally Posted by HamsterWheel
JohnnyWashngo.
Sorry, but don't agree. The net is just another utility. If you use more gas, you pay more. Electricity, water, the same.
If you use more bandwidth, someone has to provide it. They can't do that if no-one pays for it.
|
Lets get rid of this myth once and for all, because I saw a similar quote in the Indy article about content owners stumping up:
"there have been suggestions that content providers should contribute to bandwidth costs"
Content owners already pay for bandwidth. Unlike domestic users, they generally pay by the gig (with a certain amount bundled with the rental).
The net is currently fair because all sides pay towards transport.
Not our fault that *some* ISPs have a knackered funding model. They need to get more into the server market to balance rising data usage against falling domestic rental prices with higher bandwidth.
Okay, P2P doesn't help, so why not look at billing users by the gB upload. Come up with some fair pricing and the market will judge. Competition inevitably means that some ISPs who haven't guessed the market will go bust. Boo hoo - welcome to capitalism.
But at what point does the Phorm debate have anything to do with infrastructure other than a cheap soundbite from Phorm Inc. claiming they're the saviour of the net market.
Best estimates of revenue I saw was a few pounds per user per year. How is this going to fund a multi-billion investment in backhaul (fibre-to-the-door)?
BT have the go ahead to increase line rental in rural areas. This is bad news for many villagers, but again Phorm won't help. Why will a rural user bring more money per connection than an urban user from Phorm? Are rural types click-through adicts? Do they succomb to advertising more than city folk.
No, the Phorm debate is simply about the value the behavioural targetting brings to content owners versus the intrusion and risks of putting the kit in an ISP, and the consequential buggering about with protocols (THREE REDIRECTS).
A good friend of mine who's in his 90's once told me about campaigning for anything to keep your message relevant and to the point if you want to win the argument.
The risks outweigh the benefits.
There are benefits, undoubtably, that will benefit ISPs, content owners and advertisers.
There are risks, that threaten privacy and data security and break web applications which use IE identifier but yet aren't expecting redirects, aren't expecting interstitial pages.
The benefits are small and the risks are high.
---------- Post added at 17:33 ---------- Previous post was at 17:26 ----------
Quote:
Originally Posted by Frank Rizzo
Compensation Claim. The ICO said I was entitled to a compensation claim due to contraventions of their Regulations.
I did suffer quantifiable damage so this is now in progress ...
I am wondering though how many others who knew they were part of the trials are seeking / have sought compensation?
Those who were part of the trials, but did not know about it at the time, could they seek compensation too?
Has anyone written to BT requesting DP info had it confirmed that they were part of the trials?
|
Were you on BT business broadband at the time?
I thought BT wasn't going to roll Phorm out on Business Broadband, but I spent ages last summer diagnosing a TCP duplicate ACK and out-of-sequence ACK at the office I worked at exactly the time Phorm second trial.