Quote:
Originally Posted by Bonglet
Re-read it wildie the one (change the group for BT) is in the past tense it still says 3 conducted tech trials (So Does the charles stanley securities document back the claim up earlier) :p.
We all know the tech trials were on the networks but didnt serve ads in 2007 - also remember these tech trials would have been used for development of phorm kit mk3 2008 that dr clayton got to eyball, he even mentioned somewhere that he saw an older more horrific version of the phorm kit but didnt see it in action someone might remember where.
|
I think what has happened is that the article was originally wrong on both counts earlier -
a)the para about "three UK internet service providers which have conducted trials" and
B)when it named VM and CPW as having done trials.
Then I think the lawyers of VM and CPW got in touch so they had to alter the second para. But they left the first para because no one could action them on it as it wasn't naming anyone.
Someone on BT Beta forums also pointed out that the sentence "Critics have alleged that BT conducted trials without customers' consent in 2006-07." is also a bit economical with the truth, as it isn't an allegation but a FACT admitted eventually and reluctantly and publicly and on the record by an embarrassed BT.
Maybe people could use the "contact us" at the FT to ask who the "three" are who have supposedly conducted trials, if they aren't CPW and VM. Only leaves a very small sector of the market - because BT, VM and CPW are supposed to hoover up 70% of the broadband market between them.
I tried doing it myself this morning but the wretched contact form page reset and timed out after I had typed most of my letter so will try again later. Maybe that's part of the design of the page to discourage complaints... Did it a second time too. What a waste of time. It loses everythng you write!
As to the "motives" for that - I couldn't possibly comment. But well spotted.