Virgin Media Phorm Webwise Adverts [Updated: See Post No. 1, 77, 102 & 797]

[Frank Rizzo]

Compensation Claim. The ICO said I was entitled to a compensation claim due to contraventions of their Regulations.

Regulation 30 specifies that a person who suffers damage by reason of a contravention of any of the requirements of the Regulations by any other person can make a claim for compensation for that damage.

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?

[tarka]

Originally Posted by icsys

12-month contract term applies
Check those terms and conditions for material changes!
A nice little sweetener to opt you into the webwise trial??

Yep, my thoughts entirely.

Although I also found this part interesting...

By accepting this promotion, you confirm you are the account holder or have the account holder’s permission to participate in this offer

I haven't clicked the "renew" button in the email because I don't want to renew, but the wording suggests that the act of accepting is enough to confirm your identity to BT, or have the account holders permission. I wonder what further checks (if any) are performed?

[Wildie]

only time you see them emails is when you out of contract.

[popper]

Originally Posted by HamsterWheel

They do, which just goes to show there is a bandwidth problem that needs the ISPs to commit billions of pounds to replace the networks. Without some serious revenue to help them do it, it won't happen....

Enter Phorm, stage left....

Non sequitor, all this talk about they need this cash from the likes of Phorm etc, always Ignores the basic 101 of Business facts.

you take the money your customers are paying for the service/product and Re-Invest the right % of that customer income into the service/product to keep the money flowing ,and service the paying USERS to a very high % of what they ARE PAYING YOU for.

you dont steal it and give it to your BOD and the Investors, ONLY AFTER you have re-Invested in the Service/Product do you then take the remaining profits and share it out to the BOD/Investors.

virtually Every single person that accesses the internet ,be it End Users or Website Owners, pays this cash to the Services/products, and the Companys need to once again re-invest that cash into the networks and related kit, we are paying them to do that, they are choseing to not re-invest the
required amounts at the right times.

its clear and long term Bad business practice that THEY need to sort out PDQ, and not by fleecing the customers through a 3rd party for ever more cash.

we have already payed the full re-investment Network cash (In Advance of services used, in many cases), month in month out, simple.

as maxhdrm Smack-Fu Master said: about the US BB markets, it also holds true here in the UK as well.

"This country lacks innovation because creativity has become stifled over the years by greed and "playing safe" attitudes by corporations afraid to spend money on new and revolutionary ideas.

All we need is for one person to "buck" the system and set precedence for change to occur"
http://episteme.arstechnica.com/eve/...m/674000192931

[tarka]

oh and the funny part... BT's mailshot got junked by outlooks junk filter.

[Cogster]

Originally Posted by HamsterWheel

So is the UK supposed to drop behind the rest of the world in web speeds ?

Some of the arguments against Phorm seem to miss the point that the internet is a commercial space that must be financed, not (unfortunately) a free resource.

then put the price up... Dont sell our personal info to dodge-city-spyware inc.

Edited to add... I got the postal version of that stupendous BT free gift offer this morning..
(despite having left BT 3 months ago for a non-phormed ISP)

[Wildie]

3 25 ms 25 ms 25 ms 217.47.73.13
4 26 ms 24 ms 24 ms 217.41.167.6
5 24 ms 26 ms 26 ms 217.41.176.9
6 25 ms 23 ms 24 ms 217.41.176.66
7 26 ms 25 ms 24 ms 217.41.176.134
8 27 ms 24 ms 26 ms 217.41.176.62
9 24 ms 24 ms 27 ms 217.47.111.113
10 25 ms 25 ms 25 ms 217.32.171.209
another one added
not looking good all that bouncing inside

[oblonsky]

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 ----------

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.

[Frank Rizzo]

Yes I was on BT Business Broadband. So that goes to prove that business communications were intercepted and profiled.

Who knows how many small businesses, GP practices, MPs, home workers, were also intercepted?

Back in March / Feb, on the now defunct BT Webwise Q&A thread, I asked if BT Business was to be part of the new system.

I was told by a spokesperson that it was not. But how can I believe that this is true when they clearly tapped my business communications last year?

[popper]

"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."


again, thats clear and long term Bad business practice that THEY need to sort out PDQ.

there have existed for a very long time now, cacheing P2p U1 servers that can be placed inside the Internal Networks of all the ISPs and Co-Location sites around the world.

that one off, single small investment can bring this growing P2p traffic to virtually zero cost in external traffic, a few extra costs mid term on the ballance sheet perhaps, but the Long term savings are only going to vastly improve their long term bottom line...and the bankers etc will like that.

they can also spend a microscopic amount of money compared to the long term External Bandwidth cost savings they will make, by paying a few Professional coders to contribute to the free P2p/Torrent codebase, so as to do "best effort" to keep 80% + of this traffic inside the Internal network and Peered Co-Location sites.

finally by far the largest saving long term, and far more benefitial all round, including the end users, is to turn Multicasting ON to each and every single end users PCs and help code up all the current P2p/torrent, Video streaming services and codebases to make use of that mass bandwidth Multcasting, in "Near On Demand" type wrappers....etc.

mega savings to be had there , if they showed some initative and inovation,
hell Multicasting already exists in every single ISP router and related kit TODAY,so doesnt cost anything substantial to turn it ON, Infact they go out of their way to turn it OFF (its already in there and powered up), Madness...
check out the old "MBONE" for real old innovation todays ISP and software devs have forgotten about.
http://search.virginmedia.com/result...=t9&q=MBONE&cr=

but as you say thats not really related to the Phorm threat, just showing yet more clear and long term Bad business practice that THEY need to sort out.

just one more "Bad Business Practice" from most of the worlds largest ISPs to add to the ever growing list.

[AlexanderHanff]

Originally Posted by popper

...[/URL]

Yes I tried videolan and had no problems grabbing the video but couldn't capture sound at the same time. I have been using VLC for many years so I am somewhat familiar with how to do this the problem I seem to have is forcing VLC to use /dev/dsp1 for the audio capture.

I will have another look at it over the weekend, I have been tied up all day today and most of last night by other business.

Alexander Hanff

[oblonsky]

Originally Posted by Frank Rizzo

Yes I was on BT Business Broadband. So that goes to prove that business communications were intercepted and profiled.

Who knows how many small businesses, GP practices, MPs, home workers, were also intercepted?

Back in March / Feb, on the now defunct BT Webwise Q&A thread, I asked if BT Business was to be part of the new system.

I was told by a spokesperson that it was not. But how can I believe that this is true when they clearly tapped my business communications last year?

Have you spoken to Chris Williams and/or Charles Arthur about your developments with the ICO? I wonder what will happen in the face of several hundred or even thousand claims for compensation?

I just wonder if suddenly evidence will be uncovered proving who was and wasn't Phormed.

But that would then lead to a new problem for BT - if they could prove someone wasn't in the trial, then hopefully the ICO could be pursuaded that they can then conclude that everyone else WAS in the trial.

So then instead of 100s they have 1000s of claims!

Good news indeed. Great work keeping this going with the ICO!

[Florence]

The way the large ones work that have long contracts is what needs to be sorted not the customers.

Our surfing, is Private our Privacy has to be our problem to look after. I actually find I get a bigger return each year on my TSB shares than I ever have on BT so it isnt going to shareholders. The money is going into high wages who needs £850,000 a year wage, who can get a £50,000 pay rise or one over £100,000 thjose in managment that are not handling it correctly.. So why will phorm help the small man who pays for his connection?

[SelfProtection]

Originally Posted by Wildie

3 25 ms 25 ms 25 ms 217.47.73.13
4 26 ms 24 ms 24 ms 217.41.167.6
5 24 ms 26 ms 26 ms 217.41.176.9
6 25 ms 23 ms 24 ms 217.41.176.66
7 26 ms 25 ms 24 ms 217.41.176.134
8 27 ms 24 ms 26 ms 217.41.176.62
9 24 ms 24 ms 27 ms 217.47.111.113
10 25 ms 25 ms 25 ms 217.32.171.209
another one added
not looking good all that bouncing inside

http://www.pcadvisor.co.uk/news/index.cfm?newsid=13477

If anyone thinks oix webwise etc are being mirrored to the U.S, I think they should complain to the ICO before the test begins!

[Frank Rizzo]

Yes, I update Chris Williams regularly.

The 1000s of claims is a possibility. It could be that victims of the trials "could" be entitled to compensation but it does depend on other factors which is dependent on if BT are prosecuted in some way.

In my case it is crystal clear - there was quantifiable damage to my business. The ICO have given me a green light and I am encouraged after taking legal advice.