×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

BT Drops Phorm, Citing More Pressing Priorities

kdawson posted more than 4 years ago | from the absurdly-invasive dept.

Privacy 94

Tom DBA notes a story up at The Register that begins "BT has abandoned plans to roll out Phorm's controversial web monitoring and profiling system across its broadband network, claiming it needs to concentrate resources on network upgrades... BT's announcement comes a day before MPs and peers of the All Party Parliamentary Communications Group are due to begin an investigation of Internet privacy. Their intervention follows the EU's move to sue the UK government over its alleged failure... properly [to] implement European privacy laws with respect to the trials, drawing further bad publicity to the venture." We've discussed Phorm many times in the past.

cancel ×
This is a preview of your comment

No Comment Title Entered

Anonymous Coward 1 minute ago

No Comment Entered

94 comments

How do we know (4, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#28619193)

How do we know Phorm didn't use deep packet inspection/manipulation to show us this article while in fact it's not there.....

Now I still have to find an appropriate Matrix quote and my tin foil hat.

Not BitTorrent (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#28619197)

I think this has always been said in previous articles, but guys, please, stop using "BT" as a shortcut for "British Telecom".
For most of the world, BT is BitTorrent.

Re:Not BitTorrent (3, Informative)

FrostedWheat (172733) | more than 4 years ago | (#28619227)

That's its name these days. Nobody, not even themselves, call it "British Telecom".

Re:Not BitTorrent (2, Funny)

mpe (36238) | more than 4 years ago | (#28619255)

That's its name these days. Nobody, not even themselves, call it "British Telecom".

At one time people were jokingly calling them Bombay Telecom. At least until India changed the name of the city.

Re:Not BitTorrent (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#28619497)

I still think Bastard Telecom is the most appropriate.

Re:Not BitTorrent (4, Insightful)

dintech (998802) | more than 4 years ago | (#28619383)

Moreover, BT the (global) telecommunications company has used this brand long before BitTorrent existed. Might I suggest he stops calling BitTorrent BT to avoid himself getting confussed?

Also, AT&T don't call themselves American Telephone & Telegraph Company in all their advertising literature and billing, do they? Perhaps for the hell of it he could stop referring to them as AT&T because he might also easily confuse their name with AT&T [wikipedia.org].

Alternatively, he could just use wikipedia's disambiguation before posting silly requests.

Re:Not BitTorrent (3, Funny)

andyh3930 (605873) | more than 4 years ago | (#28619461)

I often confuse AT&T with running my old modem in test mode

Re:Not BitTorrent (1)

dintech (998802) | more than 4 years ago | (#28619935)

Easy to do - the speeds are about the same.

Re:Not BitTorrent (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#28628039)

*rim shot*

Re:Not BitTorrent (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#28636577)

*rim shot*

http://www.instantrimshot.com/

Re:Not BitTorrent (1)

Jurily (900488) | more than 4 years ago | (#28619603)

Might I suggest he stops calling BitTorrent BT to avoid himself getting confussed?

BitTorrent is way too formal, anyway. Unless we're talking about the protocol itself, it's just torrent.

Re:Not BitTorrent (1)

Hurricane78 (562437) | more than 4 years ago | (#28619635)

Well, I for one, say that BT (BitTorrent) is way more important than the British Telecom, and therefore, I use the abbreviation accordingly. ^^

Re:Not BitTorrent (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#28621585)

Do you get confused when you visit www.bt.com ?

Re:Not BitTorrent (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#28627263)

that's ok then, we'll all bow down to you...

Re:Not BitTorrent (1)

pha95mlb (716234) | more than 4 years ago | (#28633813)

Let's just hope that BT (British Telecom) doesn't start blocking BT (BitTorrent). Then we'll all be in BT (Big Trouble) with the BTs (Bloody Trolls).

Re:Not BitTorrent (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#28634575)

I more often than not confuse AT&T with Y&T the crap LA rock band from the late 80s! Easily done, both showed early promise but then failed completely to live up to expectations when money and interest flooded in!

Re:Not BitTorrent (1)

Robin47 (1379745) | more than 4 years ago | (#28619811)

That's its name these days. Nobody, not even themselves, call it "British Telecom".

It's a bit like Kentucky Fried Chicken going to KFC only without the chicken. Or maybe not.

Re:Not BitTorrent (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#28636793)

That's its name these days. Nobody, not even themselves, call it "British Telecom".

It's a bit like Kentucky Fried Chicken going to KFC only without the chicken. Or maybe not.

I've long suspected that KFC doesn't use chicken anymore.

Re:Not BitTorrent (1, Insightful)

quenda (644621) | more than 4 years ago | (#28619977)

Slashdot is global. Around where I live, BT means Bankers Trust, and BA is bugger all.
Please don't use 2-letter local abbreviations in a global forum, at least not on the first mention in a summary. OK?

Re:Not BitTorrent (1)

cjb-nc (887319) | more than 4 years ago | (#28621469)

Around where I live, BT means Bankers Trust, and BA is bugger all.

In the states, BA (Bank of America) is pretty much "bugger all" as well.

Re:Not BitTorrent (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#28624113)

Your political correctness bullshit reveals to us that you are truly an idiot.

Re:Not BitTorrent (1)

Mister Whirly (964219) | more than 4 years ago | (#28624725)

There is nothing politically correct about avoiding confusion, or by not using abbreviations that most people outside of where you live will not understand. Your ignorance reveals to us that you are truly, well, an ignoramus.

Re:Not BitTorrent (2, Informative)

weeble (50918) | more than 4 years ago | (#28619257)

BT (British Telecom) was rebranded years ago and is most widely known as BT. This is because they are an International Company and did not want to be only associated with operating in the UK.

See:
http://paulrobertlloyd.com/articles/britain_rebranded/ [paulrobertlloyd.com]

"British companies now operate on a global scale and many had decided that any British associations were not good for business. A look at the number of privatised companies that have changed their names will tell you this. British Telecom was one of the first when it became BT in the early nineties - when many other national telecom companies - France Telecom and Deutche Telecom for example haven't felt the need. British Gas (now BG) and British Steel (now Corus) are two recent examples."

Re:Not BitTorrent (1)

TheThiefMaster (992038) | more than 4 years ago | (#28619401)

British Gas is still British Gas [britishgas.co.uk].

Though confusingly they're an "energy" company now, not just gas. They do my electricity.

Re:Not BitTorrent (1)

TheThiefMaster (992038) | more than 4 years ago | (#28619431)

Though they are technically just a brand of Centrica [centrica.com] now, but that matters little because Centrica is one of the companies that the original British Gas split into, so they are still (indirectly) the original British Gas. The sourcing side of British Gas split to become BG [bg-group.com], but that side of the company wasn't what most people in the UK would understand as "British Gas" anyway.

Also, wtf they have a youtube channel [youtube.com].

Re:Not BitTorrent (1)

johnw (3725) | more than 4 years ago | (#28621377)

Though confusingly they're an "energy" company now, not just gas. They do my electricity.

And Southern Electric do my gas.

Re:Not BitTorrent (1)

Jumpin' Jon (731892) | more than 4 years ago | (#28619637)

..also BP no longer stands for British Petroleum - it's now Beyond Petroleum, which I thought was quite inspired of them.

Re:Not BitTorrent (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#28622761)

..also BP no longer stands for British Petroleum - it's now Beyond Petroleum, which I thought was quite inspired of them.

No, it's just "BP" (actually "BP p.l.c."). Just because they chose a marketing slogan which (obviously on purpose) has the same initials, doesn't mean that it's name is anything other than just "BP".

Re:Not BitTorrent (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#28619851)

I always get a good chuckle whenever i see BBC America... haha, oh BBC. Not like they could have used ABC though... they should have partnered, it would have been as easy as 1,2,3.

Re:Not BitTorrent (1)

Aceticon (140883) | more than 4 years ago | (#28620533)

The "British" brand has not been a mark of quality in Europe for anything but pop-music for at least 30 years.

(personally I blame it on shoddy management)

Re:Not BitTorrent (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#28621659)

British Steel (now Corus)

WHAT? They renamed British Steel? But that was one of Judas Priest's best albums!

Re:Not BitTorrent (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#28619331)

http://www.btplc.com/Thegroup/BTsHistory/History.htm "BT - a new name and identity for British Telecom" - since 2 April 1991...

Re:Not BitTorrent (2, Funny)

Nossie (753694) | more than 4 years ago | (#28619335)

awwwwwwww go throw your toys out the pram

BT has been around since the 1980's and operates in over 170 countries....

I think that beats bit torrent...

guys, please stop calling it BP, for most of the world BP is Brooklyn Philharmonic

-errrr ... NOOOOO!

Re:Not BitTorrent (0, Troll)

Hurricane78 (562437) | more than 4 years ago | (#28619653)

BT (BitTorrent) operates in ALL countries, and even on space stations. And it has way more "customers" than the British Telecom.

Hell, all those broadband connections would not be needed, were it not for BitTorrent.

So who is beating who here? ^^

Re:Not BitTorrent (0, Offtopic)

Nossie (753694) | more than 4 years ago | (#28619759)

sorry ... I believe even ....

wait, troll - feed ... will not... must not ... must prevail... ... mmmk thanks. you just carry on living in your own little world. :)

Re:Not BitTorrent (1)

Big Hairy Ian (1155547) | more than 4 years ago | (#28619369)

Shortcut???? surely you mean acronym which is still incorrect given that British Telecom changed its name in the early 90's to BT as others in here have already pointed out. Lets see BitTorrent has been around for what about 6 or 7 years which one do you think has prior art???

Re:Not BitTorrent (0, Redundant)

Haiyadragon (770036) | more than 4 years ago | (#28619777)

That doesn't change the fact that I had no idea what BT was, and I still didn't know after reading the summary. 'Telecom' should've been in there somewhere.

BT by itself and the only thing my puny brain comes up with is, of course, BitTorrent.

Re:Not BitTorrent (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#28619371)

No - see BT's History page [btplc.com] "BT - a new name and identity for British Telecom" - since 2 April 1991...

Re:Not BitTorrent (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#28619703)

BT is short for "British Telecommunications PLC." It hasn't been called "British Telecom" since the '80s.

n2n (3, Interesting)

hansraj (458504) | more than 4 years ago | (#28619247)

Has anyone used the n2n peer VPN [ntop.org]?

It would be neat if such solutions were built into the popular distros; with all the monitoring creeping up around us it is about time that our PCs defaulted to encrypted traffic.

Re:n2n (1)

Samuar (829173) | more than 4 years ago | (#28619307)

It would be neat but... If most internet traffic was encrypted, maybe more funding would be provided by governments to snooping authorities. If my traffic is encrypted, but everyone else's isnt, maybe the authorities would be content at just looking at everyone elses traffic. Then again, if i'm in the minority encrypting traffic, maybe I stand out a bit too much and will draw more attention to myself. Perhaps this is my kobayashi maru.

Re:n2n (1)

PitaBred (632671) | more than 4 years ago | (#28621075)

Ehh... VPN's are so common any more that encryption isn't really suspicious. Hide in plain sight, all that.

Re:n2n (2, Insightful)

L4t3r4lu5 (1216702) | more than 4 years ago | (#28619333)

Why is the Wintard version payware? Pre-compiled and with an installer for â50? I'll stick with Tor thanks.

Re:n2n (1)

Opportunist (166417) | more than 4 years ago | (#28619825)

I guess their logic is, if you pay for an OS that's by no means better than what you can get for free, you'll pay for a program, too, even if all they did for you was compiling it.

Re:n2n (1, Redundant)

raddan (519638) | more than 4 years ago | (#28624895)

I'm a little shaky on what the n2n people mean when they say "layer 2 VPN"-- I think this means that they run a tunneled virtual data link layer on top of UDP-- but they also mention the requirement of supernodes (ala Skype) to allow NAT traversal to happen. I'd have to know a little bit more about how the protocol works to know for sure, but I am a bit more skeptical about security when you allow that to happen. Perhaps they built it as a virtual layer 2 so that you could ensure that your upper-level end-to-end encryption happened despite your traffic being routed through upper-level intermediaries? Also-- what kind of protocol overhead are you getting when you have [physical]-[data link]-[network]-[transport (UDP)]-[application]-[data link]-[network]-[transport]-[application]? Seems like a neat app, so it would be nice if someone who knew a little more about it could answer my questions.

Not too good. (5, Informative)

auric_dude (610172) | more than 4 years ago | (#28619279)

From BT via the http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/default.stm [bbc.co.uk]

"[Our decision has] nothing to do with cost or privacy, it's about resources and priority,"

Re:Not too good. (3, Insightful)

wjh31 (1372867) | more than 4 years ago | (#28619323)

"...nothing do to with cost..."

Money isnt a resource then?

Re:Not too good. (1)

GeorgeStone22 (1532191) | more than 4 years ago | (#28619443)

Not for BT who own pretty much the whole telecommunications infrastructure of the UK..

Re:Not too good. (2, Informative)

lobiusmoop (305328) | more than 4 years ago | (#28619781)

Um, no. The government has forced BT to implement local-loop unbundling [wikipedia.org] to remove their monopoly on telecomunications in the UK.

Re:Not too good. (1)

TheThiefMaster (992038) | more than 4 years ago | (#28620103)

Not so much to remove the telecoms monopoly, just to make sure that their monopoly on phone lines doesn't translate to a monopoly on broadband internet as well.

Re:Not too good. (2, Informative)

compro01 (777531) | more than 4 years ago | (#28622309)

They still own the infrastructure, LLU just requires them to lease it to whoever is interested.

Re:Not too good. (1)

Xest (935314) | more than 4 years ago | (#28634799)

That's not what LLU does.

LLU just lets companies put their own kit at the point where a customers line terminates at the local exchange. BT still owns the exchange and everything upstream of it and as such it has no effect on removal of their telecommunications monopoly, it only prevents them building an additional monopoly around the internet related kit (i.e. ADSL technology) at the local loop. Those companies still have to use BT for everything upstream of the connection point in the exchange and BT still get paid by companies putting their own kit in there.

Re:Not too good. (1)

mjwx (966435) | more than 4 years ago | (#28631835)

"...nothing do to with cost..."

Money isnt a resource then?

Translation:

Phorm couldn't deliver the promised revenue. All the rest is marketspeak.

Re:Not too good. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#28619327)

It has to do with publicity and public pressure.

They can't admit that there are privacy problems especially after they ran the trial without informing people.

The main resources are probably public relations and reputation.

It wasn't going to generate them enough cash to be worth these problems.

Re:Not too good. (0)

ocularDeathRay (760450) | more than 4 years ago | (#28619437)

I think, all over the world we realize that our rights online will evaporate in the next few years, as governments edge their way into yet another facet of our lives... I just wish we could all agree on that point and try to negotiate a fair trade. Really I think the brits should trade their internet privacy for the following:

1. a new season of Coupling ending in an uncensored lesbian orgy between all three of the chicks
2. a return visit of Theo Pamphlet to Top Gear, so that we can see "Theo Pamphlet" on the board twice as often and chuckle about Jeremy's joke where it was harder to pronounce Peter Jones than Theodoris Pafthiefteistifitsis
3. a better looking hotel inspector
4. a free and complete DVD collection of Red Dwarf and Fawlty Towers for every american so we can stop watching PBS pledge drives (except when Red Green is on of course)
5. a show where Gordon Ramsey drives around in Oliver while trying to convince Peter Jones to invest in his new restaurant.
6. no more antique road show

perhaps there are more pressing issues, but my knowledge of life in EU comes from watching BBCA...

Re:Not too good. (1)

Heed00 (1473203) | more than 4 years ago | (#28619469)

Considering that Phorm is supposed to generate revenue for the ISP by using deep packet inspection at the ISP level to snoop on customers traffic in order to serve "targeted ads", it seems dubious to think they would drop it for reasons of "resources and priority". One would think that generating revenue would be a high priority and that money coming in would be seen as an increase in resources.

C'mon BT, you spied on your customers, got caught and now you're back peddling -- admit it, you gave no thought to privacy until the secret trials were exposed. It's precisely because of the backlash over privacy that you're backing away now.

Re:Not too good. (2, Insightful)

Wowsers (1151731) | more than 4 years ago | (#28619565)

BT will wait until Phorm renames itself then BT will roll out the system. They will not pass up the opportunity to earn money for nothing after racking up idiotic amounts of losses because they "invested" in foreign (non-UK) businesses, and could not be bothered to update the UK network, choosing to flog that dead horse copper cable for all it's worth for another 20+ years.

People are not bothered about Phorm and BT, hell, they aren't even bothered by BT's cr@ppy quality Internet and comparatively bad deal internet subscription.... they are still the biggest ISP in the UK. People are suckers for punishment instead of taking their money elsewhere.

Phorm will be back!

Monopolies (1)

siloko (1133863) | more than 4 years ago | (#28619631)

they are still the biggest ISP in the UK

This is a legacy of the old state run monopoly system. Companies like British Telecom, British Gas etc have a strong hold on the public imagination so despite consistently performing worse and charging more they still hold sway over more dynamic, newer companies who struggle against their entrenched power. The watchdog system that was put in place after the monopolies were sold off is supposed to maintain the balance but struggles in the face of corporate lobbying . . .

Re:Not too good. (1)

guruevi (827432) | more than 4 years ago | (#28623383)

Actually, Phorm in it's current form (pun not intended) will not return. What will return is a milder version of it. Then they can say: look it's not as bad as Phorm, but it needs to be done for the children. The same happened when they planned to change our promised unlimited broadband to a monthly 10GB limit. They received a lot of backlash from their customers then said: ok we won't do it and behind the scenes they changed the contract to say they reserve the right to bother you if you're using too much of your bandwidth (a vague limit that seems to be ~50GB) and they started throttling certain protocols. See also the example of AT&T's deep packet inspection for the NSA - they said they won't do it anymore without a warrant - they'll just have to ask a warrant from a non-existent court controlled by the NSA and the packet inspection goes on at even larger levels than before.

I thought it was just on hold (5, Interesting)

AnalPerfume (1356177) | more than 4 years ago | (#28619343)

This "focusing revenues" sounds a lot like an equation which didn't work out well for Phorm.

On one had is the money they "could" make by introducing it by adverts, on the other is the potential number of existing customers who will jump to another ISP added to the number of potential customers not even looking at BT as an option when switching from their ISP. Their current subscribers direct debits are guaranteed income with most subscribers not bothering to look around. Not to mention dealing with Phorm gives you the badge of a pariah.

They could be right, in that it's more profitable to drop Phorm. That said, I'm not sure they dropped it permanently. They seem to have bought into the DPI advert injection model, so no doubt they will only put it into the "let's get back to that after the broohaha has calmed down" box before being reintroduced a couple of years from now under a different name with lessons learned about "how not to get caught". They may still face further legal / political fallout over what they've done to date with Phorm, so dropping Phorm may help mitigate any sanctions.

For those who are currently with BT and have reconsidered moving away after this announcement I say "watch this space, BT have proven themselves perfectly willing to fuck their customers over once, they will do it again". BT think they have done no wrong. They can't be trusted. They avoided police action in the UK, they may yet avoid other punishment, but consumers CAN punish them.

100% off topic - a small complaint (-1, Offtopic)

Bozovision (107228) | more than 4 years ago | (#28619449)

I would like to point out that the BBC [bbc.co.uk], Boingboing [boingboing.net], South Africa's Mail & Guardian [mg.co.za], the UK's Daily Mirror [mirror.co.uk], the bloody Katmandu, Nepal based Republica [myrepublica.com], and 632 news sources managed to report the announcement of Google Chrome OS before it was a glimmer in Slashdot's eye.

A very poor show for Slashdot, which is supposed to be news for nerds, stuff that matters.

Re:100% off topic - a small complaint (0, Offtopic)

ChienAndalu (1293930) | more than 4 years ago | (#28619495)

That firehose thingy has a few dozen submissions, but hitting the "+" doesn't really do anything.

Re:100% off topic - a small complaint (-1, Offtopic)

L4t3r4lu5 (1216702) | more than 4 years ago | (#28619513)

If there was ever a post worthy of being modded into offtopic oblivion, it's the parent post.

If you want a story, write one. Slashdot is powered by our submissions. Personally, as a Brit, I'm quite enjoying the coverage of Phorm.

Re:100% off topic - a small complaint (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#28619573)

The POINT of the parent is that this story broke before, there are like 6 submissions of it in the firehose and last I checked one of them was red. Why the hell is it not on the mainpage already?

Re:100% off topic - a small complaint (-1, Offtopic)

4D6963 (933028) | more than 4 years ago | (#28619605)

You forgot all of Slashdot's direct concurrents, Digg [digg.com] included. No need for more proof that Slashdot is utterly failing at being a news source. It's a cool place to discuss the news, but it's as for a place to get news from it could be much better than it is.

Re:100% off topic - a small complaint (0, Offtopic)

Bozovision (107228) | more than 4 years ago | (#28621019)

I'm the parent poster.

My point is that this was major tech news. And hours after the news broke, it still hadn't appeared on the front page. It should have been there minutes after the announcement seeing as it's major news nerds. Even that gnat in the technology-news arena, Republica, managed to report it before it appeared here. Slashdot should be waaaaaaay ahead of the crowd in reporting interesting IT stories.

I'm not decrying the Phorm story: I'm also in the UK and have an interest in it, and I'm glad it was published, but to have it appear while news of a major development in the operating-system-wars is sitting in the queue shows that there's a problem in the editorial flow.

Vote with your wallet (1)

minasoko (710100) | more than 4 years ago | (#28619517)

Too late, BTbroadband. I recently ended my 'unlimited' (which is actually limited [custhelp.com]) service with them and moved to a provider who doesn't think its OK to inspect and modify my traffic in order to make advertising revenue.

As a bonus, I get a truly unlimited connection which is over 3x faster than BT could offer, a one month rolling contract, no cancellation fee, no port blocking and a nice cPanel customer portal, all for about 3GBP more a month. My only regret is that I didn't do it sooner.

Re:Vote with your wallet (1)

Canazza (1428553) | more than 4 years ago | (#28619569)

who is this magical ISP? - please tell me!

Re:Vote with your wallet (1)

minasoko (710100) | more than 4 years ago | (#28619655)

who is this magical ISP? - please tell me!

ADSL24 [adsl24.co.uk]. I use their ADSL2+ LLU service, which I believe is provided over BE's [bethere.co.uk] network.
Obviously they have a fair usage policy too, it's just that it seems to be fairer.

Re:Vote with your wallet (1)

u38cg (607297) | more than 4 years ago | (#28619723)

I recommend Internet Central - £22.50/m for wires-only ADSL, they max out your connection to whatever it can take, no fair use policy that I've ever hit, they don't play for the IWF, and they have fantastic 24 hour phone support. Been with them three years and not a word of complaint.

Re:Vote with your wallet (1)

Tony Hoyle (11698) | more than 4 years ago | (#28619669)

Bit of guesswork on who it is...

Well 3x faster than BT would have to be an LLU Operator, because everything else is all BT (openreach) infrastructure & the only difference between ISPs that use that is how good they are at kicking BT up the arse when things go wrong*.

That limits it in practical terms to Be and Sky (O2 are Be resellers). None of these have a 1 month rolling contract with no cancellation fee. Both of them are IWF encumbered, which is a negative mark against them.

* In that respect I recommend A&A who even have a bot that reopens trouble tickets every time BT close them prematurely.. it's quite fun to watch.

Re:Vote with your wallet (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#28620217)

I'd recommend A&A as well. Been using them since 2002/2003. I started usinhg them based on an ad I saw which said something like "You don't need to use windows to use broadband". I haven't had a single cause for complaint over all these years. They even recommended I move to a cheaper package as I wasn't using my daytime quota.

Re:Vote with your wallet (1)

johnw (3725) | more than 4 years ago | (#28621483)

Me three. A&A provide a very solid service and are totally up-front about what you get for your money. None of this "Unlimited broadband" in the headline and then "actually, extremely limited" in the small print. It amazes me that the consumer watchdogs make lots of fuss about descriptions like "Up to 8 mbit" (which is accurate) but allow blatantly false claims about "Unlimited" packages to pass without a murmur.

Re:Vote with your wallet (2, Informative)

smoker2 (750216) | more than 4 years ago | (#28625111)

Be is part of O2 not the other way around. And you can have a cancellation free contract with Be, you just pay a set up fee. You also get a free fixed IP address, free modem and up to 24 Mbit ADSL2. All for £17.50/month with no usage cap.

Re:Vote with your wallet (1)

minasoko (710100) | more than 4 years ago | (#28619713)

Excuse my replying to my own post, but there is a three month notice period [adsl24.co.uk] on the LLU service I use, not one month as I stated. It's their standard ADSL packages that have a rolling month-to-month contract.

All for a little while (1)

freedom_india (780002) | more than 4 years ago | (#28620031)

I recall the Yes, Minister Episode where the minister is stringently against invasion of privacy and tapping, but when his life is on the line he accepts the recommendations to tap telephone lines.
In short, all BT has to do to implement this is to show the peers and MPs a real-life example of Yes, Minister episode!
Voila!

And so they start to tumble (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#28620381)

Following straight on TalkTalk the second biggest ISP in the UK also ditches Phorm .... another 13% of the shares not a good week for them

BT Drops (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#28620463)

BT is now dropping Phorm, after a career of dropping Phat beats [wikipedia.org].

I consider most of the /. readers smart... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#28620867)

However, there is a glaring fact that needs to be made clear. The Internet, by design, is a public domain. If you put something on the Internet and someone else has an interest in what you have to published. They will see it. If you do not want certain people to see what you have published. Do not put it on the Internet.

mo3 uCp (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#28623329)

refor8atted Software lawyers You don't need to
Check for New Comments
Slashdot Account

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Don't worry, we never post anything without your permission.

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>
Sign up for Slashdot Newsletters
Create a Slashdot Account

Loading...