×

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!

UK ISP Says No To Music Industry Pressure

kdawson posted about 6 years ago | from the police-it-yourself dept.

The Internet 70

siloko sends us to the BBC for the story of one ISP standing up to the music industry. (But note that this ISP is one of the ones said to have worked with Phorm on plans to track customers' surfing.) "The head of one of Britain's biggest internet providers has criticized the music industry for demanding that he act against pirates. Charles Dunstone of Carphone Warehouse, which runs the TalkTalk broadband service, is refusing. He said it is not his job to be an internet policeman."

cancel ×
This is a preview of your comment

No Comment Title Entered

Anonymous Coward 1 minute ago

No Comment Entered

70 comments

Eh, whatever. (5, Insightful)

Futile Rhetoric (1105323) | about 6 years ago | (#22962420)

It's a matter of money, not principle. Why the hell would a provider invest in the required infrastructure upgrades? Now, if the record industry agrees to pay for it, perhaps with a small bonus on top for lubrication purposes, they'll switch to a different tune just like that.

Re:Eh, whatever. (4, Insightful)

Stripe7 (571267) | about 6 years ago | (#22962766)

If they are forced to police P2P for copyright violations, then they have to police for child pr0n, then sexual predators, then for pr0n filtering, then the lawsuits show up for filtering breast cancer sites, drug rehab support sites, etc.. It opens up a can of worms no ISP wanting to avoid legal headaches would want to stick their toes into.

Re:Eh, whatever. (1, Informative)

badfish99 (826052) | about 6 years ago | (#22963050)

All UK ISPs already filter for child porn; the government forced them to all "voluntarily" install blocking software by threatening to make it mandatory if they did not.
Of course, the (secret) list of blocked sites, maintained by an organisation called the IWF [iwf.org.uk] , now includes other things as well as child porn, such as "racial abuse". If the government decided to have a crackdown on file sharing they could easily force ISPs to add other sites, such as (for example) the Pirate Bay, to the banned list.

Re:Eh, whatever. (2, Informative)

peterbye (708092) | about 6 years ago | (#22963674)

Do you have a reference for that?
My isp http://www.aaisp.net.uk/ [aaisp.net.uk] has not been forced by the government to do any such thing.

Re:Eh, whatever. (1)

badfish99 (826052) | about 6 years ago | (#22964350)

To be fair, some of the small ISPs may still be holding out, but all the big ones selling to the domestic market have installed this filter. Of course, the beauty of the government's position is that no-one has been forced to do anything: if it were mandated by law, then parliament would have had to pass such a law first, so the issue of "web censorship" would have had a public airing. But by making it "voluntary" (but backed up by threats) has meant that it has been implemented without any discussion, and of course without any legal oversight.

Re:Eh, whatever. (2, Informative)

janrinok (846318) | about 6 years ago | (#22964230)

I'm afraid I must disagree. If what you say is true, then it would be impossible for any individual to access banned sites and then to download the material which they contain. The number of cases in the UK where individuals have been taken to court for having material that contravenes some law or other (e.g. terrorist material, child pornography etc) which has been downloaded from the internet suggests that such blocking is not taking place. I admit that the government would probably carry out such blocking if it could but there is nothing to suggest that it is currently taking place on a widespread scale.

The link that you gave does not state that any blocking is taking place, it simply serves as a focus where complaints can be sent. In fact, the page showing the 'relationship' between the IWF and the police is blank! Similarly, the page showing the relationship with the Government simply gives information on those politicians who support the IWF. As far as I understand it, there is no legal remit for ISPs to monitor the content of your internet traffic in the UK. It can be done for individual cases where the police or relevant agency can obtain a warrant suitably authorised under current legal and judicial rules.

Re:Eh, whatever. (1)

badfish99 (826052) | about 6 years ago | (#22965630)

Sadly, it's true. Google for "BT Cleanfeed" if you don't believe me. Since it blocks websites, there's no traffic monitoring involved.
Of course, like all censorship, it is not 100% effective. Presumably the people who want to download this sort of stuff simply make the effort to discover how to circumvent it.

My point is, though, that if the government ever wants to start web censorship on a larger scale, the infrastructure is already in place for them to do so.

Re:Eh, whatever. (2, Insightful)

janrinok (846318) | about 6 years ago | (#22966382)

Yes and No.

Firstly, this is possible because the IWF have passed the URLs of sites which 'they' consider to be unsuitable to BT who have blocked them. It is NOT because anyone is monitoring all internet traffic. If a site is not reported then it cannot be blocked

Secondly, this may be the case for BT, but it is not a legal directive, or even a request, from the Government to all ISPs. If you dislike the fact that a particular ISP is doing something that you disagree with then you are free to use a different ISP. So I still cannot agree that

[a]ll UK ISPs already filter for child porn....
They don't. They only block those sites which the IWF is aware of, and it is only those ISPs who choose to do so that are playing this game.

However, of great concern is what yardstick does the IWF use for deciding that a site is terrorism or child pornography? If I show a picture of a molotov cocktail, i.e. a bottle containing some inflammable fluid with a burning wick, am I now guilty of terrorism? After all, someone might get an idea from my picture and manufacture a similar device. But what if I am describing a weapon used by the Home Guard while training to defend the UK from Hitler's army? Am I still a terrorist, and were members of the Home Guard terrorists? A similar argument can be stated against 'child pornography'. If I place a photo of my grandchild on a web site is that child pornography? What if she is wearing a swimming costume? Hell, what if she is naked? Nudity is not an offence. Unfortunately, the best legal minds find it very difficult to define pornography in hard, legal terms. It is often a very subjective decision. What gives the IWF the right - and inherent infallibility - to judge such matters?

Re:Eh, whatever. (1)

cb95amc (99589) | about 6 years ago | (#22962842)

Of course it could also be an attempt to get more people to switch to their service....

"Sign up to our Broadband....we are the only ISP that won't cut off your internet connection if you file share" (Gov't legislation permitting)

Interesting point he raised during the actual radio interview was criticizing the music industry for not adapting their business model to digital technologies...

Re:Eh, whatever. (2, Insightful)

The Incomplete Lemon (698564) | about 6 years ago | (#22962894)

Although possibly not, if the ISPs are declared responsible for policing the 'net then they become the next target for the recording industry lawsuits.

Love the guilt laden language they use... (2, Interesting)

Shivetya (243324) | about 6 years ago | (#22962436)

basically the only thing the recording industry didn't toss out there was "its for the children"

My question about ISPs in Britain is, how much say does the EU have over them? How does the EU versus the law of England stack up in regards to this situation?

Re:Love the guilt laden language they use... (5, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 years ago | (#22962520)

I particularly liked

The BPI denied it is asking ISPs to become internet police, saying the firms need to educate their customers not to steal music.
Er well no, actually they don't need to do any such thing. As a trade body who apparently represents the interests of the recording industry it's your responsibility to "educate" the public. It's nothing to do with the ISP.

Re:Love the guilt laden language they use... (3, Interesting)

daveime (1253762) | about 6 years ago | (#22962718)

Yes, and in a perfect world the sellers of handguns should "educate" gangs not to shoot people, and the cigarette companies should "educate" smokers that they're probably going to die prematurely.

Just because someone supplies a service doesn't make them responsible for what the masses decide to do with that service, especially not in terms of protecting the interests of a group of sharks in business suits.

Re:Love the guilt laden language they use... (2, Informative)

Psiren (6145) | about 6 years ago | (#22963478)

and the cigarette companies should "educate" smokers that they're probably going to die prematurely.
Well over here in the UK, they do just that. Granted they've been forced to by government legislation, but nevertheless, you can't buy a packet of cigarettes with a message on it saying you're going to die horribly, or something similar.

Re:Love the guilt laden language they use... (2, Interesting)

adpsimpson (956630) | about 6 years ago | (#22964242)

Well over here in the UK, they do just that. Granted they've been forced to by government legislation, but nevertheless, you can't buy a packet of cigarettes with a message on it saying you're going to die horribly, or something similar.

Cigarettes aren't really a valid comparison, as they only have one purpose - to smoke. And that gives you the nasties.

No, what we need is a good, solid car analogy.

It's more like every car seller being forced to monitor all future use of cars they sell in question to prevent a minor crime (like, say, dropping litter out of the window) which may be committed with that car.

Of course, once the CCTV, GPS and other instrumentation was in place, then it becomes a legal quagmire once the car is used for other crimes - couldn't the Litter Prevention Society see the bank being robbed? Is that your daughter? Does your wife know about the lifts you've been giving your secretary?

Re:Love the guilt laden language they use... (1)

nbert (785663) | about 6 years ago | (#22967862)

Well over here in the UK, they do just that. Granted they've been forced to by government legislation, but nevertheless, you can't buy a packet of cigarettes with a message on it saying you're going to die horribly, or something similar.
I believe that's EU legislation - they all look the same and have the same messages in the EU countries I've been to recently (ok, in the UK I didn't even think about buying cigarettes, so I can't tell). Some of them are quite pointless: The pack in front of me says "Smoking is highly addictive. Don't start" (translated from German). It's not like I noticed during the ten years I've smoked ;)

Since I'm already way-ot: There are also subtle differences in the translations. In Germany and Spain there's one saying "Smoking can kill" (Rauchen kann tödlich sein, Fumar puede matar). Other countries prefer "Smoking does kill" (if I remember Poland has the latter warning).

I don't think they are of much use compared to education programs or advertisements. But this law doesn't cost much and I think that they might prevent a few people from starting. For that reason alone I won't complain. Of course the packs looked nicer before they had one third covert with something looking like a letter of condolence, but what do I care, as long as they contain cigarettes...

Re:Love the guilt laden language they use... (1)

xaxa (988988) | about 6 years ago | (#22968898)

When I was at school a friend collected the empty packs from his mum's smoking, cut the fronts out and pasted them onto a board and tried to get her to stop by putting it in her room. I think we thought "SMOKING CAUSES IMPOTENCE" was one of the best (although that probably didn't bother his mum). I think Britain has "SMOKING KILLS".

Re:Love the guilt laden language they use... (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 years ago | (#22964646)

How fucking ignorant!! p2p is a feeding frenzy of illegal filesharing and you have the nerve to call the corporate executives sharks? You ignorant fucking troll!!

Re:Love the guilt laden language they use... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 years ago | (#22969586)

Fuck off you corporate whore

Re:Love the guilt laden language they use... (1)

Morlark (814687) | about 6 years ago | (#22968094)

Absolutely, I don't think anyone's saying that the music industry should be responsible for the actions of the consumer. But if you have a vested interest in what happens to your product, and you believe that "education" can best serve your interests, then it certainly isn't anyone else's responsibility to arrange that education. The music industry has absolutely no right to try to force ISPs to do their work for them.

Edgymucayshun (1)

Tastecicles (1153671) | about 6 years ago | (#22965766)

DON'T.
STEAL.
MUSIC.

(from HMV. Download it instead. Making a binary clone is NOT stealing. Stealing is where one party is deprived of whatever it is the other party is stealing [and no, data does not equal hard cash], I wish the music industry capitalists would get that distinction through their fucking heads. Apart from that the police deal with theft which is a criminal offence. Copyright infringement is a civil offence which the police and crown prosecutors have no jurisdiction over. And spare me the "Piracy funds terrorism" line, governments fund terorism not basement bootleggers.)

There. Said it.

Re:Love the guilt laden language they use... (1, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 years ago | (#22962672)

EU law takes precendence over UK law if the UK does not reject a particular directive. There's currently no EU law that would force any country to carry out the kind of monitoring that the BPI are looking for.

That said, they do have the politicians from both of the major parties in their pocket and currently involved in a competition to see who can out-do each other in terms of linking file-sharing to some "despicable act".

Re:Love the guilt laden language they use... (2, Informative)

Laukei (1099765) | about 6 years ago | (#22965538)

EU law overrides any laws of the country. It's the priniciple of supremacy [civitas.org.uk] of the EU. If a member state contravenes EU law it can be punished with fines.

Oh, and IANAL.

Innocence (5, Funny)

phorm (591458) | about 6 years ago | (#22962444)

But note that this ISP is one of the ones said to have worked with Phorm on plans to track customers' surfing

I know nothing of this, honestly!

Re:Innocence (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 years ago | (#22962892)

Maybe you could get them for trademark infringement? That would help a few people...

Neutrality? (5, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 years ago | (#22962448)

mod ISP +1 for standing up to gov lobbyists.
mod ISP -1 for cosying with phorm.
Net result: 0 points.

Is this what they mean by net neutrality?

Re:Neutrality? (2, Informative)

makomk (752139) | about 6 years ago | (#22962804)

To be fair, at least they were pretty quick to say they'd be including an opt-out that didn't send all your traffic through Phorm's equipment after it became clear how controversial it would be (unlike the other two ISPs). I don't think they're exactly going to be making any lists of P2P-friendly ISPs any time soon either, though.

Re:Neutrality? (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 years ago | (#22963094)

My understanding was that the Phorm opt-out depends on keeping a cookie present in your browser, and only opts you out of receiving targetted ads (note- you still receive UNtargetted ones).

All your data still goes to phorm, regardless. The opt-out is a meaningless platitude.

Re:Neutrality? (1)

makomk (752139) | about 6 years ago | (#22966376)

The Phorm opt-out depends on a cookie and is a meaningless platitude, yes - which is why they decided to add their own, more robust way of opting out that really does opt you out and doesn't send any of your data to Phorm-controlled systems. So far, neither of the other ISPs involved have make similar declarations.

They make it sound like a natural thing (4, Interesting)

BadAnalogyGuy (945258) | about 6 years ago | (#22962458)

The spokesman for the BPI makes it sound like the relationship between ISPs and the music industry is symbiotic. They dress up the "responsibilities" of the ISP in pretty words that make it sound like shutting down users is the greatest thing in the world.

If you read the article, you'll find Geoff Taylor's doublespeak amazing.

At the heart of this issue is ensuring that creators are fairly rewarded in the digital age

Okay so far...

and we passionately believe that working in partnership with ISPs to develop first-class, safe, legal, digital music services is the way forward.

Uh...

Here's the appropriate response to that idiocy from Charles Dunstone, TalkTalk head.

We are the conduit that gives users access to the internet. We do not control the internet, nor do we control what our users do on the internet.

Good job, Charles.

Re:They make it sound like a natural thing (4, Insightful)

CmdrGravy (645153) | about 6 years ago | (#22962606)

Also his smug assumption that if the ISPs don't reach a voluntary agreement that he'll simply have laws drawn up to compel them is quite sickening. Why should the trials of a group of music publicists be afforded so much attention and deference ?

When they get smug about it.. (1)

Lunarsight (1053230) | about 6 years ago | (#22973074)

When they get smug about it, it just reminds me why I was boycotting the RIAA-affiliated labels in the first place.

Look at this way:

Each time you purchase a CD from an RIAA label, you're paying the salaries of the jerks who say this sort of thing.

Boycott them all - let their album sales atropy to nothing.

It couldn't happen to a more deserving bunch of corporate slimeballs.

Re:They make it sound like a natural thing (4, Interesting)

CogDissident (951207) | about 6 years ago | (#22962732)

And BPI is saying that ISPs should disconnect users, which hurts their revenue directly. So, co-operate with BPI: lose money and customers. Fight BPI: keep customers, and free publicity and good will.

Easy business decision if you ask me.

Re:They make it sound like a natural thing (2, Insightful)

e6003 (552415) | about 6 years ago | (#22963604)

Also reading between the lines can be amusing.

"...and we passionately believe that working in partnership with ISPs to develop first-class, safe, legal, digital music services is the way forward."

Digital music services that are controlled by BPI members that is. Not music services controlled by "new media" companies or independent record labels.

"the [ISPs] need to educate their customers not to steal music..."

The ISPs need to educate their users not to take advantage of the fact that modern packet-switched networks make it very easy to transfer information and that ultimately music is just information. The ISPs need to educate their users that only the big, 20th century media companies that grew big by distributing music on plastic discs of various sorts (when that was the most technologically cutting edge way of distributing music) can distribute music in the 21st century, even when music consumers are voting in droves with their wallets and saying that they aren't so interested in plastic discs of finite capacity containing semi-arbitrary selections of tracks any more. The ISPs need to educate their customers not to circumvent these old business models. Also the ISPs need to educate their users that the copyright laws of the printing press era are rigid and unchangeable, even when they are spectacularly unsuited to and incapable of dealing with "mass piracy" brought on by the aforementioned ease of transferring information.

Yes, that's what ISPs need to educate their users about in the eyes of Big Media.

conduit (4, Funny)

esocid (946821) | about 6 years ago | (#22962466)

He said: "Our position is very clear. We are the conduit that gives users access to the internet. We do not control the internet, nor do we control what our users do on the internet.
Again with this british slang for tubes?

Re:conduit (1)

adamGX (795663) | about 6 years ago | (#22963006)

conduit here is from the term "mere conduit", where the isp just acts like a pipe or tube. What I don't understand is how an ISP which monitors traffic with a system like Phorm can give the "mere conduit" defense to allowing illegal content to flow over their network. It was my understanding that you could maintain "mere conduit" status when you only monitor traffic for network operations and maintenance reasons and that if you went beyond this then you lost the "mere conduit" status and became libel to some extent for the traffic flowing over your network. What I don't know is whether the defense of only being able to montior certain types of traffic holds , i.e. web surfing and not p2p.

Moot! (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 years ago | (#22962526)

A load of bunk anyway. Talktalk does their utmost to shape and throttle any P2P traffic. Also, theirs is the worst quality of Internet service I've experienced in the UK out of any ISP. Nobody actually wanting to do anything bandwidth-intensive would stay with Talktalk in the first place!

Re:Moot! (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 years ago | (#22963118)

Modded troll.
But since i am here, i may as well reply.

I have been with TalkTalk for a few months now.
I did have a rather stupid problem recently in LCP timeouts.
After resetting the password, the connection has been fine. (despite the odd servers that don't seem to have the updated details, too lazy to care about contacting them to see what the hell is going on)

As for internet speeds, well, the current area i am in has crappy speeds anyway (less than 1meg just now)
But i use torrenting all the time and i can keep a stable connection.
I do agree with the bandwidth intensive thing though (but i say this with pretty much all ISPs who reply on BTs crap hardware, go with a cable company if you can)

presumptuous much? (2, Insightful)

lysse (516445) | about 6 years ago | (#22962552)

FTFA:

[The BPI] also says that if [ISPs] do not help with the fight against music piracy, then the government will bring in legislation to make them cooperate.

(Sadly, they're probably on safe ground.)

Amazed (4, Interesting)

CmdrGravy (645153) | about 6 years ago | (#22962578)

I'm amazed it's taken this long before any of the ISPs have spoken out, any sort of policing at all is quite clearly not their job and the very second they begin to take an interest in the content they are transmitting, the second that happens they are going to monitoring and reporting everything to everyone and responsible for all manner of disasters and tragedies when the overwhelming technical impossibility of what they're being asked to do causes something to go wrong.

Any special interest group worried about a particular activity on the internet will want the ISP to ban it, ever media craze will lead to more things being banned and the ISP carrying the can for policing it, any government dept looking for some quick headlines will get them to report ( for example ) anyone talking about benefit fraud in chat rooms to the benefit agency.

Today Jaqui Smith, some brainless minister in the British government, is suggesting ( yet again ) that all paedophiles should register their e-mail addresses with the police and not be allowed to register on chat rooms with those addresses. She says she is in discussions with ISPs to police this. She is too stupid to realise what she is asking for and too moronic to understand palming her inability to convict people and lock them up should not be palmed off onto commercial entities who have no business whatsover doing her policing for her.

Re:Amazed (2, Insightful)

Tony Hoyle (11698) | about 6 years ago | (#22962962)

My first thought when I heard that this morning was

(a) how does she know all the emails and aliases of every paedophile. Ask them? Like they're likely to tell her... More likely she only has one on record.
(b) does she *realize* how quickly you can create a gmail or hotmail account?
(c) good luck getting myspace/facebook/etc. to do this.. they're not UK companies and are just as likely to tell her to sod off.

Re:Amazed (2, Informative)

timftbf (48204) | about 6 years ago | (#22963026)

Actually, credit where credit's due, she asked the people operating the social-networking sites popular with children what could be done to keep paedophiles off those sites. They offered the facility to ban people from registering with black-listed email addresses. ISPs are simply not in the loop.

The weaker part is getting the paedophiles[0] to register their email addresses, in the same way as they have to register their physical address. We all know it's easy to create new email addresses, but the point here is that for said paedophile, creating / using a new email address becomes an offense (or at least a cause for investigation) in itself, in the same way that registering one postal address and being found to be living at another would be. The assumption is that they wouldn't need a new non-registered address unless they were planning to do something wrong.

It's not a perfect analogy, but it seems to me a pretty reasonable attempt to do something, involving the right people - users of web sites and admins of web sites - without stomping all over everyone else's use of the Internet.

[0] For whatever definition of that is in the measures. Not all paedophiles are on the Sex Offenders Register, and not everyone on the Sex Offenders Register is a paedophile.

Re:Amazed (1)

01000011011101000111 (868998) | about 6 years ago | (#22964072)

I do have a minor issue with your post (and yes, I'm already waiting for the offtopic mod, dont care, wanted to put in my opinion on the side topic ;) ):

It's not a perfect analogy, but it seems to me a pretty reasonable attempt to do something, involving the right people - users of web sites and admins of web sites - without stomping all over everyone else's use of the Internet.
As a parent to a rather smart 3 year old, and with another 2 on the way currently, I can honestly say that website users and admins of web sites are *COMPLETELY* the wrong people to be doing something...

1) Most paedophiles are people the children in question already kno... So how does a website monitoring anything help anyone?
2) Be a good parent. Keep an eye on what your kids do online... hell, I was a little tearaway when I was younger on a 56k modem... Im going to be getting teh internets logged as soon as my son gets his own pc, if for no other reason than to teach him that people are always watching you, and to give him the challange of breaking the protections I've put in place... Might keep my brain fresh with the challenge too.
3) And I kno this sounds dumb, but *IF* your kids are going to hang out on myspace e.t.c. educate them to the dangers - dont give out personal info e.t.c. blah blah blah... If they're old enough to be getting unfettered net access they're old enough to understand if properly explained why giving some_random_n00b their full life story, address, school timetable and regular bus routes is a *BAD* idea...
4) One minor problem with this system - throw away email addresses along with latency used for signing up to sites. Pedo A could validly create a new email address, inform the police/whoever and as soon as his fone was back on the hook click submit on myspace... then fone the police back up "Oh sorry, I made a typo giving you my new address, its abcDe not abcEd @ blah.com" - who wants to bet the change wont be registered and passed on, and viola - he now has a myspace/facebook/whatever account...

Re:Amazed (5, Funny)

Tim Browse (9263) | about 6 years ago | (#22964362)

and viola - he now has a myspace/facebook/whatever account...

Not to mention a stringed instrument!

Re:Amazed (1)

pipatron (966506) | about 6 years ago | (#22963124)

I'm amazed it's taken this long before any of the ISPs have spoken out

AFAICR, the Swedish ISPs have been saying this from the beginning.

Re:Amazed (1)

Dan541 (1032000) | about 6 years ago | (#22969936)

Today Jaqui Smith, some brainless minister in the British government, is suggesting ( yet again ) that all paedophiles should register their e-mail addresses with the police and not be allowed to register on chat rooms with those addresses. She says she is in discussions with ISPs to police this. She is too stupid to realise what she is asking for and too moronic to understand palming her inability to convict people and lock them up should not be palmed off onto commercial entities who have no business whatsover doing her policing for her.
That stupid bitch has obviously never heard of hotmail.

~Dan

The heart of the issue (1)

devnullkac (223246) | about 6 years ago | (#22962600)

BPI chief executive Geoff Taylor:

At the heart of this issue is ensuring that creators are fairly rewarded in the digital age...
No, the heart of this issue is who gets to decide when a creator has been wronged and what the penalty for that wrongdoing should be.

Talk Talk: bit torrent throttlers (3, Informative)

sjwest (948274) | about 6 years ago | (#22962682)

If you read the customers of talk talk tales of woe site http://talktalkhell.wordpress.com/ [wordpress.com] you will note that wow players (uses b/t) are penalised since they use b/t and are so deemed bit bandwidth eaters and bad for his business. Dunstones attempts at running an isp mean that most consider his first enterprise talk talk a failure, his next venture was to buy aol in the uk.

Re:Talk Talk: bit torrent throttlers (2, Informative)

Tony Hoyle (11698) | about 6 years ago | (#22962884)

They're a bottom end ISP. The kind of people who are their target customers surf a couple of times a week and maybe send email... hence they're extremely cheap, but their service is crap when compared to others.

They're going for publicity here - good for them. I don't think they're really standing up to anything.. ISPs are reluctant to do the kind of thing the BPI is asking without a court order anyway, so it's all noise right now.

If the government tried to legislate that ISPs are effectively censors of the internet there would be a bit of a stink. Not least from the ISPs themselves who could suddenly become liable if illegal downloads/kiddie porn/etc. were found on their networks.. at the moment they're no more liable than the post office or british telecom are for these things.

Re:Talk Talk: bit torrent throttlers (1)

sjwest (948274) | about 6 years ago | (#22963116)

It depends how they sell that 'bottom end' I'm quite sure a serpent tongued salesman would claim it had no restrictions other than say a quota which they would describe as 'huge'.

Re:Talk Talk: bit torrent throttlers (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 years ago | (#22963386)

WoW...

Anyway, i never had any bandwidth problems for the time i have been with them (and i torrent frequently)
If they don't provide me with the same speeds that i was getting when i was with BT (on average they are the same anyway), then i shall just sue their ass half way across the world and back.
I win. Well, i will win, oh, i will win.

Everything just comes back to BT in the end. 2009, hurry up, i want area updated!

Phorm (2, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 years ago | (#22962712)

It's worth noting that Carphone warehouse/ Talk Talk are the only ISP to confirm a true opt-out from Phorms profiling. Phorm claim that the cookie based opt-out is sufficient but that prevents users receiving targeted ads, it doesn't affect the **cough** unlawful interception **cough** profiling. As for their position on disconnecting P2P users, kudos.

Perhaps if the BPI and friends weren't so stupid and greedy, this situation would have never arisen? There is a discussion to be had concerning renumeration for "artists" or anyone who traditionally relies on royalties as a major part of their income. I see no reason middlemen like the BPI, RIAA and friends should be relevant to that discussion.

Is it not also a matter of privacy? (5, Insightful)

ewrong (1053160) | about 6 years ago | (#22962812)

It's a bit like asking the post office to open every single letter they deliver to check whether they have any illegally copied DVDs or CDs in there.

Re:Is it not also a matter of privacy? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 years ago | (#22964248)

please don't give them any ideas

Re:Is it not also a matter of privacy? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 years ago | (#22965738)

Shh, don't give them ideas!

Re:Is it not also a matter of privacy? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 years ago | (#22967182)

Not really. If a web surfer tis connecting to thepiratebay, then that can be identified pretty trivially. In fact the whole site can be blocked for all the ISPs users.
Copyright infringement is against the law, and this ISP is a UK company. They may not like it, but some bars don't like the public smoking law, it doesn't mean they can just decide to ignore it.
This company will either change its mind, or be sued into oblivion, as they should be.

Music Industriy must be astonished (1)

pembo13 (770295) | about 6 years ago | (#22962878)

I can only imagine the people in charge over there emailing the lawyers and asking them what it means that the ISP is refusing to do what they want, and if they're even allowed to say no.

HELL YES (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 years ago | (#22962986)

I am glad someone finally spoke out, even more so because i am WITH TalkTalk!

What these idiots want ISPs to do is pathetic, it is NOT their responsibility to police the customers.
If the internets start getting policed, why not sales of adult material in stores?
Most shopkeepers are perfectly fine with giving stupid kids cigarettes and alcohol and other adult materials, OH MAI THE HORROR.
Hell, i even saw a video of it, i could get a shopkeeper jailed because the idiot let 2 kids record them on phone selling them cigarettes

Screw the music business, either you learn to adapt to the internet or kindly GET THE HELL OUT!

Also, if you haven't already, sign this petition!
Open Internet Petition [pm.gov.uk]
E-mail/mail/phone/harass everyone you can about this, we can't let them win!

"ISPs need to educate their users" (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 years ago | (#22963778)

Really? Just exactly how can my ISP 'educate' me?

Sheesh, AS IF we don't already know where we all stand!

Thanks, but I think I'll pass on your free re-education.

Charles Dunstone - head of TalkTalk and AOL (1)

GrahamIX (300998) | about 6 years ago | (#22963962)

As Carphone Warehouse bought the ISP operations of AOL UK, he should not only speaking for TalkTalk subscribers, but also AOL ISP customers in the UK.

Time Warner - who still operate the AOL portal in the UK - will be worried about the BitTorrents stealing their precious "Cats and Dogs" and other quality DVD releases. Interesting... could we end up with one AOL suing the other in the UK?
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...