Posts by SImon Hobson 2539 publicly visible posts • joined 9 Sep 2006
Am I to assume from all this that Facebook stores data on those who do not have an account with them?
Correct. It is safest to assume that they do have a highly detailed profile of you, all slurped illegally. Lets look at the ways they will have obtained that :
Firstly, there is the nagging to users to "just upload your contact list and we'll automatically invite them all to link up with you". Most users will have no clue that to upload such a list would be illegal itself, and it's just "so easy" to let FarceBork do all the work for them. So now they have (some subset) of name, phone number(s), email address(es), home address, work address(es), date of birth, date of marriage, spouse's name, and possibly more.
By powerful analytics, it's not hard to link multiple such entries - so if one person gives them you name, mobile number, home address & email, but another gives them name, mobile & work details, they can put them together.
Then there's all those websites that include FarceBork tracking stuff. They can, and do, follow you around the web - linking all (well a significant proportion of) those sites and pages you visit to some identifier. At some point you are bound to do something that will let them link this identifier to your profile - and bingo, they know who you are, who you interact with, what sites/pages you visit (and from that, what your interests are and what medical complaints you might have).
And then you have )so called) friends and family posting photos and comments that reference (and name) you. So now FarceBork have your photo and can (using face recognition) start picking you out in other photos even if you aren't named.
And yes, all this is done without any consent whatsoever. To see an example (from a few years ago), look up the details of Max Schrems case. He posts examples of the details they admitted to holding on him even without an account - and it was quite detailed.
Furthermore, there are sites where I've read the supposedly GDPR compliant page on cookies where I find advice that to opt out of such tracking I can follow a link and opt out. This falls over for two reasons: firstly it is not allowed to have an opt-out, secondly it just doesn't work if to opt out you have to create a FarceBork account - and hence both agree to the slurping and give them your details !
Light at the end of the tunnel, but basically FarceBork's business model (and a lot of Google's) is toast provided the regulators keep their nerve. In the long run, expect to see subscription options that will allow you to have "slurp free" access to services. Anything else could kill them as it's not allowed to make use of a service conditional on being slurped.
If Apple wanted to lock people in to an Apple MVNO they'd just build a SIM inside the phone, with no way to remove it except by disassembly, if that.
If they were to do that then there would be pointing fingers and people calling out "look at that, see how they're screwing the system" because it would be very blatant.
By going to an eSIM then they'd have a system where you go into iTunes on your MAC and select the carrier you want your phone to be on and your Mac will then load the eSIM with the right information. Or it might be done via your online account. The crucial thing there is that it allows Apple to sell it as a convenience feature for users - while behind the scenes it means they get to control which carriers you can select (basically the ones that pay them enough of a cut).
The biggest problem with swapping physical SIMs is simply the way that some manufacturers seem to have gone out of their way to make it difficult. Some make it as easy as popping out the tray and swapping the bit of plastic. With others you have to get the back off (that is made to be hard to get off, remove the battery, then find something sharp enough to jab into the SIM and drag it out - with reassembly being the reverse of the above.
TL;DR No, you will not persuade me that if Apple goes eSIM it's for the benefit of the users and not for the benefit of Apple.
And yet, no-one has yet mentioned the sites where they offer categories of cookies - those essential for the site to function which you can't turn off, and others that you can turn off. But, when you look at the list of "essential" cookies they are msotly anything but essential - like Google (and other) tracking cookies.
I can understand why so many are doing this - after all, many sites are entirely funded by advertising and to actually comply with GDPR fully would significantly reduce their income (or so it's alleged by the snake oil salesmen who tell the advertisers how much more valuable is a "targeted" advert). Still doesn't make it right or legal - but I can see why they'd be trying their luck.
So much of the Apple site is useless to a screen reader
There, fixed that for you ;-)
Apple's site epitomises the modern disease of form over function - the designer really doesn't care about function as long as it looks pretty. As said, small light grey text on white background might "look pretty" but is a lot harder to read than block on white in a sensible font and size.
And don't get me started on things like the *.gov.uk site where the pretifiers have taken over the asylum. Sites where the content used to fit easily on the screen now have huge graphics and acres of empty space so you have to scroll and scroll and scroll to read them.
'Teh Intarwebs' worked fine without these 'existing' (read: added) rules prior to 2009, so why appear to lose all sanity over their removal?
Because actually it was shown that the interwebs did NOT work fine. As already said, there are documented cases of ISPs being caught out abusing their position of power - knowing full well that the customer (in the majority of cases) had the choice of like it or lump it.
it was VERY clear that there was no working market and so these rules were needed. Had there been a properly functioning market then the rules would not be needed as the ISPs screwing over customers would lose customers until the fixed their ways or went bust - but there wasn't.
What's the reaction of Solicitors' Regulation Authority?
What else can they do - they are effectively a trade body, not the courts. It would be for someone (either the CPS or an individual) to start legal proceedings in court - and then the court would be able to judge what they are or aren't guilty of, and what the penalty for those crimes should be.
All the SRA can do is toss him out - which prevents him practicing as a solicitor any more.
or at least eat a one-time fine
Which is why the GDPR allows for ongoing fines, as in "here's your fine for what you'e done so far, and you also get to pay extra on top for every day you carry on doing it". At up to 4% of global turnover, that is highly unlikely to be something that even Google could ignore.
It's going to take time, and needs EU bods to stand their ground, but I finally see a hint of light at the end of the tunnel.
Me too, had servers running Debian where the only limit on uptime has been external factors - like power cuts while the UPS was dead (manglement wold pay for maintenance.) But as you say, after Wheezy - then what ? "things break" if you don't allow any of the malware (systemd). I was looking at migrating to Devuan, but my employer nixed that by making my whole department redundant and then flicking the power switch on "anything he didn't understand" - meaning anything other than a Windows server. I felt sorry for the customers who suffered from his completely predictable outages.
When I have time, I'll be migrating my home servers to Devuan - it's the future :-)
it's a 30A circuit created by using cheaper 15A
Actually, 2.5mm2 T&E cable is rated up to 27A depending on installation method - it's highest when clipped direct to a wall, lowest when buried in thermal insulation. And of course, one of the tests done by periodic inspections is to check continuity of the rings - everyone has their installations tested periodically don't they ?
SO in practical terms, if you do have a broken ring, you have two radial circuits sharing a (these days) 32A MCB and wired in 27A cable. Since apart from the kitchen it's typically hard to get that sort of load on the sockets anyway, especially for a sustained time, it's not likely to be an issue anyway. Even in the kitchen, one of the devices making up the ">27A but less than 32A"* load is going to be the kettle and that's only one for a few minutes at a time.
Actually it's not that simple. A curve B 32A MCB should pass 64A (ie twice it's rated capacity) indefinitely. It should trip within a short time (0.4s) at 160A (ie 5x it's rated capacity). Thus it could pass (say) 100A for an indeterminate time which depends on the variances between devices. The rules on cable and protective device sizing takes these factors into account. No, in practical terms, a ring final circuit (to give it it's proper name) is highly unlikely to cause a conflagration just by being split into two radials.
A second issue is that if it's just a connection come undone (the most likely cause, it's easy for a wire to come out of the back of a socket when disturbing it) then it'll only affect one of the three wires. If it's L or N then only one of the two rings is broken - so in principle you could overload the L but the N is still a ring. So the overloaded cable only has one of the two current carrying cores overloaded and it's quite likely that you wouldn't exceed a damaging combination of currents anyway.
Eg, you are pulling a full 32 amps from one leg. The L may be carrying 32A, but the neutral could be carrying only (say) 20A. The total current carried is 52A, while the cable is rated to carry 54A (27A in both cores).
If you are still bothered, then it's fairly easy to convert a ring to two radials. It's normally just a matter of splitting the ring at one point, and separating the tails in the distribution board to separate breakers which could normally be 20A or 25A (if available) - giving you the option of putting 40A or 50A of load across the now separate circuits. This would (in England) be notifiable work BTW.
almost all electrical outlet are now protects by RCD breakers so fuses are not vital any more
RCDs do not provide over-current protection - and for good measure do NOT prevent electric shocks*.
"Almost all" is not good enough - if you have any unfused sockets then the cable you plug in needs it's own protection. However, I suspect that they have radial wiring like most of the European continent and the USA - so each socket (or small number of sockets) has it's own MCB in the distribution board.
On radial circuits and unfused plugs, in theory every cable has to be rated according to the capacity of the socket it's going into - which typically means 16A in Europe. If you have a thin cable then it's not really protected against overload as it's only going to be protected by the 16A breaker in the panel.
And of course, we can have (in principle) as many sockets as we like on our rings - with one ring per breaker in the panel. Want sockets everywhere on separately protected radials ? Well that going to be a heck of a lot of cable and a heck of a lot of breakers = big panel and huge bundles of cables.
I stand corrected - it's a long time since I last set one up, and I don't recall seeing any way to avoid signing into a google account.
But you raise an important point - all those systems (Google isn't alone) where the only way to opt out of something is to sign into an online account (that you have to create, and agree to their ToS in doing so). So in order to opt out of something undesirable or even illegal, you have to enter into a contract allowing them to do it - and thus making it legal.
3 electricians stood around a lifted floor tile arguing about which wire was the blue phase. When they finally agreed it was the black wire
The old saying is red to red, yellow to yellow, and blue to bits ...
But thanks to harmonisation, what you describe isn't so far fetched - now our cabling is supposed to be brown, black, and grey for the three phase lines. It means that a blue wire in the trunking could be an old line wire (blue phase) or a new neutral; while a black wire could be an old neutral or a new phase line. And of course, when it's all aged a bit and everything looks a bit grey, and it;s covered in dirt, and your working in the darkest corner of the factory - they all look the same anyway, but the old colours were generally more discernible.
Smaller scale, at the local church the boiler has failed (or rather, been condemned). So while the weather was cold we were using fan heaters to take the chill off - about all they could do, we all came prepared and kept our coats on.
One day I get there and [name/position redacted to protect the guilty] told me that some of the sockets weren't working. WHGile I had limited the two fan heaters to 3kW total - he'd brought in a couple more and was surprised when they all went off. "But I was careful and plugged them into different sockets" he told me, meaning that there was only one socket in each double used. He just couldn't understand the idea of these all being fed through one bit of 15A fuse wire.
He was also even more amazed that I could find the blown fuse and rewire it - he couldn't do more than look and see that none of the MCBs (retrofitted into the lighting board) had tripped. Yes, the place is long overdue for a bit of upgrading !
I requested a minium of 4 access points, one in each corner of the room
And you admit to that in here ?
Unless you disable 2.4GHz on all but 3 of them then you are artificially causing congestion - and that's assuming no other APs nearby. On 5.8G you'd be alright provided they all pick/have configured different channels.
It's a myth perpetuated by people who don't understand the basics of wireless comms that adding more APs (especially in a small space) will "improve" the WiFi.
Have you noticed how bad the UI / UX is in cars?
Oh yes, all the above and I'll add ... a UI designed i such a manner that you cannot do much at allwithout taking your eyes off the road, re-adjusting to the touchscreen off to one side of the driver, stab at the various on-screen controls till you get the right page and right control, and hope you didn't hit anything or anyone while you weren't looking where you were going.
We used to have a couple of Citroen C4 pool cars at work - and they'd taken this to the extreme with (IIRC) not a single "real" control for the heating leading to some lengthy eyes off road sessions to setup the heating.
And yes, the stupid DRLs that IMO are a road safety nighmare. OK, so pedestrians will be able to see you (but naff all else). But all road users will only be able to see the DRLs, unlit hazards like ... err pedestrians, animals, something that fell off a lorry, ... all become invisible while drivers are busy seeing the distracting DRLs.
and I'm nowhere near confident that I know enough to be able to secure such a network adequately
Ah, that fallacy.
When you were at the same level of knowledge with IPv4 as you are with IPv6 now - did you have the knowledge to secure it ? No ? Well neither did I Presumably if you reckon to have that knowledge now then you learned it - so go off and learn the differences (which actually aren't that great, the principles are much the same).
<emthe "experts" were predicting we were going to run out of IPs at some time in the near future</em>
Which we did - except that some b***ard invented NAT and lots of people went "oooh shiney, that fixes things" while completely ignoring everything that it broke. If all the manhours spend dealing with the fallout of that had been spent on going to IPv6 then we'd now be asking "what's an IPv4 address ?" in the same way that some youngsters now ask "what's tape ?".
I was under the impression that NAT was regarded as a "bad thing" on IPv6
It's a "bad thing" on IPv4 as well. The problem is that so many people have never seen the efforts that have gone into working around the breakage it causes, haven't seen the countless piles of cash that (for example) VoIP providers have had to invest in proxy machines to work around how NAT breaks SIP. Not even good old FTP works without help from an ALG in the NAT gateway.
Besides, with "home" routers coming with uPNP turned on by default, your security from NAT is (while not completely useless) severely compromised since ANY device on your network can ask the router "please open wide these inbound ports for me" and get them.
So in response to the printer comment, all it takes is for ANY internal device to fake a uPNP request from the printer to the router and the printer can be accessible from the outside.
There may be things that make IPv6 "difficult" - not using NAT isn't one of them.
It appears that the engineers were not consulted and the IPv6 protocol was designed to be incompatible with IPv4 - not a good idea
And pray tell, how would you propose to create something with more address space that IS compatible with IPv4 equipment ?
Not a single piece of IPv4 kit would be capable or sending or receiving packets with (say) a 64 bit address, or a 48 bit address, or indeed any packet with other than a 32 bit address in the 32 bit field where the existing code expects to put/find 32 bits. So no, it's not going to work to say "lets fix this problem but maintain compatibility".
Once you accept that bit of reality - that whatever you do will require new code along with everything that goes with it - then most of the arguments against IPv6 really start looking rather lame. Frankly, if we're going to have to have a bunch of new code, then lets at least make a big jump so that by the time we've adopted it we aren't already having to plan the next jump !
And then a lot fo the perceived difficulty with IPv6 is actually fixing some significant problems that existed with IPv4 - but which most people, even the majority of network savvy people, don't realise are there.
And don't get me started on NAT - the millions, or even billions of man hours wasted on working around that breakage (not to mention the hardware investment in things like proxy servers) doesn't bear thinking about. Most people don't see NAT as a problem because of all those man hours spent making things work - the reason they (most of the time) don't see problems isn't because there aren't problems to be seen.
Or less efficient. v4 has a nice, fixed packet structure. So a 32bit address field. v6 uses 128bits, so 4x larger.
Nice try there - cite one feature to support an erroneous statement about another.
The thing is, there are efficiencies in IPv6 by fixing the header format as it does. For example, the hop counter is included in the CRC in IPv4 meaning that it needs to be recalculated on every hop - while in IPv6 it's excluded for efficiency. The extension headers shouldn't need to be checked for routing unless you are doing something quite esoteric and probably won't be present in the majority of traffic anyway - so they are unlikely to have any impact on routing tables.
And considering that I was using 32 bit addresses back in the days of dial up modems, adding an extra 192 bits to a packet isn't a major issue for most* users. I don't recall too many complaints that the 64 bits of source-address per packet was a problem back then, any more than the 256 bits in IPv6 is today (for most* users).
* Yes, there will always be some site somewhere stuck with a 1200/75 dial up modem**. But they are unlikely to be connecting directly to the internet and there are various proxy techniques that would allow them to carry on as they are.
** OK, suitably antique spec chosen for dramatic effect - but you know exactly what I mean.
And memory usage is not an issue either. Memory capacities have increase many orders of magnitude, and quite frankly, it's hard to find small memory chips these days that were "cutting edge" only a few years ago.
And accessing 128 bit addresses need not take longer either - as well as memory getting bigger, we've had a many-fold increase in memory widths. So a 32 bit address meant 4 accesses on an 8 bit system, 2 on a 32 bit system, and you had to be up to a 32 bit system before it because a single access. 64 bit systems are quite common these days, so still only 2 accesses. And don't forget that a lot of what you pay for in "proper" router gear (vs doing it in software) is custom hardware to do the routing table lookup and packet forwarding. So yes, new hardware required, but that's going to have hardware to handle 128 bits address in the same time (well faster now with newer silicon) as older hardware handled 32 bit addresses.
Yay, I second the suggestion to support your local independent cinema. We are lucky to have a good one in town here, although many youngsters take an attitude of "WTF !" when they find a break in the middle and a nice lady (or gent) comes out with a tray of ice creams. IMO that's something lacking in these horrible modern multiplexes.
Only one screen, so limited selection of films - but they do do it "properly" (with an interval) and I believe have gone all modern with a digital projector and Dolby surround sound (as well as the old film projector). And prices are better than Vue as well.
Reading between the lines, I assume that the ad brokers simply didn't screen the ads they were pushing - hence allowing the primary scum to use them to push the malware out. So the ad slingers are secondary scum - not actually producing the malware themselves, but taking money to do so for 3rd parties.
So we have a system where web site owners rely on third parties to provide "content" in the form of adverts in return for a share of the proceeds. OK, nothing fundamentally wrong with that IMO - it's just what every newspaper and magazine does in order to stay afloat. But these 3rd parties are not smart enough to filter out malware before serving it, presumably trusting their customers (the advert providers) who presumably "pinky swear" not to stuff anything bad in.
TL;DR version - system relying on trust fails when some actors are not trustworthy.
What could possibly go wrong there.
Icon says it all.
Actually no. For the last couple of years OR has been offering FTTP for the same price as copper on new builds above a certain number of houses. This is the original announcement I think. But it's now dropped to 30 homes or more.
Wow, thanks for those links. Interesting to read the developer instructions for copper - the fibre one seems to be a broken link. Trouble is, the number of developers who really don't give a s**t about such stuff - and I bet the guy building the one my mum looked at was oblivious to the existence of it anyway based on his protracted bungling from one "I've just found out I have to ..." delay to another. The guide clearly says to provide internal cabling for both voice and data - many provide absolutely nothing at all because they are complete tightarses working on the "how cheap can we build this and still sell it" principle. Given the pent up demand, they can build s**t and people will still buy it as it's better than having no roof over your head.
That's the sad reality - unless you are going custom build, or get in early enough to specify (and pay through the nose for) extras, or are going really upmarket then you'll get none of these 20th century "mod cons"essentials.
as they do fibre to the premise in new builds work over 30 houses provided the developer asks them to
I think you'll probably find that it should read "provided the developer pays them to". And developers are notoriously tight arsed about such things, putting in just the bare minimum they think they can get away with without actually having people turn round and say "I'm not buying a house with no running water connected" (to pick an example of something they can't get away with.)
Certainly, the house my mother was looking at buying didn't have any ducting installed on the grounds of cost - the sole allowance for communications was a single phone socket next to the TV socket in the living roomshoebox with a foot of cable sticking through the wall so the BTOR guy would be able to run a washing line from the nearest pole and down the outside of the house to it. When I questioned it, it was down to cost.
OK, only a development of 6 houses, but same applies.
Icon says what I think of the lack of forward planning that doesn't mandate all new build to have (as far as is reasonably practical) facilities for 20th century communications - expecting allowance for 21st century communications is just wishful thinking.
Why has no one mentioned Virgin and the companies that have already hooked up premises to Fibre?
That would be the Virgin that a) didn't build most of it's network, and b) doesn't connect users with fibre ?
Virgin "built" it's network by letting others do it, wait for them to go bust, and then step in and buy the network for peanuts. Since then, they've done relatively little network expansion as that costs real money. The "last mile" really is a natural monopoly in the same way as electricity, gas, water, drainage, and roads - it really doesn't make sense (logically or business wise) for multiple outfits to dig up the road and put cables in.
AIUI most of Virgin's network is FTTC just like OpenRetch's - it's just that they use coax to the premises which supports vastly higher bandwidths than the lightly twisted pairs with many poorly done joints that OpenRetch have.
Considering the big transmitters are using electricity in the 1MW region ...
Err, no they aren't, not any more - they use considerably less than when transmitting analogue.
Taking my main transmitter, WInter Hill, it transmits 6 full muxes at 100kW each - vs the four main analogue channels at 500kW each (plus C5 with less power) before digital.
OK, 600kW is heading up to megawatt territory, but overall transmit powers have dropped considerably with going digital. But then look at the catchment area served by Winter Hill, and it's not a lot of watts/person. OK, there will be times when there a lot of transmitted power and few watching, but conversely, there will be times when many millions are watching.
Compare with streaming where vast (whole bit barns) amounts of kit is needed - and on top of that the power used for the extra transmissions all through the network. Add in the "bigger pipes" put in to cope with the extra bandwidth - in general, faster pipes use more power - and you have a situation where streaming takes extra power. No I can't quantify it (I bet no-one could) but streaming is far from being a low power operation.
So yes, for a large proportion of "TV", broadcast is almost certainly the most efficient way of doing it - both power and spectrum wise.
Why don't we look at deploying the sort of smallish (100MW-class) "sealed units" that are found on nuclear powered submarines or aircraft carriers?
Well there are groups doing just that - look up "Small Modular Reactors". The idea being that you can produce the reactors in a factory and road transport them to site - sending them back to the factory (while swapping in a replacement) for "refurbishment" when they need refuelling.
The problem is, current mainstream nuclear ideology (and safety rules etc) are geared up to "big sites, big security, big safety systems" - and particularly for safety systems, there is a HUGE economy of scale for what are very expensive bits. As a result, economies of scale mean that only big reactors are going to be built, big ticket prices, big projects, big risks if it goes titsup. The price tag alone effectively means that they cannot be built without government support - there is no corporation in the world with the sort of "spare cash" to invest is such long term, high risk schemes on their own.
I'm been to a number of talks locally - hints, see if you have any engineering institutions giving public talks nearby - on the topic. On the SMR route, there ARE consortiums working on systems - basically working on passively* safe reactors that you can site in the middle of an industrial area without raising eyebrows**. The cost/unit of lecky will almost certainly be higher, but the vastly reduced capital cost, and the ability to build the civils and slot reactors in as you can afford them, ought to make them a more viable option.
* meaning either inherently or intrinsically safe - can "plug the plug" and walk away without the reactor being capable of generating conditions that might cause the containment to be breached etc.
** Of course, there will always be the "no nukular whatever" brigade that won't ever be reasoned with.
Why not just scrap the BBC licence fee and let them behave and compete like every other company?
Because by having at least one large producer of content that doesn't have to watch the viewing figures quite so tightly, they are able to make some darned good stuff. Commercial TV is effectively forced to produce an endless stream of "ad income fodder" - never mind the quality, feel the width" as the saying went.
Even if you never watch any BBC content at all, you benefit from it being there. By having some high quality content, it shows up the dross and means that the rest have to at least keep up some pretence at caring about quality.
If you want to see what an all-commercial TV setup looks like, try going to the USA. I haven't seen it myself, but you can see the effect if you watch an imported show. You can tell from the (at first) illogical "coming up"/scene cut/"now happening" comments where they would have had commercial breaks even before you've got to the opening titles. The "cold entry" mode is annoying, but just think, instead of (for say an 1 hour program) of having :
cold entry/titles/10 minutes action
ad break
further action
ad break
further action
ad break
action/denouement/credits
You would have :
cold entry
ad break
titles
ad break
action
ad break
further action
ad break
further action
ad break
further action
ad break
further action
ad break
further action
ad break
further action
ad break
further action
ad break
denouement
ad break
credits
Exactly.
At present, one of my sites (purely informational, completely static) is hosted under my own domain name using hosting that's bundled with my internet connection. They don't offer the option of hosting the same site with SSL unless I host it as something like "sharedhosting.isp.tld/myaccountname". SO to go SSL I would need to pay to host it somewhere else - so stuff you all those "but SSL is free" id10ts.
More annoyingly, the fact that it seems browsers and search engines are pushing users to the SSL enabled site that isn't - means that users (correctly) get a certificate error, and they they continue past that then they get the ISPs generic sales page and not my site.
And where I used to work, we used one of the larger UK based hosting outfits for customer sites, and no they didn't support LetsEncrypt - IIRC it was something like an extra £30/year for an SSL cert on your site.
IME most small sites are on shared hosting. IME a lot of hosting outfits do not offer free or very cheap SSL certs. Yes, there is a real £££ (or $$$ or €€€ or ...) cost in going SSL for a great many site owners.
By pissing us off with overly-stupid speed traps you're forcing us to spend our attention elsewhere. Be careful of the mayhem you invoke.
Alas, only one upvote allowed.
People with a few brain cells switched on have been saying this for years, and there is plenty of evidence of some cameras being placed to maximise revenues rather than to maximise safety. Unfortunately, it's been politicised to the point where simply questioning the system gets you labelled as a child murdering speed freak.
The car manufacturers, at great expense both fiscal and engineering (a sheet of steel would be stronger than an opening with glass in it), put this big clear window in front of the driver. So the muppets devise schemes to encourage the driver to put their primary attention on the dashboard rather than on what's going on around them.
Open Retch don't appear to have heard of "blown" fibre
They've been using it for decades - I remember them blowing fibre into my (then) workplace a couple of decades ago, and they certainly use it now. But as you point out, you have to get the tubes in first to have something to blow the fibre into - that is the expensive, disruptive, and costly part.
They can't mandate FTTP - but they could at least mandate provision for it. That would mean providing ducting into which the fibre could be pulled later - unlike many developments where that "would cost money" and so they rely on OpenReach running their usual overhead washing lines.
One small change that would, over time, reduce the cost of future upgrades (like FTTP) for newly built houses.
That’s Sky’s special guarantee
That's what Sky would like you to believe. Actually OpenRetch have a "handback speed" (based on their estimate of line length & quality) and if the VDSL connection doesn't meet that speed then it can be handed back - and you get "downgraded" back to ADSL with all the OpenRetch charges cancelled.
Interestingly, most Fibre is also broadband, because the carriers use multiple frequencies of laser light down the Fibre
Weeell, yes and no. AIUI, the bulk of FTTP provided by OpenRetch for domestic internet will be passively multiplexed - so multiple subscribers will share one fibre using FDM, with one fibre from the exchange passively split to connect multiple houses in the street. But at the customer termination, it will be narrowband suing a single frequency.
For FTTP on Demand it's a fibre PtP link (ie user to exchange) and is narrowband - simply because it's logistically easier to do it that way.
Thing is, using decent quality fibre terminated by decent quality transceivers, the distance-bandwidth product is very high and doesn't need broadband to give good speeds even over quite long distances.
No great big enterprise boxes in basements
Not needed. They can put the smarts at the "exchange" end, and all the local device needs to do is basic routing. I used to manage a campus network on a science park, fibre round the park, copper to the end users. The main router/switch really didn't need to do much at all - we just had a VLAN/customer and piped that to the right port on an edge switch. In our case we just had a /23 to the site and routed a /29 or /30 to each customer - but regardless of how the IP addressing is done, it really doesn't need a "great big enterprise box" at the customer site, even in a 200 unit apartment block.
Yes, but... realistically how many broadband consumers do buy their own?
Indeed, not many do - but some of us do. But I suspect that in most cases, FTTP would be terminated by OpenRetch's NTE - breaking out a voice service (carried as VoOP but presented as POTS) and presenting the data service over ethernet on copper.
That I would have no problem with - over the sort of lengths needed, running IP over ethernet over copper offers no restriction in data rates (gigabit ethernet will easily run around a typical house over Cat5e or Cat6).
In fact, as the network is likely to roll out, it is essential that OpenRetch have control of the optical termination. AIUI the bulk of connections will be on a passively shared fibre. This requires that each termination uses it's own specific frequency - and managing this really requires that ONE body have control over all the connected devices. While purists may complain, it makes sense to share fibres like this - the alternative is a heck of a lot of fibres going into the exchange, and while ripping copper out would leave a lot of frame space, it's going to make the network a lot more affordable.
Here in the UK we have "Bell Wire", it's what BT string to your house from the fibre cabinet
Not on any new connection in the last decade or two we haven't. The old grey twin coper-covered-steel cable hasn't been used for new installs for quite a few years now, current installs will use a round black cable containing (typically) two off twisted pairs and three off glass fibre tensile strength members.
I still agree with the result of the survey though - it's a complete flipping lie that the ISPs deliberately use to confuse the technically ill-educated masses.
It doesn't bind with all the oxygen around, it stops the fire's chemical reactions from working properly.
Correct. However, I once had a very interesting conversation with an expert in fire detection & suppression systems. He pointed out that while halon (or one of the modern replacements) does indeed stop the fire like that, if the source of heat is still there then you have big problems.
So (for example) you have a cable that's overloaded and would ordinarily be burning. Most modern materials used in electrical and IT stuff is "self extinguishing" - which means that it won't carry on burning once the energy source (heat) is removed. Incidentally, you can easily test this for (say) a bit of cable by holding it in a flame till it starts burning and then remove it from the flame - it should go out on it's own.
So now you have some PVC (where the C stands for Chloride, containing chlorine) still breaking down in the heat, but the free chlorine radicals cannot combine with the oxygen in the air because of the halon. Hmm, chlorine free radicals being stirred around (lots of fans remember) electrical equipment = lots of corrosion of exposed metalwork, especially connector contacts. So your kit isn't destroyed by the fire, but is rendered useless by the chlorine radicals attacking it.
The "self extinguishing" bit is a clue - if you remove the power then the fire stops of it's own accord. Hence by far the most effective (and cheapest) method is to just "switch it off", aka an EPO switch (linked to a fire detection system where one's fitted).
Of course, just "yanking the power" from a server room does have it's own downsides !
But on estates built since, say the '60s ... the entire telecoms network is buried.
O really ?
I think you'll find that a lot of developments even today still do not come with provision for communications. Mother was looking at a new build, and the guy didn't put any ducting in while the groundworks were being done because "it would cost too much". Read that as, "I can get away with doing nothing and BTOR will string another half dozen washing lines from the pole" - with the subtext of "I don't give a s**t about aesthetics either".
Yes, the whole development (6 houses) was an exercise in cutting corners - and I believe you'll find that it's the norm.
So IMO the first thing the government should do is to mandate that all new builds treat ducted communications provision the same way you treat gas, water, electricity, and drainage - fundamentals that are "just there". Yes I know there are places without mains gas and so on, but would you really expect a new build to have no water or lecky - and have to dig up the new drive to put them in ?
What is the implication on car tax going forward?
I'll answer that in a moment ...
But this news comes as no surprise - in fact the only surprise is that it's taken so long to come to light. It's fairly obvious that if you a) impose virtually impossible to meet targets, and b) set those targets in a very specific set of tests, then the result will be that manufacturers will game the tests. Whether this gaming is detecting when those test conditions are in effect (VW), or using the GPS to detect when you're at a test facility (Ford IIRC), or something else doesn't really matter - because the regulations do say that you have to meet those emissions under those conditions and say nothing about other conditions. IMO the fines levied on VW were unjust for the simple reason that regardless of what the press would have people believe - those vehicles DID meet the emissions regulations in the tests as laid down. That they had massively higher emissions outside of those tests is irrelevant - they DID meet the requirements of the tests.
c.f. when they introduced monitoring and league tables over hospital waiting times, and were completely shocked when the effect on waiting times became part of the decision on how to treat patients. You do have to wonder why TPTB seem unable to grasp the connection between laying down of targets and it resulting in those subject to the targets working towards meeting them !
But back to the question ...
Good question, and you have to wonder if the system would even allow for the changing of a car's status after it's already gone into it. But if an owner did get a letter saying (words to the effect of) "Nissan lied, the emissions figures were wrong, we've no re-classified your car and it will cost £x/year in future for your VED" then they'd have a case for going back to the dealer they bought it from and issue words to the effect of "we were given false information when buying this car, it's now costing us £z/year extra car tax, you will be paying that".
The dealer would be liable as the goods were not accurately described, and the customer is entitled to be put in the position of not losing anything because of the misdescription. This would be pursued through the "small claims court" (more accurately, the fast track service of the county court) but there's a limit of 6 years.
I can't see any decent dealer not covering the difference - and if it's worth the admin time, going back to Nissan for re-imbursement. More likely, Nissan would offer the owner some freebies in a "if we give you some goodies, will you go away and promise not to sue us over this in the future ?" manner.
But the chance of there being no operating tower your phone can connect to is probably smaller than the likelihood of the outage taking down the exchange your landline is connected to
As long as we're talking about the UK, then no - quite the reverse.
BT exchanges have some 'kin big batteries that will keep it running for some time, and I believe some larger ones have permanent generators present to take over.
Mobile phone towers are a different matter. They may well have batteries, but nothing like the scale BT exchanges have, and I doubt if many at all have on site generators.
TL;DR - if the power goes off, the mobile towers will stop working before the BT exchanges.
Well that's for voice, data is a bit more complicated. ADSL uses kit installed in the exchanges - so in principle ADSL will keep working as well. VDSL uses active street cabinets, so that will only keep working as long as the internal batteries last - and there's going to be no generator getting plugged into it because (like the mobile network, but on a bigger scale) there are quite a lot of them !
like everyone else, why could they not send everyone an email telling them that they need permission to share that info.
Actually, yes they could - and it would be legal. Two issues with that though - with one leading from the other.
By making it opt in (and no, it's not allowed to pre-tick the "I want to be spammed by the world" option on the web form !) it means that few will opt in. That's the first thing to keep in mind.
That leads on to: ICANN't doesn't want to do that. Firstly it means they have to adapt their policies and systems to support it - a process which they claim will take years. Secondly it means admitting that it actually is bound by outside rules/laws.
It looks very much like ICANN't have developed a real belief that they are a law unto themselves and don't have to consider what anyone else says - the comments about them having a Jobs like Reality Distortion Field seem well founded. They are suddenly finding out that this isn't the case.
that any one government or small group of them think they can grab the right to control something worldwide
Yet again, the EU is NOT doing this. ICANN't really can do whatever they like with (say) US citizens' data and the EU won't give a toss. So a US registrar, operating in the US, can sell to a US citizen not living in the EU - and the EU is not trying to prevent the registrants personal information going into whois, that's for US authorities to deal with and note that California has just passed a law very similar to GDPR.
But where (eg) the registrant is an EU citizen living in the EU, then that's different. It does not matter at all who the company is - GDPR applies and if the organisation has any presence in the EU then it's possible for the EU to fine it for GDPR breaches.
Now, lets consider an analogy - a poor one because there's physical goods involved etc. Suppose a purely EU based car manufacturer wanted to sell their cars into the US. The US authorities would say words to the effect of "sell into our market and you abide by our rules" - so the cars would have to meet US DoT regulations, have lights that work "the US way", and so on. That's not the US saying that cars sold in the EU have to meet US regs - they simply would not care - only that cars sold into the US have to meet US regs. And it works both ways - a US manufacturer has to make their products meet EU regs if they sell them into the EU.
thinking that a country or small (and getting smaller) group of them can dictate to the world...
Actually they are not dictating to the world. A registrar based in the US can demand whatever information it likes from a US citizen and publish it in whois records for the world to see - but see other comments about California having just passed a similar law. As you point out, all of that bit is none of the EU's business.
But, if the registrant (or anyone who's personal information is included in the registration) is an EU citizen, or lives in the EU, or the registrar has an EU presence - then any of these put the data collection and use within the scope of the EU regulations. But if (say) I as an EU citizen decide to register with a registrar based in the US (and with no EU presence) then that's my loss because I'd be giving my details to an outfit that I (should) know is outside the scope of the EU regulations.
If I am more sensible and use an EU based registrar, then it is illegal for that registrar to pass any of my personal information to ICANN't - and so the EU registrars are simply telling ICANN't that they are ignoring the illegal clasuses in the contract and not passing along the personal information. In other words - the EU registrars could see what ICANN't were (or weren't) doing and put their own processes in place.
It will be "interesting" to see what happens next - definitely needs popcorn on standby. The best ICANN't could try would be to cancel the contracts of any registrar not proving the information it wants - the "do as we tell you or bog off" approach. But just think of the ramifications - they'd instantly destroy the credibility of the (say) .com TLD. Just think how many (for example) .com domains the likes fo GoDaddy and Joker will have registered, and the chaos that cancelling the registrations of those domains would cause. Now I know ICANN't have some real problems with reality - but I don't even they would consider this a good move !
The Register 
Biting the hand that feeds IT
Copyright. All rights reserved © 1998–2024
