Posts by Commswonk

Re: Another lost opportunity

putting him behind bars would be kind of pointless since it was a victimless crime and he isn't a threat to society.

I don't doubt that I will attract a few downvotes by asking this, but by what logical process did you make the above statement? Admittedly others have suggested more or less the same.

The original article included this passge:

According to prosecutors, Shames developed malicious software, known as a keylogger, that allowed users to steal sensitive information, such a passwords and banking credentials, from a victim’s computer.

Shames sold his keylogger to over 3,000 users who, in turn, used it to infect over 16,000 victim computers.

How can it you argue that it was a "victimless crime" and that "he isn't a threat to society"? I'll concede that he didn't constitute a threat like being a suicide bomber or releasing nerve gas in the underground but wilfully embarking on a course of action that resulted in over 16,000 computers being infected can hardly be reduced to the level of stealing a few apples from someone's back garden.

What honourable purpose did he think he was serving by developing and selling such a product, particularly as he reportedly engineered it so that antivirus software would not spot it?

Re: Good enough for me.

The point is to have them stop false advertisement, enforcing some basic honesty...

An particular pet hate of mine is the "Closing Out Sale " signs that appear in shop windows, usually on paper or card coloured to injure the eyeballs of passers - by.

WTF is a "Closing Out" sale? I wish I had to the courage to march into the offending premises and ask that very question, in a very loud voice.

Re: Eh?

I have been thinking "Eh?" for different reasons.

Firstly a "technical" customer would or should have been aware of whether or not FTTC cabinets had appeared in the locality; if they hadn't then it would be unlikely that FTTC was available. They are hardly difficult to spot, after all.

Secondly if it was known that the existing service gave something around 18 Mb/s on ADSL then the area in question would be unlikely to be a target area for BT to put in FTTC in the first place; with 10 Mb/s being a sort of standard for a USO why would it?

I do not seek to exonerate BT's mis-selling in any way, but I get the feeling that the customer in this case was not as savvy as he perhaps ought to have been.

Re: Hmmm @Commswonk

That is something I'd rather not consider, especially not when I hope to get a good night's sleep, starting shortly. The "MyBackDoor" tag doesn't help either. :)

Re: I wonder how the higher ups avoided the blame?

From the article: The US wants to prosecute these men, none of whom are members of Volkswagen’s management board, in its own courts. They are mid-level engine development and quality management techies

Another straightforward case of "deputy heads will roll..."

Surely the ones being indicted would give up the names of those C level execs and board members who approved this scheme?

We can always hope: might just be worth stocking up on popcorn.

I bet I could knock on every house on my street and not one person would even know how to access their router even if they wanted to. I bet not one of them would have heard of Mirai or know what DDoS means.

Any why should they exactly? I doubt if many doctors who asked their neighbours what ankylosing spondylitis was would find many who knew the answer without looking it up. I wouldn't expect my neighbours to know what an EEPROM is but it would reflect badly on me for expecting them to know, not badly on them for not knowing.

As it happens I agree with your assertion that it should be up to the router manufacturers to produce properly secure equipment with sensible written instructions, but I'm not going to hold my breath.

Re: UK Loves VW

Meanwhile the UK government does nothing.

Anyone know what the "official" penalty in the UK is for cheating the emissions regulations? I don't, and I suppose that it is not impossible that the penalty is, er, not much.

I suspect that HMG is keeping its powder dry as a bargaining chip for the Negotiations That Must Not Be Named, rather than upsetting the German government and industry before The Article That Must Not Be Named is signed.

HMG may be content to allow VW owners to pursuse VW in a Class Action, although not being a lawyer I'm not sure what its substantive basis will be. Fraud? Maybe, but I have a feeling that unless owners can demonstrate a loss of some sort that idea may not work. I'm not sure that "my car does not meet its emissions specification under real driving conditions" would be seen as grounds for being compensated; where is the "loss"?

Ha; got away without mentioning Brexit!

Oh bugger...

Re: In other news...

A very large percentage of these people are not going to fork out for new/converted radios and will instead do without FM/DAB programming until they get it in the next car they buy.

Which will surely delight those programme providers reliant on advertising revenue to operate; a significant collapse in their audience.

Re: An easy first step

Can I propose any 60+ yo retiree is banned from commenting on Broadband, because their working career is over and FTTP v shitty copper 'upto' connectivity and penny pinching over cost no longer affects them.

Wrong! While I would wholeheartedly agree that "up to" speeds are dishonest, I fail to see how you can eliminate retirees from concerns over broadband costs; while the capital outlay to provide any sort of B/B may come from the taxpayer, over time that cost is recovered by selling the product to end users. Your "argument" (if it really can be called that) would force not just retirees but everyone to pay more for their service than they might be prepared to, and if customers (retired or not) decide to vote with their wallets then the entire dream of universal connectivity risks failure. I am at a loss to understand how you can suggest that the cost of broadband no longer affects retirees; the cost of more or less everything affects them*. Perhaps your argument boils down to "let's disenfranchise everyone who disagrees with me".

As it happens I have no argument with the idea that where it is reasonably practical to do so FTTP should be offered to users, but trying to flood - wire the UK with FTTP only on a "big bang" basis is a non - starter.

* I will allow commuting costs as an exception, but as a trade off we probably have to pay more for our heating because we're at home more.

Re: Putin the empire builder

They might be if they put Cameron in charge. I was not spectacularly impressed by his performance as PM.

My view reads: They might will be if they put Cameron in charge. I was not spectacularly unimpressed by his performance as PM, given what he did to eviscerate the armed forces; ditching the Harrier was perhaps the most spectacular blunder of all.

I cannot easily think of anyone less well qualified to serve as NATO Sec. Gen.

Re: Radio 4 this morning

What no one ever seems to mention is that BT's idea of fibre, even when it is run all the way, is generally some form of GPON (cheaper to install), so still a very asymmetric service that doesn't fit with the general trend (good or bad!) towards cloud-based services. Anyone tried backing up 1TB to a cloud store?

Are we to assume that the "1TB upload" requirement is business based, not a residential requirement? I suspect that it is a need that very few broadband users have, and those that do will almost all be businesses; I doubt if I have uploaded that amount in the 10 + years that we have had broadband, and Mrs Commswonk certainly hasn't. Are we supposed to fight (and more particularly pay for) a much faster service than we need (or can probably afford) so that business can have it.

I would argue that there is a clue in the figures in the article, which show about a 30% uptake of "Superfast Broadband" in those areas where it is available. That 30% suggests (to me anyway) that the demand for faster and faster speeds is not as great as some would want us to believe. How can you possibly defend the idea of a lot more capital expenditure to provide (for example) FTTP when the public demand for it simply doesn't seem to exist? I won't try to argue that nobody genuinely needs the speeds that FTTP can support but those who do have no business trying to convince the rest of us that we do as well just so that what really does appear to be a minority requirement is met.

I suspect that the 30% figure is the same one that shot past in this morning's interview on R4 between Karen Bradley and John Humphrys. He was being his usual combative self, but it was a bit pointless because an interview on the subject needs both parties to have some proper knowledge of the subject, and neither of them could exhibit that knowledge. (I have tried to find the interview on iPlayer but it doesn't seem to be there, but then I find the way iPlayer is structured "unhelpful" anyway.)

While I have no argument with planning to roll out the existing service to a greater number of people I can see no serious case for heavy investment in a faster service that an even smaller percentage are likely to want to pay for. And for all BT's perceived shortcomings I don't think it can be blamed for people deciding that a slower service than is currently available is sufficient for their needs.

Look at it another way; a manufacturer that finds that his sales are only 30% of what he is capable of producing (or even is producing) is unlikely to stay in business very long, and his shareholders are likely to be somewhat displeased. In BT's case those shareholders are likely to be institutional investors responsible for pension investments.

Re: A serious threat.

Even if the Pub has no power, they can still sell bottles of various tipples...

Have you checked stress tested your "best laid plan"? Your chosen hostelry may not have any candles (or other emergency lighting) and if their cash register is not battery backed they might be reluctant to fall back on to loose change in a cardboard box. The staff might not even be able to remember what individual drinks actually cost as the cash register (just as likely to be a PC with a touch screen these days) probably tells them automatically.

I'd hate you to repair to the pub only to find it closed.

Sales opportunity: try selling them a decent UPS.

Re: Out of State

Is there actually a politician alive who has the faintest idea what they are asking for when they pull these marvellous ideas out of their arses?

No.

Simples...

Re: Two things about UBI

Because we are British, if we are given an extra £X a month, you can bet that would quickly be accounted for in house price inflation, and everyone would be back where they started from.

That is a view that I definitely share, although it cannot be universally applicable. At the lower end of the income scale ("Living Wage", a/k/a "Not Really Managing Wage") one would have to hope that any taxpayer - provided addition would actually be spent on necessities. However, further up the scale I suspect that money supposedly provided as "child benefit" (or whatever it is currently called) definitely does contribute to house price inflation.

I was appalled a few years ago when it was decided that people earning (well?) in excess of the national average would still continue to receive child benefit / tax credit / whatever because working out how to combine parental income was "too difficult"; astonishing in a time of supposed austerity. I still cannot work out why people who earn significantly more than Mrs Commswonk and I did can still receive top - ups from taxpayers, of whom I am still one even in retirement.

Re: Why can't the EU...

AARHHG! so many grocer's...

Dear El Reg,

Please can we have "multiple upvote" button's? A X10 multiplier sound's about right.

(Sorry; I couldn't stop myself...)

Re: Prevention campaign

Yeah, let's ruin some young person's future by making an example of them.

And your alternative is...? Given the disruption and costs that a DDoS attack can cause a simple "please don't do it again" is simply but wholly inappropriate.

However the weak link in the chain is likely to be that the script kiddies are unlikely to use any of the news services where someone else's downfall is reported, and of course there remains the challenge of "I'm smarter than that so I won't get caught" mentality. IMHO there is no useful purpose to be served by going soft on offenders; it might make "you" feel better but as a service to the wider community it is self - defeating.

Re: Can some one please explain

It is also worth remembering that taking into account leave, sickness and (most particularly) shift working the number of additional call handlers on duty at any one time is unlikely to exceed about 150 out of the 500.

Government departments DO NOT want people with technical backgrounds who might ask intelligent questions...

When you said "Government" did you mean to include the Civil Service, because if you didn't then you should have! You might also have included "or provide intelligent answers".

The C/S certainly doesn't much like in - house technical experts; they are far too likely to come up with answers that are correct but that aren't in accordance with the current passing fad. An in - house expert is likely to provide a truthful answer in the full knowledge that it is less likely to come back and bite him (or her) later, and if any given scheme is given the go - ahead the in - house specialist is not going to recommend a solution that he (or she) knows he (or she) cannot make work.

The "consultant" is, of course, not restrained by the same discipline; for the in - house expert that discipline almost amounts to self - interest, whereas for the external agent self - interest might lead in an altogether different direction. Do a search on the "principal - agent problem".

As another commentard has mentioned somewhere in this thread Scotland is not the easiest place to provide broadband because of the small scattered communities; for similar reasons + the terrain radio - based solutions are equally difficult*. South of the border (not down Mexico Way!) County Councils have put money into broadband provision; I wonder if the devolved government in Edinburgh has done likewise, or is it waiting for somebody else to do that for them?

* As EE are likely to find when they try to replace TETRA.

Re: How many times?

Care to quote the bit that says it must be over copper ?

I'll come back to that shortly... I followed your suggestion and searched for "Deddington" but found nothing to enlighten me. Perhaps a more closely specified search term would help...

I very much doubt if there is any requirement for the USO to be provided over copper wire. However any suggestion that it should be done over fibre (note should not could) ignores the economic reality that to do so would require suitable terminal equipment in customers' premises, and this context "suitable" means battery - backed. Now for those subscribers who do not want the internet (and I suspect that they do really exist, albeit in diminishing numbers) this additional terminal equipment might be an unwanted embuggerance; for those with a broadband service it would require a "different" terminal to those currently on offer. In both cases, however, part of the extra would have to be a battery, which because of charging requirements would require a bigger wallwart than those currently supplied. Standby batteries, however well treated, do not last indefinitely and a replacement cycle of about 5 years would probably be necessary. If the batteries were internal to the equipment then it would require at least semi - specialist effort to replace them, whereas separate batteries might not need that, customers could easily be unhappy of they had to engineer the replacement themselves. In both cases the batteries would require specialist disposal; they must not be disposed of as and with domestic waste. (FWIW used batteries are counted as Hazardous Waste, with all that implies.)

OK; the "fibre only" approach might just about be viable on new builds of large estates, but the economics of replacing the existing copper local ends with fibre (including terminal equipment) simply don't add up outside of a truly eye - watering increase in subscribers' costs. The "battery problem" would still exist, of course. Even the new builds would have to pay more for their service because of the need for terminal equipment; that or everyone has to pay more (so that everyone is treated equally, if only in financial terms) even if they remained on copper.

The "we must have fibre everywhere; let's ditch copper" argument only works if the economic realities are completely disregarded, along with the logistic complications of ensuring that the back - up batteries were correctly managed thoughout their service life.

Re: Seems to make sense.

Your ISP has to pay somebody to answer your call, apologize for the f'up, sort out another engineer if needed...

Now my all means try to get your ISP to give you something for the inconvenience, but you're not entitled to all of what Openreach paid them.

Right and wrong in that order, IMHO. If your ISP buys from BT and then sells on to you they are buying at wholesale rates and selling on to you at retail rates. If all goes well then the difference is "profit"; if it doesn't then the costs of putting things right has to come from their mark - up.

If your BB service fails then it is you that is being inconvenienced; your ISP should meet the costs of putting things right. They should not pocket any part of any compensation paid to them by BT.

maybe even look at accelerating FTTP by setting up a company to compete with BT for last-mile connectivity

Compete to do what exactly? OK; a "competitor" installs widespread FTTP. Who provides the "electronics"? The same company? Who provides long term maintenance? The same company? It might be competitive to start with, but it finishes up being a single supplier. It would be like deciding to buy from a particular car manufacturer and then finding that you were stuck with them until the day you die.

Not a solution IHMO.

Re: PS - Streisand effect

heyrick didst write: Now the world knows Tim Gautreaux has impure thoughts. Repeat after me: forgive me father for I have sinned...

He also seems to have forgotten Numbers 32:23 be sure your sin will find you out. As did the dealership staff...

Re: Even email delivery costs money

Erratum: How can a Bieber concert sell out in 8 seconds without the bots?

There; that's better...

Re: "on the UK island of Jersey"

Any pure bred celts had long since be consigned to the corners of the british isles by the time Rome left and a lot of people would have been speaking some version of Latin.

Tu sunt rectam, amicus meus.

Re: FTTP vs FTTC

They are spending a lot of money on g.fast and FTTC, because that maximises their profits.

The investment doesn't come from thin air; mostly it came from us, either as subscribers or taxpayers. Should our investment go to propping up BT's profitability, or should we be investing in a fit for purpose network that improves the productivity and efficiency of the country.

Yes; OK; fine. An alternative scenario is that BT spends "someone's" money and invests heavily in FTTP. To get even a modest ROI that has to be sold on at a monthly cost (well) in excess of what customers are currently paying for ADSL or FTTC. What happens if the customers decide that the premium payment is more than they are willing to pay? Will BT shut down the existing services so that customers pay the higher cost or do without broadband completely?

As a residential customer (who happens to be retired) what I pay now for what I get now meets my needs, and I would take a dim view of being forced to pay (much) more so that some people get the much greater speed that they (think they) need.

I fully accept that there are users (and potential users) who genuinely need a better service than they can now get. Just stop trying to tell me that I need a faster service simply on the basis that some others do.

There is also the point that business users will always cry for the moon, safe in the knowledge that whatever costs are incurred can be passed on to their customers anyway. Their expensive broadband costs them precisely nothing.

Re: Nobody will buy them

They possess significant anti-ship and anti-land target capabilities. The BAE boats have none.

I cannot comment on the accuracy of the statement that any RN vessel is underarmed, but surely if there is a deficiency then the responsibility lies with the MOD and the RN rather than BAe.

Re: Hype

What a strange way of expressing things. The Group Call is probably the core function of emergency communications and TETRA; it is not an "additional specification" that the "emergency services need at times".

TETRA equipment was built to meet the ETSI TETRA Specification; the specification was not written so that it fitted what existing equipment could do. Any attempt to make a viable ESN by trying to slot requirements into an existing technology will almost certainly fail; the technology (i.e. the equipment) must be a logical extension of the operational requirements and the specifications drawn up based on those requirements.