Posts by Commswonk 1777 publicly visible posts • joined 3 Sep 2015
Probably stuff like point to point connections without going through much infrastructure, which can be quite handy for the emergency services.
That falls so far short of what TETRA offers now that it really isn't worth considering. In fact it falls well short of what the legacy radio systems that TETRA replaced provided. "Quite handy" simply doesn't cut it.
BT? Too keen to watch their bottom line and crush small business
Yes; that's capitalism, red in tooth and claw. I'm not saying it's right, but it is just a fact of life. By way of other examples, Ford would probably dearly love to be able to put General Motors out of business, or Costa do the same to Starbucks.
As to putting the USO on Openreach... the problem would remain. Other bits of BT could carry out the arm twisting to ensure that Openrreach was able to meet its obligations.
Having said that, you stated Openreach as the infrastructure provider; exactly what infrastructure? Does anyone know exactly where the change of "ownership" actually is? If it's where the local cable goes through the exchange wall then Openreach's "ownership" doesn't actually extend all that far.
She insisted that a decision has to be "a conversation in a different part of the forest" as to the one around what Openreach's future governance should look like.
For myself I would have had great difficulty in hearing that actually said without (a) openly sniggering, and (b) deciding that whoever said it should be completely ignored.
Furthermore (having thought about this since this article appeared) I have arrived at the conclusion that for any organisation (in this case BT) to accept having a USO placed upon it for the provision of broadband it could only achieve it if it had complete control of the chain, and that complete control would be lost if BT and Openreach were divorced from one another.
How could BT fulfil the requirements of a USO if it did not (one way or another) control that part of the chain between the main network spine(s) and the final customers? It could be held hostage by the "local end provider" (for ease of understanding called Openreach) which (because it was not itself subject to the demands of a USO) could drag its feet and not provide unless the hamstrung provider (BT) paid a premium for its (Openreach's) services. That would have the immediate effect of forcing up broadband prices for BT customers and (very likely) downgrading the services available to other "providers".
I am not trying to argue that the existing structure and its operation are perfect, but it has become too much of an article of faith for a lot of people that completely separating BT from Openreach would be a cure - all for the perceived shortcomings of Britsh broadband provision. It could all to easily finish up being worse.
Chinese proverb: Be careful what you wish for, in case you get it.
Disclaimer; I never worked for BT.
I find myself wondering how EE is going to be able to operate an ESN if it doesn't have sufficient spectrum to be able to do it effectively.
I wonder if they thought of that before they decided to get involved...
Having said that spectrum above 2 GHz raises path loss questions, which raises cell spacing questions, which raises questions about the overall viability of the proposal.
An AC wrote: No, I don't think it's going happen on time either (just for the record).
My version reads: No, I don't think it's going happen on time either (just for the record).
Quite apart from the network engineering that is required there is the not small matter of portable and vehicle equipment manufacturers designing suitable equipment and getting it manufactured in sufficiently large quantities. IIRC TETRA was fully tested (albeit on a much smaller scale) before any seriously big and costly decisions were made, including some major trials on Jersey. After quite a long time there was a carefully phased roll - out (over many months) across the UK with separate networks operating in different counties (i.e. force areas) before there was a "big bang" to change over to everyone using the same MNC.
This "plan" seems to be based on the idea that it will all somehow just "work", and as doubtless everyone on this forum is painfully aware big projects don't work that way.
Does anyone know if there is actually a coherent specification drawn up against an equally coherent User Requirement? And has anyone actually trialled any equipment against that specification?
If I cut it off from the wifi - what happens?
Why not ask for a copy of the contract making obligatory for your mother to have broadband for the benefit of the electricty supply company? On whom does the contractual liability fall if for any reason the broadband service fails?
What you describe sounds extremely dodgy. IMHO a formal complaint ought to be made, rather than just flagging it up on this forum.
And the then Chris (now Lord) Patten was named Fatty Pang by Hong Kong's population when he was Governor; if Wikipedia is to be believed this nicknaming was done "affectionately". I certainly don't remember any diplomatic incidents arising from it anyway.
Some politicians - notably dictators - need to develop thicker skins. IIRC Super Moon even kicked off when some people started to copy his hair style. (If it can be called a "style".)
Half-moon Kim?
Full moon Kim would be closer to the mark; perhaps even Super moon Kim, given the recent astronomical phenomenon.
I think western political leaders have to be given credit for one thing if no other, and that is their ability to withstand endless lampooning by the media and the general population.
Perhaps we should rename him Mr Creosote, and hope that he experiences the same fate.
No doubt the youths lawyer will claim he has Aspergers syndrome.
It might even be true.
It will be interesting to see what the sentence is. At 17 he is unlikely to have the resources to pay any fine beyond about £10; I hope I am wrong but I suspect that whatever the sentence is it will be insufficient to deter others from trying the same thing against one corporate IT system or another.
He isn't doing much to help his case by way of the second tweet shown in the article. Doesn't exactly say he is sorry for what he has done.
Looking at the second sentence first I think that there is a genuine problem here; an apology would be an admission of guilt or wrong - doing (call it what you will) and I can't see him falling into that trap; he may have AS but he probably isn't a complete fool.
I have to agree that his second Tweet does not help his case at all; it has all the appearance at blackmail.
Then It rather shows more that you didn't read the first one very carefully ... here is a gravely "at-risk" individual yet his reasonable cries for help go more-or-less unheard or, worse, ignored
He may be at risk but (assuming for now that he is guilty) he should have thought of that before considering interfering with someone else's computer system. Carriying this to its logical conclusion would result in anyone facing criminal prosecution for anything, anywhere being able to claim that if they are hauled before a court then they will kill themselves.
Harsh as it may seem I cannot subscribe to the idea that AS should ever have the status of a "get out of jail free" card. (I nearly used the term "trump card" but realised that it would be inappropriate) If those who have AS are allowed to live as normal a life as the rest of us (e,g, with unfettered access to a computer) then they will have to accept that malfeasance has its consequences and that serious malfeasance may have serious consequences.
We are (supposedly) all equal before the law so I can see no reason (within UK law as it stands) for LL to be able to sidestep the consequences of his actions just because he has AS.
At the same time I am deeply troubled by the imbalance between the standards of prima facie evidence that has to be provided by either the UK or the US as the case may be. In that respect the UK government has, and continues to, let its citizens down.
Badly.
I've been through a number of those event. The disruption they caused. All work stopped.
Fortunately he wasn't that type of <very senior person>; "standing on ceremony" wasn't required. He was very much a "JFDI" type, which suited me / us quite well.
Once upon a time when I worked for <bit of civil service> I had an important, and fairly urgent, need to inform users of <thing> about something. (Can't recall exactly what now; it was many years ago!) and the only way I could reach them all quickly was by sending an email to "All Users" even though it would reach perhaps 500 - 800 "non - users". With an opening sentence of "if you are not a user of <thing> then you can delete this email at once and I apologise for having troubled you" or something of the sort.
I turned off Read Receipts, selected All Users and pressed Send. Two seconds later I got a rejection, so I walked 3 doors down the corridor to IT. "Ah; you don't have permission for that - you can have it but at your own risk".
What could possibly go wrong?
Back to my desk, set it all up again and pressed send. Within 10 seconds I realised my ghastly mistake; this time I had forgotten to turn Read Receipts off, and I was being bombarded with them. The bombardment was pretty intense for a couple of weeks, and some 4000 or so receipts were still coming in in ones and twos when I retired several months later, which didn't say much for the diligence with which some users checked their emails.
If nothing else it provided some innocent amusement for the IT personnel when I recounted the tale during one of the <very senior person's> Royal Progresses round his empire. On the plus side he was quite complimentary about the original email, and was as amused as everyone else about my self - inflicted misfortune...
@ Greg 24: Both request 8 digit customer ID...
In one sense that must be "common knowledge" but you have just informed those who didn't know how long the customer ID is. In a small way you have just weakened your own security along with that of countless others.
I wouldn't tell anyone how many characters I use for any User ID and (more particularly) my passwords. Make hackers find that information out the hard way.
is that misbehaving light bulbs would (will?) be a very visible but not really damaging manifestation of the current inherent flaws in the IoT concept. It should become obvious to both consumers and politicians that something is dreadfully wrong, and each group can in its own way apply pressure to those who peddle both the concept and the hardware. The possible reputational damage to Philips (or whoever has the use of the name) ought to be sufficient for remedial action to be more or less inevitable, and it might just wake the politicians up sufficiently for them to realise that legislation will have to be enacted to enforce a much greater degree of user protection*.
I think we have to be realistic and accept that the IoT, daft as it is, is with us and is likely to spread considerably before anything is done to make it anything even resembling secure. Televsion advertisements for one system or another are becoming more commonplace, and (sadly) there will be an awful lot of people who fall for the idea that their lives will be more complete and rewarding if they can fiddle about with their domestic appliances using their fondleslabs some distance from home.
Their gullibility is breathtaking; to (slightly) misquote H L Mencken Nobody ever went broke underestimating the intelligence of the public.
* How effective this can ever be is uncertain, given that systems that are supposedly secure clearly aren't when subjected to a determined attack.
Quite so.
We are disappointed that Walgreens filed this lawsuit. Over the years, Walgreens consistently failed to meet its commitments to Theranos," Theranos said in a statement.
"Through its mishandling of our partnership and now this lawsuit, Walgreens has caused Theranos and its investors significant harm.
Theranos seems to have lost sight of the fact that if someone puts $140million into your company your commitment to them is at that point greater then theirs to you.
Also called "the man who pays the piper calls the tune".
yes yes, my geographical knowledge is a bit sketchy when it comes to the north-east. Correction shortly to be applied
Er... that's more than a "bit" sketchy; Chester (et al) and thus RAF Sealand is actually in the north west of England, or at least it was last time I drove past it.
Of what exactly, coming out of the right vagina that got impregnated by the right cock?
I may sound prudish, but it really is not based on that; how I wish I could unread the above.
As far as I am concerned the "Beckham" would be an ideal name for an SI unit of vacuous pointlessness.
Those hiring them, on the other hand, can't do that because the whole point is to bring in customers victims and you can't do that if you liquidate your company.
FTFY
It would be interesting to know just how many "spam generators" are actually working for legitimate companies, with the rest operating on their own behalf for whatever reason (for which the term scam generators may be more appropriate) or for companies that are as dodgy as they are.
At the risk of stating the obvious be very wary of those claiming to be carrying out "lifestyle surveys" (not covered by the distance selling regulations, and therefore (IIRC) not "banned" under the TPS) because they can all too easily be followed by marketing calls to which you "agreed". One of those coming in to Chez Nous is likely to get an abrupt variant of "I am not interested in this call" which in turn is usually followed by a reprimand from Mrs Commswonk "they're only trying to make a living".
<steam from ears>
While I fully understand why you asked the question there is the point that it would result in an awfully large number of people being forced to make alternative banking arrangements at the same time. At that point the FCA would come in for a lot of stick from said people.
Furthermore, it would cause additional pressure on other banks, possibly resulting in errors arising in transferred accounts; cue more complaints.
In all fairness we don't know the extent of Tesco Bank's culpability in all this, so talk of pulling its licence seems rather premature.
Disclaimer: I am not a TB customer.
"finance people only like to plan for what's actually going to happen,"
Finance people should never, ever be allowed to run a business; advise those who do - fine, but beyond that... no.
Quite apart from that an attack on a corporate IT system is going to happen; the only unknown is when. A hospital IT system is simply too tempting a target for a hacker to ignore.
why did no-one realise that the carrier would need to operate cargo aircraft and tankers to support the fighters, and they would need cats and traps to be useful?
Because they don't operate that way. If you want to prove me wrong please identify the countries that operate aircraft carriers that can handle cargo planes and tankers, along with the names of the ships themselves.
As it is, the only way to ship cargo, spares, mail, and crew to the vessel is by helicopter, which limits the range it can operate from land based support.
Er... no. Do a search on "Replenishment at Sea" for some clues about how it is done. For the Royal Navy the role is fulfilled by Royal Fleet Auxiliaries; see the relevant Wikipedia page.
The logical endpoint of Admiral's idea is that if anyone doesn't have a "social media" profile* then they don't get car insurance, or that any insurance is at an unaffordable premium. What next? No job? No mortgage? No holiday booking?**
On the plus side it might drive people off social media. And be the death knell of the growing narcissism of selfies.
* OK I know it seems improbable.
** Admitted to getting a bit pissed one Friday and the airline won't touch a booking from you. And neither will the hotel.
Q1 Are our procedures sufficient to protect us from hostile action?
A1 Er, no..
Q2 But that's what we're paying you for! Are you saying that you aren't up to the job?
A2 Er... it's not like that...
Lord Sugar (for it is he): You're fired!
Alternatively...
Q2 What is needed to make us totally secure?
A2 Er... I'll ask one of my team who knows the answer.
Lord Sugar (for it is he): You're fired! And on the way out tell the person who actually knows that he (she) is now Head of Security.
On balance it is not in the least surprising that security execs are outwardly confident that nothing can go wrong. To quote Donald Rumsfeld "they don't know what they don't know".
I dream of all the selfish cunts in this world suffering unimaginable pain in the next or even better instant retribution.
Part of me agrees wholeheartedly with this; another part feels that the sentiment is inherently, er, selfish.
Selfishness is one of the greatest malignancies blighting the 21st century and if there is a god then it's failing to wipe out the selfish.
Sadly that does appear to be true; hardly a day goes by without my seeing a parent effectively teaching offspring that it's OK to be selfish - not by words but by example. I doubt if I will ever hear the words "have some consideration for other people" ever again.
Moments before Hammond, who chairs the Cabinet’s cross-department cyber-security committee, had listed high-profile cyber attacks against other nation’s critical infrastructure.
I'd have more confidence in this committee if it was chaired by a cyber security expert, not the Bean - Counter - in - Chief.
In October defence secretary Sir Michael Fallon said Britain had used cyber warfare against ISIS as part of the bid to retake the Iraqi city of Mosul.
And telling the world and his dog about it helps how, exactly? He would have done better if he'd kept completely schtum. His announcement is, IMHO, a breach of basic security.
@ Doctor Syntax...
I really would like to agree with you but I suspect that you are being over optimistic. Every consultation would start with the words "Who are you, and why are you here?" There would be no notes from previous consultations available; no letters from GPs referring patients for initial consulations or anything. No means of issuing / recording prescriptions for action by the hospital pharmacy - nothing.
As if that was not bad enough, post consultation notes written down for uploading later would result in a backlog that would have to be dealt with along with the "new" material from the next clinic, possibly resulting in one patient's notes being confused with another and so on. I could easily envisage both administrators and clinicians being in a complete funk in case there was a serious lapse that resulted in misdiagnosis, misreporting, inappropriate treatment and so on. The endpoint of that is claims for medical negligence; in the worst case it could even lead to increased patient mortality.
As long as A & E could keep going I can see that cancelling everything else would be seen as the least worst option.
TalkTalk's head Dido Harding has previously said the company would like to roll-out FTTP to 10 million homes across the United Kingdom by 2025.
I think this actually means "TalkTalk's head Dido Harding has previously said the company would like someone else to roll-out FTTP to 10 million homes across the United Kingdom by 2025."
I really, really would like to know how Matt Hancock's ambition is going to be brought to fruition. Neither BT nor anyone else* can be told to provide a mass roll - out of fibre in the hope that customers are going to buy the service. Like it or not BT (and OR if it is separated) is a plc with a board that answers to the shareholders, who by and large are the big pension funds, insurance companies and so on. They would be up in arms if they had any reason to suspect that their returns might be impaired by an orgasm of capital investment that had been enforced with no certain return on a sensible timescale.
I cannot see a full fibre system being sold to users at the same price as (say) the current FTTC rates; it would make no economic sense whatsoever; it might never actually generate any meaningful return. What will happen? Will FTTC services be ceased so that users have to take FTTP at a greatly increased monthly cost or do without?
It's fine for businesses to want FTTP (or whatever name the minister likes) because it is not them that actually pays for it; as with all their other bills the money comes from their customers. Domestic users don't have customers and a full fibre system that was rolled out to "all" but was only used by business users would simply not pay for itself.
But then this is politician meets technology; the results are rarely if ever pretty.
* "Anyone else" in this context means any of the existing service providers; if HMG wants to set up its own company - not owned by shareholders - then all well and good... apart from the fact that it would then be us all as taxpayers that were funding the losses.
ain't all bad, £12 a month you can have unlimited 8MB/s on EE
That ain't all that good either. For less than twice your £12 I have >40MB/s via FTTC from BT; OK it's not unlimited but the limit is far, far more than I ever need.
I also have a "Three" dongle for internet access when I am away from other forms of connectivity for the laptop and while I don't expect a PAYG dongle to be "price advantageous" the performance I get is, frankly, crap. That, I suspect, is at least partially down to the incoming signal rarely exceeding - 90 dBm, but my location is determined by factors that I cannot control.
Fast it definitely ain't. I might go as far as to say "if you want high speed internet don't rely on getting from the cellular network.
We deeply regret these system and process failures. We are completely focused on serving our customers: everyone who works for us is expected to do their utmost to meet our customers' needs, day after day, and act quickly and efficiently if something goes wrong.
"We deeply regret not getting away with it" would have been shorter, snappier, and a lot more accurate.
Can I suggest that El Reg runs an annual competition for the least credible management statement following some corporate blunder?
"As is our normal practice, there will be a full review once normal services are restored. The review will confirm the root cause(s) of the problem," cameth the mea culpa.
What? No "Lessons will be learned"?
On top of which "As is our normal practice..." makes it sound as though this is not exactly a rare occurrence.
The Register 
Biting the hand that feeds IT
Copyright. All rights reserved © 1998–2024
