BS: Tech: UK Broadband Limits

Subject: RE: BS: Tech: UK Broadband Limits
From: JohnInKansas
Date: 28 Jul 11 - 07:32 PM

The articles I looked at - which wasn't all of them - seemed to be more concerned with charges billed for use above some alloted bandwidth, rather than with any limiting of connections.

In the US there's been lots of contention over whether providers can legally "charge extra" for high bandwidth users, and/or whether they have a right to control how much an individual can download (most excess use is downloading movies?); but so far as I've seen there's been no official ruling here about what's legal and what isn't.

The imposing of "extra charges" in the US appears to have been implemented by a number of download servers and/or internet providers; but any "permission to do so" is only based on "if you're making lots of money you're a friend of the Party and we won't let them bother you," so it is to some degree sort of "political."

The articles linked are NOT ABOUT THE POLITICS. They appear only to report service quality and charges for the services used, so far as I can tell.

John

Subject: RE: BS: Tech: UK Broadband Limits
From: Richard Bridge
Date: 28 Jul 11 - 05:48 PM

It's just more politics - rather like the UK Newzbin copyright case pursuant to which BT was ordered to adopt a filter "Cleanfeed" that they have been using for at least three years(!) which blocks access to proscribed sites and gives a "404 not found" error in stead and (IMHO) logs the user. Fine and dandy when used to block kiddieporn, more contentious when it blocks copyright infringment (compare YouTube and Google Video running like rabbits for "mere conduit" protection under the DCMA and pirates abusing DCMA counternotices) but freaking alarming if (what am I saying? "if"? - hollow laugh) when it comes to political censorship.

Subject: BS: Tech: UK Broadband Limits
From: JohnInKansas
Date: 28 Jul 11 - 05:17 PM

News reports I've received include a flurry of articles about "UK broadband limits," with some articles apparently being specific to mobile broadband but others appearing to apply to all or other kinds. Headlines indicate concern about a "lack of understanding" among UK users of what the limits are and how much they can add to the cost of keeping in touch.

While my past work in the company of UK greenies indicates that using "lack of understanding" and "UK" in the same sentence is oxymoronic (nudge, wink, grin) I'm not sufficiently informed (or interested?) to assess whether such limits exist or whether they should be a concern in the UK.

One article, 20% of Brits are unaware of mobile download limits appears to have information that might be of interest to some UK people.

The subtitle of the linked article is "58% prefer to use a handset to surf the web" which appears to indicate "they" aren't too different from "us." Since it has been claimed that 90% of all the money in the world is in a one sq mile area in the center of London, perhaps the claim in the article that "Furthermore, 43 percent admit they never check their bill to see if they have been charged for excess data use" just indicates they don't need to be bothered; but it was my understanding that 90% of all that (90% of all) money belonged to only 1% of the people in the same area, so it's hard for a peasant to quite see how so many can just ignore the bills. I don't see it as a particular "cultural difference" between UK and US, though, as I never understood the large percentage of US people who have no idea what they spend.

A particular reason for the link is that this article also has a number of additional links in the sidebar that appear to offer quite a bit of comment on this subject and on "generically related" things. One with the header "Cost of mobile broadband up to 1333 times fixed services" particularly caught my eye as a "possibly interesting" bit of information. (My noting the article may indicate a real cultural divide as no reporter in the US could have resisted saying "1333 times more" which is so illiterate and offensive that I'd have ignored the article completely.)

Perhaps if someone who is more interested can explain why (or if) there is this sudden concern with "broadband limits" in the UK the rest of us might know whether or not we should also be interested?

Note: One sidebar link at the above linked article indicates "Ofcom: Average mobile broadband speed is 1.5Mbps." Anyone interested might want to compare the recent article noted elsewhere that reports Ofcom: UK's average actual net speed is 6.8Mbps. That the UK actually has an agency that reports such information does indicate a cultural distinction, since US agencies appear to intentionally suppress all "official comment" that might let people know what they're doing for the big money. The comment at the link, that "Ofcom also revealed the gap between advertised speeds and actual broadband speeds has also increased" does indicate that a few universal truths still exist.

(Even if the subject is boring, isn't it a good break from talking politics? Or is it just more politics?)

John