Slashdot Mirror

No, but you can multiplex DAB and DAB+ together (and DMB as well, if you wanted), and dual DAB/DAB+ capable sets have been available since 2007 in the UK, so there's no reason why you couldn't migrate the stations to DAB+ first, then allow time for the sets to catch up before deprecating DAB. This is actually OFCOM's intention [PDF link], and although there are currently no timescales set on this some DAB+ broadcasts have been available in the UK for a year or two. As usual the early DAB adopters may get burnt and have to buy updated sets if they're still using them when DAB+ becomes the norm, but there's nothing new there - and it's not likely to be too many people anyway given DAB adoption rates and probable timescales.

He was accused of rape in Sweden. He fought extradition right up the UK Supreme Court where he lost. He then skipped bail and fled to the Ecuadorian embassy, the Ecuadorians being keen to tweak the nose of the US.

Now even if the Swedes have dropped charges he's still got a problem of skipping bail. So he claims to be depressed, have a bad tooth and so on.

I say let him spend the rest of his life in the Ecuadorian embassy. If he comes out, nail him for skipping bail.

It's absurd how he claims that because of his work on Wikileaks he should be immune to any sort of legal process. Even the corrupt politicians that Wikileaks was set up to expose didn't have as Louis XIV view of the privileges of their position as that.

Look at this documentary

http://vimeo.com/38670049

Nick Davies of the Guardian said

He said this was always part of our agreement, now if heâ(TM)d said that to you or somebody else it would have been a lie but he might have had some chance of being believed, but he was saying it to me. Iâ(TM)m the guy that made the agreement with him; Iâ(TM)d had multiple conversations about this agreement. He made it up, but I thought what was interesting was I think he believes the things that he invents, so when he says that to me I think at that moment he believes it which makes it worth saying. And itâ(TM)s the same when for example heâ(TM)s talking about the two women in Sweden and tries to pretend that this is all dirty tricks by the Pentagon. I think he believes it.

I think most people who get close to him goes through this process, you start off liking and trusting him and then suddenly this kind of monster appears from behind the scenes and youâ(TM)re where on earth did that come from? You suddenly discover this this extraordinary dishonest man. I donâ(TM)t, I donâ(TM)t know that Iâ(TM)ve ever met a human being as dishonest as Julian.

The Guardian said that when he was asked about redaction of the names of informants he said ""They are American informants - they deserve to die". He denies this, but look at this OfCom report and his comments on 'villagers':

https://www.ofcom.org.uk/__dat... page 115-116

Interviewer: "So come on, redactions are going on at the same time, now there is or isn't a row going on about redaction, I haven't the faintest clue whether there is or isn't...?

Mr Assange: No, there's no row going on about redactions at all....There was a group of reports where although they were not really intelligence informants there were sort of hotline tips...something called threat reports comprised one in five of the Afghan War Logs and so we held them back for a line by line redaction...But what we didn't do was redact one in five lines, putting black marker through it, we just removed them, and so it looked like we hadn't redacted everything but in fact we had redacted a fifth of all material, and this permitted an attack, a political attack, to come from The Times of London.... So The Times did a proxy war on The Guardian through us by attacking us.... So most of those names were meant to be there, it is right for them to be published, it is right to publish the names of politicians, generals bureaucrats, etc, who are involved in this sort of activity, it is right even to publish the names of corrupt radio stations in Kabul that were taking SYOPS programme content. It is also right to publish the names of those people who have been killed and murdered and who need to be investigated and it is right to publish the names of all incidental characters who themselves are not at serious and probable risk of physical harm. Those incidental characters are someone who owns a company for example is just involved in shipping operations.... So then there is the question were there any sort of villagers or so on who gave informat

Does anyone actually have a reference to an article describing SPECIFICALLY how it works? Yahoo is being REALLY vague in their press releases, presumably to keep the plebs from getting confused or concerned. (All they say is "look, easy and safe".)

Everyone here is assuming they're sending an SMS code, but the descriptions from Yahoo read like this:

> To sign in, you'll just need to tap "Yes" on the notification we send to your phone.

Are they using MMS? (Multi Media Texts?)

Is their App reading your text messages!?!? Effectively using SMS as a side channel?

You know what comes next -- heavy attacks upon PHONE COMPANIES to steal phone numbers. The creaky ancient phone system is going to bust open under this... everyone's personal phone numbers are going to get slammed on a regular basis. Rich, famous, and powerful people especially.

http://ask.ofcom.org.uk/help/t...

In the UK we have specific rules about this for broadcast TV (from OFCOM document ): http://stakeholders.ofcom.org....

A potentially harmful flash occurs when there is a pair of opposing changes in luminance (i.e., an increase in luminance followed by a decrease, or a decrease followed by an increase) of 20 candelas per square metre (cd.m-2) or more (see notes 1 and 2). This applies only when the screen luminance of the darker image is below 160 cd.m-2. Irrespective of luminance, a transition to or from a saturated red is also potentially harmful. 3.1.1. Isolated single, double, or triple flashes are acceptable, but a sequence of flashes is not permitted when both the following occur: i. the combined area of flashes occurring concurrently occupies more than one quarter of the displayed (see note 3) screen area; and ii. there are more than three flashes within any one-second period. For clarification, successive flashes for which the leading edges are separated by 9 frames or more are acceptable, irrespective of their brightness or screen area.

Nanny state or not, it makes no sense to have a set of rules for one screen and not another, within a household.

Freq assignment list for the UK here, its MANY pages into the 280 pg doc.

http://stakeholders.ofcom.org....

I'm not surprised they can't get filters right, they can't get anything right. I joined TalkTalk in December last year as the price is attractive. They are the worst ISP I have ever had the misfortune to sign up with. Go-Live dates that came and went, with no connection. Engineer visits. Incorrect billing. Horrible network congestion rendering internet use nigh on impossible during peak times. The list is endless with my woes. My 12 month contract is up in a few days and I will never re-sign with this company.

There is a reason this company has been listed as the worst ISP in the UK as defined by complaints to Ofcom (UK ombudsman) http://media.ofcom.org.uk/2013/09/27/latest-telecoms-and-pay-tv-complaints-figures-3/

My new 42" LED backlit screen consumes about 1/3rd the power (50-60W vs 140-150) of my first generation 1080p LCD, it also looks better. I probably wouldn't have upgraded if it hadn't been for a ghosting artifact caused by my HTPC menu getting burned in on the old one but now I couldn't imagine going back.

With a delta of less than 100w it will take you a lot of TV watching to come close to a break even on cost from the efficiency gain (say, 30 _thousand_ hours if you spent $350 on your tv). Efficiency is a good thing, but it is important to know the context.

Americans average 34hrs/week watching TV, so it would take 16 years (less, assuming electricity costs decrease).

British people watch less, 28hrs/week, but electricity costs more (average £0.145/kWh), so a TV costing £250 and saving 100W would take almost 12 years to pay for the saving.

My plasma TV's consuming ~350W now, with a dark sci-fi film (brighter scenes use more power for a plasma TV). The saving here would be greater: about 5 years to pay for, less since we don't just watch dark films.

Sources:
https://www.gov.uk/government/statistical-data-sets/annual-domestic-energy-price-statistics
http://stakeholders.ofcom.org.uk/market-data-research/market-data/communications-market-reports/cmr12/tv-audio-visual/uk-2.42/
http://www.nydailynews.com/entertainment/tv-movies/americans-spend-34-hours-week-watching-tv-nielsen-numbers-article-1.1162285

How the hel would we watch a movie through all the rain?

That and Ofcom was slow to adopt a counterpart to the US's Part 15 rules that allow the theater operator broadcast a movie's sound over micropower FM radio. Only in December 2006 were even personal FM transmitters legalized.

Ofcom (UK regulator) quote:

Terms used by ISPs to describe their services should also be clear. In particular, a consumer paying for ‘internet access’ should expect this to include the full range of services available over the open internet. ISPs should not use the term ‘internet access’ to refer to a service that blocks lawfully available internet services.

Source.

http://consumers.ofcom.org.uk/2011/02/product-placement-on-tv/

"Product placement in films and international programmes (such as US drama series) has been allowed on UK television for many years. From 28 February 2011 TV programmes made for UK audiences can contain product placement as long as they comply with Ofcomâ(TM)s rules."

There is no restriction on encryption in general. There IS a restriction in the amateur radio licence that states that you cannot encrypt your transmissions made under the terms of the amateur radio licence. I'm not sure what the US equivalent is, but here's the UK terms and conditions: http://licensing.ofcom.org.uk/binaries/spectrum/amateur-radio/guidance-for-licensees/amateur-terms.pdf See specifically section 11 (2).

Leigh is a weasel but he probably didn't know he was publishing 'the' key because Assange told him it would expire in hours. Also Leigh is typically technically incompetent Guardian hack.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_diplomatic_cables_leak#September_2011_release_of_unredacted_cables

On 25 August 2011, the German magazine Der Freitag published an article about it,[62] and while it left out the crucial details, there was enough to allow others to piece the information together. The story was also published in the Danish newspaper Dagbladet Information the same day.[64] By 1 September, the encrypted Cablegate file had been decrypted and published by a Twitter user, and WikiLeaks therefore decided to publish all the diplomatic cables unredacted. Their reasoning, according to Glenn Greenwald in Salon, was that government intelligence agencies were able to find and read the files, while ordinary peopleâ"including journalists, whistleblowers, and those directly affectedâ"were not. WikiLeaks took the view that sources could better protect themselves if the information were equally available.[6] The archive includes 34,687 files on Iraq, 8,003 on Kuwait, 9,755 on Australia, and 12,606 on Egypt.[65] According to The Guardian, it includes more than 1,000 cables containing the names of individual activists, and around 150 identifying whistleblowers.[66]

Leigh disclaimed responsibility for the release, saying Assange had assured him the password would expire hours after it was disclosed to him.[67] The Guardian wrote that the decision to publish the cables was made by Assange alone, a decision that itâ"and its four previous media partnersâ"condemned. The partners released a joint statement saying the uncensored publication put sources at risk of dismissal, detention and physical harm,[68] while other commentators have agreed with WikiLeaks' rationale for the release of unredacted cables.[6][69] Leigh was nevertheless criticized by several commentators, including Glenn Greenwald, who called the publication of the password "reckless", arguing that, even if it had been a temporary one, publishing it divulged the type of passwords WikiLeaks was using.[6] WikiLeaks said it was pursuing pre-litigation action against The Guardian for an alleged breach of a confidentiality agreement.

All of which raises the question of why Assange didn't make a session key for Leigh. Then if you'd need Leigh's copy and the Leigh's key to decrypt. Publishing the encrypted archive and then giving the key to someone as clueless as Leigh is morally not that far off just releasing the information unencrypted. In fact look at what Assange did when someone somewhere worked out how to decrypt - he published the unencrypted archive.

And look at this

http://vimeo.com/38670049

about 36 minutes in

Transcript here

http://wlstorage.net/file/cms/Folder%202/7.%20Assange%20Adjudication%20for%20publication.pdf

And on the Ofcom site

http://stakeholders.ofcom.org.uk/binaries/enforcement/broadcast-bulletins/obb213/obb213.pdf page 112

Mr Assange: No, thereâ(TM)s no row going on about redactions at all....There was a group of reports where although they were not really intelligence informants there were sort of hotline tips...something called threat reports comprised one in five of the Afghan War Logs and so we held them back for a line by line redaction...But what we didnâ(TM)t do was redact one in five lines, putting black marker through it, we just removed them, and so it looked like we hadnâ(TM)t redacted everything but in fact we had

Actually, software piracy is pretty minimal in the UK - at least, through personal downloading (rather than commercial-scale forgetting-how-many-computers-you-are-allowed-to-install-it-on infringement); according to Ofcom's recent study, only 2% of Internet users have illegally downloaded any software ever (compared with 6% for TV and film, and 8% for music). And as for it being free, about 85% of software that was acquired online *was* free.

That said, the study is a bit dubious because they claim only 17% of Internet users have ever downloaded computer software... I was under the impression that Firefox had a larger market share than that in the UK...

FWIW, GSM900 was never widely adopted in the UK, distributors instead preferring GSM1800. The 934 crowd never got their bandwidth back to this day.

That's not right, surely? The first UK GSM licences (Vodafone and Cellnet) were 900, followed some time later by one2one and Orange on 1800. (At university, I could always tell the people on one2one or Orange. They had loads of free minutes, but the networks were sparse and 1800 was more readily attenuated by masonry, so they had to stand outside in January to make phone calls.)

The first GSM phones in the UK were 900-only, too: if you were on an 1800 network, you needed to be sure to buy a dual-band phone.

Vodafone and Cellnet (or were they O2 by then? I forget) obtained 1800 licences quite a long time later, and added 1800 base stations too - and made a point of telling their customers that they'd get better service if they had dual-band handsets.

900 is still in use - and operators are allowed to use both 900 and 1800 for UMTS now [PDF]. How widely, though, I don't know.

Only halved? I thought these things were supposed to have a 70% reduction according to the earlier surveys. Oh wait, those surveys are complete rubbish, as is most data on this sort of thing. The surveys for how much this sort of thing would reduce filesharing are all over the place; according to the IFPI, the French version, Hadopi, would cause 71% reduction in unlawful file-sharing, whereas a ZdNet.fr survey put it at 4%. Then there was a really fun Hollywood-sponsored survey from Australia that found 74% would stop infringing - unfortunately, in the fine detail, it turned out only 11% were actually committing copyright infringement on a regular basis, so at least 15% of people don't infringe regularly, but wouldn't stop even if threatened by their ISP.

This is definitely one of those "detailed-study-complete-with-full-figures-and-methodology or it didn't happen" situations.

However, it is interesting to see that the RIANZ are claiming that half isn't enough, and that more needs to be done. It mirrors my concerns about these laws elsewhere (particularly in the UK, obviously) that they have no criteria for success or failure, nor any real way to measure effectiveness. It means that once implemented the RIAA/Rianz/BPI are free to say "This is working, so we need more!" or "This isn't working, so we need more!" or "We're not sure whether or not this is working, so we need more!" no matter what actually happens, and we're back to copyright enforcement for the sake of copyright enforcement.

Fortunately in the EU these sorts of charges to ISPs were declared unlawful, so copyright owners are being forced to meet most of the bill for the UK three-strikes program (although subscribers will have to pay an arbitrary £20 to appeal allegations made against them).

The one good thing about the UK version, though, is that the government were persuaded that, once the three-strikes law is in force, someone should actually look into whether or not such a law is needed or will do any good, so in a year or so, after over 1m letters being sent (and however many lawsuits and prosecutions), we may actually get some independent and reliable data on this whole "online infringement of copyright" thing.

[Disclaimer: I 'work' as a lobbyist in this area and am currently in the middle of consultation work on the UK version of this sort of thing - so I'm rather biased. For anyone in the UK interested in this, the Ofcom consultation is available here and closes on Thursday.]

The original webpage of the Ofcom website has no indication of that cost to make an appeal. They do however welcome feedback on this consultation: http://stakeholders.ofcom.org.uk/consultations/infringement-implementation/howtorespond/

Much like HD televisions, the majority of which until quite recently were never used with HD media even when it was available, 4G seems like something that a purchaser either knows what it is at a technical level or they are blissfully unaware of it.

Well, there was a bit of a fuss when TVs started to be sold as "HD Ready" (Example 1 Example 2 - I'm sure there are more where those came from.)

Meanwhile, like many people, I bought a TV with an integrated terrestrial HD tuner about a year before HD broadcasts were due to start in my area. When my local transmitter switched, lo and behold I got HD. I didn't get some excuse along the lines of "well, when we said HD, we didn't mean the sort of HD that was coming in your area."

Likewise, there is much talk of 4G "coming soon" to the UK. Around the time of the iPad launch, there was even talk of 4G arriving later this year (although that's fallen through). Some UK carrier sites talk of 4G coming soon (and, by the way, a quick perusal of the Ofcom website shows that, in the UK context, 4G means "LTE or WiMax" not HSDPA+ etc. as some US carriers are spinning it). So, it would have been quite reasonable to expect that an "iPad with 4G" would work with 4G when it arrived. At the time, the only way you'd know that this was not true is if you'd dug the actual supported frequencies out of the tech specs page and compared them with the proposed UK/EU 4G frequencies - that's not the sort of research you should expect to do when buying a consumer-oriented device.

Apple have since had several rounds of refinement to their small print so its a bit clearer bit, last time I looked, they still didn't come clean and say "this will not work on existing or proposed 4G networks outside of North America".

If Apple were a Mom&Pop company in the US exporting a few units to the EU this would be excusable - but when you have major distribution and retail networks in a country, and produce otherwise fully localized goods for those markets there is no excuse for selling them as "iPad with 4G*" <font size="-2">*doesn't actually do 4G in this country</font>.

Although it might not hurt Apple much, this might set a precident to dissuade other firms from selling stuff as "4G" when it isn't.

(Of course, some blame also applies to the supposedly international - but really US-centric - standards bodies who have let "4G" mean different things in different markets - I could buy my TV with confidence because the UK had got the "Freeview HD" branding sorted out in advance).

Much like HD televisions, the majority of which until quite recently were never used with HD media even when it was available, 4G seems like something that a purchaser either knows what it is at a technical level or they are blissfully unaware of it.

Well, there was a bit of a fuss when TVs started to be sold as "HD Ready" (Example 1 Example 2 - I'm sure there are more where those came from.)

Meanwhile, like many people, I bought a TV with an integrated terrestrial HD tuner about a year before HD broadcasts were due to start in my area. When my local transmitter switched, lo and behold I got HD. I didn't get some excuse along the lines of "well, when we said HD, we didn't mean the sort of HD that was coming in your area."

Likewise, there is much talk of 4G "coming soon" to the UK. Around the time of the iPad launch, there was even talk of 4G arriving later this year (although that's fallen through). Some UK carrier sites talk of 4G coming soon (and, by the way, a quick perusal of the Ofcom website shows that, in the UK context, 4G means "LTE or WiMax" not HSDPA+ etc. as some US carriers are spinning it). So, it would have been quite reasonable to expect that an "iPad with 4G" would work with 4G when it arrived. At the time, the only way you'd know that this was not true is if you'd dug the actual supported frequencies out of the tech specs page and compared them with the proposed UK/EU 4G frequencies - that's not the sort of research you should expect to do when buying a consumer-oriented device.

Apple have since had several rounds of refinement to their small print so its a bit clearer bit, last time I looked, they still didn't come clean and say "this will not work on existing or proposed 4G networks outside of North America".

If Apple were a Mom&Pop company in the US exporting a few units to the EU this would be excusable - but when you have major distribution and retail networks in a country, and produce otherwise fully localized goods for those markets there is no excuse for selling them as "iPad with 4G*" <font size="-2">*doesn't actually do 4G in this country</font>.

Although it might not hurt Apple much, this might set a precident to dissuade other firms from selling stuff as "4G" when it isn't.

(Of course, some blame also applies to the supposedly international - but really US-centric - standards bodies who have let "4G" mean different things in different markets - I could buy my TV with confidence because the UK had got the "Freeview HD" branding sorted out in advance).

this is UK law, not US law but direct from OFCOM: http://stakeholders.ofcom.org.uk/enforcement/spectrum-enforcement/guidance

"It is an offence if a person ... uses wireless telegraphy apparatus with intent to obtain information as to the contents, sender or addressee of any message whether sent by means of wireless telegraphy or not, of which neither the person using the apparatus nor a person on whose behalf he is acting is an intended recipient."

It doesn't matter if I'm broadcasting unencrypted data. If you are not the intended recipient then you are breaking the law by sniffing it.

From OFCOM: http://stakeholders.ofcom.org.uk/enforcement/spectrum-enforcement/guidance

This page is specific guidance about VHF Scanners, but cites laws regarding "transmissions" in general:

"...it is illegal to listen to anything other than general reception transmissions unless you are either a licensed user of the frequencies in question or have been specifically authorised to do so... "

and

"The services that can be listened to under the definition of general reception are:

        licensed broadcasting stations;
        amateur and citizens' band radio transmissions; and
        weather and navigation transmissions
"

It specifically says which LTE networks are supported. Is the new standard for ads now to be that only the largest print claims count?

Yes. In much or Europe that's been the standard for a while. These cases aren't tried in court where the standard is "can a lawyer prove that the ad is technically correct" but are investigated by industry regulators such as the ASA in the UK, where:

The ASA will take into account the impression created by advertisements as well as specific claims. It will adjudicate on the basis of the likely effect on consumers, not the advertiser’s intentions. (Link)

So they may also take into account what the typical customer understands by "4G" which (whatever the ITU and T-Mobile USA say) is used in Europe almost exclusively to refer to forthcoming LTE or WiMax networks - whereas HSPA+ etc. are still called 3G - see e.g. Ofcom, the UK telecoms regulatory authority:

Initial deployments of 4G will deliver a 1.2 times improvement in spectrum efficiency over emerging, high end 3G configurations (i.e. 2x2 HSPA+ 64QAM release 8). Comparing against a typical, high end 3G device on the market in 2011, such as a HSUPA release 6 1x1 handset, gives a gain of 3.3 times.

...and that's the beef: some EU countries already have 4G (meaning LTE) networks, while others (e.g. the UK) are planning them within the lifetime of a nice new iPad, so seeing a product with "iPad with WiFi and 4G" on the box in large friendly letters does imply that you should expect some future proofing in terms of coverage and carrier choice, if not speed. Even if customers aren't crying into their beer because they've found out that their 3G is just as good as current US 4G, the practice of selling kit as "4G" - in countries where that doesn't mean what people think that it means - is well worth nipping in the bud before every manufacture jumps on the bandwagon and causes mass confusion.

Oh, and its not worth shouting "Aha!" and linking to bits of the Apple website, because Apple have already made changes to the specific wording and footnotes on their international sites this subject since this fuss started.

Being a ham radio op as well as somewhat obsessed about this very subject (over-reliance on GPS), I decided to look up some stuff and see what I could find:

1. The UK's version of the FCC is Ofcom: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ofcom

2a. Here in the USA jamming is strictly verbotten by non-military under ANY circumstances: I don't even think the civie police get to use it, though I'm not 100% sure there. This is also why cell/mobile phone jamming in movie theaters and similar places that is done in some other countries is not done here.

2b. Googling "ofcom jamming laws" yields this: http://stakeholders.ofcom.org.uk/enforcement/spectrum-enforcement/jammers
In short, jamming carries "a maximum penalty of two years imprisonment and/or an unlimited fine." Note that while this section specifically talks about phones, the way it's written it's probably applicable to everything, just like elsewhere.

3. While GPS is indeed a US-DoD system, the UK and US have been real tight for a long time, so I'm sure any problems in GPS will be dealt with pretty harshly. The fact that they're putting these remote radios up all over the place must mean they're having a serious problem with the jamming as I haven't heard of any problems like this elsewhere. (Though I'm guilty of getting a disproportionate amount of my news from /., so...)

4. Outside of the jamming, GPS alternatives are Glonass (currently being rebuilt), Galileo, Baidou, and other upcoming systems (none of which are operational yet AFAIK)--all of which are satellite-based and thus vulnerable to anything that could affect things in space--and the leftovers of LORAN-C in western Europe, the Soviet equivalent Chayka, and the Soviet Omega system equivalent, Alpha--all of which are terrestrial. None of these systems are in operation anymore in N. America, so we're "playing without a net" as it were, which worries me to no end. (Yes, there are the various ILS's for planes, but what about everyone else?)

If its illegal in the UK show me the law.

http://stakeholders.ofcom.org.uk/enforcement/spectrum-enforcement/guidance

The relevant part:

It is an offence if a person "otherwise than under the authority of a designated person:

â¦. uses wireless telegraphy apparatus with intent to obtain information as to the contents, sender or addressee of any message whether sent by means of wireless telegraphy or not, of which neither the person using the apparatus nor a person on whose behalf he is acting is an intended recipient."

This means that it is illegal to listen to anything other than general reception transmissions unless you are either a licensed user of the frequencies in question or have been specifically authorised to do so by a designated person.

A designated person means:
âa.âthe Secretary of State;
âb.âthe Commissioners of Customs and Excise; or
âc.âany other person designated for the purpose by regulations made by the Secretary of State.

Google works.

And I know it's encrypted, hence "assuming it isn't encrypted which is the default".

Apparently you don't understand how the airwaves system works. The tl;dr version is that its basically like a mobile phone network in that unless you have a registered airwaves terminal, you ain't listening to squat. The encryption just adds another layer of defence. These terminals can be disabled remotely too.

Really? (Warning PDF!)

Even if they couldn't, it doesn't explain why they need to broadcast at this frequency. The only thing I can think of, is so a van can drive down the street and ask all meters around it for a reading, not only does that not solve the problem, but that's shockingly bad idea on so many levels...

The article misrepresents the Ofcom report. Here's what the report actually said:

However, in the more rural areas that the phones were tested, the feature/entry-level phones generally returned somewhat better performance than smartphones for call completion and call setup. This may be due to the reduced complexity of antenna on these devices and 2G phones not having issues in switching between 2G and 3G networks. These performance differences are likely in practice to be modest, and not necessarily a factor that consumers should base their choice of phone on.

Source: http://stakeholders.ofcom.org.uk/market-data-research/telecoms-research/mobile-not-spots/mobile-coverage-for-consumers/

They go on to say that this may be in part due to the complexity of switching between 3G and 2G and that it can be mitigated by turning off 3G in your smartphone in rural areas...construing this as "users should invest in mobile phones different than latest Smartphones" is a bit of a leap.

"Disaffected urban youth" in England are toting around Blackberries? Thatâ(TM)s not very hip and edgy.

It is if you're youth here. Smartphone brand choice (released a few days ago). 37% of smartphone-owning 13-15 and 37% of 16-24s have a BlackBerry.

(My theory is they're either cast-offs from mum/dad, probably from business, or stolen. BlackBerry Messenger is popular, although I don't understand why, when things like MSN were popular before and work on all phones.)

BlackBerrys are just popular among teenagers in the UK. I know more people with one than I do with an Android phone (and they weren't second hand or stolen, but brought). BlackBerry Messanger is particuarly popular, probabaly becuase it is a free version of text messaging (in the UK, you don't get charged for recieving a text message, only sending it. Historically, lots of teenagers prefer texting to calling their friends, and the BBM is an upgrade of this - free and can be sent to groups apparently).

"Disaffected urban youth" in England are toting around Blackberries? Thatâ(TM)s not very hip and edgy.

It is if you're youth here. Smartphone brand choice (released a few days ago). 37% of smartphone-owning 13-15 and 37% of 16-24s have a BlackBerry.

(My theory is they're either cast-offs from mum/dad, probably from business, or stolen. BlackBerry Messenger is popular, although I don't understand why, when things like MSN were popular before and work on all phones.)

BBM is popular because it doesn't come out of any data allowance as such, if you have BIS then you can message as much as you like.

In addition, it's very easy to add new contacts, all you need is an 8 hex digit PIN. And since Blackberries have better battery life than most phones this stuff keeps working for a long time. Simple as that.

"Disaffected urban youth" in England are toting around Blackberries? Thatâ(TM)s not very hip and edgy.

It is if you're youth here. Smartphone brand choice (released a few days ago). 37% of smartphone-owning 13-15 and 37% of 16-24s have a BlackBerry.

(My theory is they're either cast-offs from mum/dad, probably from business, or stolen. BlackBerry Messenger is popular, although I don't understand why, when things like MSN were popular before and work on all phones.)

It does matter. If you knew what Ofcom was, you'd not say such a ridiculous thing.

Their front page says "You can pay your Ofcom invoices online" "> Pay here".

And where there's a process with lots of money flowing through multiple hands, it always comes with free, pre-installed Greed&Corruption(tm) add-on.

at least the terminology is already US-based, pg. 14 explains the changed wording from 'cognitive devices' to 'white space devices' with

In the US the term WSDs has become common usage and we see no value in having different terminology for the same device.

A rational and straight-forward motivation issued by a public authority? I'm *shocked*

I stand against the Fairness Doctrine because I see it as an adjustment to free speech. I'm not claiming it blocks free speech but I see it as detrimental because it partially instructs broadcasters what to present. On top of that, I think it's a little shortsighted and subjective in how it aims to enforce each broadcaster to pose all sides of the issue.

Mainstream television & media companies aren't individuals, they're multinational conglomerates with vested interests and the ability to manipulate opinion to favour those interests. I see nothing wrong with holding them accountable to some standard of ethics and fairness. Britain has broadcasting standards for television & radio (but not newspapers) and it results in a higher quality of news and less partisan reporting. Even the virulently right wing Newscorp is relatively impartial with Sky News. That should be seen for what it is - a good thing. It doesn't stop news outlets having opinion pieces or interviewing politicians but generally it is done in a manner which is neutral or offers equal time for an opposing view. It also means politicians of all persuasions get a grilling from heavyweights like Paxman, Boulton etc. who'll put the boot in regardless of the person they're interviewing.

The cell site's lat/long is public information. :) http://www.sitefinder.ofcom.org.uk/ (UK) http://emf2.bundesnetzagentur.de/ (Germany)

The cell site used for the call is needed so that when there is a disagreement, as in "I wasn't in that city, there's no way I could have made that call", they can provide all of the information needed to resolve the problem, such as showing that you were registered in another city entirely at that time.

Additionally, it seems they've got legislated data retention rules, but they have typically been based around the existing retention policies the carriers have in order to avoid having to pay the carriers (like the US govt pays carriers for legal intercept).

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Telecommunications_data_retention

In other words, cell towers aren't secret, and if you don't want to have your data retained, talk to the government, not the carriers.

just wanted to state that the table in TFA has a few numbers without context and with minimal detail - that's just useless.

So click on the "full research can be found here" link near the bottom of the piece and read the 132 page report if you want the details.

I think you may have been listening to BT's marketing department too much if you think the problems lie with Virgin not upgrading their network, being oversubscribed, or offering poor performance.

Last week's Ofcom report on broadband speeds

I've made a complaint to the ASA [asa.org.uk], and I suggest any other UK residents reading this do the same.

My mistake - that should've been Ofcom (or perhaps Consumer Direct), not the ASA.

I'm pretty sure it is, but more due to licensing fee's. While I'm not sure about how landline fee's work, 3g networks in the UK were bought a while ago (in 2000) 2 and now each spectrum is owned by certain companies. Now I don't think they are as limited in their power over their networks (like in broadbands case) which could let them charge more, a lot more, for their usage. Combine this with the fact that they need to build, maintain and power cell towers (which I'm guessing is more expensive then landlines) and you have a recipe for expensive mobile internet. That and the technology for decent 3g internet speeds is newer so they are going to want to charge to recoup their fee's for the upgrades needed to get were they are now.

Not if you're in the UK. Provided you don't disclose the call to a third party, you can record telephone calls without informing the person you are talking to.

http://www.ofcom.org.uk/static/archive/oftel/consumer/advice/faqs/prvfaq3.htm

Can I record telephone conversations on my home phone?

Yes. The relevant law, RIPA, does not prohibit individuals from recording their own communications provided that the recording is for their own use. Recording or monitoring are only prohibited where some of the contents of the communication - which can be a phone conversation or an e-mail - are made available to a third party, ie someone who was neither the caller or sender nor the intended recipient of the original communication. For further information see the Home Office website where RIPA is posted.

Do I have to let people know that I intend to record their telephone conversations with me?

No, provided you are not intending to make the contents of the communication available to a third party. If you are you will need the consent of the person you are recording.

There's also something fishy in Baldock.

Another useful tool is http://www.sitefinder.ofcom.org.uk/ - from the regulator, this shows the exact position and type of base stations (cell towers) in the UK, for all networks apart from T-Mobile. The user interface is a bit annoying and only worked on Internet Explorer, but the data is very useful, particularly for external antenna planning.

3.6mbps is the national average in the uk, including rural areas, and the uk is far from broadband leader.. http://www.ofcom.org.uk/media/features/brspeeds

The BBC article seems to be actually reporting on this Ofcom "Draft Initial Obligation Code"

Summary: http://www.ofcom.org.uk/consult/condocs/copyright-infringement/summary/

Full document: http://www.ofcom.org.uk/consult/condocs/copyright-infringement/condoc.pdf

The document says "We welcome responses to this consultation by 30th July 2010."

Also, the OP says "Music and film companies will then be allowed access to the list, and be able to decide whether or not to take legal action."

The full consultation document clarifies this somewhat saying:

ISPs will have to keep a record of the CIRs [Copyright infringment reports] linked to each subscriber along with a record of which Copyright Owner sent the report. A Copyright Owner can request an ISP to provide them with relevant parts of those records on request, but in an anonymised form to comply with data protection legislation. This is called a Copyright Infringement List.

The BBC article seems to be actually reporting on this Ofcom "Draft Initial Obligation Code"

Summary: http://www.ofcom.org.uk/consult/condocs/copyright-infringement/summary/

Full document: http://www.ofcom.org.uk/consult/condocs/copyright-infringement/condoc.pdf

The document says "We welcome responses to this consultation by 30th July 2010."

Also, the OP says "Music and film companies will then be allowed access to the list, and be able to decide whether or not to take legal action."

The full consultation document clarifies this somewhat saying:

ISPs will have to keep a record of the CIRs [Copyright infringment reports] linked to each subscriber along with a record of which Copyright Owner sent the report. A Copyright Owner can request an ISP to provide them with relevant parts of those records on request, but in an anonymised form to comply with data protection legislation. This is called a Copyright Infringement List.

I don't read anything in the article that says person-identifying data is hidden / kept in a separate, inaccessible list until a court orders such data be handed over.

ofcom's website says exactly this:

ISPs will have to record the number of notifications sent to their subscribers and maintain an anonymised list of alleged serial copyright infringers.

Copyright holders can then request information on this list and pursue a court order to identify serial infringers and take legal action against them.

Via the proposed OFCOM list on one hand we have people suspected of infringing copyright and on the other hand we have proof of ISPs monitoring, recording and invading the privacy of citizen upon a nationwide scale. That diseased myopic organisation is proposing that private corporations have the right to monitor and record every action of their customers. What next those tin foil hatters, cameras and microphones in cable TV boxes to monitor people in their homes, compulsory mobile phones that cannot be turned off and can be activated by OFCOM memebers to monitor suspect activity.

There is absolutely no way an ISP should be aware of what a customer is doing on the internet, it is none of their fucking business. They provide a service, the transmission of data at the defined bandwidth via interconnected services. It is not their place to intercept record and, monitor private communications of their customers.

That POS http://www.ofcom.org.uk/ organisation is proposing the trappings of a totalitarian corporate state, where corporate masters will monitor all your and your families digital communications for anything "THEY" deem to be infringing upon their profit and control humanity. I find it disgusting to see how readily greedy socipaths will sell away the freedoms and rights of their fellow citizens and even their future descendent all to line their own pockets and feed their ego today, basically an ideology of fuck the future I want more now, now, now.

Also, Ireland even has a shiny, new blasphemy law. But anyway;

There isn't actually a lot of money in music. People think there is, (and the large record labels would like to believe it) but there isn't. In 2009, according to the BPI's figures, the entire UK recorded music industry revenue was less than GBP1bn. That's for all their recorded music (CD sales, music videos, legal downloads, ad- and subscription-based services, the whole lot) for an entire year. A top film will make nearly that much. EMI (the UK's one, failing contribution to the "big four" - and the smallest one) made more than that in 2009 (actually, it even announced pre-tax losses of more than that; but that is more due to its screwed up investments and legal battles with its own musicians, or former musicians).

While $1bn may sound like a lot to you or me, on a corporate level, it is hardly anything - there really isn't that much money in actually selling recorded music to normal people. Normal people don't have that much money.

Moving on; yes, this will be an interesting case and will likely be hailed as a success and great progress tomorrow by the IFPI and all their little friends; in fact, it will probably be used to support their efforts in forcing through something similar under the UK's Digital Economy Act. These measures will not work for two reasons. Firstly, they won't stop file-sharing without causing a huge fuss (and likely leading to an even greater backlash against the lobbyists). There will always be loop-holes, there will always be unlicensed file-sharing while it still more convenient. Secondly, even if people stop sharing, they won't naturally move to paying for stuff (and they certainly won't be downloading from iTunes or using Spotify if their Internet has been cut off for a year).

The only people who will win here are the lobbyists (who can get nice big bonuses for getting their laws passed) and the lawyers who will be spending the next 10-15 years trying to untangle the mess it creates in the local, national and European courts. Stopping piracy through legislation and litigation isn't going to work, nor has it ever worked.

Incidentally, I am doing something to stop things like this; I am a member of my local Pirate Party and will be meeting with Ofcom (the UK's communication regulator who has been tasked with drafting - or just using the BPI's draft of - our n-strikes law) to explain to them why they will be unable to carry out the requirements made of them.

What are you doing to stop this sort of thing?

Regulation of a market only works if the regulation is free from the influence of those operating in the market; in this case, as with the Banking sector, regulation doesn't solve anything because any corporations with something to lose will simply lobby to shape the regulation to their liking.

Broadband regulation has, on the whole, worked pretty well in Europe - here in the UK, forcing BT into LLU has led to an extremely competitive broadband market and so far, every time BT have looked to take advantage of the situation, OFCOM have smacked them down. If the government hadn't stepped in, we'd be in pretty much the same situation that the US is in; Cable via Virgin Media (where available) or ADSL via BT.

You can register your disapproval with ofcom online.

Before replying, bear in mind that you're writing to Ofcom (an independent regulator), not the BBC itself, and first check out the full proposal at:

http://www.ofcom.org.uk/consult/condocs/content_mngt/condoc.pdf

The devil, of course, is in the details (which the Ofcom summary glosses over). The BBC is proposing an 'amendment' to 'Condition 6' of the current Multiplex B licence (which Ofcom has to approve). This might more accurately be described as a complete reversal of that Condition. EPG data will no longer be freely available, but encrypted. The decryption keys ('Huffman code look-up tables') will only be provided under a licence that mandates that the HD box manufacturer implements DRM, to be applied to any content that the broadcaster flags as 'protected'. It looks like the the BBC intends to require a level of DRM for most of its HD programming ('The BBC indicates in its proposal that it intends to apply the multiple copy state to the majority of its HD content.'). The even more restrictive 'managed copy' flag will be used when required; an 'unrestricted copy' flag is also available, but it doesn't look like it will get much use.

The issue of Open Source implementations is also dealt with in a deeply misleading way:

'The licensing terms for Open Source software typically require that this software is made freely available to others to use, which may be incompatible with and the licensing terms of the BBC's Huffman Code look-up tables. This issue appears to have been addressed by HD Freesat receivers that use Linux Open Source software and implement similar content management technologies'

This only 'appears to have been addressed' if you don't actually understand the issues. An HD box may well be running a Linux kernel, with proprietary software on top of it, just as MacOS runs on a FOSS XNU kernel. What the current proposal would block is any fully Free/Open Source implementation of a Freeview HD system.

Silly Slashdot comment form ate my link, here it is: http://www.ofcom.org.uk/consult/condocs/content_mngt/howtorespond/

From http://www.ofcom.org.uk/consult/condocs/content_mngt/summary/

1.9 The content management technology required to be implemented in receivers under the BBC's proposals would permit unrestricted recordings of HD content onto digital video recorders (DVRs) but would enable broadcasters to control the copying of this content onto other devices and its distribution over the internet. The HD content would only be accessible on other consumer devices which support the same content management technologies as those used in HD receivers.