well KOffice may be adopting this format (if it hasn't already), and StarOffice also uses it (I would consider SO a seperate project now, especially at version 2 of OO.o).
also don't forget that it may be made an ISO standard.
see my other post (click my username and look for the first post I made in this thread) for info on how PG works.
as for the effectiveness of PG:
http://www.dmeurope.com/default.asp?from=f&Artic le ID=2016
"Indeed, Akshay Patil, a student at MIT, whose paper, Identifying Sources of Spoof Files and Limiting Their Impact in the FastTrack Network, discusses the phenomenon, notes that spoofing has become a considerable problem for the FastTrack network - the network used by Kazaa - with downloaders of popular songs finding a spoof rate of 50 per cent of tracks."....
"As the spoof files come from a fairly small set of IP addresses (the record companies or anti-piracy firms, obviously), a filter that blocks files from these addresses produces, according to Patil, a *75 per cent reduction* in spoof files. PeerGuardian is a small firewall application available for download that blocks and logs connections to these addresses. The block list is maintained by users and updated daily."
a link to the MIT paper:
http://web.mit.edu/patil/Public/805project/
Lets make this clear:
1) Spoof files are used to catch sharers on kazaa, and to generally annoy people. 2) In tests an MIT student found that he was getting 50% fake files on some hits, all from a small number of IP addresses. 3) By using PeerGuardian with these addresses (long since added to the db, this project is out of date) he was able to get a 75% reduction.
Sound ok? We never said it was 100% but 75%+ (we've improved a lot since 2003) reduction is pretty good, no?
If anyone has any problems please come on IRC and myself of someone else will be glad to talk to you!
irc.methlabs.org (port 6667) #methlabs
(or click the irc link from methlabs.org)
Thanks:)
Joseph Farthing Administrator & News Editor Methlabs.org
the problem on linux is that iptables can't cope with that many ranges
the only solution would be a kernel module, but i don't have the time or skills to write that:(
anyone! please! if you can write a kernel module to block ips for any protocol with low cpu and thousands of ips please do to help the open source community!
collecting the IP addresses of people connected to a tracker does not ammount to proof of infringement. You have to actually recieve some data from them to prove they are illegally transmitting copyrighted material.:)
Joseph Farthing Administrator & News Editor Methlabs.org
PeerGuardian is based around the idea of an open list of blocklists collected from known fake files/scaners etc.
The **AAs are not very sophisticated in their searching - man scans come from a very small number of ranges.
The ranges are found by:
1) Whois searching, If we know the name of the company we can easily find them by scanning whois databases. They *have* to give their company name (eg BayTSP) so they are easy to find.
2) Log comparison. PG collects a log of every ip you connect to against the time. If someone gets a letter we get them to cross-reference the time the infringement is said to be on the letter (this must legally be included) with the ips in their log. 9/10 it is an obvious IP doing the scanning that can be found.
see our forum on this topic here: http://methlabs.org/forums/forumdisplay.php ?f=41
PeerGuardian is simply a low level firewall that blocks these ips. PeerGuardian 2 will be open source, and will update automatically.
We're also trying to make the database more open, by adding a system where all the ranges can be viewed on a webpage, and users can comment, report bad ranges, and vote on how useful a range is.
See the reviews of PG2 *closed beta* here:
http://www.afterdawn.com/guides/archive/peerguar di an_2_review.cfm http://www.p2private.org/review/
I expect PG2 to be out before the new year, but it will be out when its ready, not beforehand.
Thanks:)
Joseph Farthing Administrator & News Editor Methlabs.org
Interestingly, this does not seem to be what happens.
We (Methlabs.org and also Bluetack,co.uk who also maintain the blocklists) were convinced that this tactic would be taken - surely its obvious that this tactic would catch the tricky downloaders.
It hasn't taken place at all - at least not in any detectable amount. It seems as though the aims of the groups employed by RIAA etc is not to catch the skilled downloaders (who no doubt are discovering things like Freenet and WASTE now anyway), but to catch a few high profile light downloaders and therefore scare as many people as possible into submission.
The tactic is infact to catch as many random people as possible for the smallest amount of money. The fact is that while mass broadband connections and dynamic ips would WORK, it would also be very expensive. RIAA don't want to spend more money on searching for sharers than they can realistically make back from lawsuits.
The evidence for this is quite strong:
Whenever BayTSP (or one of the corps employed by RIAA/etc) catches someone and sends on a letter or email to warn that a user has shared a file and must stop, it always includes the exact time that the person was found (by law I believe it has to).
Now, this is how many of the ranges are found - since PeerGuardian keeps a log of the IPs that connect and the times they connected. You just have to look at the log for the date of the letter/email and find which IPs connected within a few minutes of the log.
Lo and behold you find an IP address that can be found on the Whois search as something like "BAYTSP INC." Then all we had to do was find all the aliases the groups used, and search whois databases en masse for similar names - simple detective work.
We've not found an IP yet from checking times that hasn't been obviously owned by a certain corp.
Did I mention that our software is open source? We're making the database open too.
We do intend to provide a massive dynamic webpage where you can search through the database, submit new entries, and vote IP ranges as Good/Bad - which will make the system a bit more accountable.
First though we need to finish PeerGuardian 2.
Thanks anyway for your interest anyway.:)
Joseph Farthing, News Editor & Administrator Methlabs.org
According to a study done at MIT, the PeerGuardian program, when enabled with the correct IPs (which were added long ago - this study is out of date now) - can be up to 75% effective at stopping fake files on the FastTrack network.
See here: http://www.dmeurope.com/default.asp?from=f&Article ID=2016
A very good point, i'd mod this up if i hadn't commented on this.
Perhaps you're right, but then should CDs be copy protected en masse to protect people from RIAA suits?
Should Google remove links from Chinese searches to hide links that don't work or would get the user into trouble?
Where do we stop the hand-holding and "protection" of users - where are we seriously helping people and not just treating everyone as criminals?
The Libertarian in me says that open source software should be totally unrestrictive, but the user in me says it would be helpful to warn me when I'm copying a "protected" image.
A message like "Be careful, this image is copy protected. Copying it might be illegal." could be very helpful, a bit like the messages in the Xine readme that admits that watching a DVD (with decss/libdvdcss) might be illegal in your country.
Just so long as a person can *choose* to go ahead and keep copying, but is warned about it.
Maybe that would be best to deter casual "thieves".
seriously, how is this going to affect opensource image editing?
will SANE stop you scanning these notes?
will GIMP block based on this "secret" pattern?
clearly not, as this shows. (GIMPed with SPECIMEN removed, but intentionally low res)
The protection is pretty weak if a user can get around it simply by downloading a different graphics program or a patch. Certainly a skilled counterfieter will be able to work around this.
Now, if this were hardware based, then it would be pretty formidible. You could still get around it though if you really wanted to - and don't the sort of people who are going to do this on a big scale really want to?
"Does British radio have the ad saturation problem (a.k.a. Clear Channel syndrome) that we do in the U.S.?"
Yes and no.
BBC Radio is financed through taxes (the television licence) - however if you no not own a television you can still get free radio.
Since BBC Radio is public service, there about a dozen channels (many more if you include local stations) that are both free and ad-free.
BBC Radio 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 5SportsExtra, World Service, 1Extra, Asian Network, + local variations (BBC Radio Kent or BBC Radio Southern counties for example - there are TONS of these)
other than that there are plenty of commercial radio stations which are full of inane adverts. of course you don't have to listen to those, but some are good (Virgin Radio, Classic FM)
anyway BBC 6 *rules*
!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Sorry, I formatted my last message wrong. If your gonna mod up that message, mod this one up instead! !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
alright not on the normal scale, but sattelite TV carries over 600 in the UK, and the number keeps going up.
200 of them are free.
Since the government intends to switch of analogue TV entirely by 2010, it is likely that the number of channels on the Freeview (free DTV-Terrestrial) platform will reach 60.
The key thing is this: the expansion of TV channels has the possibility of being huge, the expansion of TV networks cannot be.
If you expect the audience to be spread more and more among the number of channels, then to make money from advertising revenue you need more channels.
More capacity = more channels wanted. More chanels = less revenue per channel = more channels to get revenue. Extra choice is mainly an illusion, since the channels will still have the same budget, and so therefore the good programmes will be spread out among more channels. Expect more reality TV and reruns.
To demonstrate against what I know.
UK Analogue TV =
BBC1 BBC2 iTV1 C4 five
UK Digital TV =
8 BBC Channels: 1,2,3 and 4 News 24 and 2 kids
3 iTV Channels: 1,2 and News (also iTV 3 has been anounced)
2 C4 channels: C4, E4 (also More4 has been announced)
my point is that as more channels appear, most of them will be from networks that already operate with less channels on main tv
there is not that much more choice to be had on digital tv, just more choice as to when you view it
if this is to become the only reason for more tv channels (more time choice) then I expect once we reach about 200 channels that everyone can get (either Sattelite becomes standard, or the Freeview DTV-T gets more channels) then yes, it'll become unrealistic to offer more channels, and TV-on-demand will be the thing.
I don't know, but I like live tv, because you can discover programmes that you wouldn't normally watch but are good just by turning on the TV, and some shows will only work "live".
alright not on the normal scale, but sattelite TV carries over 600 in the UK, and the number keeps going up.
200 of them are free.
Since the government intends to switch of analogue TV entirely by 2010, it is likely that the number of channels on the Freeview (free DTV-Terrestrial) platform will reach 60.
The key thing is this: the expansion of TV channels has the possibility of being huge, the expansion of TV networks cannot be.
If you expect the audience to be spread more and more among the number of channels, then to make money from advertising revenue you need more channels.
More capacity = more channels wanted.
More chanels = less revenue per channel = more channels to get revenue.
Extra choice is mainly an illusion, since the channels will still have the same budget, and so therefore the good programmes will be spread out among more channels. Expect more reality TV and reruns.
To demonstrate against what I know.
UK Analogue TV =
BBC1
BBC2
iTV1
C4
five
UK Digital TV =
8 BBC Channels:
1,2,3 and 4
News 24 and 2 kids
3 iTV Channels:
1,2 and News (also iTV 3 has been anounced)
2 C4 channels:
C4, E4 (also More4 has been announced)
my point is that as more channels appear, most of them will be from networks that already operate with less channels on main tv
there is not that much more choice to be had on digital tv, just more choice as to when you view it
if this is to become the only reason for more tv channels (more time choice) then I expect once we reach about 200 channels that everyone can get (either Sattelite becomes standard, or the Freeview DTV-T gets more channels) then yes, it'll become unrealistic to offer more channels, and TV-on-demand will be the thing.
I don't know, but I like live tv, because you can discover programmes that you wouldn't normally watch but are good just by turning on the TV, and some shows will only work "live".
Remember Redhotant? they were a relatively big provider that tried to offer unmetered dialup access to compete with the fledgling BT intiatives. They took out a full commercial licence on an 0800 number, and users had to pay up front to connect to the network because of the huge costs the company had to pay to stay online.
However, they couldn't afford the costs BT inflicted upon them and went bust.
Around this time Freeserve (now Wannado) started campaigning to allow cheap access for connections through BTs lines. After a long time it was agreed that what BT charged was unfair, and they had to allow other ISPs to use their network at a lower cost.
Now, where as Redhotant went bust, really tiny groups like uklinux.net and Freeola can offer ADSL and Dialup connections, where as before it would be impossible.
Similar things happened with Telephone providers.
Also, what about Directory Enquiries. Ofcom recently forced BT to allow other directory enquiries businesses to run on its network, spawning a huge number of 118 XXX numbers.
Thus, more competition was allowed into the marketplace. More confusion, yes, but more competition.
So, why should a new network prevent old broadband suppliers and phone operators switching to it? They are entitled competition on the current network by law, and that wont change.
BT (British Telecom) used to be a public subsiduary of the British post office (I believe).
However, despite the fact it is its own company, it is *heavily* regulated by Ofcom, the telecom regulator.
Basicly, about 90% of UK broadband providers provide ADSL (Asymectrical DSL - meaning faster Dl that Ul) from BTs network. This wasn't the case but Ofcom forced BT to allow other networks to run on the network at low cost, and also forced BT to allow very cheap rates for commercial isps to offer unlimited 56k dialup.
Whatever network BT develop will be available to all comers, no matter which company, and this is assured by both UK monopoly law and Ofcom.
However, I think the benefits for the UK will be huge, and everyone should benefit from that, not just BT.
Think about it, a fibre based network running over the entire country, and if you RTFA you will see they are talking about linking in wit the 3rd generation mobile phone network (already IP based obviously), meaning you could have a single number for mobile, internet and "standard" phone.
I think this has been in BT's pipeline for a long time, and I personally think it will be a good thing, provided Ofcom keep up to their end of the bargain.
Oh, one thing though. Will it be encrypted, or will it be "tap friendly"?
Slashdot Mirror
"Guess I'll be adding all of Bay's IPs to my Azureus Safepeer blocklists........"
:)
If you're using either the bluetack.co.uk list, or the methlabs list from methlabs.org/sync then they are already blocked, and have been for years.
BayTSP were one of the first groups we went after, and a cat and mouse game is played everytime they get new IPs.
Have fun
Joseph Farthing
News Editor & Administrator
Methlabs.org (creators of PeerGuardian)
"the FOSS era is inevitable for operating systems."
if we look at this historically, isn't Microsoft already dead?
certainly this article makes it clear that Linux may well enter a stage where it is an accepted standard, and has crushed the previous groups.
in a way, isn't that what Microsoft already did? they were once the upstart defeating the giants of IBM and Apple. history repeats itself.
I certainly don't think we'll see the death of MS for decades, if ever, but we may just see them seriously reduced
this article certainly provides a good explanation for that, in my opinion anyway - it seems pretty clear cut. perhaps someone can refute that?
i'd be interested to hear ideas...
also don't forget that it may be made an ISO standard.
I replied to this question a while back:
have a look:)
Here
see my other post (click my username and look for the first post I made in this thread) for info on how PG works.
c le ID=2016
....
:)
as for the effectiveness of PG:
http://www.dmeurope.com/default.asp?from=f&Arti
"Indeed, Akshay Patil, a student at MIT, whose paper, Identifying Sources of Spoof Files and Limiting Their Impact in the FastTrack Network, discusses the phenomenon, notes that spoofing has become a considerable problem for the FastTrack network - the network used by Kazaa - with downloaders of popular songs finding a spoof rate of 50 per cent of tracks."
"As the spoof files come from a fairly small set of IP addresses (the record companies or anti-piracy firms, obviously), a filter that blocks files from these addresses produces, according to Patil, a *75 per cent reduction* in spoof files. PeerGuardian is a small firewall application available for download that blocks and logs connections to these addresses. The block list is maintained by users and updated daily."
a link to the MIT paper:
http://web.mit.edu/patil/Public/805project/
Lets make this clear:
1) Spoof files are used to catch sharers on kazaa, and to generally annoy people.
2) In tests an MIT student found that he was getting 50% fake files on some hits, all from a small number of IP addresses.
3) By using PeerGuardian with these addresses (long since added to the db, this project is out of date) he was able to get a 75% reduction.
Sound ok?
We never said it was 100% but 75%+ (we've improved a lot since 2003) reduction is pretty good, no?
If anyone has any problems please come on IRC and myself of someone else will be glad to talk to you!
irc.methlabs.org (port 6667)
#methlabs
(or click the irc link from methlabs.org)
Thanks
Joseph Farthing
Administrator & News Editor
Methlabs.org
there is already a linux version that imports into iptables
:P) then get the safepeer plugin - that does the same thing far better than iptables
but iptables can't cope with this many rules
if you use azerus (however its spelt
the problem on linux is that iptables can't cope with that many ranges
:(
the only solution would be a kernel module, but i don't have the time or skills to write that
anyone! please! if you can write a kernel module to block ips for any protocol with low cpu and thousands of ips please do to help the open source community!
try this link
the fact that most of us don't live in the US?
I don't know... no one has ever tried to collect logs from us - we don't keep them
its our users who have the logs.
lots of trackers *do* use our lists :)
we have a linux iptables importer for linux servers too :)
to hold up a case in court they have to actually *prove* the person is sharing the file.
/ 23 51242&tid=188&tid=123&tid=17&tid=1 06
getting a list of ips just won't be good enough without some sort of evidence
then again we have seen some stupid occasions where stupid takedown notices have been given:
http://yro.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=04/09/20
we do *check* ranges before they go in
if someone comes onto our forum and posts a range we don't just add it without any thought.
other lists may do this but we *don't*
This is very simple:
:)
collecting the IP addresses of people connected to a tracker does not ammount to proof of infringement. You have to actually recieve some data from them to prove they are illegally transmitting copyrighted material.
Joseph Farthing
Administrator & News Editor
Methlabs.org
happily:
p ?f=41
r di an_2_review.cfm
:)
PeerGuardian is based around the idea of an open list of blocklists collected from known fake files/scaners etc.
The **AAs are not very sophisticated in their searching - man scans come from a very small number of ranges.
The ranges are found by:
1) Whois searching, If we know the name of the company we can easily find them by scanning whois databases. They *have* to give their company name (eg BayTSP) so they are easy to find.
2) Log comparison. PG collects a log of every ip you connect to against the time. If someone gets a letter we get them to cross-reference the time the infringement is said to be on the letter (this must legally be included) with the ips in their log. 9/10 it is an obvious IP doing the scanning that can be found.
see our forum on this topic here:
http://methlabs.org/forums/forumdisplay.ph
PeerGuardian is simply a low level firewall that blocks these ips. PeerGuardian 2 will be open source, and will update automatically.
We're also trying to make the database more open, by adding a system where all the ranges can be viewed on a webpage, and users can comment, report bad ranges, and vote on how useful a range is.
See the reviews of PG2 *closed beta* here:
http://www.afterdawn.com/guides/archive/peergua
http://www.p2private.org/review/
I expect PG2 to be out before the new year, but it will be out when its ready, not beforehand.
Thanks
Joseph Farthing
Administrator & News Editor
Methlabs.org
Yes, a lot of trackers DO use our list.
Interestingly, this does not seem to be what happens.
:)
We (Methlabs.org and also Bluetack,co.uk who also maintain the blocklists) were convinced that this tactic would be taken - surely its obvious that this tactic would catch the tricky downloaders.
It hasn't taken place at all - at least not in any detectable amount. It seems as though the aims of the groups employed by RIAA etc is not to catch the skilled downloaders (who no doubt are discovering things like Freenet and WASTE now anyway), but to catch a few high profile light downloaders and therefore scare as many people as possible into submission.
The tactic is infact to catch as many random people as possible for the smallest amount of money. The fact is that while mass broadband connections and dynamic ips would WORK, it would also be very expensive. RIAA don't want to spend more money on searching for sharers than they can realistically make back from lawsuits.
The evidence for this is quite strong:
Whenever BayTSP (or one of the corps employed by RIAA/etc) catches someone and sends on a letter or email to warn that a user has shared a file and must stop, it always includes the exact time that the person was found (by law I believe it has to).
Now, this is how many of the ranges are found - since PeerGuardian keeps a log of the IPs that connect and the times they connected. You just have to look at the log for the date of the letter/email and find which IPs connected within a few minutes of the log.
Lo and behold you find an IP address that can be found on the Whois search as something like "BAYTSP INC." Then all we had to do was find all the aliases the groups used, and search whois databases en masse for similar names - simple detective work.
We've not found an IP yet from checking times that hasn't been obviously owned by a certain corp.
Did I mention that our software is open source? We're making the database open too.
We do intend to provide a massive dynamic webpage where you can search through the database, submit new entries, and vote IP ranges as Good/Bad - which will make the system a bit more accountable.
First though we need to finish PeerGuardian 2.
Thanks anyway for your interest anyway.
Joseph Farthing,
News Editor & Administrator
Methlabs.org
According to a study done at MIT, the PeerGuardian program, when enabled with the correct IPs (which were added long ago - this study is out of date now) - can be up to 75% effective at stopping fake files on the FastTrack network.
e ID=2016
See here: http://www.dmeurope.com/default.asp?from=f&Articl
A very good point, i'd mod this up if i hadn't commented on this.
Perhaps you're right, but then should CDs be copy protected en masse to protect people from RIAA suits?
Should Google remove links from Chinese searches to hide links that don't work or would get the user into trouble?
Where do we stop the hand-holding and "protection" of users - where are we seriously helping people and not just treating everyone as criminals?
The Libertarian in me says that open source software should be totally unrestrictive, but the user in me says it would be helpful to warn me when I'm copying a "protected" image.
A message like "Be careful, this image is copy protected. Copying it might be illegal." could be very helpful, a bit like the messages in the Xine readme that admits that watching a DVD (with decss/libdvdcss) might be illegal in your country.
Just so long as a person can *choose* to go ahead and keep copying, but is warned about it.
Maybe that would be best to deter casual "thieves".
will SANE stop you scanning these notes?
will GIMP block based on this "secret" pattern?
clearly not, as this shows. (GIMPed with SPECIMEN removed, but intentionally low res)
The protection is pretty weak if a user can get around it simply by downloading a different graphics program or a patch. Certainly a skilled counterfieter will be able to work around this.
Now, if this were hardware based, then it would be pretty formidible. You could still get around it though if you really wanted to - and don't the sort of people who are going to do this on a big scale really want to?
"Does British radio have the ad saturation problem (a.k.a. Clear Channel syndrome) that we do in the U.S.?" Yes and no. BBC Radio is financed through taxes (the television licence) - however if you no not own a television you can still get free radio. Since BBC Radio is public service, there about a dozen channels (many more if you include local stations) that are both free and ad-free. BBC Radio 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 5SportsExtra, World Service, 1Extra, Asian Network, + local variations (BBC Radio Kent or BBC Radio Southern counties for example - there are TONS of these) other than that there are plenty of commercial radio stations which are full of inane adverts. of course you don't have to listen to those, but some are good (Virgin Radio, Classic FM) anyway BBC 6 *rules*
!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Sorry, I formatted my last message wrong.
If your gonna mod up that message, mod this one up instead!
!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
alright not on the normal scale, but sattelite TV carries over 600 in the UK, and the number keeps going up.
200 of them are free.
Since the government intends to switch of analogue TV entirely by 2010, it is likely that the number of channels on the Freeview (free DTV-Terrestrial) platform will reach 60.
The key thing is this: the expansion of TV channels has the possibility of being huge, the expansion of TV networks cannot be.
If you expect the audience to be spread more and more among the number of channels, then to make money from advertising revenue you need more channels.
More capacity = more channels wanted.
More chanels = less revenue per channel = more channels to get revenue.
Extra choice is mainly an illusion, since the channels will still have the same budget, and so therefore the good programmes will be spread out among more channels. Expect more reality TV and reruns.
To demonstrate against what I know.
UK Analogue TV =
BBC1
BBC2
iTV1
C4
five
UK Digital TV =
8 BBC Channels:
1,2,3 and 4
News 24 and 2 kids
3 iTV Channels:
1,2 and News (also iTV 3 has been anounced)
2 C4 channels:
C4, E4 (also More4 has been announced)
my point is that as more channels appear, most of them will be from networks that already operate with less channels on main tv
there is not that much more choice to be had on digital tv, just more choice as to when you view it
if this is to become the only reason for more tv channels (more time choice) then I expect once we reach about 200 channels that everyone can get (either Sattelite becomes standard, or the Freeview DTV-T gets more channels) then yes, it'll become unrealistic to offer more channels, and TV-on-demand will be the thing.
I don't know, but I like live tv, because you can discover programmes that you wouldn't normally watch but are good just by turning on the TV, and some shows will only work "live".
alright not on the normal scale, but sattelite TV carries over 600 in the UK, and the number keeps going up. 200 of them are free. Since the government intends to switch of analogue TV entirely by 2010, it is likely that the number of channels on the Freeview (free DTV-Terrestrial) platform will reach 60. The key thing is this: the expansion of TV channels has the possibility of being huge, the expansion of TV networks cannot be. If you expect the audience to be spread more and more among the number of channels, then to make money from advertising revenue you need more channels. More capacity = more channels wanted. More chanels = less revenue per channel = more channels to get revenue. Extra choice is mainly an illusion, since the channels will still have the same budget, and so therefore the good programmes will be spread out among more channels. Expect more reality TV and reruns. To demonstrate against what I know. UK Analogue TV = BBC1 BBC2 iTV1 C4 five UK Digital TV = 8 BBC Channels: 1,2,3 and 4 News 24 and 2 kids 3 iTV Channels: 1,2 and News (also iTV 3 has been anounced) 2 C4 channels: C4, E4 (also More4 has been announced) my point is that as more channels appear, most of them will be from networks that already operate with less channels on main tv there is not that much more choice to be had on digital tv, just more choice as to when you view it if this is to become the only reason for more tv channels (more time choice) then I expect once we reach about 200 channels that everyone can get (either Sattelite becomes standard, or the Freeview DTV-T gets more channels) then yes, it'll become unrealistic to offer more channels, and TV-on-demand will be the thing. I don't know, but I like live tv, because you can discover programmes that you wouldn't normally watch but are good just by turning on the TV, and some shows will only work "live".
the current 3G cell network here (where its implemented) is fast and reliable. thats based on IP. Whats the problem?
Well, lets look at the case studies.
Remember Redhotant? they were a relatively big provider that tried to offer unmetered dialup access to compete with the fledgling BT intiatives. They took out a full commercial licence on an 0800 number, and users had to pay up front to connect to the network because of the huge costs the company had to pay to stay online.
However, they couldn't afford the costs BT inflicted upon them and went bust.
Around this time Freeserve (now Wannado) started campaigning to allow cheap access for connections through BTs lines. After a long time it was agreed that what BT charged was unfair, and they had to allow other ISPs to use their network at a lower cost.
Now, where as Redhotant went bust, really tiny groups like uklinux.net and Freeola can offer ADSL and Dialup connections, where as before it would be impossible.
Similar things happened with Telephone providers.
Also, what about Directory Enquiries. Ofcom recently forced BT to allow other directory enquiries businesses to run on its network, spawning a huge number of 118 XXX numbers.
Thus, more competition was allowed into the marketplace. More confusion, yes, but more competition.
So, why should a new network prevent old broadband suppliers and phone operators switching to it? They are entitled competition on the current network by law, and that wont change.
BT (British Telecom) used to be a public subsiduary of the British post office (I believe). However, despite the fact it is its own company, it is *heavily* regulated by Ofcom, the telecom regulator. Basicly, about 90% of UK broadband providers provide ADSL (Asymectrical DSL - meaning faster Dl that Ul) from BTs network. This wasn't the case but Ofcom forced BT to allow other networks to run on the network at low cost, and also forced BT to allow very cheap rates for commercial isps to offer unlimited 56k dialup. Whatever network BT develop will be available to all comers, no matter which company, and this is assured by both UK monopoly law and Ofcom. However, I think the benefits for the UK will be huge, and everyone should benefit from that, not just BT. Think about it, a fibre based network running over the entire country, and if you RTFA you will see they are talking about linking in wit the 3rd generation mobile phone network (already IP based obviously), meaning you could have a single number for mobile, internet and "standard" phone. I think this has been in BT's pipeline for a long time, and I personally think it will be a good thing, provided Ofcom keep up to their end of the bargain. Oh, one thing though. Will it be encrypted, or will it be "tap friendly"?