kharma45 said:Infinity can suck my dick, they've it turned on in half my village but not the other half, bastards.
The haves and have-nots - clearly a sinister social experiment at work here.
kharma45 said:Infinity can suck my dick, they've it turned on in half my village but not the other half, bastards.
Its definitely worth it, just for the fact you will be saving money (at least £10 a month) and wont lose any services that you currently use.SmokyDave said:I really need to look into it today. I've been on phone / tv / broadband forever and I don't think I'm getting a great deal (£45ish, I think?). I just couldn't be arsed to call up and change it. I don't actually watch TV outside of iPlayer and some 4OD stuff and I virtually never use my landline, it's just there for call centres to hassle me on.
I think I'll call tonight, drop phone and TV and then go for 50 or 100mb upgrade.
Skys broadband is great, i was with them before i switched to infinity.kharma45 said:Be keen! Sky's LLU Broadband Unlimited service is great, stable as hell and great speeds, plus truly unlimited downloads and no throttling at all.
Dead Man said:Why are the ISP's expected to enforce a law?
If it is illegal, surely that is the responsibility of the police?
The police can't do a thing, we've got squatter's rights man.Dead Man said:Why are the ISP's expected to enforce a law? If it is illegal, surely that is the responsibility of the police?
I... don't understand your analogy.gerg said:Because they provide the public with the means to access these services?
Not that I'm for this kind of censorship, but isn't this just like saying "If it is illegal to sell cocaine, isn't that the responsibility of the police? Why should newsagents be expected to enforce this law?"
So... Could a book publisher sue a photocopy manufacturer to get them to stop selling photocopiers to certain people? I just don't understand how it is the ISP's responsibility in any way.BGBW said:The police can't do a thing, we've got squatter's rights man.
Taking individuals to court over this is technically a civil matter so there will be no police involvement.
coolcole93 said:You people talking about your 100mb's and your Infinitys are making me sick. None of that sci-fi shit in this here village, just good ol' fashioned 10mb (i usually get around 1 on a good day) broadband. ;_;
Dead Man said:I... don't understand your analogy.
All good.gerg said:Sorry, yeah, I'm tired. It doesn't work.
They fear that now that one site has been blocked this will make way for other sites to be blocked, especially as the Digital Economy Act had dodgy wording that people feared could lead to censorship also.Furret said:Why are people comparing the prevention of piracy with censorship?
I don't understand.
Meus Renaissance said:BT is a Tier 2 ISP. Tier 3 providers, such as BeThere, Sky Broadband, O2 and Virgin are customers of BT; they use BT's network infrastructure and local exchanges (although have their own equipment in these exchanges). I always thought that the targeting of BT by the anti-piracy groups was a calculated tact to try and impose these changes throughout the entire country without having to take each individual ISP to court.
BGBW said:They fear that now that one site has been blocked this will make way for other sites to be blocked, especially as the Digital Economy Act had dodgy wording that people feared could lead to censorship also.
operon said:day the internet died, next stop blocking website we don't agree with next
zomgbbqftw said:Yup. This is the problem with the DEA. Labour enforcing more stupid censorship, I hope the current government have more sense and see where this road leads to and repeal the stupid law.
Count me in.SmokyDave said:This is the one time I'm proudly proclaiming my membership of Virgin-GAF.
operon said:day the internet died, next stop blocking website we don't agree with next
Meus Renaissance said:BT is a Tier 2 ISP. Tier 3 providers, such as BeThere, Sky Broadband, O2 and Virgin are customers of BT; they use BT's network infrastructure and local exchanges (although have their own equipment in these exchanges). I always thought that the targeting of BT by the anti-piracy groups was a calculated tact to try and impose these changes throughout the entire country without having to take each individual ISP to court.
FlyingTeacup said:thought the tories are more pro-business than labour?
zomgbbqftw said:Also more pro-civil liberties, along with the Lib Dems. Labour have always been the party of authoritarianism with their 90 day detentions, ID cards and DNA databases. Clegg needs to get on with the Great Repeal act instead of fannying about with Lords reform that will amount to nothing.
Furret said:What are you talking about?
What does censorship have to do with stopping people stealing things?
Is there an example in the UK of this sort of ban leading to censorship or are you all just secretly upset that being a thief is going to get that little bit harder?
Ronok said:I believe this is the first ban of this kind... Of course there isn't going to be a prior example. :-/
Furret said:What are you talking about?
What does censorship have to do with stopping people stealing things?
Is there an example in the UK of this sort of ban leading to censorship or are you all just secretly upset that being a thief is going to get that little bit harder?
Furret said:So why are you all making these ridiculous statements about it being the end of the Internet?
operon said:It's not going to get harder and will achieve little in the way in which they hope it will but forms a dangerous precedent. Theres plenty of site out there that poeple can use to pirate stuff and people can easily get around this
censorship and this in no way will stop thieves in no wayFurret said:So what's the dangerous precedent then? Trying to stop thieves or failing to do so?
One would have apply the same logic there, surely. Oh wait, one makes a lot of money.marvelharvey said:Next up: BT blocks YouTube.com
Furret said:So why are you all making these ridiculous statements about it being the end of the Internet?
Furret said:So what's the dangerous precedent then? Trying to stop thieves or failing to do so?
marvelharvey said:Next up: BT blocks YouTube.com
Ronok said:So you should only worry about something after it's happened?
Furret said:You should only worry about something if there's any reason to suspect it will happen.
Which doesn't seem to be the case here.