4 posts • joined 14 Nov 2007
Thanks guys, corrections noted and comparisons duly withdrawn!
I stand by my view that the passing of this act is not ORG's *fault* though, something Andrew seems to feel it is.
I think its a bit disingenuous to claim that the grotty bits of the bill survived because of ORG's failure to put up a decent opposition. As has been pointed out above, the main opposition to the photographers was an overzealous police force, whereas ORG had pitted themselves against the combined might of a trade organisation well-versed in the art of lobbying, plus Peter Mandelson himself, who wields such an influence over his party that it fell to only a few rebels to vote against the bill. Also, I don't really get any sense that the ISPs were relying on ORG to win this one on their behalf.
ORG did run a fairly lacklustre campaign that had its fair share of forehead-slapping moments, but I don't think you can accurately claim that they are responsible for the bill passing as is. Obviously Andrew's disdain for ORG and its overall agenda is well publicised, and I'm with him on a number of points, but I think he's overstating their role in this ballsup.
Fed up of this "Twitter's great / Twitter's crap" dichotomy.
As with pretty much everything else, it's a tool. If you find it useful / entertaining / functional then use it. If not, don't.
I find Twitter's detractors as irritating as its evangelists; it's not "the future of communication" but neither does it deserve the enraged hand-wringing it seems to get in these threads. As with all communication tools stretching back to the invention of writing, the balance of profundity and banality depends on the user, not the tool itself. I have found as much useful information on Twitter as I have "going to make a cup of tea" dross. I'm highly amused by the thought of us all sitting around in animal skins, bemoaning the latest cave painting: "some people do not have a pathological need to stay informed 24 hours a day about how you've speared yet another bloody buffalo."
Not a bad service, couple of key problems
I've been with Tiscali TV since the Homechoice days, and in my experience it's a really good service (although I can't vouch for people who've signed up since the Tiscali takeover). Reliable broadband + good value TV package + impressive on-demand content = happiness.
It does have, however, an image problem in that nobody I've spoken to really understands what the service is and requires an explanation, which is fairly crucial. If I was in charge of marketing, I'd put "Cable TV down your phone line! No dish! No holes in the road!" at the top of every poster; as it stands, it's rather oblique as far as the not-we are concerned which means the public are slow to pick up on the genuine advantages that this service has over both cable and satellite.
Also, there's a number of key features that have been "coming soon" or unofficially promised for a while now but which seem to be suffering from indefinite hold-ups e.g. HD service, PVR, etc. The pricing and content is already pretty compelling, but these other functions are pretty crucial in selling this service to the public IMO.