surely it's Paddington?
32 posts • joined 26 Nov 2009
surely it's Paddington?
Seems to me the marketing gurus are promoting themselves on both sides of this story!
NSA and GCHQ may have been acting illegally, so do loads of people - crooks, terrorists.
Gematlo's product is trust, specifically to keep the bad guys (whoever they are) from knowing their customers secrets. Where is that trust now?
They are effectively saying it didn't happen (even though GCHQ and NSA said it did) and if it did it was everyone's fault but ours.Especially our customers.
Because the phone companies profit from the fraud and are not exercising due care.
No operator will ever let a case go to court, they'll always settle out of court by wiping out the debt.
Still doesn't absolve the operators of their responsibility. Some of these gangs wind up charges of thousands.
Rubbish. The contract exists irrespective of phone theft or not.
This is an abysmal state of affairs perpetuated by the operators because they make money on premium rate services, interconnect and roaming charges.
Anyone who suffers this problem should call the operators bluff and see them in court.
I am fully conversant with concepts like writedown and NPV, but is it just me or is this 'digital only', amortisation stuff complete balderdash designed to confuse. If I was an MP on that committee I'd give IDS, Driver and Shiplee et al a whiteboard an idellible marker pen and tell them to explain it properly.
... send in the Blue Helmets
EE's problems are way bigger than LTE coverage.
I regard it as a sport. How long can you keep them going. I reckon the longer they try to unsuccessfully scam me the less time they have to try and scam others...
I realise these guys need to earn a living also, but they know what they're doing..
My Suse laptop does have a button in teh left hand corner :)
Of course it would help if TV equipment had the same rejection capability as mobile phones...
Three are also more likely to suffer from interfence from TV equipment. And despite the fact that the TV broadcasts will bleed into Mobile more than vice-versa it will be the mobile companies that get the blame...
I have an O2 Femtocell - named by O2 in priapistic pique the 'Boostbox'.
In their wisdom O2 count all service consumption (voice, sms or data) through the boost box as normal service consumption, as if the full radio access network (the expensive bit of a mobile network) has been used. They claim the aforementioned Boostbox is part of the mobile network. I did ask them where I can plug the ethernet and 240v AC it needs into the mobile network, especially as they have no cell site within 12km of my home. This just confused their simple Customer Care team.
My real point is that working this way means O2 core network doesn't need to do any accounting for Femtocell traffic. And so the situation is just as likely to have been caused by incompetence, or wilful inaction rather than a considered approach to the customer needs.
If it wasn't for the fact that I need to use the Femto I'd tell them where to stuff it.
But the SIM goes into a SIM holder, and that takes up much more space. Compare with a surface mounted device. Space is the argument.
I'm on the new O2 plan... Unlimited Smoke Signals 250 Pigeons a month Free messages in a bottle to other O2 users
So Mr Darroch.. "We believe that Sky's track record as a broadcaster is the most important factor in determining our fitness to hold a licence."
So can OFCOM measure you on the crap programmes you produce then? It it wasn't for Roop's pockets and Sport, Sky would be nothing.
I think the answer is Nokia. Trying using the iPhone as a mobile PHONE - it sucks. And as a personal computer it is locked down and stripped of functionality...
According to the tool, good indoors and outdoors coverage. According to my phone and multiple dropped calls this morning, virtually zero coverage indoors and outdoors. So a chocolate teapot then...
... watched Newsnight last night on my HTC Desire using BBC iPlayer. Wouldn't pay for it tho'
... Hayman is no longer a rozza but one of Rupert Murdoch's finest. So what would you expect him to say?
"It's a fair cop. All the NoW journalists were at it and Coulson condoned it by approving the not inconsiderable expenses"
Now that would be (a) News and (b) Honest.
Read the story man. All the PIN numbers found were non-default viz the owners wanted their calls secret.
Coulson, Brookes and all the other journo's broke the law and did hack in the true and legal sense of the word.
.. and I mean by John Oates.
Whilst no fan of Prezza, this article is one-sided. Andy Hayman the rozza from the yard is no longer of that parish. He now worships at the church of St Rupert; which interestingly enough owns the News of the Screws. So Andy Hayman saying anything about this is pure propaganda; perhaps like some (and only some) of those screaming protest on the opposition benches.
.. and don't you think that Yates of the Yard is intimidating new witness by interviewing them as suspects and not witnesses. (Something stinks there).
... and it is still illegal under RIPA to listen into other peoples communications. I don't want mine listened to. I presume everyone standing up for Hayman et al doesn't mind, I do!
Reception in my village and the surrounding area is appalling; and we're only 8 miles out of Salisbury.
I know of a few perfect sites well out of sight of my garden that would do perfectly. Anyone from the Network Operators want to give me a call and I'll point them out...
I had a very similar experience from Ferranti in Cheadle Heath many years ago whilst looking for a graduate placement. I'm sure some of the HR people in these companies would be shocked if they sat in on some of the interviews they conduct...
(Needless to say I never got in Ferranti - but ended up managing them as a Design Authority for some of their systems).
I was in central London travelling out. It wasn't until I got past Woking that service was usable. And to make things worse I'm sitting in the sun in the wilds of rural Salisbury with full signal strength and not receiving any of the calls being made to me.
.. but not evidently yours.
999 from 300,000 is 0.333%. I know still less than 1%, but a significant failure for a consumer product (unless you don't bother with Customer Care) and 100 times more than 0.0033%
... but network signalling capacity also. So even voice calls on 'dumb phones' are impacted by the fanbois...
......They might respect CEOP better
... and this was written on a Victorian_School_Slate. Only media type accepted is Chalk...
The ithingy is likely to be much larger in size, akin to a laptop. So when it does connect to the wonderful mobile networks it will generate a similar amount of traffic to a dongled laptop rather than an iphone. When it comes to streamed content that makes a big difference on network load.
Its not the NATing that creates problems. Mobile Operators also use port address translation; PAT. This means that there will be 357 users all on the same IP address with the port 80 traffic from their private ip address NATed/PATed.