In the UK, we have lots of competition in the delivery of Internet. 100% because of Local-loop unbundling.
to quote cable.co.uk
Local Loop Unbundling (LLU) is the process that allows companies other than BT to provide broadband services using BT's network infrastructure. There's quite a bit to unpack there, so let us break it down for you.
BT is the incumbent broadband provider for pretty much the whole of the UK (the exception is Hull, which has KCOM as its incumbent provider for reasons we won't go into now). This means BT owns and is responsible for maintaining the UK's national broadband network. It does this through a subsidiary, Openreach.
Local Loop is the name given to the cables, the physical part of the broadband network that runs between your home and your local telephone exchange. You may have also heard this referred to as the 'last mile' of a broadband connection. Local Loop Unbundling allows other Internet Service Providers (ISPs) to install their software at the telephone exchange and provide a broadband service over the existing network cables.
Since Ofcom told BT to open up its telephone exchanges to other ISPs in 2001, hundreds of thousands of local loops have been unbundled from BT. This has allowed providers such as Sky, TalkTalk, Plusnet and others to offer broadband deals and compete directly with BT without having the enormous expense of building their own networks.
I've been thinking, the NBC broadcasting suckage cannot possibly be because of the IOC.
Here in the UK, we can watch EVERY event streamed live on the BBC website, watch most of it on demand through iPlayer, listen to it on three Radio stations - on of which has been setup specially for the Olympics - and watch vast quantities on three free to air digital TV channels. If you have SKY and a 3D TV set, you can apparently get a lot of the show in all 3d goodness,
If the IOC was against people getting their fill of the games, we wouldn't have all this in the UK.
Don't get me wrong, I know first hand how awful the NBC coverage is, I went through a couple of Olympics with them, but I do always remember the main anchor saying at the 2002 Winter Olympics; "Finally I get to say, 'Welcome to the Olympics Live''" (or words to that effect :-)
..... a few years ago I was contacted by RIM layers about - I think - this case. They were trying to prove prior art by showing that a business mobile device, the IBM PC110 (that has a built in telephone though traditional, not wireless) , would be automatically synced and updated using Lotus Notes.
Back in the day, the mid 90's, I used this little beauty whilst I was travelling all over the world (http://www.apj.co.uk/pc110/pt_travel.htm). I was given it by my then employer as he preferred the Libretto. When I was given the PC110, it had on it Windows95 with Lotus Notes on the removable hard drive.
I spent the best part of 7 months - on and off - going through rafts of backups to find the Notes installation, but failed. Shame as it would definitely have demonstrated what RIM were trying to show.
For the last few years I have been developing a 'Corporate Social Network' that a large company can put into their intranet.
We are a small business trying to do our thing and do it well.
The concept is for users to create for themselves (or for specialists/experts to create) 'Learning Circles' on topics or on anything of interest. As a user, you can then join them, be invited into one or just browse content from public circles.
In these Learning Circles, you place content - from articles, research, videos to events, downloads, project plans - basically any types of content that you might want to group together.
Initially targeted at the Learning space, it became apparent - very quickly - that the concept goes way beyond that and the the whole system is a fantastic social network in general and specifically for large multinationals..
If * I * can see the problem of privacy issues when somebody reposts content from a private Learning Circle into a public one, OR EVEN comments on a public article that has been reposted into a private Learning Circle (ie. the reply is private and should not bee seen publically) and that * I can program the solution easily and logically *, for heavens sake, Google should be able too as well.
Whats hacks me off is that we have been showing and testing our software to some very large companies and now suddenly Google uses the concept and also using a name for these groups that is sooooooo similar to the one we came up with - coincidence? Probably, but who knows.
Okay, I know I have no case to argue that we have been ripped off, but it does annoy me. If Google try to patent the Circles concept though, I have serious prior art.
If anything, Google is spending the big bucks we can't in educating the market on our behalf and I'm pretty certain that they have a ways to go to match all the features and benefits of our software.
As this website shows us time and again, best to compete in the market than get drawn into legal fights.
Techdirt has not posted any stories submitted by Seamus Waldron.
Local-loop unbundling
In the UK, we have lots of competition in the delivery of Internet. 100% because of Local-loop unbundling. to quote cable.co.uk Local Loop Unbundling (LLU) is the process that allows companies other than BT to provide broadband services using BT's network infrastructure. There's quite a bit to unpack there, so let us break it down for you. BT is the incumbent broadband provider for pretty much the whole of the UK (the exception is Hull, which has KCOM as its incumbent provider for reasons we won't go into now). This means BT owns and is responsible for maintaining the UK's national broadband network. It does this through a subsidiary, Openreach. Local Loop is the name given to the cables, the physical part of the broadband network that runs between your home and your local telephone exchange. You may have also heard this referred to as the 'last mile' of a broadband connection. Local Loop Unbundling allows other Internet Service Providers (ISPs) to install their software at the telephone exchange and provide a broadband service over the existing network cables. Since Ofcom told BT to open up its telephone exchanges to other ISPs in 2001, hundreds of thousands of local loops have been unbundled from BT. This has allowed providers such as Sky, TalkTalk, Plusnet and others to offer broadband deals and compete directly with BT without having the enormous expense of building their own networks.
I don't think you can blame the IOC for NBC suckage
I've been thinking, the NBC broadcasting suckage cannot possibly be because of the IOC.
Here in the UK, we can watch EVERY event streamed live on the BBC website, watch most of it on demand through iPlayer, listen to it on three Radio stations - on of which has been setup specially for the Olympics - and watch vast quantities on three free to air digital TV channels. If you have SKY and a 3D TV set, you can apparently get a lot of the show in all 3d goodness,
If the IOC was against people getting their fill of the games, we wouldn't have all this in the UK.
Don't get me wrong, I know first hand how awful the NBC coverage is, I went through a couple of Olympics with them, but I do always remember the main anchor saying at the 2002 Winter Olympics; "Finally I get to say, 'Welcome to the Olympics Live''" (or words to that effect :-)
I feel bad now....
..... a few years ago I was contacted by RIM layers about - I think - this case. They were trying to prove prior art by showing that a business mobile device, the IBM PC110 (that has a built in telephone though traditional, not wireless) , would be automatically synced and updated using Lotus Notes.
Back in the day, the mid 90's, I used this little beauty whilst I was travelling all over the world (http://www.apj.co.uk/pc110/pt_travel.htm). I was given it by my then employer as he preferred the Libretto. When I was given the PC110, it had on it Windows95 with Lotus Notes on the removable hard drive.
I spent the best part of 7 months - on and off - going through rafts of backups to find the Notes installation, but failed. Shame as it would definitely have demonstrated what RIM were trying to show.
Not a bogus privacy issue and Google should know better - perhaps I should file a lawsuit?
For the last few years I have been developing a 'Corporate Social Network' that a large company can put into their intranet.
We are a small business trying to do our thing and do it well.
The concept is for users to create for themselves (or for specialists/experts to create) 'Learning Circles' on topics or on anything of interest. As a user, you can then join them, be invited into one or just browse content from public circles.
In these Learning Circles, you place content - from articles, research, videos to events, downloads, project plans - basically any types of content that you might want to group together.
Initially targeted at the Learning space, it became apparent - very quickly - that the concept goes way beyond that and the the whole system is a fantastic social network in general and specifically for large multinationals..
If * I * can see the problem of privacy issues when somebody reposts content from a private Learning Circle into a public one, OR EVEN comments on a public article that has been reposted into a private Learning Circle (ie. the reply is private and should not bee seen publically) and that * I can program the solution easily and logically *, for heavens sake, Google should be able too as well.
Whats hacks me off is that we have been showing and testing our software to some very large companies and now suddenly Google uses the concept and also using a name for these groups that is sooooooo similar to the one we came up with - coincidence? Probably, but who knows.
Okay, I know I have no case to argue that we have been ripped off, but it does annoy me. If Google try to patent the Circles concept though, I have serious prior art.
If anything, Google is spending the big bucks we can't in educating the market on our behalf and I'm pretty certain that they have a ways to go to match all the features and benefits of our software.
As this website shows us time and again, best to compete in the market than get drawn into legal fights.