BT to go ahead with Phorm

According to a press release from Phorm this morning
(http://www.phorm.com/reports/BT_Tria..._15-Dec-08.pdf) they expect
BT to rollout the service to all customers in the near future.

"Chris Hills" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
news:gi65mv$62i$(E-Mail Removed)...
> According to a press release from Phorm this morning
> (http://www.phorm.com/reports/BT_Tria..._15-Dec-08.pdf) they expect
> BT to rollout the service to all customers in the near future.

If everyone used TOR it would really annoy them. Better still - all those
complaining
and moaning all the time should leave BT. Loss of customers will hit them
where it
hurts in the pocket. If you choose to stay with BT you have no right to
moan constantly.

In article <(E-Mail Removed)>, Digby <a> wrote:

>"There will now be a period of joint analysis of the results.
>Following the successful completion of analysis, both of the trial
>results and of any changes required for expansion, BT has informed the
>Company that it expects to move towards deployment."

>This says they will move 'towards' deployment if the analysis is
>succesful

"Next month there will be elections in the Soviet Union. Following
the successful election of the Communist Party, Comrade Brezhnev
will institute a new five year plan."

-- Richard
--
Please remember to mention me / in tapes you leave behind.

Ian Vandahl wrote:
> "Chris Hills" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
> news:gi65mv$62i$(E-Mail Removed)...
>> According to a press release from Phorm this morning
>> (http://www.phorm.com/reports/BT_Tria..._15-Dec-08.pdf) they
>> expect BT to rollout the service to all customers in the near future.
>
> If everyone used TOR it would really annoy them. Better still - all
> those complaining
> and moaning all the time should leave BT. Loss of customers will hit
> them where it
> hurts in the pocket. If you choose to stay with BT you have no right
> to moan constantly.

BT subscribers have every right to moan - they pay their subs!

Ian Vandahl wrote:
> "Chris Hills" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
> news:gi65mv$62i$(E-Mail Removed)...
>> According to a press release from Phorm this morning
>> (http://www.phorm.com/reports/BT_Tria..._15-Dec-08.pdf) they
>> expect BT to rollout the service to all customers in the near future.
>
> If everyone used TOR it would really annoy them. Better still - all
> those complaining
> and moaning all the time should leave BT. Loss of customers will hit
> them where it
> hurts in the pocket. If you choose to stay with BT you have no right
> to moan constantly.

And is Tor totally *anonymous*?
(info taken from http://www.torproject.org/download.html.en#Warning)
Warning: Want Tor to really work?

....then please don't just install it and go on. You need to change some of
your habits, and reconfigure your software! Tor by itself is NOT all you
need to maintain your anonymity. There are several major pitfalls to watch
out for:

1.. Tor only protects Internet applications that are configured to send
their traffic through Tor — it doesn't magically anonymize all your traffic
just because you install it. We recommend you use Firefox with the Torbutton
extension.
b.. Browser plugins such as Java, Flash, ActiveX, RealPlayer, Quicktime,
Adobe's PDF plugin, and others can be manipulated into revealing your IP
address. You should probably uninstall your plugins (go to "aboutlugins"
to see what is installed), or investigate QuickJava or FlashBlock if you
really need them. Consider removing extensions that look up more information
about the websites you type in (like Google toolbar), as they may bypass Tor
and/or broadcast sensitive information. Some people prefer using two
browsers (one for Tor, one for unsafe browsing). Torbutton provides many
features to protect your anonymity. It can be safely used instead of many
plugins, such as FoxyProxy or NoScript.
c.. Beware of cookies: if you ever browse without Tor and Privoxy and a
site gives you a cookie, that cookie could identify you even when you start
using Tor again. You should clear your cookies frequently. CookieCuller can
help protect any cookies you do not want to lose.
d.. Tor anonymizes the origin of your traffic, and it encrypts everything
inside the Tor network, but it can't encrypt your traffic between the Tor
network and its final destination. If you are communicating sensitive
information, you should use as much care as you would on the normal scary
Internet — use HTTPS or other end-to-end encryption and authentication.
e.. While Tor blocks attackers on your local network from discovering or
influencing your destination, it opens new risks: malicious or misconfigured
Tor exit nodes can send you the wrong page, or even send you embedded Java
applets disguised as domains you trust
Ah well!

Digby wrote:
> On Mon, 15 Dec 2008 18:55:43 +0100, Chris Hills <(E-Mail Removed)>
> wrote:
>
>> According to a press release from Phorm this morning
>> (http://www.phorm.com/reports/BT_Tria..._15-Dec-08.pdf) they expect
>> BT to rollout the service to all customers in the near future.
>
>
> Not quite! This is what Phorm said:
>
> "There will now be a period of joint analysis of the results.
> Following the successful completion of analysis, both of the trial
> results and of any changes required for expansion, BT has informed the
> Company that it expects to move towards deployment."
>
> This says they will move 'towards' deployment if the analysis is
> succesful, it doesn't say what will happen if it was unsuccesful. BT
> have declined to make any comment.

Standard press release from Phorm - aimed at pumping their share price.
Check back over previous bits of "Good" news from Phorm, and see the
corresponding blip in the price (for a few days).

I've never seen BT being led by the nose by a supplier in this way (I've
got a wee bit of inside experience on this). It's pretty clear that some
very senior BT person(s) were totally naive, and believed Phorms's sales
pitch. The true tragedy is that the guilty parties will manoeuvre their
way out of this, and someone much further down the food chain will be
scapegoated to make everybody feel better.

John

On Tue, 16 Dec 2008 00:58:21 +0000, John Livingston wrote:

> I've never seen BT being led by the nose by a supplier in this way (I've
> got a wee bit of inside experience on this). It's pretty clear that some
> very senior BT person(s) were totally naive, and believed Phorms's sales
> pitch. The true tragedy is that the guilty parties will manoeuvre their
> way out of this, and someone much further down the food chain will be
> scapegoated to make everybody feel better.

Do you think they're only sticking with Phorm because of the penalty
clauses in the contract?

- Ed
--
http://www.nodpi.org

On 16 Dec 2008 02:31:21 GMT, Eddie R <(E-Mail Removed)>
wrote:

>On Tue, 16 Dec 2008 00:58:21 +0000, John Livingston wrote:
>
>> I've never seen BT being led by the nose by a supplier in this way (I've
>> got a wee bit of inside experience on this). It's pretty clear that some
>> very senior BT person(s) were totally naive, and believed Phorms's sales
>> pitch. The true tragedy is that the guilty parties will manoeuvre their
>> way out of this, and someone much further down the food chain will be
>> scapegoated to make everybody feel better.
>
>Do you think they're only sticking with Phorm because of the penalty
>clauses in the contract?

That's a point I've heard made a few times and think it holds some
water.

Eddie R wrote:
> On Tue, 16 Dec 2008 00:58:21 +0000, John Livingston wrote:
>
>> I've never seen BT being led by the nose by a supplier in this way (I've
>> got a wee bit of inside experience on this). It's pretty clear that some
>> very senior BT person(s) were totally naive, and believed Phorms's sales
>> pitch. The true tragedy is that the guilty parties will manoeuvre their
>> way out of this, and someone much further down the food chain will be
>> scapegoated to make everybody feel better.
>
> Do you think they're only sticking with Phorm because of the penalty
> clauses in the contract?
>
> - Ed

Yes. I've thought that for some time. The BT approach just doesn't add
up otherwise. I wouldn't write off plain stupidity, though.

John

On 16/12/08 13:41, John Livingston wrote:
> Yes. I've thought that for some time. The BT approach just doesn't add
> up otherwise. I wouldn't write off plain stupidity, though.

It begs the question, how did BT get suckered into a contract with a
penalty clause from a company whose technology has not been proven
commercially?