Samknows Bandwidth Hungry Britain's Real Broadband Speeds

According to a new report published today by regulator, Ofcom, the UK’s broadband speeds are getting faster but not everyone is happy.The report shows that average connection speed across the UK is 4.1Mbps, up from 3.6Mbps in January.A survey running alongside the tests found over a quarter of consumers (26%) said that the speeds they received were not what they expected when they signed up for their broadband service.SamKnows spoke to Anna Bradley, chair of the Communications Consumer Panel, who has been lobbying for the current up-to speed claims to be changed to an average speed claim. “The Ofcom work is incredibly helpful because it exposes just how little the up- to speeds mean and exposes how variable the service level is from one provider to another,” she said. “The fact that they are still advertised with ‘up-to’ speeds is deeply problematic.”Over 60 million separate service performance tests were carried out in over 1600 homes between November 2008 and April 2009.

WHAT HAPPENS TO YOUR EMAILS?

You don’t have to be spam to get blocked. One in five legitimate marketing emails fails to get to the receiver’s inbox. That is what Return Path reveals in their new research into European marketers’ knowledge about their own emails. In most cases marketers are ‘emailing in the dark’ not knowing what happens to their sent messages.Two in five interviewed people still think an email gets delivered if it is sent or doesn’t bounce back. But twenty per cent of messages are being blocked or directed to the junk folder, according to Return Path – the company that helps marketers get their emails into the inbox and read. Email is the cheapest way to distribute your messages but it’s got to be done properly. No matter how many hours you spend creating a really great message, the effort is wasted if it doesn’t get delivered and read.Many people think that reaching the inbox is the sole responsibility of Email Service Providers (ESPs). But it is ultimately in the hands of the senders themselves to make sure their messages are read. Demanding all-encompassing deliverability reports from your Internet Service Provider (ISP) is an excellent way to find out the destiny of your marketing messages. However, very few people do this at the moment, according to Return Path. This report must contain detailed metrics – the percentage of emails being placed to ‘inbox’, ‘junk’ or ‘missed’. Once you have that knowledge you can act upon it, but Return Path warns not to trust unrealistically high metrics. A delivered email is one that not only was sent and didn’t bounce back, but that actually reached the inbox. So why do some emails get blocked?They either look like spam or are not wanted by the reader. The first one is relatively easy to correct. You might need to change the email’s format and rewrite some of the content. The second one is almost as easy. Readers often mark emails as spam because they don’t want to go through a complicated procedure of unsubscribing. You need to make it easy for people to stop receiving your messages because too many spam complaints will affect your company’s reputation. Putting an ‘unsubscribe’ option at the top of the page should help. To keep your subscribers, try and make sure your emails are relevant and targeted to each individual customer. Special offers personalised with a customer’s name or the like usually work well.If you follow this advice, you stand a much better chance of getting your message to the customer.

ISPs Hit for Six by Sports Fans

As the nation’s sports fans gear up for a packed summer of sport, ISPs are keeping a beady eye on their bandwidth.Not only have online catch-up services such as the Beeb’s iPlayer, Channel 4’s 4oD and Sky’s Sky Player become increasingly popular but watching ‘live’ content is beginning to take off.Many sports fans stuck behind their desks during Wimbledon, The Golf Open Championship and The Ashes are turning to ‘live’ online coverage to get their fix and as a result ISPs are seeing spikes in traffic.Trefor Davies, Timico’s Chief Technology Officer, has provided an interesting graph in his blog about their network traffic during Wimbledon. Take a look at his blog here.Furthermore it doesn’t look like it’s going to get any easier for ISPs with bandwidth sapping high definition (HD) content beginning to rear its head on the ‘net.

The Story of a Staffie: Breed Prejudice

In the last few weeks, a Northern Ireland dog has attracted international attention. Two years ago, Bruce the Staffordshire bull terrier was taken away from his family and sentenced to die. Why? Bruce was deemed a “pit-bull terrier type” by the authorities, and therefore a danger to society. Bruce has never bitten anyone. He has never been threatening or aggressive to a member of the public. However under the Dangerous Dogs Act of 1991, all pit bull terrier “types” are considered to be dangerous, and because of Bruce’s physical appearance, he has been sentenced to death.While in captivity over the last two years, Bruce has had to have his tail amputated due to infection. His owners have only been allowed to see him once, and have been shocked at the deterioration of his health. Thankfully, last week poor Bruce was given a stay of execution until the judge reviews his case again, but his future is by no means certain. This sad and infuriating case brings our attention to the issue of Breed Specific Legislation. Frightened and poorly informed courts all over the world have put laws in place to ban pit-bull terrier types. I seem to recall a European society in the last 100 years that executed living creatures based purely on “breed”, and the last I heard, we as a society condemned them. Any well-informed dog lover or expert will tell you that breed is not an indicator of aggressiveness. Irresponsible owners are a much better indicator. We can see evidence of these owners in the recent coverage on “weapon dogs”, dogs bred by gang members looking to use them as an intimidation tactic, or worse, as a weapon. It’s worth noting that even after specifically breeding these dogs to be aggressive, the owners still must train hostility into the dog, generally using violence. Owners and breeders such as these young men ought to be the focus of legal action, not their dogs, who are only trying to please their owners. American pit bull terriers (APBT) have often been the focus of media attention regarding dog attacks. It’s not hard to imagine why. The words “pit” and “bull” hardly seem synonymous with “fluffy” and “cuddly.” And don’t get me wrong. Strong-willed pit bulls are not a good choice for the first time owner. But they make fantastic family dogs, when trained by the right owner. As for Staffies like Bruce? Their nickname is the nanny dog. They are anything but aggressive and adore children (and I don’t mean for breakfast). An overwhelming number of Staffies become abandoned by reckless owners who were looking for an aggressive guard-dog, and instead got a loving and friendly family dog. Because of their muscular appearance and association with APBTs, organisations like the RSPCA have a difficult time re-homing these sweet and gentle dogs.
Still not convinced? In 2001, a Pomeranian fatally attacked a small child. Yes, a Pomeranian. One of those little dogs that look more like dusters than vicious animals. Any dog can be dangerous. What’s required is proper training and responsible ownership, and our courts would do better to punish an irresponsible owner, rather than an entire breed.

The Human Factor

There are some pretty thankless jobs out there, several of which we at Data Grub have experienced directly. And, while it can't match the indignity of chicken sexing or the sheer slog of meter reading, working in a bank comes pretty high up the list of crap jobs.(Obviously, we're talking about working behind the counter of a high street retail bank. The "master of the universe" type banking jobs - with its private jets, champagne, corporate boxes and complete lack of conscience - sounds quite a laugh.)What's so bad about working in a bank? Well, aside from the constant pressure to sell massive amounts of debt to the sort of people who shouldn't be trusted with real cutlery, there's also the Data Protection Act to deal with. Banks workers have to watch an achingly-bad training video - which looked dated when it was made in 1998 - about the Act, and how to stay on the right side of the law with regards to customers' data.No doubt this is a video that'll get dusted down and rewatched by the staff of HSBC, after the bank was fined a mammoth £3 million by the FSA yesterday for taking a laughably cavalier attitude towards customers' personal data.Another depressingly familiar story of data loss, sure, but it did remind us of that lame old video, in which a harrassed data protection officer pours out his worries about the new Act to a psychiatrist. At one point, the shrink tries to calm him down by saying: "It's really just a matter of common sense."Quite. Unfortunately, the global supply of common sense has been waning since around 1860, and it's currently rarer than platinum.But ultimately, it's humans who have the biggest bearing on whether a company successfully fulfills its data protection requirement. With all the talk of encryption, virtual private networks, network and site security, it's easy to forget that technology is only as useful as the human operating it - or forgetting to. Organisations spend time and money communicating their privacy policies; here at Data Grub we'd like to see organisations showing exactly what steps they are taking to ensure that their employees are following best practice at all times. People as a rule are pretty stupid, but when there's a corporate culture of sound data protection processes this cuts regrettable incidents to a minimum. And, with data loss stories in the media almost every week, there's also a business case for having a public and comprehensive data protection policy, in the same way as firms boast about their CSR credentials.

Auschwitz Horse Farm

The man who turned his horse farm into “Auschwitz” has been let out on bail and was seen at a horse fair. Last May, Jamie Gray and his son were arrested when investigators found horses left to die of starvation and surrounded by rotting corpses. They were found guilty of 11 charges under the Animal Welfare Act. He was sentenced for 6 months but walked free after 4 days as he launched an appeal. They were also banned from having anything to do with horses ever again. However just over a year later, outrageous pictures were found of them, at a horse fair.I think this whole story is disgusting. The fact that this man “had caused the worst case of animal cruelty ever seen” said by the RSPCA, would only be sentenced to six months imprisonment is disgraceful. Also that he should be allowed to appeal as there is nothing he could appeal about. He is a despicable man who should have been sentenced to a murder charge as that is basically what he committed. Animals and human’s aren’t that different so for this man to only get 6 months is shameful. If this was humans he would have a life sentence never mind less than a year.Also I don’t understand how this man could be even allowed to go near a horse fair. The people there must recognise him, so why they would even give him the time of day to look at their horses, I don’t understand.However, this wasn’t Jamie Gray’s first conviction of cruelty to animals; he had a record of cruelty to animals and in 2006 was fined £3,500 for unnecessary suffering to animals; however he was still allowed to continue his trading business. The police or whoever is in charge of these types of things should have kept an eye on his future dealings but I think he should have just been banned from working with animals so nothing like this could have ever happened.

Police Officer serves up "hot dogs" from back of patrol car

On Thursday 2nd July, Britain was angered when news was reported that a Police dog handler had left two Alsatian dogs locked in his car during a heatwave. The dogs died from the heat although it was unclear how long they were left in the car for.I think that this is shameful considering he was a trained dog handler, so he should have known that to leave the dogs in a car which heats up extremely quickly was despicable. Any member of the public could tell you that you should never do that and they’re not trained professional in dog care. Also these were donated dogs from a family; they weren’t breaded especially for the police. Therefore you would assume they would take extra care of them as they belonged to a family who had kindly donated the dogs for public service.Temperatures soared to 30˚C, so the temperature in the car could have easily reached more than 47˚C within 30 minutes. I think it’s appalling that something like this could have happened. Perhaps it’s because we all have had an idealised and maybe incorrect view that the police officers are supposed to set an example to regular citizens and with that a sense of responsibility and rational thinking would naturally be applied.I do not believe this happened out of maliciousness or forgetfulness but plain laziness. The dogs kennel’s were only yards away, so the police officer could have easily put them in the kennels while he carried out what he needed to do. However he chose not to bother, therefore leading to the death of the dogs.Not only is it the fact that two dogs were killed within all of this, but also it is tax payers money which is used to train these dogs and at over £7,000 to train each dog, it doesn’t come cheap. To train these dogs it also takes a 9 week intense course and as one dog was only newly trained, it was a waste of police time and tax payers money, which could have been put to other uses.A statement from Nottinghamshire Police said the welfare of its animals was "of paramount importance". Yet these dogs were still neglected by the person who was trained to look after them, so obviously the welfare of the dogs is not “of paramount importance” to everyone.The RSPCA should prosecute; as if this was any member of the public they would surely be charged without investigations. So why should it be any different for this man just because he is a police officer.

BT Would be Web-Wise to Get Back on Phorm

Although BT stated that it ditched Phorm’s Webwise system because of cost-saving issues, it seems clear enough that it was only to refrain from offending its customers. Phorm's behavioural targeting system tracked sites visited by Internet users to facilitate relevant ad-delivery and became controversial after criticism of privacy invasion. These privacy concerns did not come from ISP consumers but instead have been voiced by a small group of mis-informed privacy advocates.The negative publicity that has been whipped up against Phorm – and, as a result, behavioural targeting internet ad-delivery in general – is unfortunate. The benefits for customers themselves are too often overlooked. Targeted advertising is a great way for ISPs to generate income which can be ploughed back into improving networks for customers and reducing the cost of broadband packages. The dropping of Webwise means that BT has missed this golden opportunity to deliver a better quality and potentially cheaper service to consumers.The privacy issue has also arguably been blown out of proportion. Of course privacy should always be a concern in this day and age, but as often stressed by Phorm, the privacy of customers is protected as identities remain anonymous. Simon Davies, founding member of surveillance and privacy watchdog Privacy International, even commends Webwise’s minimal collection of personal information.Although privacy advocates have called for an opt-in approach to be made available to users of Phorm, this would be disastrous as opt-in means behavioural targeting ad providers like Phorm would have the consent of users to access all their personal information and surfing habits.Phorm could have made things much easier for themselves by being completely transparent about their service and opt-in/opt-out approach. That way, not only would all legal issues surrounding Phorm be irrelevant, customer satisfaction would also still be fully guaranteed.

Anything to declare?

Ah, America! The world's brightest beacon of democracy and freedom; the New World of limitless opportunity, where hard work and fair play are rewarded with the fabulous bounties of the American Dream.And who can forget that America was built upon the exertions and human capital of the millions of immigrants - themselves often refugees from war, slavery and famine?Modern day arrivals in the USA have a slightly different experience from these pioneering immigrants. Gone are the humiliating medical inspections, where those suspected of illness and physical defects were marked with chalk symbols. Instead, visitors are subjected to a terrifying ordeal of interrogation by customs officials, including such charmingly naive questions as "Is it your intention to overthrow the government of the United States?" (WS Gilbert famously answered: "Sole purpose of visit".)But now it's not just fearsome feds with sunglasses and ear pieces that travellers have to worry about: they could risk having their personal data compromised, including fingerprints, employment history and credit information.It all stems from a company called Clear, which used to speed its customers through customs for an annual payment of $200. To do this, they asked their customers for the personal data that customs officials need to know about travellers. A quarter of a million customers signed up to Clear's service and, for a while, enjoyed VIP treatment at US airports, being rushed through customs and immigration while the plebs queued and sweated.Unfortunately, Clear shut down its operations last week, and the fate of customers' personal data hangs in the balance. What's interesting is that the company says that it will continue to hold onto this sensitive information, which could still be used by another Register Traveller programme. In other words, the data is a business asset that could be parcelled up and sold on to another firm - as long as that company is in the same line of business.This is proof - if proof be needed - that personal data is no nothing more than another commodity to be bought and sold. It's worth noting that Clear's privacy policy states that "We do not sell or give lists or compilations of the personal information of our members or applicants to any business or non-profit organization." Unless, that is, we go bust.We've noted before that companies often rely on burying objectionable practices deep within their Terms and Conditions, but if bankruptcy means companies can ignore their own privacy policies, that's a huge blow to data protection. Even if Clear's successor abides by the most stringent data protection policies, the transfer of such large amounts of sensitive information from one organisation to another is a fraudster's paradise, with plenty of opportunity for data to go missing.