Comments on: Who do you think you’re kidding, Phorm?

By: Bluecar1

Bluecar1 — Fri, 06 Jun 2008 11:08:58 +0000

phorm should go back the other side of the alantic and punt its spyware kit over there (oh sorry senators are question the lagality over there as well)

if the ISP’s are having issues with costs stop giving away free laptops (aol) stop selling broadband access at rediculous low prices when bundled with other services,

the answer is simple provide two levels of service , 1 el cheapo subsidised by advertising (but legit banner ads not via spyware kit) and the other full price full service

but no, the telcos are worried they would not have as many customers, they have not realised customers are savvy, look at the number leaving pipex since tiscali took over with their offshored helpdesks

i moved from them to BT (worst thing ever for me) now looking to move to ZEN more expensive but uk call centre, good customer service and good speeds

By: Kittys

Kittys — Fri, 06 Jun 2008 10:58:48 +0000

It is time Phorm realised the past lies onthe trials in 2006/2007 will have tarnished BT’s image lost BT trust with many customers. Knowledgeable internet users know all about phorm the reincarnation of 121media and all other names.
The fact Phorm use Russian scriptors that are in the same area as Russian hackers, Phorm still use planet to host servers until recently thye had webwise.bt.com there. Planet is in the top ten world phishing hosting companies.

Phorm was apyware in 2005 and is still spyware now contact with the past is as strong as it is now trust isn’t a word used when talking about Phorm BT’s trust level is dropping rapidly daily.

By: Oblonsky

Oblonsky — Thu, 05 Jun 2008 15:48:09 +0000

There is a gaping flaw in Phorm’s argument that advertising revenues would help bridge the rural divide. The reason for the divide is simple mathematics – make as much money, i.e. catch as many people as possible, with minimum investment. Cabling towns and cities being much cheaper per user than sparsly populated rural areas yet subscription fees per user are identical for city and village dweller alike.

Add Phorm revenue into the euquation you’ll likely find that the Phorm revenue per user is approximately the same for city and village dweller, so you STILL have the situation where it costs more per user to install/upgrade equipment in villages and rural areas but the yield in subscription and ad revenue per user will be the same for both.

By: www.DoNotTrustWebwise.org

www.DoNotTrustWebwise.org — Thu, 05 Jun 2008 14:55:49 +0000

Phorm are really getting desperate, they must have blown their PR budget on fighting all the commenters on the blogs and news stories in March and April.

By: Alan Lewis

Alan Lewis — Thu, 05 Jun 2008 10:30:13 +0000

£15Billion my backside. BT’s last figures were £10billion, at the outside, and based iirc on a total fibre dig to every residence, ie the worst case solution.

The Govt should change planning requirements making fibre the 5th essential utility, which reduces cable laying costs by a factor of 10. The telcos would fall over themselves to partner with developers to install fibre in planned ducting, then use IRUs to open the loop to other providers.

Brownfield sites can be retrospectively cabled using existing ducting/access, or sharing redeveloped access. And major residential areas through shared fibre and/or shared ducting.

The costs start to come down…. Fair enough BT does not have a £10B warchest to start this, and understandably would not to begin the task knowing that others would have immediate entitlement, but there are ways forward other than simply stating it would cost billions to dig up all the roads. Oh, and as for rural areas… given the lower population density, there is a lower backhaul requirement. So much that a single fibre pair has more than sufficient capacity for entire villages.

By: pcernie

pcernie — Tue, 03 Jun 2008 22:00:41 +0000

Phorm should just give up and come back in another guise like everybody else does…