I think my point is being missed here. I am not saying I shouldn't have to pay /anything/. I am saying I shouldnt have to pay above the duty owed. Look, this is very simple. Do you pay an [additional] fee for the revenue to collect your taxes? No. Do you pay a fee for someone else to pay your taxes to the revenue? No. (if you use an accountant, that is your decision. And in any case, you still pay direct to the revenue) If I bring a bottle of whatever through airport customs, I pay duty on the bottle. I don't pay an additional fee to cover the collection of the duty. In no case am I objecting to paying taxes or duty. I am not being charged an additional fee to cover the collection of taxation. I do *not* object to paying any duty due on anything I "import". I object to having to pay PF for doing HMRCs work. If HMRC want the revenue, then they should bear the cost of collection. Its called the cost of doing business, and if outweighs the profit (revenue raised) then it is pointless engaging in it. Rather like spending 147million to 'combat' 140million of fraudulent benefit claims. So why the hell should we have to pay an additional fee covering the collection of the revenue, when HMRC are already paying PF to do this on their behalf? The analogy is as such: HMRC outsource the processing of personal taxation to (say) G4S. That includes the handling of queries, and the checking of a random 8000 returns from a designated group. G4S decide that for any taxation matter that does not fall under PAYE deductions (ie class 2 and 4 NICs, self-assesment, 'complex tax affairs'), you have to pay a "fee" for G4S to process these on behalf of HMRC... even better, when the revenue decides you under paid by £900, the bill is for £950 with the additional £50 being an "administrative charge for collecting and paying the tax due to HMRC on your behalf". And when that happens, where do you draw the line?

As Mia said. You have to WANT to stop smoking. Any other reason is doomed to failure, if you do not WANT to. If your reason for stopping is "its too expensive", "its killing me", "its stupid", "its for my kids", etc - you will fail. Because these are excuses, and do not reflect the fact that you no longer wish to do something. If your reason is "its too expensive", then in reality you wish to continue smoking but can't afford it (or struggle to afford it; the key point is that really, you wish to smoke but cant afford to. Then it simple one day at a time, one craving at a time. I suggest starting in the morning. A monday morning. You know how many you smoke, and when you buy a pack. So carefully time it so that you have the last fag in a packet just before bed time Sunday night. You go to bed with no fags left. When you awake, you have no cancer death stick to put in your mouth ;-) Most smokers are allegedly able to go several hours before the first fag of the day, so use this to advantage. When the craving kicks in, do something to distract yourself; clean teeth, or if you able, press-ups and sit-ups. It is NOT easy. BUT if you want to stop, its easier. I dont say "quit" smoking. Quitting has negative connotations. Everyone asked me when I quit smoking; I say "never", because I have never quit at anything before in my life, why start now. I'm simply choosing not to smoke today.And tomorrrow, and the next day. And forget about trying to stop by cutting down. You either smoke, or you don't. No excuses, no half-way house. It's like trying to be a little bit pregnant; you can't be. You are either pregnant, or not pregnant. You smoke, or you don't smoke. When the craving gets too much, and you think "I'll just have one" and you do, then you are back to being a smoker. Because no matter how many days you "lasted", you will have another one much much sooner. And if you bought a packet,you'll be telling yourself "I'll just smoke this packet". And without realising it, you will have bought another "on autopilot". So dont do it. When you really really really want a fag... do 10 sit ups. Clean your teeth. Run the hoover round. Anything to take your mind off it. It also helps if you break any routine associated with smoking. When do you buy your fags, and from where. Change that routine; if you buy them from the corner shop on the way to work, go to work a different way. Ditto on the way home. It helps break the automatic habit of buying a packet. If you know the shop staff, tell them not to serve you fags. Is there a stressful occurrence at work? Can you change the routine there? For example, if you have a fag every hour, as part of a break, go for a brisk walk instead. If its a coping mechanism with an idiot boss or annoying co-workers, find a way to defuse, perhaps using a stress ball. Get a large glass jar. Everyday, put the money you would spend on fags inside it. And be honest. If you buy 20 Embassy No1, thats over £6 (they were less than a fiver when I stopped, and 75p for 20 when I started...). Dont put a fiver in, or £3 (for a packet of ten). Put the exact amount in. Every single day. The first three days are "easy". The next ten days are hard. Very hard (YMMV). But look at how much dosh is in that jar. What are you going to do with it? After a month, there is nigh on £200 in there (or £100). After 3 months there is between £300 and £600 in that jar... that's a new PC, maybe a new TV. In six months, you have possibly saved enough for a decent holiday, or a high end Panasonic 3D hi-def plasma TV (much better than LCD/LED). And that's just from 20/day. Tell yourself you can do it, that you will be gutted if you give in and have one. And you will be, believe me. If it helps, use patches, put on one each morning. Use a nicarette "cigarette" if you need something to do with your fingers. Use nay and every prop you think will help. Tell yourself it is a dirty, disgusting habit. It makes your breathe stink, actually stink like an ashtray. Your hair smells. Its all a means of positive re-inforcement, but who else is better placed to do so. After three weeks, stand near a smoker; prior to this you'll have been breathing the 'second hand smoke' in, maybe making a bit of a "gasping" production about it (we've all been /there/! ) But after a while, you wont. In fact, you'll find the smell dry, sharp, and unpleasant. After a few more weeks, you'll recoil from it. You'll notice smokers have a stale odour about them; the smell really is stale tobacco, and takes more than one wash to remove from clothing. There are people who's hygiene habits are not as fastidious as others, and some who's habits are not all they should be. You will really notice them; to the point where you prefer they dont look at you when they talk... you never noticed this before. You will. Food will taste better. Much better. This is a really great boost. Its also a little warning; smoking suppresses the appetite, so you *will* put weight on. So, now is also the time to exercise a little more. Right from Day 1, start walking more. Want a fag - do 5 press ups. Still want one? Do 5 sit ups. At work? Go for a walk round the building or up and down some stairs. If you catch a bus to work, then start waking to the next stop. Get off a stop sooner. Each day, leave a little earlier and walk to a further stop. Catch a tube? Then get off a stop early and walk further. Ditto in the evening. There are always little ways you can exercise more. And don't retort "I'm unfit/cant do situps/pressups/whatever. Yes you can. We all can. Physiologically, your body starts to "improve" within 24hrs of not having a cigarette. The oxygen levels in blood rise within 8hrs (!). All of this helps, but first and foremost, you have to WANT to stop smoking. Not think you'll give up because you cant afford it, or because its bad for you, or your clothes stink. There is only one reason that works. If you don't WANT to stop, then don't try, yet. Because you don't have any real reason, any real motivator. You will find it too hard, and then that will dissuade you from trying again. Sorry if this seems negative, but its like everything else in life; its why many young men fail basic training in the Army, or fail the Cdo course, P Company, or Selection. You have to WANT it. No other reason is strong enough. But good luck, and everyone here will help and encourage you as best we can.

The PF example I give is accurate - unless you are suggesting that Royal Mail are paying HMCE for the privilege of collecting revenue! They are not. HMCE are paying Royal Mail to collect any taxes owed. That RM may not declare the service (contract) as a revenue stream in its own right is irrelevant. I don't believe that they are doing it as a "favour" to HMCE, nor solely on the assumption that they can recoup costs wholly from the adressee. I am aware of the original staffing model, and the whole point was a reduction in the headline headcount (as opposed to the departmental operating cost), again another ill-thought through cost-cutting PFI exercise from the previous administration. I fail to see how PF being cheaper than means the argument 'fails'. I - and you - have already funded the revenue collection system - and every other Govt dept - through our taxes. Outsourcing some or all of that function to a 'private' company who also has the remit to charge the end-user in addition to the outsourcing contract fee means we are paying for it tiwce. (arguably three times, but thats splitting hairs). The mobile phone analogy doesn't really hold up, except that the operators have worked out a cost-per-minute business model. Factored into that CPM is the cost of wholly on-net (calls betwen two numbers on the same network) calling, and the cost of off-net (between two different carriers) calling. Oh, and the entire business cost of the business (capex, R&D, salaries, deferred payments, transit and peering, cost of access, opex, etc). On top of that, there are different call plans, with different pricing structures. Some will show only one price per-minute, based on an averaged mixture of on- and off-net calls. Other CPs will have different tarrifs for on-net (say 5p/min) and off-net (12p/min) calls. RM/PF effectively mirror this with their pricing structure; they quote for inland (on-net) and international (off-net) mail delivery. They dont quote one price to send a given package anywhere. Heck, neither do UK Mail quote you a price for sending a package from Point A to Point B (where B has UK Mail local delivery 'postmen'), and Point A and Point C (where letters addressed to C are entered into the RM postal system for delivery, and hence why you recieve mail franked "UK Mail" being delivered by the RM postman) All in all, a bit of a red herring. Anyway, I'm endeavouring to find out more details of the contract under which RM provides the HMCE services. My original point still stands. I have no issue paying taxes due on imported goods. I resent paying anyone a 'service fee' for doing so for me, unless I asked them to do so. If I *choose* to use an import agent to handle the 'headaches' for me, thats my decision and I pay the fees. If I choose to do it all myself, then thats my decision. In this case, I have not asked RM to do so. And that is wrong.

@buzby - it is unclear to whom you were replying to. However, I will take "issue" with one point that you raise. "The issue for those who complain is they feel these clearance services (originally provided for free by C&E) are now a service provided and charged for by PF. They still want it for free, but PF who provide the service want paid for the work. As PF charge the least of all the couriers, it is the most cost effective solution - but they are unhappy with this." There is a small, but vital, difference in the service provided originally by C&E, and that by PF. The service provided "free" by C&E was never free, and indeed was subsided not just by people who receive imported goods, but by the taxpayer as a whole, as is Govt as a whole. The cost of collecting revenue on imported goods was part of the HMCE operating costs. As C&E has never been self-funding, the funding came from general taxation. However, in-so-far as the parcel recipient was concerned, it was 'free'. HMCE provided the 'service' to the end-receiver. HMCE do not, for example, 'charge' for the collection of tax through PAYE, NI deductions, or Corporate taxation. However, the service PF provide is NOT to the end-recipient, but to HMCE itself. AIUI, they charge HMCE a fee for providing this service. However, they also charge the recipient a fee for this "service", even though they are not providing a service to the recipient. If any private sector (or other 51% state-owned company) wish to provide services to HMG, they submit a tender which details how much they will charge HMG. In this instance, PF appear to have pulled of the stunt of charging twice for the same service, with the tacit consent of the Govt at the time. I would suggest that it did not have sufficient parliamentary debate. And left unchallenged sets a worrying precedent; re my earlier comment that the Revenue doesn't charge for collecting taxes, ie provides the "service" for "free" (it doesn't, like all Govt depts the Revenue is funded through taxation). Customs clearance is not a service, no more than taxation is a 'service'. It is a revenue raising exercise. I have no issue paying any revenue due on any goods I import from abroad. I resent having to pay someone for a "service" I haven't asked for, and which isn't being provided to /me/

Except that it doesn't. 1. IF the amount charged by ParcelForce (PF) was simply the import duty, then fair enough. The duty has to be paid. However, the amount PF charge is more than the duty, and includes a 'charging element' for providing this service. I never asked PF to provide this service, PF abrogated the 'right' to provide this service in negotiation with HMIR. AIUI PF also charge Inland Revenue for providing the service... As I never asked PF to provide me this service, then there is no enforceable contract between PF and myself and they can only act as agents for HMIR to collect the duty (and I wonder if this is permitted under statute, especially the centuries old stuff that still exists today). Now, as I understand it, HMIR cannot levy a charge for the collection of taxation or duty owed except in specific circumstances, even then they are late payment penalties and not a charge for the collection. Since when can HMIR abdicate the responsibility for collection of duties and the imposition of charge for doing so? As for providing credit (lending money).. if you are an employee of ParcelForce, you should strongly consider editing that comment out. Does ParcelForce have a credit licence, is it regulated by the SFA, where is the original signed copy of the credit agreement that the customer signed, does it comply with all relevant statutory legislation? Be aware, it is possible to trace who you are, and use your post against you in, or your employer, in court: as more than one motorist, bragging about his 'speeding' exploits on an Internet forum, has found out to his cost. Assuming you do work for PF, then we both know just how 'ruthless' Royal Mail are when it comes to protecting their reputation... ;-) As we both know, RM are not lending anybody any money at all.

Hi I'm hoping someone can help, by means of a definitive answer, to costs in the Small Claims Court. As I understand it, costs in the SCC are limited, ie a winning party cannot claim the costs of using a solicitor, lawyers, etc. This is because the fundamental reason for the SCC system is affordable access to justice/dispute resolution. However - and this is where it gets confusing - the SCC literature then alludes that this is only the case for small claims under £5000. For amounts above this, there are the fast track and multi-track, which are also termed "small claims court". Am I right in saying that if I took my case for £4999 to the small small claims court, and lost, then the other party could not claim legal costs (solicitors fees). However, if my claim was for £5001 then they could claim legal costs should they win? Please, only answer if you definitely know - I appreciate well-meaning assistance and "I would have thought" or "in my opinion", but I really really need a definitive answer - I would use the CAB, but you need to get an appointment (!) just to make an appointment, and after yesterdays experience (after five weeks of waiting) to be told "I'm only a volunteer, I dont really know".... Many thanks in advance

I'm desperately hoping someone here might be able to help. Warning - lengthy post. I privately rent a house, on a new build estate. The properties are 3.5years old. There has been an on-going dispute with the developer and the water company regarding billing and leaks. Cutting a long story short, we finally got each to talk to the other, and start to resolve the situation; The developer was adamant that *all* water issues were the responsibility of the local water company, who in turn are adamant that their liability ends at the external meter. However, to resolve the problem, they would start remedial work and argue liability/costs later. That is the very brief story of why the utility company is digging up a neighbours garden, trying to trace which meter feeds which house via which pipe, and which pipes have leaks. This morning I took my daughter to school and popped into town. All was well, the guys were digging away. When I came back at about 10.30am, there was water flowing out from under my front door. My first thought was "god I left something on". I had to force the door open, and when I did I was hit with a knee-high wave. The entire ground floor was under 6" of water, from front door, through hallway into lounge and then the kitchen. We could hear water cascading down inside the wall in the toilet, presumably between the inner and outer brick walls. Yet, my water meter hadnt budged... and the workmen turned off every stop cock and still it didnt stop the torrent. Long story short. The property has a water supply pipe, which passes through a meter and stopcock, enters premises, and goes into a plumbing system - just like every other house in the development and I imagine the UK. The guys had exposed every pipe (long story, the meters had been installed in a garden, then moved 3 yrs ago, and there is confusion which meter which property etc). The supply pipes are 2" plastic. One of which was kinked back on itself with a concrete block on top, then buried as pr all the other pipes. Th workmen just thought this was the usual building rubble and removed the block and unkinked the pipe... The pipe was a second supply pipe from the mains into my house, which as far as we can work out is an uncapped open water pipe somewhere inside the building. The developers workmen, rather than properly cut off the supply from the mains and stopper the pipe, had simply kinked the plastic and put a block on it, then buried it with the others. Unkinking the pipe, well, I imagine you have used a hosepipe before... The water company's subcontractor immediately sent 3 managers out to assess the situation, and the water company itself sent a rep. The developers attitude was "not our fault, we didn't do it", "the contractor moved a block and aleak occured - their fault then", and even a suggestion that the water company/subcontractor had - in the space of an hour - attached a supply pipe to the mains, dug up 25m of courtyard and garden, laid the pipe, demolished and rebuilt an external wall, and relaid the surface... I kid you not. Upshot - the house is uninhabitable downstairs, I darent turn on the electric as the water rose above the socket levels (although I wasnt electrocuted when I waded about), it will take at least a week to dry out and then replace carpets, providing landlords insurance pays out that quick. And a lot of my downstairs furniture has water damage, wooden dvd/book-cases, table, chairs, suede leather sofa. DVD/s, vinyl albums, computer games suffered water damage, and electrical equipment has been exposed to water. And I dont have contents insurance: I'm unemployed, and the housing benefit doesn't quite cover the rent. What is left of unemployment benefit pays gas, electricity, water bills (or the standing charges, I use very little of them), with some left over to eat. There is no money to pay for luxuries such as contents insurance. My questions are: What is my landlords obligation to provide alternative accommodation for the duration of the repairs? Ditto the additional costs I will incur, e.g. laundry service (although the local launderette is closed for refurbishment) because until I have access to my washing machine I cant wash my clothes; increased costs of eating - I cant cook for example without a cooker, and if I was in a B&B or hotel, well, I don't think I can turn up with my food and ask to use the kitchen. Is there any sort of "limit" on what is alternative? Obviously I don't think booking into a £150/night hotel would be 'reasonable', but neither is £40/night room above a pub by a railway. And no one is going to let a property for Given the damage arose from very poor workmanship - and I dont think anyone will contest that other than whose poor workmen were involved - can I claim compensation for my losses in regards to belongings, eg replacing the water damaged items, from the building developers? They are responsible for the water supply to the premises from the demarc point, and they fitted a second, uncapped pipe which has three years later caused the flooding and subsequent damage. How does one value irreplaceable items such as vinyl LPs? Sure, the disk itself is probably fine, but the cover is permanently damaged. Some of these (Black Sabbath, SLF, etc) were "rare" enough in the first place. Some items I can provide proof of purchase for, e.g. bank/card statement. Some though were bought via ebay for example, and the 'proof' is in my email. Which is on one the computers that has been damaged. Where do I stand with this? Is there any limit on subsequent damage? I'm kipping at a neighbours tonight and using their mac (hence the spelling issues, the keyboard is odd and the mouse has just one button?!!!) My laptop powers on, but the battery now doesn't hold charge and the charger, well, it seems it doesn't. This is after it had been dried out. The various companies want me to send written notice of the event. I want copies of the letters. The biggest problem I have is getting across the root cause - its not as simple as broken water pipe, it was a second supply pipe fitted god knows why - lets say 'erroneously', and never sealed off, lets say 'improperly'. I guess, I'm saying, can I claim from 'someone', be it the landlord/utility/developer. If I was insured, the insurance company would pursue one of them for their losses, so essentially all I am doing is effectively cutting out the middleman, as the insurance company would be dealing with the matter on my behalf. If I walked down the street and was knocked over by a bus, the bus company wouldn't say "you don't have personal injury insurance therefore you cant claim against us". Any advice appreciated...

Steve It is easy to determine the source of emails. It is extremely easy to find the source of blogs, facebook, etc. I'm not sure what your employer has to do with this, nor why you would expect them to help (or be suprised if they were unable to trace...). However, the number of times "help" messages have been posted, and the original poster never heard from again, means I'm not willing to go into it unless you return to the site.

I'll await your 2nd post before helping. It is possible.

Agreed. Customs could just send a postcard stating the vat and excise duty owed, once paid send it on via the normal postal service. The cost of the postage (at bulk postal rates) coul dbe recouped by adding it to the duty. I do not see any requirement for ParcelForce to pay it on my behalf and then charge me an admin fee for doing so. UK carriers are not out of pocket, as postage to delivery address has already been paid (in my case to USPS), iirc this is covered under the uniform postal rate. What is clear is that there is no contract between PF and myself, I never entered into any such contract, nor asked to provide such a service. I'm told the £13.50 fee is because I have used USPS Express service. Express? It took USPS a couple fo days to get my package 6000miles to the UK. On Aug 15th the tracking service shoed it as "attempted delivery". It took PF until the 29th to tell me they had it... express service indeed.

You have no right - under UK law - to make a backup copy. It is an urban myth that you do, probably stems from the fact that during the late 70's and early 80's most software installation instructions advised the user to make a backup copy [or two] and install from that, putting the original media in a safe location. It was also widely considered at the time to be best practice, never to install from original media. This was an era when disk drives were not wholly reliable, and head crashed were quite common. The read/write head would literally hit the disk, gouging scratches into the surface. But to re-iterate the point, you have no legal right to make a backup copy unless the terms of the software provide for it. Otherwise, it is "unlawful".

Do NOT reply to it, and most certainly do not give them the information they are asking for.

You also need to find out who is hosting his blog - if you need help, pass me on the url (web address) of his blog/site. Consult their T&Cs, and see if his blog contents/comments breach T&Cs (quite possibly) Contact the hosting company, highlight the breach of T&Cs (if so) and/or complain that they are publishing a libel and potentially [jointly] liable.

You could contact your ISP, and ask why they released your data to a third party, and on what grounds. Await their reply before proceeding. if it is along the lines of "company xyz /said/ you had infringed copyright [or downloaded/shared this software]" or "provided evidence that..." ask for a copy of the correspondence alleging/demonstrating this. I'm wondering on what grounds ISPs *are* releasing personal data. Would be interesting to see.

They cannot prove it was *you* simply by an IP address. If they tried a criminal court it would fails The Laws Test (unsufficient evidence and would be contradicted). A civil case would rest on balance of probabillity, but a good solicitor would rip their case to shreds.

hence the use of the word "any"... Obviously no one wants any damage, she has only lived here for two years, and the carpets are new. However, although taking shoes off seems obvious, its not quite so easy when you have shopping, a 5yr old daughter c/w friends and bicycles/scooters, etc. And soil has a habit of moving... hence the question. I take my shoes off by my back door when in the garden. Grass cuttings etc still find there way in!

Looking for some advice... My neighbours and I live in what is best described as a courtyard, or mini-close. One neighbour has a faulty water pipe/meter. United Utils have come out to inspect, decided there is a leak, and need to find it. So they dug up the courtyard opposite the house, outside another neighbour (imagine the houses at the opposite bottom ends of a horseshoe). It turns out that the water pipes enter the courtyard, then hang a right into one neighbours garden, then do a u-turn and come back out (!!!), before feeding back in to supply water to that property. UU are adamant that the work was done by - or on behalf of - the site contractor. The contractor is adamant it was done by UU, and they are wholly responsible. We, as residents, are caught in the middle. The problem? The front garden has to be dug up to gain access to the neighbours' leak! The pipes are adjacent to the only pathway/access to the property. If there are further problems, it will require digging up again... What we need to know is 1. Who is responsible for water supply on a new build residential estate - site contractor or "water board" (e.g. UU). 2. If UU have to dig up the garden, are they obliged to restore it to previous state (including established shrubs and trees) 3. Given the proximity to the house, are they liable for any damage caused by walking in dirt (its very heavy clay soil), and if carpet cleaning couldnt remove it, cost of replacing carpet 4. Given the circuitous route of the supply, can they be forced to remedy the pipework such that further work to neighbours supply does not inconvenience this householder? 5. Out of interest, do UU have any legal right of access to dig up her garden - without permission - should she decide not to allow them access to do the work? Many thanks!

Well, methinks it needs a legal challenge. ISPs cannot offer an unlimited bandwidth connection, as the bandwidth is limited in both senses of the word: max bandwidth is limited by the line rate max data transfer is limited by the line rate monthly bandwidth (approx 700MB on 2mb, 2.2TB on 8mb) I'd really, really love to see 'unlimited' replaced by 'unrestricted' Wish I had the pockets to drag ISPs into court, to epxlain how (in the above case) their definition of fair equates to using no more than TWO PERCENT of the service bandwidth... hence why i really, really, really would love to see the court records (assuming it was a court) or the verbatim ASA finding of the original "unlimited does not mean unlimited" dispute.

Apologies, I just wanted to add another thought. The telecomms industry classifies "fair usage" in two entirely different ways. insofar as the PSTN is concerned, it is measured in connection time. Remember the fracas over Freeserve's "unlimited" internet over dial-up? It cut you off after 2 hours as people were hogging the access servers. insofar as dsl is concerned, they have moved the goalposts. It is no longer connection time (ok, it is an always on technology), but data transfer, e.g. bandwidth usage. This is another reason I'd really like the meat and bones of the "unlimited doesnt mean unlimited" decision.. I'd love to know how telecom savvy the plaintiff/solicitor was in that case.

As posted many times, do not ignore the letters. However, using the templates on here and at penaltycharges dot co dot uk, contest the claim under CPA rules; ie gather all the evidence they claim to have against you. Once you have this, you can start to mount your defence.

Anyone else's ears twig at today's news that RBS and Barclays are offering to take on part of the Northern Rock "debt" out of the goodness of their hearts? Ok, the national news services have been pretty light on details, but the gist - as I understand - is that RBS and Barclays are willing to assume upto £12billion of NR's portfolio, and guarantee this sum in respect to the tax payer. Now me, being a cynical sod, thought "why? whats in it for them". And the most obvious thought is "bank charges". The general expectation is that the test case is going to go in the consumers favour. That exposes the banks to significant exposure vis-a-vis refunds. How best to offset that? Well, a nice little property portfolio wouldnt go amis, especially if it was bought at a knock-down price, with nothing other than a guarantee to pay £12b. But what if it was also a "sweetner" to the govt to ensure that a friendly judge happened to hear the charges case? Sure, a decision to acquire some of NRs portfolio wouldnt have been taken lightly nor in haste, but I cant see why it has taken this long to announce. All the banks would have done a financial analysis the week the crisis broke, so why havent the banks announced until now? Of course, there is probably a tax break in there, and maybe a way to shift some sub-prime risk onto real, worthwhile, portfolio, and I'm just being overly cynical. I've just never known *any* financial instituion doing someone out of respect to the tax-payer. The shareholders, sure. Mr Joe Public... nope!

Interested in what the comment was, and perhaps about whom, esp if it concerns slamming.

@those who consider 1TB to be too much for a "residential" customer to download.. What about if someone watches BBC iplayer all day... or, in this day of multi-PC households, several people are watching several different programs simultaneously, continuously, as well as downloading service packs, patches, full unix/solaris OS dvds, voip and video calls, plus commercial VoD services? A 2mb dsl service has the capacity to transfer 700GB a month, assuming uninterrupted 24/7 operation over a 30 day month. An 8mb service equates to 2.4TB a month (2TB in reality). ADSL2+ upto 7TB (6TB in reality). 50MB cable? 12-14TB? And what happens when 100mbit is introduced? In excess of 20TB? The problem with advertising "unlimited" and not defining "fair usage". What is "fair" use of a shared network, which has been sold to you on the basis of full use of the available bandwidth on a point-to-point access technology? This harks to my first post here, regarding the "unlimited" decision. Given the potential bandwidth figures above, what is the "fair use" of them, as a percentage? Now, is that percentage figure a percentage of the possible bandwidth, or a percentage of what a given user can achieve? To clarify that:- You answered "25%", for arguments sake. Take two users on the same ISP, paying the same tariff, on an "unlimited" DSL Max product. user A can get 8mb, so it is "fair" that he only transfers 600MB data a month (purely illustrative)... User B can only achieve a 4mb connection, limiting his monthly bandwidth to 1.2TB, and 25% of that is 400MB. Is that fair? Paying same costs for the same product but? This is quite apart from what one is actually transfering. @conniff, you /appear/ to have fallen for the ISPs propoganda that anything above an arbitrary figure *must* be for downloading "illegal" films or "illegal" P2P use. Why must they? Simply because you do not utilise your bandwidth in the same way others do, does not mean they are "guilty" of doing anything illegal or unlawful. Should I ask how 1TB data = 10,000 films? According to so called scene rules the shortest a feature length film can be is 700MB (1 CD), = 1,200 divx films. ignoring the number of 1.5gb releases, you'd be hard pressed to find 1200 unique avi films in a month... Oh, and have you heard of HD? One is looking at 12gb+/film, 25Gb is not uncommon. And no, it doesn't have to be a pirated source either. Apologies for overly long post. My own feelings, as an industry insider, is that the UK ISP market and the telcos have only themselves to blame for this problem. The warnings were sounded inside, long long ago. No one wanted to listen.

Perhaps what people should be more worried about is *how* facebook, myspace, et al, obtain the email addresses to send out your invites. The process, simply put, is that they read your messenger client address book - whether you are signed in to MSN/etc or not, and harvest the addresses. If you are *not* signed in (into MSN Live, for example), you dont have to sign-in in order for the api to access the data.... Any warning bells ringing? The software api (computer program code) that does this is therefore available to literally anyone, who's intentions may be less than social. BTW, I would recommend *not* visiting meetmymessenger site (or meetyourmessenger I'm not going their to doublecheck the site name for the same reasons I recommend not going there!)

Hi Greets from a newcomer! I'm interested in more details of the ASA ruling whereby ISPs could advertise a service as "unlimited" and yet still impose a cap and/or "fair usage" policy. I know the gist of it - as above - but ideally I'd like details of the hearing and the decision together, if possible verbatim. Why? Having just left the ISP sector, I'm wondering if the deciding body were in full possession of the facts, esp relating to the true cost of providing broadband, and whether the plaintiffs mentioned one tiny but vital word... ;-)