 |
 |
 |
 |
UK BROADBAND ISP STATS
No. |
Broadband |
Subscribers |
1. |
NTL/Telewest |
2,902,300 |
2. |
BT Retail |
2,826,000 |
3. |
AOL UK |
1,300,000 |
4. |
Tiscali |
1,200,000 |
5. |
Orange |
986,000 |
6. |
Pipex |
570,000 |
7. |
TalkTalk (CW) |
476,000 |
8. |
PlusNet |
198,000 |
9. |
Virgin.net |
193,200 |
10. |
Tesco |
132,000 |
|
 |
 |
|
 |
|
|
|
|
 |
|  |
|
|
| UK Broadband Deals - Local Loop Unbundling Brings More Competition
By Michael Sterios
Some UK providers are loosening their ties with BT and offering broadband via their own equipment. The process, known as Local Loop Unbundling (LLU), gives control of part of the network which connects customers to their local exchange to BT's rivals. LLU will allow Internet Service Providers (ISPs) to use the twisted pair telephone connections from the telephone exchange’s central office to the customer premises.
The local loop in the UK is currently owned by British Telecom. However as of 13 January 2005, 31,000 local loop connections have been unbundled. While this is short of the target of 50,000 Ofcom hopes that 1 million local loop connections will be unbundled by June 2006.
LLU is generally opposed by the Incumbent Local Exchange Carriers (ILECs) such as BT, the largest supplier of broadband deals in the UK, which in most cases used to be state monopoly enterprises before the telecommunications sector was liberalised. They argue that LLU amounts to a regulatory taking, that they are forced to provide competitors with essential business inputs, that LLU stifles infrastructure-based competition and technical innovation because new entrants prefer to 'parasitise' the incumbent's network instead of building their own and that the regulatory interference required to make LLU work (e.g. to set the price) is detrimental to the market.
|
|
New entrants, on the other hand, argue that, since they cannot economically duplicate the incumbent's local loop, they cannot actually provide certain services, such as ADSL, without LLU, thus allowing the incumbent to monopolise the respective market and stifle innovation. They point out that alternative access technologies, such as Wireless Local Loop (WLL) have proven uncompetitive and/or impractical, and that under current pricing models, the incumbent is guaranteed a fair price for the use of his facilities, including an appropriate return on investment. Finally, they argue that the ILECs generally did not construct their local loop in a competitive, risk-fraught environment, but under state monopoly protection and using taxpayer money, which means - according to the new entrants - that ILECs ought not to be entitled to continue to extract monopoly rents from the local loop.
Telecoms watchdog Ofcom has previously said that LLU is the most effective way of delivering more innovation, greater choice and lower prices in broadband.
Put simply, it allows operators the chance to offer higher speeds, lower prices and extras such as cheap net telephone calls, without having to wait for BT to offer them first.
Most developed nations, including the USA and the EU Member States, have introduced regulatory frameworks providing for LLU. Given the above-mentioned problems, regulators face the challenging task of regulating a market that is changing very rapidly, without stifling any type of innovation, and without improperly disadvantaging any competitor.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
|
Wireless Broadband Hijacking - a 21st Century Crime
By Michael Sterios
For those who may be wondering exactly what the “digital age” is – this may be an indication…
As technology evolves over time so do many aspects of our everyday lives. Increasingly sophisticated technology may help improve the quality of our lives, but it’s not all good news. Sadly, the more sophisticated technology becomes, the more sophisticated criminals become as well.
Take for example the newly born and rapidly evolving crime of “wireless broadband hijacking.” No longer the domain of planes, trains and automobiles – now criminals are taking over the airwaves.
Wireless broadband hijacking has been brought to the general public’s attention in Europe through a case in the UK which resulted in a Londoner being fined several hundred pounds and sentenced to a conditional discharge for hijacking a wireless broadband connection.
So what exactly is it? Wireless hijacking involves piggybacking an unsecured wireless network without the supplier’s permission. In the London case it is believed that a member of the public piggybacked a wireless network of a local resident by using a laptop while sitting in a car parked outside the residence. The hijacker had been seen in the area on several occasions over a three-month period and was reported to police by a neighbour concerned about suspicious activity.
Currently there is an estimated one million wireless broadband users throughout the UK - one of the most litigious countries in the world. What this could mean is that while this particular court case is believed to be the first of its kind in the country, it is unlikely to be the last. In fact if the USA (which is THE most litigious country in the world) is any indication, this kind of court case may become all too common. Wireless broadband hijacking is a growing trend in the USA, with broadband suppliers increasingly coming under pressure to provide additional security.
If all this seems like the justice system gone mad, consider the case of an American man who was sentenced to nine years in a US jail for the far more serious crime of siphoning credit card numbers over the wireless network of a hardware store. There have also been incidences where pedophiles deliberately leave their wireless networks open so that, if caught, they can claim to police that is wasn't them using the network for illegal purposes, and that it must have been hijacked by someone else.
Such a defense would hold little water, however, as the end user who installed and operates the network has ultimate responsibility for any criminal activity that takes place on that network. This may include launching a hack attack or downloading illegal pornography. Despite this, businesses and residential users continue to fail to take that responsibility seriously by securing their networks. A recent survey found that more than a third of wireless networks in the UK had the basic security features turned off. Most had failed to turn on the encryption that scrambles the data traffic between users and the access point.
It is therefore obvious that the issue of wi-fi hijacking is far more serious that people seeking a free ride on unsecured networks. Prosecuting people for serious crimes committed on such networks could result in a legal arm-wrestle between the actual offender and the supplier who failed to secure their network.
No doubt the courts will issue the blame to one side or the other as more and more cases surface over the next few years. In the meantime, however, it may be for the best to secure your wireless network.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
