Why should the BBC pay?

Isn't it in the interest of the ISPs to reduce bandwidth? How about if the BBC just provided the software (already a substantial investment) to provide cached streaming of content and left it up to ISPs to implement it (within contractual agreements) and pay for it, since it will in effect save the ISPs significant bandwidth and therefore money to implement it. Combine that with some DNS based service discovery in the software to identify the closest servers (and a way to temporarily circumvent the broken server, in case the server has issues) and I think the BBC could save a whole lot of money.

I think that most ISPs (who do not have conflicting agreements regarding content) would gladly provide caches for P2P applications also, if it would save them money. The biggest issue is that most P2P protocols aren't easily cacheable, and P2P architects who don't cater for this should be beaten.

How about mandating an Ombudsman to stop the little guy being screwed?

As an Australian, I really appreciated the office of the Telecommunications Ombudsman, who would promptly and professionally deal with legitimate complaints. Telcos must have their own internal procedures for dealing with complaints, but where these are unsatisfactory, the Ombudsman would chase the telcos up, at their own expense. It meant a higher quality of customer service, more openness, and less deceptive practices.

Maybe Ofcom in the UK serves this purpose, but some other EU countries don't have the concept, and a customer must take (usually expensive and personally risky) legal action against a huge company for the €7 they overcharged you on dialed but non-connected roaming calls. (ok, in my case, they compensated me, but they probably overcharge millions of € per year with the same scam, and nobody polices that)

Methinks people miss the point...

Do a bit of reading about OpenID, people..

This is not Passport or Yahoo or a similar centralised service. If you want to be your own OpenID provider (and you have some webspace with CGI support), you can be. The whole point of OpenID is that it's distributed. Anybody can be a provider. It provides authentication and only authentication - if X was X yesterday, X is almost certainly X today; where X could be little Jimmy, a convicted criminal, or a dog sitting behind a keyboard.

Personally, I have one common insecure password for almost every website, and a handful of others for websites and services that I consider strategic. It's far more likely that one of these small poorly written websites leaks my password than a security conscious OpenID provider will.

As mentioned before, it also needn't be one OpenID - if you want multiple OpenID's, you can also have that. There's also support for logging into one site with multiple OpenIDs at the same time.

And a great feature will be web browsers with special support for OpenID, so I needn't even visit the website of my OpenID provider to authenticate or allow a website access to some of my OpenID info.

I want an optional ID card for travel in the EU!

I don't want fingerprints, DNA, or retina information on my card (although if it's there, I don't want it stored in a central database). I want something with traditional security measures that serves the same purpose as a passport within the EU. Many EU countries dictate that you must carry your passport or passport equivalent with you at all times, which is of course a ridiculous requirement for us manly men who don't carry handbags or bum bags. I want a card that will fit in my wallet along with bank cards, health cards and travel tickets.

Optional photo-only EU-recognised ID cards, please!

As a british citizen living on the mainland, I am expected to carry my passport with me at all times as it is the only suitable form of identification available to me. I of course break the law on a daily basis because carrying a passport is such a nuisance. All I want is a basic ID card that would let me travel around the EU without needing my passport. I don't want biometric extras. I just want the necessary information as accepted by the EU. I don't care if it's compulsory or not in britain - just give me a damn ID card for the EU.

SIP SIP SIP SIP...

"SIP, the session intitation protocol, is the IETF protocol for VOIP and other text and multimedia sessions, like instant messaging, video, online games and other services."

"SIP offers all potentialities of the common Internet Telephony features like: * call or media transfer * call conference * call hold"

Basically, VOIP with SIP is a non-proprietary Skype alternative, with a multitude of outbound (and inbound) voice providers to choose from. Combined with a 3rd party service called Voxalot, I use multiple outbound providers (sipphone.com, voipbuster/smsdiscount, & voxalot itself for some free and Internet-based calls) to call at the cheapest rate possible depending on the destination. Using a SIP supporting ATA, I make all my calls (except emergency calls) through the Internet using my standard handset - I don't have to pay any more than I must to the incumbent Telco!! I could also purchase a WiFi-enabled SIP phone and make cheap phone calls from other lightly-firewalled WiFi enabled locations. Or I could just use a computer and a headset, like millions of people do.

Can I call Skype? No. Can they call me? No. Do I care? No, because I get 300 unbilled minutes per week to dozens of countries (landline) and much cheaper rates than Skype provides. I just call my family and friends in Australia, the Netherlands, and Germany on their landlines for free* or mobiles at reduced rates. There are some really great offers out there for VOIP calls.

(*) Using smsdiscount.com, so long as I have a positive account balance

Doesn't copyright already handle this?

The right "to control the distribution of computer disks and internet downloads of the programs which configure an apparatus to perform a patented process" is something adequately handled by copyright law, not patent law, I would imagine. They should be able to stop verbatim copying of the software, but they shouldn't be able to stop someone implementing their own version of the software.

Propping up profits

It's a tragedy. Germany should be pulled into line. They are holding competition back in Europe and will be the cause of a lot of grief for consumers of Telco services and many Telcos themselves.

The German Government is very lax about their Telcos, price and quality regulation, and isn't working for their people, because they like the idea of German telcos (in particular Telekom) being the most profitable in Europe, in order to buy other companies outside of Germany. The Telekom-Fiber deal currently under scrutiny by the EU is one but instance. Germany not having any telecommunications ombudsman or simple complaint mechanism also means that the only recourse for telco abuses within Germany is the courts, and keeps all but the most serious abuses from the media's and consumer's scrutiny.

It's time to beat telco's into line with enforced legislation that encourages competition, and punishes monopoly and cartel behaviour. Short term consequences be damned - it's for the common good.