It looks like we might finally get some movement on broadband advertising in the UK. Ofcom, the telecoms watchdog, has made it clear that they consider many broadband adverts misleading, and they want to see changes next year.

This is great news, as far as it goes, but I can’t help noticing that they seem to be concerning themselves solely with line-speed, and ignoring the much larger issue of traffic-shaping and “acceptable-use policies.”

The South West Trains FAQ tells me whether I can expect to be able to access the net on their trains any time this decade:

Q: Does South West Trains have plans to introduce Wireless Internet (WiFi) capability on its trains? This would be a welcome addition.

A: Most train companies are considering the feasibility of introducing WiFi. It is not easy, as some early adopters have found. We need to ensure that tunnels, embankments and the electro-magnetic environment in general don’t affect internet access and that we can meet passenger demand. We are keen to offer WiFi, but only when we are confident in the success of our delivery.

Or the short version:

A: No.

I wrote, last week, about the state of broadband advertising in the UK. Well, it looks like it’s not much better in the States, although over there, at least, companies are being called to account for their lies.

Ars is reporting that Verizon has been slapped with a pretty hefty fine for their not-so-unlimited broadband package. Here’s hoping that the trend crosses the Atlantic, and that bandwidth providers in this country start to be forced to advertise the product they actually sell (or sell the product they advertise; I don’t care which.)

I’m glad to see that ofcom – the telecoms regulator in the UK – had started to ask broadband providers about their misleading advertising, I just don’t think they’re going nearly far enough. They’re asking the companies to think about ways they can better inform customers about the bandwidth they’re likely to get. Well, I guess that’s better than nothing, but how about this instead; how about telling isps that they can no longer advertise their product based on some theoretical maximum bandwidth that no user will actually ever achieve? How about forcing them to specify a minimum bandwidth provision that they guarantee every user will actually get? Can you imagine if food manufacturers only had to tell you the theoretical maximum amount of food that the packaging could contain, rather than what was actually in there? No one would stand for that at all, but it’s exacty what broadband operators are currently getting away with.

But, shocking though that is, I actually don’t think it’s the worst thing about broadband advertising in the UK. No, that honour goes to the ubiquitous claims of “unlimited” broadband – claims which are, by and large, lies.

There are a couple of ISPs that actually mean it when they say “unlimited” (UKFSN and Be spring to mind,) but the vast majority of them enforce an “acceptable use policy,” which limits the amount you’re allowed to use the service. I honestly don’t understand how they get away with it. They make claims in their advertising that are quite clearly contradicted by their policies and practices.

Worse yet, these acceptable use policies are rarely explicit about how much bandwidth is too much, or what the isp will do about it if you exceed that limit; they’re a vague policy that the isp is free to decide on a case by case basis who is exceeding their usage limit and apply whatever sanctions they want – usually a significant reduction in connection speed. I far as I can see there is no earthly way that can be honestly squared with the claim that the service is “unlimited.”

Update 15/10/07: Looks like I was unnecessarily easy on Be. Their acceptable use policy states:

If it’s felt that any Be member’s Internet activities are so excessive that other members are detrimentally affected, Be may give the member generating the excessive web traffic a written warning (by email or otherwise). In extreme circumstances, should the levels of activity not immediately decrease after the warning, Be may terminate that member’s services.

So, like most of the others, they’re saying “if you use too much bandwidth we’ll terminate your contract.” Not their unwillingness to say what “too much bandwidth” actually is. That’s exactly the sort of information they should be legally required to disclose in their advertising (or at least in their contract,) not just allowed to make up as they go along.

Both PZ Myers and Richard Dawkins have been scammed into giving interviews for a creationist propaganda movie. When they were approached, the movie was apparently titled Crossroads, and had the following synopsis

It’s been the central question of humanity throughout the ages: How in the world did we get here? In 1859 Charles Darwin provided the answer in his landmark book, “The Origin of Species.” In the century and a half since, biologists, geologists, physicists, astronomers and philosophers have contributed a vast amount of research and data in support of Darwin’s idea. And yet, millions of Christians, Muslims, Jews and other people of faith believe in a literal interpretation that humans were crafted by the hand of God. This conflict between science and religion has unleashed passions in school board meetings, courtrooms and town halls across America and beyond.

Now that the movie is ready for release we discover that it’s actually titled Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed and that it’s the usual religious attack on science, combined with the now familiar claim that the only reason anyone believes in “Darwinism” is that there’s some secret police force rooting out the dissenters and ruining their careers before they can speak out:

Unlike some other documentary films, Expelled doesn’t just talk to people representing one side of the story. The film confronts scientists such as Richard Dawkins, author of The God Delusion, influential biologist and atheist blogger PZ Myers and Eugenie Scott, head of the National Center for Science Education. The creators of Expelled crossed the globe over a two-year period, interviewing scores of scientists, doctors, philosophers and public leaders. The result is a startling revelation that freedom of thought and freedom of inquiry have been expelled from publicly-funded high schools, universities and research institutions.

What’s the betting that their claim to not just represent one side of the story isn’t entirely accurate? The way they got interviews with at least two of their enemies doesn’t exactly demonstrate a commitment to the truth.

PZ expresses surprise that they felt the need to lie to him to get the interview; after all, he’s not exactly known for being shy about arguing with the faithful. I’m tempted to suggest that the creationists, and especially their well oiled PR machine, have got so used to lying whenever science is so much as mentioned, that they just forgot there was any other way to communicate. Actually, though, I suspect they had good reasons to lie. PZ might have been willing to show up if he’d known the real reason for the interview, but he’d also have been much less willing to be led in the interview, much more on his guard and much less likely to accidentally say something that could be used to make him look bad. But quite aside from that, I just don’t think PZ was their main event. It’s no insult to the man – regular readers will know I have nothing but respect for him – but to the creationists he’s a bonus item; they were after Dawkins, who’s well known for not debating, or giving interviews to creationists.

It’ll be interesting to see what the movie’s like; I doubt it’ll get a cinema release in the UK, but I’m sure I’ll manage to track it down somehow. I don’t hold out any hope that any of the scientists’ interviews will have been used complete, and the underhand method they used to to get them doesn’t allow me to believe that even the spirit of what they said will be left intact, but it might at least be good comedy to see just how terribly their words have been twisted.

Nothing to add to this (except that this is exactly the sort of thing I’ve come to expect from Sal Cordova,) just read this. How can these people claim to be morally superior to us Atheists? Really?