asa don't have legal power but companies do generally comply with their requests i think, as not doing so makes them look very bad.

not exactly related but i know for a fact advertising agencies (any established main ones at least) do exactly what the asa request without fail (maybe some exceptions but generally full compliance is ad agency's response) -- i know advertising agencies aren't exactly the issue here though so that's slightly off issue.

but the asa do have an effect when they say something. whether they end up officially saying what needs saying or not is another thing.




i just got a call from tiscali regarding my p2p problem which resulted in nothing but me getting angry.

"we don't block p2p software" was something that was said with some passion and belief. the workers must have had this drumemd into them. they do block though i reckon as when p2p doesn't work other apps work fine, so it's not down to simple general congestion.

"we never said you'd be able to use p2p". i said yes you did. simply by offering an internet connection without stating "no p2p use" offers p2p, as p2p is _a_ use of the internet, just like any other use (email, web pages etc.). <<<< it's this whole point which is the crux of it imo. they offered an internet connection, but we have a particular-uses-of-the-internet-not-others connection. "internet connection" does not fairly/legally describe a particular-uses-of-the-internet-not-others connection.

"you'll find all the others are the same" (not those actual words but something like it) the imiplication being if you go elsewhere you'll get the same and that makes it ok for us to do it. same elsewhere is true, ok to do it, not imo.

i'm going to continue to email... i'm starting to enjoy the argument -- i feel i'm right.