Dubya says everything's fine, except for Russia and China

Not for the first time, senior US military figures have gone on the record to talk up the danger high-tech attacks pose to the security of the 'free' world, claiming the greatest threats come from Russia and the country Dubya loves to hate, China.

Lawrence Gershwin, the US national intelligence officer for science and technology, told Congress late last week that Russia and China "appear" to be developing computer-based tools with the potential to do long-lasting harm to the US economy.

He claimed cyber attacks would play a major role in the "next wave of military operations. We've certainly seen that from countries such as China and Russia."

Apparently, a "fair number" of other states have "active" programmes, but he refused to say more before a Congressional committee because the "information is classified".

Although it's OK to demonise China and Russia of course...

He did say that hackers don't pose a serious threat to national-level infrastructures just yet, although the US does anticipate "more substantial cyber threats in the future as a more technically competent generation enters the terrorist ranks".

Viruses are likely to become more controllable as well, making them more "suitable for weaponisation". But fear not - Gershwin wants us to know that: "Bombs still work better than bytes."

Which is reassuring.

So to sum up: the threats don't really exist yet, Russia and China are a bit scary, some other countries are working on stuff we can't tell you about, but still Mr and Mrs Taxpayer: give us loads of money so we can do lots of research just in case. And in the process make sure we stay in gainful employment.

But if you do believe Mr Gershwin, who also spoke of the "collateral" damage high-tech attacks could have (i.e. human fall-out), the next world war could be virtual in origin, but very real in effect.

What do you think? Read the whole story here http://www.silicon.com/a45231 and post a reader comment at the bottom...

BT Openworld has hinted that it might hike prices for its DSL offerings. Chief exec Andy Green has suggested that the business model for broadband hasn't quite worked out the way it should have. Openworld lost £227m on turnover of £167m last year. Advertising and ecommerce revenues haven't materialised. Moreover, Freeserve raised its prices by £10 last month. So logic dictates BT might do the same.

The official line is that BT hasn't decided yet. A spokesman told us: "We've always made it clear that in the market we have always got to review our portfolio and prices."

If that's BT's definition of clear, I'd like to see the windows in their lovely new HQ.

But fear not, UK consumers: the e-envoy has arrived on his shiny white steed to save us all. He spoke at the Networks Telecom show this week. "The spread of high-speed internet access is absolutely fundamental to the continued prosperity of this country," he said. "Offering a cut-rate, entry-level broadband service could break the deadlock. We have a competitive narrowband market... but broadband is still quite expensive."

Thanks for that insight. Quite what action he will (or indeed can) take remains to be seen. Still, there's always Oftel...

At long last, our lovely telecoms regulator has finally told BT that it must allow competing companies to install their equipment in any operational part of its exchanges (something known a co-mingling - a much cheaper and more elegant solution than co-location, which is all BT has had to offer up to now).

BT will no longer be able to charge its rivals separately for site clearance when preparing co-location spaces (until this ruling, BT has been like a landlord who charges a clear-up fee before you move in. And then starts getting rent payments out of you).

BT must now provide details about its co-location facilities (i.e. it's got to tell everyone how much space it's actually got, so it can't claim it hasn't got any room).

And finally, BT will have to allow other companies shared access to the local loop in such a way that they can provide data only services - previously, BT was forcing its potential competition to install voice and data equipment. Bit daft if you're an ISP.

All this should have been in place from day one of course. But according to BT, none of this would have made any difference. The company said it was "pleased" with these measures and the fact that its exchanges are now open for orders (yeah, right). But it is a bit miffed at the lack of demand for such access. BT wholesale claims it has spent £15m on local loop unbundling, but says that the original demand from operators for access has dropped from 2,000 to 200.

Why? "The economic downturn," says BT.

God - or even Sir Cliff - give us strength.

So farewell then to the ICL brand. Parent company Fujitsu is to swallow whole what was once a jewel in the UK high-tech crown. Apparently, the Japanese giant (perhaps that should be services sumo...) wants to be the biggest services company in the world, but at the moment has 49 individual subsidiaries.

So they've got to go - ICL included. (See http://www.silicon.com/a45219 for more).

We first suggested this would happen back in March. ICL threatened us with legal action as a result. At the time, Derek Hardman, director of corporate marketing for ICL, insisted we add this rebuttal to our original article: "If ICL was to be subsumed into the Fujitsu brand, it would have happened last year when Fujitsu reorganised itself. What emerged was a strong commitment to the ICL name as a premier brand across Europe."

Shame Fujitsu didn't have the same level of commitment, isn't it?

The Round-Up will be back (and feeling slightly less smug) next Friday. Until then, don't forget we're giving away a trip to New York and £200 spending money in our Treasure Hunt competition - see http://www.silicon.com/th-wr