DE Act: AT&T wants to wriggle out of copyright liability
- Author: Monica Horten
- Published: 05 September 2010
AT&T, which lobbied so hard in Brussels to get ‘restrictions' into the Telecoms Package, is now lobbying to keep itself out of the UK's 3-strikes regime. Has AT&T had a change of heart? No.
Such a proposition could give AT& T and Verizon a significant market advantage over competitors. At the same time, it would put small businesses of all kinds at a serious disadvantage. The real question is just how much market distortion would it create?
The American telecoms provider AT&T, and its lobbying partner Verizon, are asking the UK regulator for exclusion from the UK's 3-strikes copyright enforcement regime, which will be implemented under the Digital Economy Act. In particular, they want an exclusion for "business
An element of their justification is that large businesses tend to police their own networks. And they also correctly point out that the rights-holders' proposed method of identifying end-users is the IP address, and this will be problematic in the corporate network context.
However, there is more to it than that. There is a bitter disagreement emerging between the ISP industry and Ofcom about which ISPs are included or excluded from the Digital Economy Act copyright enforcement regime.
Ofcom, the UK telecoms regulator, is proposing that the DE Act 3-strikes regime only applies to ISPs with more than 400,000 customers. These ISPs are BT, Talk Talk, Virgin Media, Sky, Orange, O2 and the Post Office, which all sell to residential, consumer customers. Thus, there would be an exemption for ISPs with fewer than 400,000 customers - at least for the start of the copyright enforcement regime.
The 400,000 threshold is already a subject of constrovery among the ISPs, many of whom see it as disproportionate. It is also pointed out that the 400,000 figure is an arbitrary one chosen by Ofcom, and which Ofcom has already said, will be fluid. As customers migrate from the big secen onto smaller networks, Ofcom will bring those other networks in.
But there is a separate exclusion for mobile networks, which the fixed line ISPs are fighting. AT&T's demand would create yet another exclusion.
However, the guts of this issue lie in the division of the market into wholesale and retail ISPs. AT&T and Verizon, in the UK, operate at the wholesale end. They want to be free of the hassle which the 3-strikes regime will create for retail ISPs. Moreover, if, as wholesale ISPs, they are brought within the copyright enforcement regime, they will incur legal aggravation in terms of customer identification, notification and sanctioning.
Finally, it would seem that such a proposal will create serious distortions right across the market. And it will leave small businesses at a disadvantage. SMEs tend to buy their Internet services from the big seven ISPs. They are too small to buy the 3-strikes-exempt business services from AT&T. This means they could be landed with higher bills and legal overheads, and potentially losses to their businesses.
The move is especially interesting as it was AT&T who persuaded the European Parliament's rapporteur, as well as the Council of Ministers, to ensure that EU telecoms law legitimises restrictions on Internet services imposed by broadband provider.
---
Read the lobbying proposal to the UK telecoms regulator, Ofcom, from AT&T and Verizon , concerning the Digital Economy Act and the Initial Obligations Code.
This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution Non-commercial-Share Alike 2.5 UK:England and Wales License. http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/2.0/uk/ It may be used for non-commercial purposes only, and the author's name should be attributed. The correct attribution for this article is: Monica Horten (2010) DE Act: AT&T wants to wriggle out of copyright liability http://www.iptegrity.com 5 September 2010
- Article Views: 6749
IPtegrity politics
- EU at loggerheads over chat control
- Why the Online Safety Act is not fit for purpose
- Fixing the human rights failings in the Online Safety Act
- Whatever happened to the AI Bill?
- Hidden effects of the UK Online Safety Act
- EU puts chat control on back burner
- Why did X lock my account for not providing my birthday?
- Creation of deep fakes to be criminal offence under new law
- AI and tech: Asks for the new government
- How WhatsApp holds structural power
- Meta rolls out encryption as political headwinds ease
- EU law set for new course on child online safety
- Online Safety Act: Ofcom’s 1700-pages of tech platform rules
- MEPs reach political agreement to protect children and privacy
- Online Safety - a non-consensual Act
- Not a blank cheque: European Parliament consents to EU-UK Agreement
- UK border safety alert - mind the capability gap
About Iptegrity
Iptegrity.com is the website of Dr Monica Horten, independent policy advisor: online safety, technology and human rights. Advocating to protect the rights of the majority of law abiding citizens online. Independent expert on the Council of Europe Committee of Experts on online safety and empowerment of content creators and users. Published author, and post-doctoral scholar, with a PhD from the University of Westminster, and a DipM from the Chartered Institute of Marketing. Former telecoms journalist, experienced panelist and Chair, cited in the media eg BBC, iNews, Times, Guardian and Politico.
Politics & copyright
A Copyright Masquerade: How Corporate Lobbying Threatens Online Freedoms
'timely and provocative' Entertainment Law Review
Online Safety
- Why the Online Safety Act is not fit for purpose
- Fixing the human rights failings in the Online Safety Act
- Hidden effects of the UK Online Safety Act
- Why did X lock my account for not providing my birthday?
- Online Safety Act: Ofcom’s 1700-pages of tech platform rules
- Online Safety - a non-consensual Act
- Online Safety Bill passes as US court blocks age-checks law
- Online Safety Bill: ray of hope for free speech
- National Crime Agency to run new small boats social media centre
- Online Safety Bill: does government want to snoop on your WhatsApps?
- What is content of democratic importance?
- Online Safety Bill: One rule for them and another for us
- Online Safety Bill - Freedom to interfere?
- Copyright-style website blocking orders slipped into Online Safety Bill
- 2 billion cost to British businesses for Online Safety Bill